# Sexism in Table-Top Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It



## Libertad

*Sexism in Tabletop Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It*​ 


I've been thinking about this a lot, one I've seen emerge several times within the hobby, from message boards to published sourcebooks.  Although not quite common, but still too common, a similar trend emerges: a poster starts up a thread about about Strength caps for women, women who know how to fight in historical settings (and even fictional ones!), DMs and players who act creepy, et cetera.

Many cases bear striking similarity; an uncomfortable attitude towards women gamers in various forms and degrees.

I believe that discussion of gender issues in RPGs is important, not only because acknowledgement of trends and portrayals in fiction are a valid form of critique, but because in recent years there is an elephant in the room: portrayal of women and incidents of sexism within the tabletop fandom.  And while many gamers are decent people, there is a not-so-insignificent segment among the tabletop community which propagates an atmosphere unwelcoming to women.  And is being discussed in many areas, both among fans and game designers.

Now, I don't believe that I can cover the whole issue with but a single post, but I will go over the major things:


*Women Have Always Fought*​ 






Oftentimes, especially in regards to historical RPGs, I've often heard the "women can't be fighters" said over and over.  The reality is that women in many historical instances contributed to society beyond being baby-making machines.  They were queens, business owners, scientists, philosophers, and even warriors.  And not just the Joans of Arc and Annie Oaklies of the world.  You know the mythical Amazons?  The stories had more than a hint of truth: in ancient times the Sauromatians, mounted warriors, had about 20% of their military groups comprised of women.  This has been observed through examination of over 40 burial mounds by archeologists.

Among the Vikings, it was legal for women to avenge the death of family members as part of a blood feud.

The Colosseum of ancient Rome had some skilled female gladiators, and Roman soldiers writing of their experiences in the war with Gaul told of women who fought just as eagerly as the men.

During the Mexican Revolution, women were a significant contribution to Emiliano Zapata's army, as writers, politicians, and soldiers and officers.

This is historical accuracy.
*

**Rape, and Women Feeling Unwelcome*
​
Make no mistake, tabletop gaming is primarily a male-dominated hobby.  But there are many women gamers out there, from Vampire to Shadowrun.  Most gamers are nice, decent people, but you know what they say about the squeakiest wheel getting the grease.


*Examples of problematic behavior:*


[1]CthulhuTech had not one, but 3 adventures dealing with graphic, onscreen rape, which the PCs cannot avert.
[2]Exalted 2nd Edition, Vampire the Masquerade, and even Call of Cthulhu included rape scenes (and even an illustrated picture!) in fiction or setting detail.
[3]James Desborough published several blatantly sexist RPG books laughing at women instead of with them.  He excessively talked about rape, both as jokes and its inclusion in games.  He even went so far as to write an essay entitled "In Defense of Rape" to attract controversy by making his point in the worst way possible.
[4]Maid the RPG's earlier printings did not omit incidents of pedophilia played for laughs as the result of poor editing.
[5]A booth in 2013 Gen Con was selling t-shirts and slogans making light of sexual harassment and date rape in easy view, and in violations of Gen Con's own rules.  The material was reported by several people, but the booth continued selling the merchandise, even though staff said that they'd ask the merchandise to be removed.

Rape is a minefield in the realm of fiction.  The problem is not the inclusion of rape itself so much as how it's handled.  Tabletop gaming sessions are very risky, as a lot of people connect with their created characters, and the environment can get personal ("you attack the orc," "you find a hidden gem," you, you, you).

Rape is a common threat for many girls and women, in some areas as many as 1 in 4 women will suffer a sexual assault in their lifetime.  Even worse, many societies worldwide (including the Western world) do not treat it with the severity it deserves, blaming women for their style of dress, asking why she didn't fight back harder, or even covering it up in the case of religious orders!  And men have it bad, too: female teachers who rape male students are viewed as sex symbols and the boys as "lucky," while male prisoners who get raped are laughed about or said to "deserve it for being a criminal."

Rape is a major issue that our culture has not come around to fully recognizing as a horrible act (only if its a violent, stranger rape), and many people can suffer post-traumatic flashbacks when it's handled poorly in media, and feel isolated if they see people treat its portrayal as no different than any other sex act.

Which brings me to a common fallacy I hear, notably one of the CthulhuTech developers: "Why do we treat sexual violence even worse than non-sexual violence? Such a repressed culture!" Well no, rape _is_ often worse than most forms of violence. It's something which cannot be brushed off so easily as something like killing a bandit in self-defense, or as justifiable as other forms of murder.  Dismissing the feelings of those who get upset about it as "being unable to handle mature games," "repressed prudes," et cetera, sends a message (even unintentionally) that women gamers should stop complaining about a very common and very personal fear.  Jim Sterling, a video game critic, discusses the issue far better than I ever can.
*
Problematic Does Not Equal **Irredeemable*​
Just because a game element is sexist, insensitive, ethnically problematic, et cetera does not automatically mean that you as a fan condone it.  The thing about tabletop RPGs is that there are many games and many books written by different authors.  And its decades-long history has progressed along with society.  When Gygax and friends started playing the first D&D sessions, 2nd wave feminism was still progressing.  In the 90s White Wolf was doing its best to be inclusive of all races and cultures in their games, but lack of research and exposure to said cultures resulted in flat stereotypes.

I love Dungeons & Dragons.  I love Vampire.  I love Shadowrun, Deadlands, and even Call of Cthulhu.  But they all have content which if examined closely, is very troubling.  Magical Native Americans in Werewolf, Neo-Confederate apologia in Deadlands, and even a creation myth for the Drow in Complete Book of Elves which is no different than the real-world Curse of Ham (evil people are marked by their dark skin).

These examples are problematic, but in many cases they might not be dominant in the campaign and can be ignored.  Or changed and altered with little consequence.  If I ever ran a 1st Edition AD&D game, I'd remove the Strength cap limit for women.  Unless the RPG is saturated with problematic content (FATAL), it can be saved.

On a related note, quite a few of these things are buried deep in setting lore, not always caught upon on casual reading.  Players of D&D were attracted by a world of fantasy and magic; I got into Deadlands because the idea of playing monster hunters and mad scientists in the Wild West sounded awesome.  The other stuff was found later.

An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes.  White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized and the original writers don't work anymore.  I have no problem continuing buying from them.  Gary Gygax later on said that the female strength cap was a mistake to include.  Ewen Cluney forgot to excise problematic content from Maid RPG, but when it was brought to his attention he listened to the critics and removed it.  Since then I haven't noticed any creepy sex stuff in his works.  And I'm sure that in my years of writing stuff and homebrew, I probably erred somewhere.

Barring the irredeemable (FATAL), game designers aren't going to be forced out of the industry or lose their buyers if they make some honest mistakes.  What's more important is how they react to criticism.  A writer who doubles down on his stereotypical "noble savage" African nation while ranting about the PC Police is digging himself into a deeper hole.

Is World of Darkness: Gypsies racist?  Yes.  Is it sexist to impose an artificial limitation on female PCs in D&D?  Yes.

But that doesn't make all WoD and D&D players racist and sexist. We can acknowledge problematic content, change it, and discard it. We all make mistakes, but we can try to make fewer of them, and hopefully stop hurting other's enjoyment by reinforcing systemic stereotypes and the imposition arbitrary limits on common fantasy archetypes.  Xena, Warrior Princess, should totally be a valid D&D concept, and women and members of real-world ethnic groups do not need to be reminded in their gaming sessions of what bigots think about them if it makes them uncomfortable.[/SPOILER]



Spoiler: Strength Caps and Other Stuff



Particularly in regards to "realism."  It's almost never about realism.  An 18 in any ability score represents an individual who is highly gifted, the cream of the crop.  Even in real life, there are many incidents of women performing acts of incredible strength when under stress, such as lifting a car off to save someone's life.

And it's not just one incident.

By 3rd Edition RAW, a heavy load for 18 Strength is 201-300 lbs.  With this score, you lift 300 lbs. over your head, and push and drag 1,500 lbs.  For world records of women weightlifters, all of them lifted at least 180 kilograms (396 lbs) with a snatch clean and jerk technique.

Quoting Awaken_DM Golem on another board in regards to 1st Edition:



> 1E used a nearly linear STR scale of 10*# = weight you can lift over your head.
> So an 18 STR can lift 180 pounds over his(her!) head.
> And who did the ancient Greeks call Amazons anyway.
> I go google just a little.
> 
> 2013 Junior Pan Am  (hey tough guy it's "Juniors")
> Ellen Kercher put 68kg on the more difficult lift, and 81kg on the 2 step move.
> 81kg * 2.2convert = 178.2 pounds
> Now her performing class weight is available to google too, but hey look at her
> ... she's tiny, like smaller than that tough guy DM.




And who said that 18 Str women are unrealistic?

I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: DMs who create this rule usually stop there.  It requires little effort to make a blanket statement about "all women in my game are..." but it takes a lot of effort to make a plausible economic system or a health/damage track just like real-world wounds.  It takes commonly-held assumptions about women and enshrines it in unbendable game stats.  It never takes in the other side of the equation, like giving a Constitution cap for men for stereotypes of lower pain thresholds ("you'd never be able to handle childbirth!") and shorter life spans.  This is due to the perception of male as the norm, which extends beyond games and into our culture: women characters in the media comprise around 5-20% of show casts, but are 50% of the world's population.


*"It's just a game!  How's it different than game mechanics for different fantasy races?"*

It's different in the sense that elves, orcs, and dragons do not exist.  Women exist, and comprise a significant portion of our population.  We can afford some liberties with fantasy creatures because they're wholly fictional: if dwarves are strong due to divine blessings of Moradin, we can accept that as part of the setting.

When one crosses into reality is when things get problematic.  When you deal with real people, inaccuracies are less tolerable.  Particularly when we reinforce stereotypes.

We also play games to escape from the real world, where we can bust in the face of the evil lich with a spiked gauntlet as the conclusion to a satisfying adventure, where we can be real Heroes capable of feats impossible in our world.  Wizards traveling the planes for hidden knowledge, Dragonriders leaping off their mount to soar through the air onto an enemy wyrm, and monks who can dance on the head of a needle are but a few things not only possible in D&D, but encouraged.

It's not escapism when a women who, after dealing with some sexist customers at her retail job, visits the FLGS at game night and is blatantly told by the DM that her Lady in Shining Armor character concept is invalid.  Particularly after rolling that 18, a 9.34% chance with a 4d6 drop the lowest roll six times!  You'd feel cheated, too, if the DM discarded your amazing success!

A women clad in full plate, pulling a dragon by the tail for a closer kill, or absorbing the blow of an ogre with her mighty shield might sound implausible to many, but it sure is cool and empowering, the kind of things PCs should be able to do.

*Not gaming specific but relevant, Feminist insults*​
"Feminism is ruining gaming!" and "I don't mind feminists, it's the radical feminists I can't stand."  When radical is not used in the proper terminology.

It's a common thing I see on the Internet, a regrettable one at that.  There are feminists out there who are very rude and lack tact, but that doesn't make their ideological viewpoints extreme.  The feminists I've read in gaming-related threads, and on several online blogs and prominent websites here actually have viewpoints in line with mainstream 3rd Wave Feminism and do not fit the typical man-hating stereotype.

Implying that hostility from feminists is "radical or hyper" implies that this is feminism's logical conclusion, that the jerks are the "most feminist" and that to be polite is to be politically moderate.

Going to radical feminism, its terminology is contradictory.  Among feminists themselves, it used to mean feminist with anti-capitalist leanings, or feminists who focus on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women.  Nowadays, the term is mostly adopted by anti-transgender hate groups, much to the chagrin of what few pro-transgender radical feminists still remain.

Outside feminism, it's most often used as an insult to refer to feminists who get worked up and angry about gender issues, regardless of their actual viewpoints.  Also as a snarl word to imply that most feminists hate men.

Feminist groups overall do a lot of good work.  They support battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, LGBT rights, access to birth control and abortion for women and girls, among many other things.  The portrayal of them all as man-haters, and who shame fellow women for wearing make-up and dresses is inaccurate and harmful.  While such types do exist, it really depends on what part of the Internet you hang out on.  There are feminists who don't want the help of men, but there are many more who are all too happy to let male allies join their cause (including bell hooks, radical feminist in the anti-capitalist sense).  There are feminists who put on make-up and dresses, such as Wendy Davis.  When feminists criticize and challenge traditional and conventional gender norms, they mostly do it in the sense of systems which coerce and shame women into adopting restrictive roles.


*So, What Can We Do About It?*​ 
As this is more than just a series of isolated incidents, you might feel worried that the problem feels too big to fight.  Do not despair; as far as systemic issues go, the tabletop community is not as large, or as pervasive, as sexism within the the video game industry and larger nerd communities.  In part due to smaller size, in part due to the relatively easy ability for indie tabletop games to break into things, and in part due to the popularity of LARPs and White Wolf games which (anecdotal evidence) attract a significant portion of women gamers.  If anything, their non-negligible number should give many all the more reason to confront the issue.


*Confronting problematic behavior at the table*​ 







Gamers who are good friends know each other's comfort zones.  They know their hobbies, what sets them off, and what they most enjoy in their games.  People who are a nightmare to game with tend not to keep players for long.  Confronting sexist and alienating actions in this instance is best done the way friends handle things: namely that certain things make you uncomfortable, and that you'd appreciate it if they were mindful of this.  The comfort zones of players are very important to a conductive session.  Communicating your feelings on the matter, and why they make you uncomfortable, is very important.

Gaming with strangers is an entirely different matter.  I really don't do this, so I can't give any advice or tips on it at the time.

But whether with close groups or with strangers at the table, you should stick up for yourself when facing bad behavior which is making gamers feel unwelcome: you shouldn't let other players and DMs be horrible to you or your friends.


*Confronting problematic behavior among game designers*​ 
I have less trouble with naming names when it comes to books and designers because they're the "face" of tabletop gaming and the closest thing we have to public figures in the industry.  Giving examples in books and fiction only helps, not hurt, the cause of exactly what needs to be fixed.

Now, an important thing to keep in mind is the difference between one-time incidents and pervasive themes, both among the work itself and a line of products.  The 3rd Edition Eberron Campaign Setting never made mention of sexual violence apart from a small part paragraph of a bandit gang in the Mournlands.  Not even about the issue of half-orcs, as orcs and humans have far better relations in the setting and live among each other relatively peacefully in the Shadow Marches (where most orcs and half-orcs live).  Monte Cook's Numenera is a very good book, and the Nibovian Wife monster (who only lives to be impregnated, and gives birth to a demon baby driven by the need to kill its father) is the only real sexually problematic thing in it from what I've heard.

CthulhuTech, on the other hand, is dripping with squicky content, which only become more prevalent as the series went on.  3 adventures with unavoidable rape (2 of which are performed upon the PCs); most people lose their virginity by age 12 "due to liberal and open-minded sexual mores;" and a chair-like device built by the Nazis which sexually violates people.  And the authors themselves are incapable of handling criticism and see no difference between portrayal of sexual violence and sex in general ("Europeans wouldn't be complaining about this!  They have topless women in commercials!").  No surprise, then, that the very people who go out of their way to defend these aspects of the setting are folks who think that gamers who can't handle rape are just "immature," and like putting that kind of stuff in their gaming sessions to make players uncomfortable.

CthulhuTech is far more worthy of scorn, both for its content and the author's handling of criticism, than the former two.  The setting, and authorial statements on the matter, helped to generate a certain sort of fanbase over time, driving off a lot of people put off by the themes.

Treating problematic content differently is not hypocritical if it's based off of frequency, the magnitude of individual situations, and how sensitively the authors handle the matter.  Not everything is equally worthy of the same kind of scorn, in that there is hope for some lines and not others.


*Message Boards*​ 
The anonymity of the Internet is an entirely different beast.  It can make the fringe seem mainstream, turn 50 voices into 5,000, and embolden bigots and misanthropes to say things they'd never do to another's face.

It's advisable and healthy to dismiss individual trolls.  Especially when they're new posters on a message board just looking for trouble.  But it's another thing entirely when you discover that a significant amount of fellow posters (or a respected few) sound off on sexist statements in an all-too-sincere manner.  In this case it's not an obvious troll, but fellow forumites.  And if it becomes more than a one-time thing and transforms into a repetitive theme, it contributes to an exclusionary environment.

_Individual Incidents vs. Popular Views:_ This goes without saying, but just one guy made a sexist post doesn't make it the majority view.  And a guy who said something 6 or more years ago, but has changed or doesn't say that kind of stuff anymore, should be treated differently than if he continues saying it (barring truly vile comments, like advocating rape/genocide/etc).

A good indicator of the tolerance of such statements is to check the site rules, and moderator action towards such statements.  If you feel that the rules aren't being enforced, or that behavior is going unnoticed, report said posts and explain the matter.  If the mods themselves don't care, you're not going to get as much progress.  Most websites have rules against sexist statements, although it mostly covers genuine hate speech as opposed to 'old-fashioned' yet sexist comments ("call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that women should enlist in the military").


*Show Support*​ 
It's not enough to call out bad behavior.  Acknowledge when designers, artists, and figures in the fandom take positive steps.  Not only does this show that you're not just fishing for outrage, but gives clues for people on what they can do right.  Advertise RPGs which do things right, and if you can afford it and willing to play, buy some of the products in the line.

On that note, I'll practice what I preach and list some RPG I think have done well (or are at least making an effort to take these things into consideration).

_The One Ring RPG_ have non-stripperific armor as the default design for women warriors in their artwork.  This is progressive because many other RPGs (both tabletop and video games) design women's armor to be titillating.

The designers of _Pathfinder RPG_ are making attempts to be racially and LGBT inclusive.  And possibly one of the first RPG systems to have a transgender iconic (I don't know which one, though).  Unfortunately it has stumbled in some regards (stereotypical gypsies and Darkest Africa pulps), but the designers took criticism into account and considered it valid.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was the first Edition to alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns. Half of the PC class iconics were women (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard). The Monk and Wizard outfits definitely veered towards the 'showing a lot of skin' end, but the other 3's adventuring garb are more sensible.

Legend is a 3rd Edition retroclone by Rule of Cool Games. It too alternates between male/female pronouns, and 3 of its iconics (Barbarian, Paladin, and Rogue) look cool without being cheesecake.


In conclusion, gender issues matter a lot, and not just for women gamers. Our community, both message boards and the wider tabletop fandom as a whole, is a great one. Our gaming sessions, RPG settings, homebrews, fanfiction, and Cons created countless decades of fun, camaraderie, and hundreds of thousands of new friendships. But just like every other community, it is not perfect, and it has problems which make our fellow gamers feel unwelcome and marginalized. Addressing these issues and confronting problematic behavior helps lift us up as a whole, and encourages newcomers into our hobby and keeps the existing ones who might otherwise leave from the negativity.

Let's ensure that our female friends and gamers feel a welcome part of the community!


----------



## Lwaxy

I find the Varisians to be far more than stereotypical "gypsies."  

I do not like feminists all that much, maybe because I've only ever ran into extreme ones. The type that makes derogatory remarks about men, blames them for about everything under the sky and doesn't even notice the reversed sexism. And those who noticed thought they were entitled to it. I wish the word in itself would just vanish. Who needs to be a feminist? We just need to be "humanists." 

I'm shocked by the gen con story. Would be a reason for me not to go there. At German events, at least stuff I have reported in the past (not too many things and mostly Nazi related) were usually gone within the day, including a case where so many people complained that the vendor was kicked out. Of course, Nazi stuff is illegal over here to begin with. But I'm very sure that those underwear catastrophes would have been gone quickly, too. Next time, gals and guys, demonstrate. It's what would likely happen here. Block that boot so no one can get there and shout at them to leave. If the organizers do not act, you need to take matters into your own hand. 

I believe if there was a poll among "the mundanes" about what sexual violence was, the answers would vary widely between the genders, and maybe even more so among gamers. Because, hey, it's all just a game, see?


----------



## Libertad

Lwaxy said:


> I find the Varisians to be far more than stereotypical "gypsies."
> 
> 1.) I do not like feminists all that much, maybe because I've only ever ran into extreme ones. The type that makes derogatory remarks about men, blames them for about everything under the sky and doesn't even notice the reversed sexism. And those who noticed thought they were entitled to it. I wish the word in itself would just vanish. Who needs to be a feminist? We just need to be "humanists."
> 
> 2.) I'm shocked by the gen con story. Would be a reason for me not to go there. At German events, at least stuff I have reported in the past (not too many things and mostly Nazi related) were usually gone within the day, including a case where so many people complained that the vendor was kicked out. Of course, Nazi stuff is illegal over here to begin with. But I'm very sure that those underwear catastrophes would have been gone quickly, too. Next time, gals and guys, demonstrate. It's what would likely happen here. Block that boot so no one can get there and shout at them to leave. If the organizers do not act, you need to take matters into your own hand.
> 
> 3.) I believe if there was a poll among "the mundanes" about what sexual violence was, the answers would vary widely between the genders, and maybe even more so among gamers. Because, hey, it's all just a game, see?




1.) A lot of the ones you described are either trolls spoiling for a fight, 14-18 year olds on social networking sites who don't know what they're talking about, and fringe people on the Internet.  Andrea Dworkin is a perfect example of what you described, and isn't very well-respected in feminist circles.  More respectable feminist organizations are doing a lot of real-world work and don't blame men in general, just the ones who are perpetuating inequality.

Also, feminism is not incompatible with humanism or human rights.  And it's still necessary in a world where there's still an unequal pay gap, tolerance of sexual harassment, and where societal double standards judge women more harshly for promiscuity and where physical attractiveness is continually held up as the primary means of self-worth for them.

2.) Physical interference will definitely cause a scene, but it's most likely to get you ejected and/or arrested.  I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to risk it.  There's also the problem that unless you have something like photographic proof, the booth vendors can turn things around and make you look like the bad guy.  Skarka made the right choice in posting the photos online to a wider audience.  It's very effective in terms of bringing this kind of stuff to light.

3.) That's part of the problem.  Many people in the US sadly think that taking advantage of a drunk women who can't even complete sentences doesn't count as rape.  And many rapists are aware of this, knowing that when a rape victim does go to the police it's likely her story will be blown off.

As for sexual violence in games, it's not a just game because sexual assault is a depressingly common problem for women. When a player loudly announces that his PC's going to rape a fellow PC to the laughter of other male players, or when a rape victim is told that she should "get over it" in regards to fictional examples, it creates and reinforces an unwelcome and hostile atmosphere. There's also the fact that many rape victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and just throwing it into a gaming session accomplishes nothing good but flashbacks.  Many gamers don't want to be reminded of horrible ordeals in life, especially when gaming, and a lot of times rape in fiction is handled poorly and without forethought.


----------



## Fetfreak

We never had those problems or occurrences at our table. Half of our group are girls and never anyone tried to rape them in-game. That is just wrong. There is a ton of different ways to hurt someone's character, a GM doesn't have to go with rape. I must admit I have taken advantage of a drunk male character. The party got drunk after a quest and the hunk in the group was "seduced" by a female half-orc. Other than that, we never had any sexism at the table. Limiting the female character stats is just silly.


----------



## Lwaxy

Except that the feminists I'm referring to I mostly met in RL. And they were usually my age or even older. 

I'm definitely glad I'm in Germany because if people gather to protest at a fair something will usually happen to get rid of the cause, not those protesting. Unless the people protesting have nothing to do with the usual fair-goers and have only come to protest. 

Taking advantage of drugged people is a problem hard to tackle. I remember one case among my then-friends where the girl claimed rape and the young man was claiming she was setting him up because he (equally drunk) was absolutely sure it was all normal sex, and one case where the not drunk boy read the girl's signals totally wrong. 

In games, this situation sometimes comes up in the standard tavern setting. I don't remember details but the elf tried to get the human barmaid drunk enough to get her to his room in one of my games a while ago. The paladin of the group stopped him ingame, and the elf claimed that this was were half-elves came from. This was all totally in character, however I had the clear impression that one player wasn't happy about it. When asked after the game he claimed it was fine, though, probably not wanting to be seen as a wuss or something. I solved the constant skirt chasing of the elf by making the country they were in very strict regarding sexual conduct but it continued to be an issue here and there. 

"My char would totally do that" - how often do we hear this when relating to sexually inappropriate behavior? I now usually ask for a description of the char's behavior tendencies beforehand to disallow chars which overly play on their sexuality, but sometimes it just happens during char development. 

If anyone ever would get with the "get over it" routine in regards to any sort of violence they'd likely be gone from my table. But then I am really trying to keep violence low as much as possible, big battle scenes excluded. 

One of my campaigns needed to stay away from mentioning children in trouble btw, because one player had been abused as a kid. Best thing really is to know your players well, and with strangers at convention games and such I think it is best to play adventures where such situations do not arise - or make it very clear in the game description what the storyline is.


----------



## MrHemlocks

Not another leftist thread!!! Now watch and see if those that oppose the OP views are not labeled as Nazis and racist! ...................................................................*Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal: American women *have some of the best lives in the world.  We can literally do whatever we want.  American women can go to school where we want, we can go to college, we can work wherever we want, we can marry whoever we want, and we can choose to lead whatever kind of life we want to lead.  Millions of women in oppressed countries around the world cannot even imagine the freedom that American women so enjoy — and take for granted.  We’ve come a long way in less than one hundred short years, but a lot of women can’t see that.
We’re constantly told that we’re victims of an invisible patriarchy, that we’re slaves to our hormones, that without abortion on demand we can’t fully be women, that we don’t need a man but we need the government.  The people that tell women these lies are the same people who pretend to be fighting for us, who have hijacked feminism: the fascist feminists.  Whereas once feminists fought for equality, today the femisogynists fight for things like taxpayer funded abortion and universal health care.  They fight for women to be able to sleep around like men and ignore the consequences.  And most of the time, women don’t even know they’re being manipulated and lied to.  Thankfully, once the lies are exposed, it’s easy to see the con.
Here are eight ways that fascist feminists are ruining America’s women.
*8. Encouraging Promiscuity*
Once upon a time, men had to earn sex with a woman.  He would have to take her on a series of dates.  He would have to enter into a relationship with her to prove his commitment to her.  He would have to invest time, money, and emotions into their relationship.  The woman held all of the power.  Now, men don’t even have to take women onto dates.  Often, dating happens _after_ a couple has started sleeping together regularly.  Men barely have to put any effort into it anymore, women just give it up hours after meeting random guys at a bar or a party.
This, according to the femisogynists, is called being “empowered”.  It’s being in charge of your sexuality.  As far as they’re concerned, all that you need to do is get yourself some birth control and you’re A-OK.  Emotional consequences?  STDs?  No problem!  As long as you don’t get pregnant, sleeping around is just fine, even if you’re still in high school.
The problem?  Most women don’t feel this way, and _especially_ not young girls.  Two-thirds of teenage girls who have sex in high school go on to regret it.  Teenagers who have sex are much more likely to be depressed or suicidal.  1/4 of sexually active teens have an STD.  A whopping _8,000_ teens get an STD daily.  And, even when you use contraception, pregnancy is still a possibility.  Teenage mothers have higher likelihoods of poverty and dependence on welfare.  But do the fascist feminists care about any of this?  Nope!  It’s sexual freedom, baby. Who cares about the consequences?  If it feels good, _just do it_.  The problem is that sex has become so devalued that celibacy has actually become trendy.  Women are realizing that sleeping around all the time with tons of different men does not bring you strength or empowerment or freedom or love.  But femisogynists don’t want women to know that.
Feministing founder Jessica Valenti wrote an entire book about it called The Purity Myth.  Expecting women to be abstinent is ridiculous, virginity is weird, and fathers wanting their daughters not to have sex is _creepy_.  But casual one-night stands?  Hook-ups?  SO awesome!  Just use a condom, because they’re totally foolproof.  Abstain?  Hold out?  _So_ for our grandparents’ generation and un-empowered, frigid, prude chicks.
*7. Sanctioning Victimhood*
If a woman loses to a man in an election, it’s because she’s a girl.  If a woman doesn’t get a promotion, it’s the patriarchy trying to keep her down.  If a man winks at a woman on the street, he’s just trying to keep her in her place.  If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, her life is forever ruined and her only option is to get an abortion.
These are some of the attitudes you’ll find in the fascist feminist set.
Rather than encouraging women to take control of their own lives and be truly empowered, the femisogynists are forever trying to make sure that women always wallow in victimhood.  Everything is sexist, everything, from jeans to office dress codes to the obvious fact that men like to look at boobs.  They complain that there aren’t equal numbers of men and women committing suicide.  Even having babies is considered sexist (but more on that later).  Radical feminists see sexism everywhere, and the patriarchy is always trying to keep women down.  But how does this do women any favors?
The reality is that sexism is _not_ everywhere, and women cannot be truly empowered if they see themselves as consummate victims.  The reality is that the victim act is really just an excuse for fascist feminists to be greedy little whiners who get special treatment.
*6. Dabbling In Misandry*
Feminism has gotten a nasty reputation.  Radical feminists are to blame for this of course, and they whine about it incessantly.  Ask anyone what they think of when they hear the word “feminism”, and they’ll almost always think of “man-haters”.  And there’s a good reason for it, too.  When radical feminists hijacked feminism, a great many of the people involved in the radical feminist movement do indeed hate men.
A large part of the man-hating movement from the fascist feminists involves domestic violence and rape, which are, of course, horrible.  The vast majority of men do not beat or rape their wives or daughters and find men that do despicable.  But fascist feminists paint all men with a broad brush, so that even men who don’t engage in domestic violence or rape are still somehow responsible for it.  And if they aren’t angry, violent oppressors, then they are useless, worthless creatures who are inferior to women.  You will find some of the most awful vitriol aimed at men in the fascist feminist movement.  The depths of the anger that these women possess is disturbing.  Maybe they didn’t have a father growing up, maybe they had a boyfriend who did beat them, but for whatever reason, many of the fascist feminists truly hate men.  The only men they approve of are feminized-beta male-Michael Cera-types, who I guess pose no threat to them because they’ll roll over and do anything a woman wants them to do.
It’s sad and ridiculous that femisogynists spend so much time accusing American men of oppressing women, and then completely ignore the actual oppression women face in the Middle East.  The radical feminists are almost completely silent about that.  They’ll throw it a bone every now and again, but by and large, they ignore it.  Women in the Middle East are raped and have no way of getting justice for it; they are sold into slavery through forced marriages when they are still children.  Oftentimes they cannot get an education or work among men.  They cannot wear what they want, practice whatever faith they want, or make their own decisions.  And this is all because of actual sexist men.  But radical feminists ignore them and set their sights on American men, some of the most enlightened men on the planet.
Ask any American man who has a daughter, a sister, or a wife what he wants for American women, and most of them will say that they want girls to be able to get an education and be whatever they want to be.  In this last presidential election, Hillary Clinton came extremely close to winning the Democratic nomination for president — that alone shows how far we have come.  But fascist feminists ignore that, because they have an anti-male agenda to push.
*5. Destroying Chivalry*
One of the easiest ways a man can show respect towards a woman is through chivalrous actions.  Opening a door, pulling out a chair, giving up a seat for a lady… actions like these all show deference and respect for a woman.  Being willing to protect a woman and put yourself at risk for her shows her value and worth.  But for some reason, chivalry has come under attack.  Men don’t practice chivalry anymore, to the disappointment of women everywhere.
Why not?  Well, according to a poll taken of college men, it’s because of radical feminism.  Chivalry has been dubbed sexist.  There’s an attitude from women that they don’t need a man.  Women act as if chivalrous actions are somehow disrespectful.  So why should men continue to be chivalrous?  Many, many women are completely unappreciative when men treat them like a lady.  And, according to the femisogynists, things like holding doors open for women are totally sexist.  Fascist feminists see chivalry as dated, sexist, and demeaning.  It doesn’t matter that most women yearn for it deep down.  They miss romance, they miss dating, and they miss being treated with respect and honor.  How many times do women cry on the phone to their friends that they can’t find a man who treats them well?  Killing chivalry has a lot to do with that.  Women have been manipulated and conditioned to see chivalry as something antiquated and disrespectful, so they spurn it when they see it.  They still crave it though.  They’re wanting something better.
Chivalry gives a woman power, the very thing that femisogynists claim to be after.  If a man is going out of his way to be chivalrous towards a women, it’s because he respects her, it’s because he sees value in her, and it’s because he wants to show that he is worthy of her.  Chivalry is actually empowering to women, it elevates them, but it’s missing in our relationships today because fascist feminists destroyed it.  It says a lot more about the worldview of the radical feminists than it does about the merits of chivalry.
*4. Attacking Motherhood*
What would women say their most important role is as a woman?  Could it be high-powered careerwoman?  Sexually liberated minx?  Pro-abortion activist?  Maybe these are the most important roles a radical feminist could play, but for most normal women, their most important role is that of mother.
Think about it.  Motherhood is biologically hardwired into us.  Most women feel called to have children, and feel that there is nothing more beautiful or precious than a child.  It’s why so many women are devastated when they miscarry or can’t have children.  It’s also why so many women are destroyed after an abortion — they realize that they’ve just killed their baby.
Fascist feminists, though, want to free women of their motherhood chains.  Having babies is sexist and breastfeeding is creepy.  Nuclear families are dangerous, and motherhood destroys your life.  It’s their own agenda that is being pushed, not what women actually want or need.
*3. Requiring A Feminist Litmus Test*
Nothing angers leftist feminists more than combining the words “feminism” and “Sarah Palin” in a sentence.  When Sarah Palin defined herself as a feminist, Jessica Valenti and the feminist left lost their minds.  That’s because to the fascist feminists, only certain women count as “real” feminists.  Amanda Marcotte even helpfully defined the specific issues that women are supposed to care about.  Only women who cater to the liberal extremist agenda can be called feminists to women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte.
Consider Sarah Palin, a feminist if there ever was one.  She’s an empowered, self-made woman with a high-powered, successful career.  She also has five beautiful children, and a loving, supportive husband.  She’s even admitted to struggling with the thought of having an abortion, but chose instead to give birth to her son Trig.  But because she is a conservative, and because she is pro-life, she is shunned by the fascist feminist set.
The truth is, they’re likely intimidated by strong conservative women.  Conservative women don’t live in a world of constant victimhood.  They don’t define themselves by their gender.  And when conservative women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley endure disgusting misogynist attacks, they don’t wail about the patriarchy keeping them down.  And conservative women actually represent feminism and the average American woman, whereas femisogynists represent only themselves and their own pro-abortion, sexist, anti-male, victimized agenda.  When faced with true empowerment, fascist feminists can only try to tear the empowered women down.
*2. Promoting Lies and Manipulation*
The lengths femisogynists will go to in order to keep abortion legal and commonplace are shocking and despicable.  The abortion lobby, and Planned Parenthood in particular, profits off of the lies and manipulation of women.  Live Action has exposed the dishonesty in their Rosa Acuna Project, which shows how far clinics will go in order to convince a woman to get an abortion.  They’ll tell women that there isn’t a baby inside their womb, they’ll lie about the heart beating, or how developed the baby is.  Clinics routinely give out medically false information to women, and radical pro-abortion feminists never say a word about lying to women in order to sell an abortion.
But if you really want to anger the fascist feminists, bring up mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds, which they call emotionally torturous.  One mother interviewed by the _New York Times_ about seeing an ultrasound before her abortion said that women “almost have to think of it as an alien” in order to keep the images from haunting them.  Of course the images haunt women — it’s an image of their unborn child that they’re about to kill!  Seeing that image will convince many women not to have the abortion.  And this is why the pro-abortion feminists are so vehemently against making women see an ultrasound first.  They claim to be pro-choice, but how can anyone be pro-choice if they can’t make an informed choice?
The femisogynists don’t want women making their own choice when it comes to abortion.  They want women with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion, always, and never to keep their babies.  So they excuse the lies, cover up the manipulation, and fight an ultrasound which would force abortion providers to be truthful about the baby they’re about to kill.  If women are going to have abortions, then abortion providers and the pro-abortion feminists owe it to those women to at least give them medically accurate information.
*1. Glorifying Abortion*
There is perhaps nothing more anti-woman than abortion.  But the pro-abortion radical feminists have flipped that onto its head, claiming that to be against abortion is to be anti-woman.  And this may be the number one way that fascist feminists are destroying women.
Right now, 22% of all pregnancies will end in abortion.  But how does abortion hurt women?
Well, first there are the physical risks.  Abortion triples the risk of breast cancer, and abortions also increase the risk of future miscarriages.  Emotionally, there are also some horrific consequences.  Women who abort are much more likely to commit suicide, with a suicide rate three times higher than the general suicide rate.  Women who have an abortion are at a higher risk for long-term clinical depression.  There is also a link between abortion and substance abuse, and it can even have an effect on the children who were not aborted (called Survivor Syndrome).  There’s also been a connection found between abortion and subsequent child abuse.
But all of this is denied by the fascist feminists.  Abortion is important, because an accidental pregnancy will ruin your life!  It’s horrifying how much the radical feminists actively try to convince women to have an abortion, that it’s no big deal, that you won’t feel guilt, sorrow, and regret for the rest of your life.  The facts are clearly against them, which is why they try so hard to cover those facts up.
The truth is that abortion is not just some normal little medical procedure; it’s a tragedy.  Most women intuitively know that; it’s why so many women struggle so much after aborting their children, especially when they realize they’ve been lied to or manipulated into doing it.  That is anti-life, and it is anti-woman.  It’s a tragedy, for the life that was lost and for the women who have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.
The radical pro-abortion crowd fights for abortion “rights” because they have an agenda to push.  They don’t care about how harmful it is, and how it can absolutely destroy a woman.


----------



## Morrus

MrHemlocks said:


> Not another leftist thread!!! Now watch and see if those that oppose the OP views are not labeled as Nazis and racist!




Remember which website you're on, please. That comment was entirely inappropriate.  And please do not try to turn this thread into a political discussion; politics are not permitted on EN World.  The topic is a suggestion to treat women in gaming with respect, a subject which you may politely discuss if you wish; if the suggestion of such compels you to copy and paste unrelated misogynistic political rants, I suggest you avoid such threads entirely.  I believe I've had to say this to you before.


----------



## Crothian

This is one of those internet problems to me that I've never seen at the gaming table.  I'm sure it exists and I'm sure there are problems at conventions but it is hard to fix a problem that I never see.  The important thing is if you are at a game and it gets uncomfortable to speak out.  It doesn't have to be just sexism either, the violence of some players can bother people, the tone of the game can bother people, there are many reasons. 

One of the biggest problems though is the internet. There are plenty of people being offensive here because they can with zero consequences. I don't think you can fix that in a way that would not cause a lot of other issues.


----------



## Umbran

Libertad said:


> 1.) A lot of the ones you described are either trolls spoiling for a fight, 14-18 year olds on social networking sites who don't know what they're talking about, and fringe people on the Internet.




This hits on something very important in such discussions.

Dismissing folks for some perceived personal flaw is _ad hominem_.  You know: logical fallacy, rhetorical weak sauce, and all that.    You can't just go lump "a lot of" people together and shuffle their opinions off into a corner as a class.  Either they have a point, or they don't, but you need to actually counter their points, rather than dismiss many (really, effectively all) folks who have the same opinion or behavior because in your personal estimation they all come from a common, invalid source.  

If they're wrong, you can demonstrate that without the stereotyping.


----------



## billd91

Lwaxy said:


> I'm shocked by the gen con story. Would be a reason for me not to go there. At German events, at least stuff I have reported in the past (not too many things and mostly Nazi related) were usually gone within the day, including a case where so many people complained that the vendor was kicked out. Of course, Nazi stuff is illegal over here to begin with. But I'm very sure that those underwear catastrophes would have been gone quickly, too. Next time, gals and guys, demonstrate. It's what would likely happen here. Block that boot so no one can get there and shout at them to leave. If the organizers do not act, you need to take matters into your own hand.




One thing to keep in mind over here in the US, allowing free passage to a diversity of viewpoints, even questionable ones, is considered by most to be a strength of our society. While people do protest things all the time with the backing of the law in appropriate venues, I would consider an attempt to physically block access to a booth in the dealer hall to be worse than the offensive material in the booth itself. If you must protest - carry a sign, hand out flyers or pamphlets. Crowd vetoes are typically contrary to our methods and values.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> I would consider an attempt to physically block access to a booth in the dealer hall to be worse than the offensive material in the booth itself.




In addition, it is usually illegal.  If the business is not actually breaking the law, denying public access can get you arrested.


----------



## Dioltach

I must say, of all the difficulties I've experienced among my gaming groups, sexism has not featured, beyond the occasional obvious joke that will be met with and matched by similar comments from the women in my groups. Most of the banter touches on other subjects, though, and that's what it is: banter. I only play with friends, and we joke around. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is sexist -- or who discriminates on any other grounds -- would quickly find themself dropped from the group and most likely from any other form of contact.


----------



## Salamandyr

There are so many problematic points made in the opening piece that I don't really know where to begin.  But I guess the most egregious one to start out with is...

You have every right to decide what you like, are interested in, and what your boundaries are.  You have _zero_ right to decide what those boundaries are for other people.  You call out Cthulhutech for having material you personally find objectionable.  I'm with you that far.  I get that it's a game you might not want to play.  I've never played it myself either...I'm more of a heroic fantasy roleplayer than a horror roleplayer.  

Where you go too far is your insistence that, because rape and sexual assaults are something _you_ cannot handle comfortably in a game, that means that no one else should be able to deal with those in a game scenario either.  Uh-uh.  Flag on the play.  Go back ten yards.

Really, think about this.  You call them out for having a scenario where Nazis have a device for sexual torture.  Keep in mind, that in real life, Nazis murdered _6 million people!_  They tortured people, sexually and otherwise.  And, you're talking about a game involving eldritch horrors that can literally make your brain explode!

Like I said, I personally prefer heroic games where the good guys (PC's) manage to stop the bad guys in the nick of time, so the really horrible stuff is only about to happen and never does.  But that ain't any game with the word Cthulhu in the title.  That's a clear signal that bad stuff is going to happen and your PC might make it out alive, but definitely not whole.

If you don't like that material (and it's not my cup of tea either) you are perfectly free not to buy it.  That's the free market.  If there aren't enough people who want that material, they'll quit making it.  But if there are, you and I should have no right to stop them, or criticize them.

Not everything has to be for you.


----------



## Umbran

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, summarizing Voltaire.

There is a fine line between telling someone they shouldn't say a thing, and insisting that they may not say a thing or acting to prevent them from speaking.  

It is important to register our disagreement, but attempts to outright silence opposition are ethically problematic.  On EN World, we have a prior agreement with every user that they have to keep speech in-bounds.  But that does not generalize to the world at large.


----------



## Libertad

Umbran said:


> This hits on something very important in such discussions.
> 
> Dismissing folks for some perceived personal flaw is _ad hominem_.  You know: logical fallacy, rhetorical weak sauce, and all that.    You can't just go lump "a lot of" people together and shuffle their opinions off into a corner as a class.  Either they have a point, or they don't, but you need to actually counter their points, rather than dismiss many (really, effectively all) folks who have the same opinion or behavior because in your personal estimation they all come from a common, invalid source.
> 
> If they're wrong, you can demonstrate that without the stereotyping.






Lwaxy said:


> Except that the feminists I'm referring to I mostly met in RL. And they were usually my age or even older.




Sorry about that.  It's just that I've experienced a lot of folks take the worst examples (like Andrea Dworkin and the SCUM Manifesto) as the face of feminism while disregarding the others (such as Gloria Steinem and bell hooks).  Which unfortunately does contribute to negative perception of feminism.




> I'm definitely glad I'm in Germany because if people gather to protest at a fair something will usually happen to get rid of the cause, not those protesting. Unless the people protesting have nothing to do with the usual fair-goers and have only come to protest.
> 
> 1.) Taking advantage of drugged people is a problem hard to tackle. I remember one case among my then-friends where the girl claimed rape and the young man was claiming she was setting him up because he (equally drunk) was absolutely sure it was all normal sex, and one case where the not drunk boy read the girl's signals totally wrong.
> 
> In games, this situation sometimes comes up in the standard tavern setting. I don't remember details but the elf tried to get the human barmaid drunk enough to get her to his room in one of my games a while ago. The paladin of the group stopped him ingame, and the elf claimed that this was were half-elves came from. This was all totally in character, however I had the clear impression that one player wasn't happy about it. When asked after the game he claimed it was fine, though, probably not wanting to be seen as a wuss or something. I solved the constant skirt chasing of the elf by making the country they were in very strict regarding sexual conduct but it continued to be an issue here and there.
> 
> "My char would totally do that" - how often do we hear this when relating to sexually inappropriate behavior? I now usually ask for a description of the char's behavior tendencies beforehand to disallow chars which overly play on their sexuality, but sometimes it just happens during char development.
> 
> If anyone ever would get with the "get over it" routine in regards to any sort of violence they'd likely be gone from my table. But then I am really trying to keep violence low as much as possible, big battle scenes excluded.
> 
> 2.) One of my campaigns needed to stay away from mentioning children in trouble btw, because one player had been abused as a kid. Best thing really is to know your players well, and with strangers at convention games and such I think it is best to play adventures where such situations do not arise - or make it very clear in the game description what the storyline is.




1.) I do not know much about the situation, but that is definitely a problem of why it's so hard to deal with. Intoxication is problematic because it impairs communication and makes it that much harder to reaffirm or withdraw consent.

*Edit* In regards to misreading signals, well that can be closer to rape when the aggressor is not drunk.  It's imperative to know that the person you're having sex with is giving enthusiastic consent.

But I do not entirely know of your situations and what happened in them, so I can't make a definite judgment.  But there are many cases where clearly intoxicated women are unable to say no or fight back, and sexual predators take advantage of this.

2.) Agreed.  Particularly with strangers, we do not know what they went through, so it's best to err on the side of caution.



Crothian said:


> This is one of those internet problems to me that I've never seen at the gaming table.  I'm sure it exists and I'm sure there are problems at conventions but it is hard to fix a problem that I never see. The important thing is if you are at a game and it gets uncomfortable to speak out. It doesn't have to be just sexism either, the violence of some players can bother people, the tone of the game can bother people, there are many reasons.
> 
> One of the biggest problems though is the internet. There are plenty of people being offensive here because they can with zero consequences. I don't think you can fix that in a way that would not cause a lot of other issues.




The best one can do Internet-wise is the use of forum rules, IP bans of troublemakers, other users criticizing said content when it does arise, etc.  Various message boards have ways of cutting down racist/sexist/homophobic/etc statements this way.



Umbran said:


> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, summarizing Voltaire.
> 
> There is a fine line between telling someone they shouldn't say a thing, and insisting that they may not say a thing or acting to prevent them from speaking.
> 
> It is important to register our disagreement, but attempts to outright silence opposition are ethically problematic. On EN World, we have a prior agreement with every user that they have to keep speech in-bounds. But that does not generalize to the world at large.




The US point of view is that the government restricting speech otherwise will just cause things to go 'underground.'  Which is true, in a way.  Still, socially unacceptable viewpoints while legal are still pushed down because the believer doesn't want people to yell at them.  Or, you get cases where they coat their problematic viewpoints in things which sound more worthy.

In regards to behavior/speech which can make women and minorities feel unwelcome, social disapproval and criticism are valid for this.



Salamandyr said:


> There are so many problematic points made in the opening piece that I don't really know where to begin. But I guess the most egregious one to start out with is...
> 
> You have every right to decide what you like, are interested in, and what your boundaries are. You have _zero_ right to decide what those boundaries are for other people. You call out Cthulhutech for having material you personally find objectionable. I'm with you that far. I get that it's a game you might not want to play. I've never played it myself either...I'm more of a heroic fantasy roleplayer than a horror roleplayer.
> 
> 1.) Where you go too far is your insistence that, because rape and sexual assaults are something _you_ cannot handle comfortably in a game, that means that no one else should be able to deal with those in a game scenario either. Uh-uh. Flag on the play. Go back ten yards.
> 
> 2.) Really, think about this. You call them out for having a scenario where Nazis have a device for sexual torture. Keep in mind, that in real life, Nazis murdered _6 million people!_ They tortured people, sexually and otherwise. And, you're talking about a game involving eldritch horrors that can literally make your brain explode!
> 
> Like I said, I personally prefer heroic games where the good guys (PC's) manage to stop the bad guys in the nick of time, so the really horrible stuff is only about to happen and never does. But that ain't any game with the word Cthulhu in the title. That's a clear signal that bad stuff is going to happen and your PC might make it out alive, but definitely not whole.
> 
> 3.) If you don't like that material (and it's not my cup of tea either) you are perfectly free not to buy it. That's the free market. If there aren't enough people who want that material, they'll quit making it. But if there are, you and I should have no right to stop them, or criticize them.
> 
> Not everything has to be for you.




1.) I never said that rape should be excluded from media, rather I object to poor handling of it.

2.) CthulhuTech handles sexual assault with little to none of the nuance and sensitivity.  The authors usually frame it in the sense of fetish material or just for shock value, and this content only became more prominent as the line went on.

3.) There's nothing wrong with criticizing game designers for products they're selling.  Lots of people bought CthulhuTech without knowing that things would get this way.  And they have a right to voice their displeasure and tell other gamers what they don't like about the game.


----------



## Salamandyr

Libertad said:


> 1.) I never said that rape should be excluded from media, rather I object to poor handling of it.




OK.  That's not the sense I get from your piece.  I get no sense that you have aesthetic objections to depictions of rape in media, only moral ones.  Perhaps you should consider taking that part out and not calling it "sexist" then, since that term is a profoundly moral attack and amounts, in modern parlance, to a call for the offender to be silenced, if not outright charged with criminality.

If your objection is to bad art, then we don't disagree.  But perception of bad art is subjective, and even bad art sometimes finds an audience.



> 2.) CthulhuTech handles sexual assault with little to none of the nuance and sensitivity of real-world atrocities.  The authors usually frame it in the sense of fetish material or just for shock value, and this content only became more prominent as the line went on.




And since they are doing so in an imaginary medium, who cares?  Granted, it's not for everyone.  You're pretty clear that you don't like it.  It's not my thing either.  But if it finds an audience who _does_ like it, and can pay enough money to support it, they aren't hurting anyone.



> 3.) There's nothing wrong with criticizing game designers for products they're selling.  Lots of people bought CthulhuTech without knowing that things would get this way.  And they have a right to voice their displeasure and tell other gamers what they don't like about the game.




They absolutely can.  I just lit a fire under WOTC for their recent goblin & kobolds article.  And if you can show enough consumers who would buy their product, if only the got rid of the material you find objectionable, then you might get them to remove the material.   All you have to show is there ismore money to be made without that material than they make currently selling to customers who desire that material.

It sounds, and maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds, like you're saying "the people who want that material are bad people, so they shouldn't get what they want, and you should make your product the way I say, even though you will lose money and customers, because I represent the good people."

That sounds like entitlement to me.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> And since they are doing so in an imaginary medium, who cares?  Granted, it's not for everyone.  You're pretty clear that you don't like it.  It's not my thing either.  But if it finds an audience who _does_ like it, and can pay enough money to support it, they aren't hurting anyone.




You phrase that as a statement and conclusion, but that last bit - "they aren't hurting anyone" -_ is_ the debate, isn't it?  That's the question, not the conclusion. That's what it's all about.  I don't feel there's much interesting conversational mileage in "yes they are", "no they aren't"; so this debate should be about _why_ they are or _why_ they aren't hurting anybody by producing such material.

I say that not having seen the material, of course.



> That sounds like entitlement to me.




Yes. "Entitlement" is perfectly appropriate when it's refering to things everyone should be entitled to.  A basic level of respect is one of those things.



> "the people who want that material are bad people, so they shouldn't  get what they want, and you should make your product the way I say, even  though you will lose money and customers, because I represent the good  people."




Are there exceptions to your strong stance on this?  Because I can think of at least one very obvious one.  And if agree there's one, then we agree there's potentially more than one; it's just a question of where we choose to put that "harm" line.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> You phrase that as a statement and conclusion, but that last bit - "they aren't hurting anyone" -_ is_ the debate, isn't it?  That's the question, not the conclusion. That's what it's all about.  I don't feel there's much interesting conversational mileage in "yes they are", "no they aren't"; so this debate should be about _why_ they are or _why_ they aren't hurting anybody by producing such material.
> 
> I say that not having seen the material, of course.




I have not seen the material either.  But I object to the idea that engaging in fantasy role play has a negative effect on anyone except, _possibly_, the group participating.  The very essence of freedom is to be free in your own mind.  And the only way that freedom can exist is for others to let other be free.  To insist not only on controlling anothers behavior but what someone else gets to _think_, is, to me, the worst sort of tyranny.


----------



## Libertad

The difference between personal fantasies and gaming products is that the latter is being sold to the general public and thus extends beyond one's home games.

Tabletop gaming is a collaborative effort, so what is personally fun for you may be deeply unfun for others.  And many sensitive issues (depiction of real-world racism, rape, etc) hit too close to home for many gamers.  It can hurt people in the sense of reliving traumatic memories, and lead to angry arguments when one or more players insist on their characters acting like misanthropic jackasses.


----------



## Salamandyr

That's not a valid difference.  Each party has voluntarily chosen to participate.  The fact that something is available in the marketplace doesn't affect you at all, unless you choose to participate.

And knowing something exists _isn't_ participation.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> You phrase that as a statement and conclusion, but that last bit - "they aren't hurting anyone" -_ is_ the debate, isn't it?  That's the question, not the conclusion. That's what it's all about.  I don't feel there's much interesting conversational mileage in "yes they are", "no they aren't"; so this debate should be about _why_ they are or _why_ they aren't hurting anybody by producing such material.




And the reasoning probably ought to be consistent with other reasoning on similar topics.  Can we support the proposition that depiction of rape in a game supplement is bad, but the depiction of violence in a videogame is acceptable?  Or, perhaps more simply, if violence in videogames has been (arguably, perhaps) shown to have no correlation to violent behavior in people, by what mechanism do we get sexism perpetrated by NPCs in (smaller market) RPG materials notably engendering sexism in real people?


----------



## Crothian

Libertad said:


> The best one can do Internet-wise is the use of forum rules, IP bans of troublemakers, other users criticizing said content when it does arise, etc.  Various message boards have ways of cutting down racist/sexist/homophobic/etc statements this way.




That only works in a very limited number of places.  Plenty of message boards do not have such strict moderation and the boards that do lose a lot of posters over it.  Also, it is up to the owners of the boards to decide what is and what is not allowable not by the masses.  This really is not a solution unless you expect people to limit the places on the net they go to only places that have strict rules and guidelines that can protect them.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> I have not seen the material either.  But I object to the idea that engaging in fantasy role play has a negative effect on anyone except, _possibly_, the group participating.




Yep, clearly you do - you said so.  But repeating that isn't debate; _why?_ I'm not even sure what I think, so I'm reading opinions with interest.  But flat statements aren't of any use.




> The very essence of freedom is to be free in your own mind.  And the only way that freedom can exist is for others to let other be free.  To insist not only on controlling anothers behavior but what someone else gets to _think_, is, to me, the worst sort of tyranny.




We're not talking about "freedom" or the "very essence of freedom".  We're debating appropriate ways to act towards, depict, and talk about the women in the gaming community.  We're debating, basically, manners.  You're of the opinion that suggestions that we treat women in gaming with respect are tyranny?  And not only that, of all the horrific tyrannical things in this world, the _worst_ kind of tyranny?


----------



## Bagpuss

Umbran said:


> Or, perhaps more simply, if violence in videogames has been (arguably, perhaps) shown to have no correlation to violent behavior in people, by what mechanism do we get sexism perpetrated by NPCs in (smaller market) RPG materials notably engendering sexism in real people?




They have tended to show a correlation in aggression, what they haven't been able to show is a causation or that increased aggression leads to real world acting out.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> Yep, clearly you do - you said so.  But repeating that isn't debate; _why?_ I'm not even sure what I think, so I'm reading opinions with interest.  But flat statements aren't of any use.




The statement you're quoting here was me clearly explaining where I'm coming from.  I can't stand that pseudo Socratic dialog tactic where one hides ones core principles while attacking someone else's. The sentence you quoted and responded to was a prefatory statement.




> I don't even know what that means or what it has to do with this thread; just sounds like soundbytes.  We're not talking about "freedom" or the "very essence of freedom".  We're debating appropriate ways to act towards, depict, and talk about the women in the gaming community.  We're debating, basically, manners.  You're of the opinion that suggestions that we treat women in gaming with respect are _tyranny?_  And not only that, of all the horrific tyrannical things in this world, the _worst_ kind of tyranny?




Well, I guess I should have spent a little more time getting from why I jump from one point to the other.  My apologies.  This original post was originally longer, but I cut a fair bit because it went into a discussion of Libertad that might have explained this paragraph better but might also have been construed as a personal attack.   But the gist of it was very close to what Umbran wrote in the post after mine.



> You're of the opinion that suggestions that we treat women in gaming with respect are _tyranny?_  And not only that, of all the horrific tyrannical things in this world, the _worst_ kind of tyranny?




This is an unfair characterization of my point, and for that matter, Libertad's point.  Libertad isn't just asking for women to be treated with respect; she's demanding special privileges on the basis of her sex.  She is basically demanding that a category of negative actions that she finds particularly objectionable, should be off limits for inclusion in material, even material _clearly marketed_ as horror, because it makes her uncomfortable.  

Her demand has nothing to do with respect for women, because there are women who currently enjoy the products she's criticizing.   So because she doesn't like something, other women have to suffer.

I've kept my criticism limited to this point.  She is complaining that there exists products on the market that she doesn't like, and there are people enjoying them in ways she doesn't approve of.

This is where the freedom thing comes in...especially freedom of thought.


----------



## Umbran

Bagpuss said:


> They have tended to show a correlation in aggression, what they haven't been able to show is a causation or that increased aggression leads to real world acting out.




Okay.  Not asking for cites, but that there was unqualified agreement on that would be news to me.

But, let us take that as a given, for sake of argument.  The hobby full of fictional violence and murders - probably thousands played out across the US each month, right? Is one company's choice to also include rape in one not-terribly-popular game really something we should be concerned with?  Is this a case of worrying about one candle while the house is burning?


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> The statement you're quoting here was me clearly explaining where I'm coming from.  I can't stand that pseudo Socratic dialog tactic where one hides ones core principles while attacking someone else's.  So read the sentence you quoted and responded to as a prefatory statement.




You've lost me, I'm afraid.  Parse error! Can we dumb down this a little? I read the statement I quoted.  And the bit after it about the very essence of freedom and tyranny, which I commented on.




> Libertad isn't just asking for women to be treated with respect; she's demanding special privileges on the basis of her sex.  She is basically demanding that a category of negative actions that she finds particularly objectionable, should be off limits for inclusion in material, even material _clearly marketed_ as horror, because it makes her uncomfortable.




That's not how I read it at all. I think some items are off-base, but the core thrust reads to me more like "In certain environments and situations, can we not agree on a social contract?"



> She is complaining that there exists products on the market that she doesn't like, and there are people enjoying them in ways she doesn't approve of.




Sure; she is.  And why shouldn't she? That's a basic consumer right. And she can vote with her wallet, and encourage others to do so, too.    There's no demand for censorship (unless I'm missing it - unless you're referring to the Gen Con code of conduct issue, but that's an agreement made by all participants going in, and the issue there is that Gen Con has the right to create whatever private environment it wishes, and folks who purchase tickets to be there based on that expectation should be able to expect that that environment is adhered to).  Dang, that was one ugly, run-on sentence.

I guess my point above got totally lost in the point by point rebuttal mess; I'll mention it briefly again: can you think of no situation at all in which certain content should be considered off-limits?


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus,

Agreed, backing off a little. To your last question...Yes and no.  If your intention is to create a game with broad, mass market appeal, it makes sense to avoid sensitive subjects.  It's the reason movie companies try so hard for a PG-13 rating.  One of the reasons (aside from time) that I didn't get into a spitball fight over other aspects of Libertad's post is that I agree with her ends, if not her justifications.  If a woman wants to sit down at my table and player a super strong warrior, that's A-OK with me.

But I also think there's room for niche marketing, and that includes material that's sketchy or fetish-y to the mass market.  And I don't think people should be made to feel bad for enjoying that stuff, any more than a housewife should feel bad for fantasizing about Christian Grey.  

Yes, those niche products are going to have a more narrow appeal, but that's okay.  I'm glad we both agree on voting with our wallets.  But I also think we shouldn't try to guilt trip people for their guilty pleasures.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Morrus said:


> Sure; she is.  And why shouldn't she? That's a basic consumer right. And she can vote with her wallet, and encourage others to do so, too.    There's no demand for censorship (unless I'm missing it - unless you're referring to the Gen Con code of conduct issue, but that's an agreement made by all participants going in, and the issue there is that Gen Con has the right to create whatever private environment it wishes, and folks who purchase tickets to be there based on that expectation should be able to expect that that environment is adhered to).  Dang, that was one ugly, run-on sentence.




This is pretty much where I'm at on issues of sexism and other types of bigotry in an imaginary setting. I find most things in such a context to be entirely acceptable, but I understand that others do not.

I think that, with issues such as these, the best thing that we can do as consumers and hobbyists is to communicate effectively. To make sure that those who offend our sensibilities know that they have done so. And to take care not to offend the sensibilities of those around us.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> But I also think we shouldn't try to guilt trip people for their guilty pleasures.




Why not?  What you characterize at "guilt tripping" I characterize as debating issues in public.  We can all use loaded phrases (the OP does, and you have, too, with your "freedom" soundytes), but the crux of the matter is that debate is healthy, and that's what's happening here.  You seem to be conflating the whole OP in a blanket "affront to freedom" envelope rather than looking at it as being what it is: someone raising an issue that a section of our community is being made uncomfortable, and that we _should_ care about that.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> Why not?  What you characterize at "guilt tripping" I characterize as debating issues in public.  We can all use loaded phrases (the OP does, and you have, too, with your "freedom" soundytes), but the crux of the matter is that debate is healthy, and that's what's happening here.  You seem to be conflating the whole OP in a blanket "affront to freedom" envelope rather than looking at it as being what it is: someone raising an issue that a section of our community is being made uncomfortable, and that we _should_ care about that.




Hard to discuss this without bringing in some real world stuff that's not really gaming related, but labeling something "sexist" isn't about debating the issues.  It's about putting someone outside the bounds of civilized discourse.  In some cases and places, it can lead to legal repercussions.

Whether or not rape, or child murder, or other things that different people find uniquely bad, are fit subjects for roleplaying games is a perfectly legitimate argument to have.  As I've emphasized repeatedly, whatever your boundaries are, they're _your_ boundaries, and you shouldn't be forced to participate in anything you don't feel comfortable with.

But at the same time, I shouldn't be forced to adhere to your boundaries.  What I do in my imaginary storytime activities doesn't hurt you, any more than your imaginary storytime activities hurts me.


----------



## Celebrim

OP writes blatantly sexist and offensive post under guise of taking moral high ground.

No doubt he/she/whatever it doesn't matter also wishes to say how sexist I am for thinking so.

Look, I've gamed with many women over the years.  They aren't a bunch of shrinking violets whose delicate sensibilities need to be protected.  The only incident of attempted rape between PC's in my entire history of being a DM was acted out by two female gamers.  I've found that in general female gamers are just as likely to get their characters pregnant fooling around with attractive NPCs as male gamers are likely to father illegitimate children chasing after cheesecake barmaids.  (On the other hand, one female gamer retired her character to raise the kid, something I've never had happen with a male gamer.)  You are stereotyping female gamer behavior and attitudes every bit as much as anyone.   In a prior thread we had a female police officer gamer defend strength caps because she said it was realistic that female warriors would use other resources to win fights.   Not all women have the same beliefs and attitudes.  You can't sit here defining all women the same and in your image and not expect that I'm going to find that small minded and sexist.

You want me to advocate speaking out against sexism wherever I find it?  Well ok then.

Your whole cavalier chivalry attitude as guise for squelching any content you find objectionable just needs to go.

PS: That whole 'women bear pain better than men because well duh childbirth' thing is myth.  No scientific study has ever shown that, and in fact all studies have shown the opposite.  The myth's origin is again, in stereotyping women and mystifying them - not in anything real.  There is an argument that women on average live longer than men because they don't bear pain as well and so actually take care of themselves rather than trying to tough their way through it, but so much gender research right now is tainted by 'you can present any result you want so long as you frame it as women are better than men', that I'm pretty much treating all of it is suspect and tainted by bias until we get over as a society all this 'woe is me you are oppressing women' double standard thing.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> Hard to discuss this without bringing in some real world stuff that's not really gaming related, but labeling something "sexist" isn't about debating the issues.  It's about putting someone outside the bounds of civilized discourse.




It's really not.  On the contrary, your position will tend to shut down debate - which would seem to be the  opposite of the principles you seem to be espousing. I mean, are you now saying that nobody should be allowed to say anything is sexist, or racist, or misogynistic? If so, that's an interesting position to take, but it sounds like you have a long uphill battle if you want it to get any traction.  I'm personally opposed to it on principle, for a start.



> Whether or not rape, or child murder, or other things that different people find uniquely bad, are fit subjects for roleplaying games is a perfectly legitimate argument to have.  As I've emphasized repeatedly, whatever your boundaries are, they're _your_ boundaries, and you shouldn't be forced to participate in anything you don't feel comfortable with.
> 
> But at the same time, I shouldn't be forced to adhere to your boundaries.  What I do in my imaginary storytime activities doesn't hurt you, any more than your imaginary storytime activities hurts me.




But you _are_ inflicting your imaginary activities on others if they have no choice but be exposed to them.   That's where convention environments and behaviour and the like come in; and where we're making a section of our community uncomfortable, it's incumbent upon us as decent people to ask ourselves why that is, and what we can do to change it.   What I'm not understanding is why that is controversial to you; it feels like basic decency to me.

And that's ignoring the fact that society in just about every has very categorically determined that certain material _is_ illegal.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> It's really not.  On the contrary, your position will tend to shut down debate - which would seem to be the  opposite of the principles you seem to be espousing. I mean, are you now saying that nobody should be allowed to say anything is sexist, or racist, or misogynistic? If so, that's an interesting position to take, but it sounds like you have a long uphill battle if you want it to get any traction.  I'm personally opposed to it on principle, for a start.




It feels like you're putting words in my mouth.  Do I think that someone asserting sexism or misogyny or misandry, etc. should be looked at with extra scrutiny...sure?  I would prefer before people resort to such words they start with "I think this is bad, because..." and then explain why.  I guess I'm okay with "I think something is sexist, because..." okay, fair enough.  If what comes after the because... supports the assertion, I'll even agree.  In this particular case, what came after the because... didn't.




> But you _are_ inflicting your imaginary activities on others if they have no choice but be exposed to them.   That's where convention environments and behaviour and the like come in; and where we're making a section of our community uncomfortable, it's incumbent upon us as decent people to ask ourselves why that is, and what we can do to change it.   What I'm not understanding is why that is controversial to you; it feels like basic decency to me.
> 
> And that's ignoring the fact that society in just about every has very categorically determined that certain material _is_ illegal.




So...you're asserting a right against offense?  That people have an outright right to keep from being _exposed_ to objectionable ideas?  So I'm harmed by a TV show I don't watch, on a channel I don't have, simply because I know about it?  Do I have a right to sue news companies for telling me about murders?

If what you're getting at is that people shouldn't be ambushed with objectionable material they didn't socially contract for, then I agree with you.  I'm all for clearly labeling, so-called, "mature content" so people know what they're getting into when they play a certain game.  Like for instance...calling your game "CthulhuTech" pretty much signals to me that some really horrible things are coming.  

Upon re-reading it appears you're shifting the argument to "convention behavior", which I haven't said anything about.  Agreed people should be treated politely.  

As to the illegality point, fantasy depictions of illegal activities has not, at least in the US, with one possible exception, been declared illegal.  And I wouldn't live in a country where it had.


----------



## Salamandyr

Actually, I do have something to say about Convention behavior and environments.

There is something I like to call, implied consent.  For instance, if I show up at an anime convention (I spend a _lot_ of time at anime conventions), I'm pretty much signalling by my presence that I think anime is pretty cool and something I find worthwhile to talk about.

But there's a lesser known but equally vital aspect to anime conventions; they're a big crossover with various alternative sexuality and lifestyles.  And by being there, you're implying that you're okay with that stuff too.  Some of the stuff I find objectionable, but by being there, I kind of implied that I was cool with it, so I keep my mouth shut.

If I went to Mardi Gras, I wouldn't take offense that someone offered me beads to expose myself.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> Actually, I do have something to say about Convention behavior and environments.
> 
> There is something I like to call, implied consent.  For instance, if I show up at an anime convention (I spend a _lot_ of time at anime conventions), I'm pretty much signalling by my presence that I think anime is pretty cool and something I find worthwhile to talk about.
> 
> But there's a lesser known but equally vital aspect to anime conventions; they're a big crossover with various alternative sexuality and lifestyles.  And by being there, you're implying that you're okay with that stuff too.  Some of the stuff I find objectionable, but by being there, I kind of implied that I was cool with it, so I keep my mouth shut.
> 
> If I went to Mardi Gras, I wouldn't take offense that someone offered me beads to expose myself.




Of course. And I wouldn't suggest that you should be. But Gen Con has a public policy which folks rely upon when buying their tickets. And that policy was violated - in your terms, consent was not given.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this particular example is akin to great crimes; it's a low-key example, for sure. I'm. I'm even 100% sold it is an example; but we're talking the principle here, not the details.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> So...you're asserting a right against offense?  That people have an outright right to keep from being _exposed_ to objectionable ideas?  So I'm harmed by a TV show I don't watch, on a channel I don't have, simply because I know about it?  Do I have a right to sue news companies for telling me about murders?




Rights? No, I'm not discussing rights. I don't for a second disagree that folks have the right to say and do what they want (in this context; obviously crimes are a different conversation). In fact, I'm not even touching on that - I feel that's so obvious that I'm surprised it's even part of this conversation.

No; rights are not the subject of my posts. Decent behaviour is. I feel you are confusing the two.



> As to the illegality point, fantasy depictions of illegal activities has not, at least in the US, with one possible exception, been declared illegal.  And I wouldn't live in a country where it had.




I'm sure you're thinking about the same exception I am - child pornography. Can we, at least, agree that that - extreme example though it is -  does harm? And that distribution of other materials can do, too? Other examples might include things related to security, or things that should be confidential. There is no absolute acceptability of published content. In  any country.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus, I think we're getting a bit far afield.  To an extent I think we basically agree, except you're more generous to the intent of the original poster than I am.  I _do_ think she's talking about stopping people from playing games that offend her.

I agree with you that elementary politeness should rule.  I wouldn't drop a rape scene into a pick up D&D game for instance.  But I might include one in a campaign with adults I knew did not mind dark material.  

As to child pornography...I recall a great issue of _Daredevil_ that involved him and his girlfriend breaking up a child pornography ring.   So it's a fair subject for fictional treatment, but I would agree that glorification of it is objectionable.  Keep in mind that the OP's objection was to rape depicted even in a negative context.



> But that said, harm isn't the issue. Making your fellow human beings uncomfortable is.




I've met people who can get offended by someone announcing their political preferences.  So I prefer something more akin to a "reasonable person" standard on offensiveness, than letting the most easily offended person decide the bounds of discourse.

But I would never force someone to play in a game with material they found objectionable.  If it was a game I was running, I would do my best to find some way to accommodate their feelings.  But I would not feel bound by their preferences when I was playing games without them.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> I _do_ think she's talking about stopping people from playing games that offend her.




Well, in that case you don't need to worry. She can't. I don't agree with your assessment though.



> As to child pornography...I recall a great issue of _Daredevil_ that involved him and his girlfriend breaking up a child pornography ring.   So it's a fair subject for fictional treatment, but I would agree that glorification is objectionable.




No, I meant the child pornography itself. I'm sure that issue of Daredevil didn't actually include any child pornography.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> Well, in that case you don't need to worry. She can't. I don't agree with your assessment though.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I meant the child pornography itself. I'm sure that issue of Daredevil didn't actually include any child pornography.




No, it didn't.  But we weren't talking about being approving of actual rapes either, but games where such a crime could occur fictionally.


----------



## Libertad

Celebrim said:


> OP writes blatantly sexist and offensive post under guise of taking moral high ground.
> 
> No doubt he/she/whatever it doesn't matter also wishes to say how sexist I am for thinking so.
> 
> 1.) Look, I've gamed with many women over the years.  They aren't a bunch of shrinking violets whose delicate sensibilities need to be protected.  The only incident of attempted rape between PC's in my entire history of being a DM was acted out by two female gamers.
> 
> 2.) In a prior thread we had a female police officer gamer defend strength caps because she said it was realistic that female warriors would use other resources to win fights.   Not all women have the same beliefs and attitudes.  You can't sit here defining all women the same and in your image and not expect that I'm going to find that small minded and sexist.
> 
> You want me to advocate speaking out against sexism wherever I find it?  Well ok then.
> 
> Your whole cavalier chivalry attitude as guise for squelching any content you find objectionable just needs to go.
> 
> 3.) PS: That whole 'women bear pain better than men because well duh childbirth' thing is myth.  No scientific study has ever shown that, and in fact all studies have shown the opposite.  The myth's origin is again, in stereotyping women and mystifying them - not in anything real.  There is an argument that women on average live longer than men because they don't bear pain as well and so actually take care of themselves rather than trying to tough their way through it, but so much gender research right now is tainted by 'you can present any result you want so long as you frame it as women are better than men', that I'm pretty much treating all of it is suspect and tainted by bias until we get over as a society all this 'woe is me you are oppressing women' double standard thing.




Being sensitive towards issues in gaming which disproportionately affect women in a respectful way is not sexist, at least not in the way most people consider it.

1.) Approximately 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted within their lifetimes.  1 in 6 men have been sexually abused by age 18: https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/

In the US, about 10% of rape victims are male: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault

Acting out rape scenarios in gaming sessions can go wrong real fast, even if the person performing it is a woman player.  Other players may be bothered due to personal trauma of themselves or a friend, but they might be afraid to speak up.  Especially if they've been shouted down or degraded for it in the past.

2.) The strength caps are unrealistic because there are women in the real world who would be 18+ Strength under the 1st and 3rd Edition D&D rules (the most common editions I've seen people apply the cap).  In these cases the DM applying the house rule is not being "realistic," and he rarely applies the realism consistently.

3.) I've never said that the "women can bear pain better" thing was true.  Gender stereotypes affect both men and women.  My point was that these aforementioned DMs are all too willing to inflict stereotypes which negatively affect women, but ignore the ones which can negatively affect men.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> No, it didn't.  But we weren't talking about being approving of actual rapes either, but games where such a crime could occur fictionally.




This has gone for a weird logical loop. The hypothetical pornography is the publication, just like the Cthulhutech example (which, I reiterate, I haven't seen and have no opinion on) is. One publication is illegal, the other is legal. My point was that the concept of offensive material is enshrined in law. Society agrees that material can do harm. 

It was in response to your position a while back - yeah, it's taken time to get here - that what you read in private harms nobody. It's an example that some types of material do, even if we're delving into hypotheticals now.


----------



## Crothian

Libertad said:


> 2.) The strength caps are unrealistic because there are women in the real world who would be 18+ Strength under the 1st and 3rd Edition D&D rules (the most common editions I've seen people apply the cap).  In these cases the DM applying the house rule is not being "realistic," and he rarely applies the realism consistently.




You need to work on this argument.  1e has strength caps for men an women. The game is based around 15th century Europe so using modern people with advanced training methods, superior nutrition, access to steroids an HGH, and many other modern advantages to prove it as unrealistic doesn't hold water.  3e has no such limits and what house rules people put in their own games is impossible to judge without knowing their game.  Plus 1e is nearly 40 years old so you want to stick to more current example.  Don't just use D&D because it is the most popular RPG.


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> Look, I've gamed with many women over the years.  They aren't a bunch of shrinking violets whose delicate sensibilities need to be protected.




It might help to keep in mind that some of the folks participating on this board, and indeed in this very thread, are women who are gamers.


----------



## Celebrim

Libertad said:


> 2.) The strength caps are unrealistic because there are women in the real world who would be 18+ Strength under the 1st and 3rd Edition D&D rules (the most common editions I've seen people apply the cap).




I'm only familiar with the strength cap from the 1st edition rules.  Based on the language you are using with regard to it, you aren't really familiar with the rule, which would have allowed human females to have up to 18/50 strength which I don't even know what equates to since after 18 the scale in 1e gets all wonky and non-linear.   Suffice to say that 18/50 is a very strong person, and I've never seen a 1e character with more strength than that except by cheating.

Now, I'm not going to try to defend the realism of 1e AD&D.  I got frustrated by the lack of realism of 1e AD&D and left it for GURPS in the mid 90's.   But the general notion that the maximum strength of women is lower than men is not a sexist notion.  It's just reality.   Whether it is a reality we need to capture in gaming is a matter of opinion, but it's not a stereotype and if 18/50 is an unrealistic maximum cap on women then its possible that 18/00 is an unrealistic maximum cap on men.  I don't know.  I invite you to investigate the world and American records in dead lifting, the bench press, and the clean and jerk and figure out what the realistic maximum cap for genders is.   I don't really care that much one way or the other, nor do I really see why anyone else cares.   Surely most women know that they aren't quite as strong as most men their size, and surely they are ok with that because really, valuing yourself based on the idea that the only thing that counts is your martial virtue is falling prey to an inherently sexist view of the world.  In any event, I find no need to place a strength cap on men or women in my 3e inspired game because 18 is well below the maximum strength possible for men or women realistically, which it is my sense might be as high as 23 for women and 27 for men.  Any character that gets in those rarified heights in 3e is a superhero anyway, so I suppose that could be cause for complaint - "Real women have a 23 strength and they aren't 20th level super heroes.  You're being sexist for not letting my character start with 23 strength."

But in any event, it's not a given that anyone - male or female - is jerking a dragon around by the tail.  I invite you to drop in on my thread about gnomes as throwing weapons to see the sort of granularity I pride myself on in my play.  

It occurs to me that I've never created a female character with the Brute NPC class.  I'm not sure I actually feel guilty about that.

But let's not sit here and pretend this is about realism or sensitivity to peoples feelings.  You've got a whole laundry list of things you are complaining about and insisting that gamers conform to even to the extent that you seem to be saying that they can't be portrayed in a negative way, and that single 'incidents' while not as worthy of scorn are still at least a little worthy of scorn.  You've managed to get more Puritanical than a guy whose been accused of being a prude.  And by dodging around saying this is about being respectful and sensitive, you completely avoid the main thrust of my complaint which is that there is nothing at all nuanced, sensitive or respectful in the way you are viewing women or men.  

In any event, while for various reasons neither sex nor rape are major themes in my gaming, for the very reasons that its reasonably common (the exact numbers being a matter of controversy but certainly we agree 'too often') in the real world and is a very serious subject its also going to exist in at least the background of my world.  I don't really intend to limit my campaign to your review or censure.



> In these cases the DM applying the house rule is not being "realistic," and he rarely applies the realism consistently.




What constitutes consistent realism is very much a matter of opinion.   I find the whole 'what is the real history of women' subject to be a frustrating one as a amateur historian, because it seems that the only writers that really care are typically prone to shoddy scholarship and gleeful acceptance of anything that backs their beliefs.   Chasing your links and your links' links leads to either to things that aren't what you say they are, or else a bunch of increasingly less than credible claims by persons who are clearly biased to accept anything that backs their desired conclusions.  Casually chasing a handful debunked many of them with minutes.  So I can't tell with certainty what is true or not, but I do know that on the basis of those links I wouldn't be nearly as dramatic and confrontational about the evidence as you are: it seems pretty weak, and if I really was undecided on this point and not you know married to a woman with PhD that can out run me, I'd be 'point to the chauvinists' after browsing your links.  Again, the basis of equality of the genders is not equality on the field of battle or any other field of endeavor.  Though for reasons I'll mention later it hardly matters in the context of a FRPG whether or not its realistic to have female warriors.  

When someone with clear political intentionality provides me with a quote purported to be by some founding father or the other, I hold all those claims as inherently suspect.  I've learned to not repeat any such quote without spending a few hours validating it.  The last time I got in that debate about what the founding fathers really believed, it turned out both sides were basing their argument on fraudulent history and made up quotations.  I suspect if I jumped in between a bunch of feminists and chauvinists, I'd find the same thing.

For no other reason than I have a thing for unusual forms of government I have a prominent nation that is ruled by strict matrimonial succession (a Queendom), and another that is governed by the female heirs of a female leper that was instrumental in liberating the nation from 1000 years of bondage by an oppressor.   Is either realistic?  I don't really care.  It's a fantasy setting.  It's not the real world.   If I want to have female warriors in the setting I will, and certainly nothing bars an effective female fighter in my rules.  If I want armies of women in the setting, I'll have those too.

But if I had feminists in my fantasy world, they'd probably not be presented in a particularly favorable light.  And if someone said, "I don't want armies of women in my setting", my first inclination wouldn't be to castigate him.


----------



## Celebrim

mythago said:


> It might help to keep in mind that some of the folks participating on this board, and indeed in this very thread, are women who are gamers.




I'm sure some of them are.  I've never felt the need to investigate which are which.  I'm equal opportunity affirming and offensive, and no respecter of rank.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Deleted. S'mon is right. Not sure what possessed me to post in a political thread.


----------



## billd91

Celebrim said:


> I'm only familiar with the strength cap from the 1st edition rules.  Based on the language you are using with regard to it, you aren't really familiar with the rule, which would have allowed human females to have up to 18/50 strength which I don't even know what equates to since after 18 the scale in 1e gets all wonky and non-linear.   Suffice to say that 18/50 is a very strong person, and I've never seen a 1e character with more strength than that except by cheating.
> 
> Now, I'm not going to try to defend the realism of 1e AD&D.  I got frustrated by the lack of realism of 1e AD&D and left it for GURPS in the mid 90's.   But the general notion that the maximum strength of women is lower than men is not a sexist notion.  It's just reality.   Whether it is a reality we need to capture in gaming is a matter of opinion, but it's not a stereotype and if 18/50 is an unrealistic maximum cap on women then its possible that 18/00 is an unrealistic maximum cap on men.  I don't know.  I invite you to investigate the world and American records in dead lifting, the bench press, and the clean and jerk and figure out what the realistic maximum cap for genders is.   I don't really care that much one way or the other, nor do I really see why anyone else cares.   Surely most women know that they aren't quite as strong as most men their size, and surely they are ok with that because really, valuing yourself based on the idea that the only thing that counts is your martial virtue is falling prey to an inherently sexist view of the world.  In any event, I find no need to place a strength cap on men or women in my 3e inspired game because 18 is well below the maximum strength possible for men or women realistically, which it is my sense might be as high as 23 for women and 27 for men.  Any character that gets in those rarified heights in 3e is a superhero anyway, so I suppose that could be cause for complaint - "Real women have a 23 strength and they aren't 20th level super heroes.  You're being sexist for not letting my character start with 23 strength."




Now that you've condescended to explain it to us maybe it's time to recognize the central issue. Any limitation imposed on female characters in the name of realism basically tells female players that their characters cannot achieve the same success as the characters of male players on the same terms... at least not without playing male characters themselves. The sex they most identify with is deficient within the game mechanics. Frankly, I doubt any limitation of that nature would add more value to the game than it loses in unnecessarily alienating players and I'm glad that restriction didn't even make it as far as 2e before it was scrapped.


----------



## S'mon

I'm not sure when enw became rpgnet, but this is a reminder why I don't come here much anymore.


----------



## Janx

S'mon said:


> I'm not sure when enw became rpgnet, but this is a reminder why I don't come here much anymore.




Bummer.  It's not a good thing if ENW's culture has changed to scare away level headed people.

I'm just happy that five pages in, I haven't said anything stupid.  And that's probably because I've finally wised up to not contributing to this kind of thread.


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> I'm not sure when enw became rpgnet, but this is a reminder why I don't come here much anymore.




We used to categorically stop any such discussion as political.  Then, we were made aware of how incredibly offensive it is to some women when we do that.  

There are problems of sexism in our society.  So, there are problems of sexism in our hobby.  Refusing to talk about them says, to a large chunk of the hobby, "We don't care about your problems."

We still watch it rather carefully, and will not brook people being rude.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Any limitation imposed on female characters in the name of realism basically tells female players that their characters cannot achieve the same success as the characters of male players on the same terms... at least not without playing male characters themselves.




I'll just say this: I wouldn't have much of a problem with reality-based limits placed on female PCs *if* male PCs were subject to reality-based modeling that took into account areas in which femaies routinely outperform males.  But those advocating for such treatment of female PCs _almost never seem to want to do so._


----------



## Mallus

S'mon said:


> I'm not sure when enw became rpgnet, but this is a reminder why I don't come here much anymore.



Heh... if this were rpg.net, Celebrim would have already been permabanned. Which is kinda why I _still_ come around here from time to time. 

I may disagree with what Cel says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it at extraordinary length!


----------



## Salamandyr

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll just say this: I wouldn't have much of a problem with reality-based limits placed on female PCs *if* male PCs were subject to reality-based modeling that took into account areas in which femaies routinely outperform males.  But those advocating for such treatment of female PCs _almost never seem to do so._




To be fair to those advocates, they usually are willing to do so.  It's just that what those areas are is often notional, and subject to argument.  Back in the 80's there was a fairly popular nerd t-shirt for ladies that read "-1 Strength/+1 Charisma".  Most games I saw that went hardcore for different attribute modifiers based on sex usually tried to "balance" by giving female characters bonuses to charisma, or wisdom, or magic ability, based on the idea that women were naturally more charming, or had "feminine intuition", et cetera.  It strikes me as a case of boys talking to boys, about those mysterious beings who might you know, someday talk to them, but they were _trying_.

The last time D&D was published with different stats for male and female characters was the 70's.  I don't recall a major game since the 80's that included them.  In current popular culture, to postulate that women have superior attributes to men in certain areas is noncontroversial, but the reverse is frowned upon, for reasons too complicated to get into here.

Since at least my late teens, I've never seen a reason to include different attribute modifiers for male or female characters.   Roleplaying games are about acting out power fantasies and as a general rule, I don't like things that hamper people's ability to act out their fantasy (those who participated in the monk thread can now rail at me for hypocrisy).


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> I'm sure some of them are.  I've never felt the need to investigate which are which.  I'm equal opportunity affirming and offensive, and no respecter of rank.




Some of _us_ are, yes. That's not about "rank", whatever that's supposed to mean; it's an observation that women-in-gaming is, for many gamers, not an abstract discussion about somebody else.

WRT things like upper strength limits: unless a GM is trying to run a rigid historical simulation or some kind of Beyond Harn realistic modeling, certain things are going to be kept or discarded in the name of "realism" and mimicing what humans actually can and can't achieve. Few GMs, I'm guessing, require PCs to roll on the Burn Scars Table every time they survive a _fireball_, or cap hit points at a level that insures living through a 50' fall is a miraculous event and never 'yeah, pretty good odds'. Despite the fact that urination is an absolute biological fact of human existence, nobody has tables that instruct characters on how often they have to pee with CON rolls required for a character who forgot to go before they went into the dungeon.

Virtually all GMs who run D&D seem pretty happy with the preference for cinematic/heroic over realistic modeling - as we know from the fact that elves, _magic missiles_ and worshippers of Pelor did not exist in actual 15th-century Europe. Rules systems, and individual GMs, decide to keep certain things as 'realistic' and important to the game, and reject other things as cumbersome, boring and unimportant. When a rules system, or a GM, insists that one of the things they must keep is strength differentiation between men and women, _that_ is saying something about what is thought important, what does not detract from the game.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll just say this: I wouldn't have much of a problem with reality-based limits placed on female PCs *if* male PCs were subject to reality-based modeling that took into account areas in which femaies routinely outperform males.




So here's why I personally find gender-based ability score limits creepy. YMMV, of course; I can only speak for myself:

 Whether any demographic as a group routinely outperforms anybody isn't the issue (in the real world, or in the made-up one).  The issue is whether _this particular character_ can do so. Whatever the general makeup of the populace of a fantasy world, I think men laying down the law and saying "No, you may _not _play a physically strong woman!" is icky as all heck. A player character is a player character is a player character; if someone wants to play a woman who is incredibly strong, why the heck shouldn't they? Who's to say they shouldn't?

And that's ignoring the fact that we're playing in a world with elves and dragons and orcs and golems and vampires... but definitely no physically strong women!  That's just too far!

That's why ability score limits for genders are creepy to me.  If folks want to play incredibly strong women, the rules should not prevent them from doing so.  And if the rules don't (as they rarely do - these are usually houserules), certainly no person should prevent another from doing so.

Fortunately, I've never encountered this in real life.  It's just a phenomenon I hear about on the internet.


----------



## Salamandyr

EDIT: apologies, this post asked a question of Mythago that she answered in her comment, that I missed.

Crud...that was the last post of Morrus'.  I'm confused.  It doesn't matter.

Play games!  Have fun.


----------



## billd91

Salamandyr said:


> The last time D&D was published with different stats for male and female characters was the 70's.  I don't recall a major game since the 80's that included them.  In current popular culture, to postulate that women have superior attributes to men in certain areas is noncontroversial, but the reverse is frowned upon, for reasons too complicated to get into here.




There's probably something lurking out there that does, but in the main, I think characteristic differences would be quite rare for default human characters. For non-human characters, you've got Traveller with the Aslan characters and their fairly extreme sex-based division of labor and social differences. But, then, they aren't human so the idea that males and females are very different is not so tightly linked to the sexism in gaming issue and becomes an interesting point of departure for working with an alien perspective. Plus it's fun to watch the player's face when the Aslan NPCs assume the human male engineer PC is female because of his job.


----------



## Salamandyr

Billd91, I imagine you're right, but I'm mostly thinking of major properties.  I'm sure somebody out there is still producing _FATAL_, after all.

But it seems to me that judging gaming and gamers by the standards of a few creeps, (and every group of people will have creeps) is the same category error as judging all feminists by the actions of that crazy person who shot Andy Warhol.

It strikes me as cheap grace.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> So here's why I personally find gender-based ability score limits creepy. YMMV, of course; I can only speak for myself:
> 
> Whether any demographic as a group routinely outperforms anybody isn't the issue (in the real world, or in the made-up one).  The issue is whether _this particular character_ can do so. Whatever the general makeup of the populace of a fantasy world, I think men laying down the law and saying "No, you may _not _play a physically strong woman!" is icky as all heck. A player character is a player character is a player character; if someone wants to play a woman who is incredibly strong, why the heck shouldn't they? Who's to say they shouldn't?
> 
> And that's ignoring the fact that we're playing in a world with elves and dragons and orcs and golems and vampires... but definitely no physically strong women!  That's just too far!
> 
> That's why ability score limits for genders are creepy to me.  If folks want to play incredibly strong women, the rules should not prevent them from doing so.  And if the rules don't (as they rarely do - these are usually houserules), certainly no person should prevent another from doing so.
> 
> Fortunately, I've never encountered this in real life.  It's just a phenomenon I hear about on the internet.




That's a very unfair characterization of the argument.  No one, not even the most ardent fan of strength limitations, is arguing against physically strong women.  They argue, that physically strong women are not as strong as physically strong men, and the game should reflect that.  I don't agree, but it's an arguable point.

For instance, the world record for the deadlift by a woman, one Becca Swanson, is 683 lbs.  That's in incredible amount!  I could maybe lift half that, probably closer to a third.  She is dramatically stronger than me.  But the world record for a man?  Depending on how you calculate it, around 1100 lbs!  That's about one and a half as much!  Other weightlifting numbers show a similar disparity.

Again, I see no reason to impose every real world limit on fantasy characters.  I prefer to abide by "action movie" realism.  And it may be logically inconsistent for women being as strong as men  to break a persons verisimilitude, when, say, a person being able to outthink a computer, or read people's minds doesn't.  But it's not an inherent mark of sexism either.


----------



## billd91

Salamandyr said:


> But it seems to me that judging gaming and gamers by the standards of a few creeps, (and every group of people will have creeps) is the same category error as judging all feminists by the actions of that crazy person who shot Andy Warhol.
> 
> It strikes me as cheap grace.




I don't think anyone's judging all gamers by the actions of a few, rather, the presence of those few indicates there are still sexism issues in gaming and that issue is one of them. And that's clearly the case. The topic comes up periodically on gaming message boards (including here), but I'm at least encouraged that the number of discussion participants who feel it's pointless to include such gender-based modifiers seems to dwarf the number who advocate for them. Yet here we are in the 21st century, decades after the 1ed PH included the gender-based difference, and there are still some who advocate for it.


----------



## Salamandyr

billd91 said:


> I don't think anyone's judging all gamers by the actions of a few, rather, the presence of those few indicates there are still sexism issues in gaming and that issue is one of them. And that's clearly the case. The topic comes up periodically on gaming message boards (including here), but I'm at least encouraged that the number of discussion participants who feel it's pointless to include such gender-based modifiers seems to dwarf the number who advocate for them. Yet here we are in the 21st century, decades after the 1ed PH included the gender-based difference, and there are still some who advocate for it.




I guess in this case we have different standards.  I don't expect perfection.  I don't think it's possible to completely eradicate all negative attitudes from any large group, so the presence of a tiny group, even a vocal one, does not necessarily indicate that there is a problem with the group.

The overwhelming majority of times I hear about sex based attribute mods is in threads like this one, where people are attacked for having an opinion they haven't even posted on the forum!


----------



## Salamandyr

Interesting note: in doing research for the previous post, I noticed that the world record for men in clean and jerk (closest to D&D's weight lifted over head number) is 266 kg (585 lb), and for women it's 187 kg (411 lb).  

According to the _Pathfinder_ Encumbrance chart (I can't bring up d20's at work), that's the difference between a 22 and a 23 strength. Not even a two point difference.  So you advocates of strength limitations for female characters, at the level of abstraction D&D works at, it's not realistic for female characters to have strength limits.

Additional Note:  It's looking like, when _Next_ comes out the door, strength scores will be even less granular than before, what with all human capacity being limited to a 20 score.  So limitations for women make even less sense in that game.


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> That's a very unfair characterization of the argument.  No one, not even the most ardent fan of strength limitations, is arguing against physically strong women.




Nah; I shortened my post after I realised I'd typed out lengthy descriptions clarifying each time that we were discussing the upper end of human performance and went with the shorthand of "physically strong women" rather than the lengthy post it was beforehand.  Again, one of those things I mistakenly thought would be painfully obvious given the context, since that's specifically what we're discussing; guess that's why I'm not a writer, since this keeps happening....

If you like, substitute the phrase for a longer, clearer one.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> Nah; I shortened my post after I realised I'd typed out lengthy descriptions clarifying each time that we were discussing the upper end of human performance and went with the shorthand of "physically strong women" rather than the lengthy post it was beforehand.  Again, one of those things I mistakenly thought would be painfully obvious given the context, since that's specifically what we're discussing; guess that's why I'm not a writer, since this keeps happening....
> 
> If you like, substitute the phrase for a longer, clearer one.




OK, fair enough.  I did a bit of that yesterday.

But just to be clear, do you really find players who want real world differences between men and women to be reflected in the rules "creepy"?

If you want to go with "wrong", we see eye to eye.  At the level of abstraction D&D works at, as I showed in my previous post, there's no functional game difference between the two.  But creepy?


----------



## Morrus

Salamandyr said:


> OK, fair enough.  I did a bit of that yesterday.
> 
> But just to be clear, do you really find players who want real world differences between men and women to be reflected in the rules "creepy"?
> 
> If you want to go with "wrong", we see eye to eye.  At the level of abstraction D&D works at, as I showed in my previous post, there's no functional game difference between the two.  But creepy?




I've never met one.  But I find the_ idea_ of it pretty creepy, yeah.  While I understand that some folks characterize it as "verisimilitude", the cynical side of me is unable to view a man telling a woman that she cannot play a female character who is as strong as the male characters as anything but creepy.  The image in my mind of who wants to enforce such things, and more importantly, _why_ (I mean, seriously, _why?_) is just not pleasant.  That said, I've never met such a person, so it's just a mental construct of a hypothetical fictional person in my head.


----------



## Kursk

I'm a very libertine (freedom of life or conduct; unrestrained liberty) type of person.  I believe in freedom of association and, freedom of non-association.  If you don't like the group you play with, start another game.  That is the best way to make change.  If one thinks it is needed.


----------



## Salamandyr

Morrus said:


> I've never met one.  But I find the_ idea_ of it pretty creepy, yeah.  While I understand that some folks characterize it as "verisimilitude", the cynical side of me is unable to view a man telling a woman that she cannot play a female character who is as strong as the male characters as anything but creepy.  The image in my mind of who wants to enforce such things, and more importantly, _why_ (I mean, seriously, _why?_) is just not pleasant.  That said, I've never met such a person, so it's just a mental construct of a hypothetical fictional person in my head.




Thank you.  BTW, most of the high flown rhetoric from me yesterday, that seemed so confusing, was me trying to tiptoe around saying exactly what you just said in that post there.  I find people appointing themselves fun police _deeply_ creepy as well.  The unfortunate difference is, I have met people like that.


----------



## Kursk

Salamandyr said:


> Interesting note: in doing research for the previous post, I noticed that the world record for men in clean and jerk (closest to D&D's weight lifted over head number) is 266 kg (585 lb), and for women it's 187 kg (411 lb).
> 
> According to the _Pathfinder_ Encumbrance chart (I can't bring up d20's at work), that's the difference between a 22 and a 23 strength. Not even a two point difference.  So you advocates of strength limitations for female characters, at the level of abstraction D&D works at, it's not realistic for female characters to have strength limits.




In AD&D (where the rule existed), the weight difference you listed is close to the difference between a Str of 18/50 and 18/00.  Which matches the female/male Str rule.  So, it is simply a matter of likeing or not liking a rule set.  And, this rule set is ~35 yrs old.


----------



## Salamandyr

Kursk said:


> In AD&D (where the rule existed), the weight difference you listed is close to the difference between a Str of 18/50 and 18/00.  Which matches the female/male Str rule.  So, it is simply a matter of likeing or not liking a rule set.  And, this rule set is ~35 yrs old.




Yeah, but I'm not advocating retroactively changing AD&D, this was directed at any advocates of bringing the rule back.  They seem kind of thin on the ground, but I'm sure there are some.


----------



## Kursk

Salamandyr said:


> Yeah, but I'm not advocating retroactively changing AD&D, this was directed at any advocates of bringing the rule back.




"Bring the rule back"?  Not sure what you mean.  If I run a 1st Ed D&D game, I use the rules as written.  If I run 3.X I run with those rules.


----------



## Salamandyr

Kursk said:


> "Bring the rule back"?  Not sure what you mean.  If I run a 1st Ed D&D game, I use the rules as written.  If I run 3.X I run with those rules.




By bring the rule back, I mean...include strength limitations in future games.

When I played AD&D I never enforced that rule, not that it ever came up, since nobody ever had a female character who rolled a strength score high enough for the limit to matter


----------



## Kursk

Salamandyr said:


> By bring the rule back, I mean...include strength limitations in future games.




I pretty much play games by the RAW.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Morrus said:


> So here's why I personally find gender-based ability score limits creepy. YMMV, of course; I can only speak for myself:
> 
> Whether any demographic as a group routinely outperforms anybody isn't the issue (in the real world, or in the made-up one).  The issue is whether _this particular character_ can do so. Whatever the general makeup of the populace of a fantasy world, I think men laying down the law and saying "No, you may _not _play a physically strong woman!" is icky as all heck. A player character is a player character is a player character; if someone wants to play a woman who is incredibly strong, why the heck shouldn't they? Who's to say they shouldn't?
> 
> And that's ignoring the fact that we're playing in a world with elves and dragons and orcs and golems and vampires... but definitely no physically strong women!  That's just too far!
> 
> That's why ability score limits for genders are creepy to me.  If folks want to play incredibly strong women, the rules should not prevent them from doing so.  And if the rules don't (as they rarely do - these are usually houserules), certainly no person should prevent another from doing so.
> 
> Fortunately, I've never encountered this in real life.  It's just a phenomenon I hear about on the internet.




Its an excellent point, but not all RPGs are _*F*_RPGs.

But in general, I agree: we're discussing games, sims.  And as others have pointed out in other similar threads, in many cases, gender based stat mods are unfun.

Still, in most cases, the proposed stat limits don't actually prevent a PC from achieving the pinnacles of achievement in a given class- a 20Str isn't required to make 20th level in Fighter, after all.

And, in some cases, even in a fantasy setting, there may be a good reason for differences between the sexes to exist.  In Ursula LeGuin's _Earthsea_, there is a difference between men's magic and women's magic...at least at first.  The dichotomy, once implied to be inherent in the early stories, is, over time, revealed to be the result of chauvinism.  But that doesn't change the fact that in that setting, there are simply no powerful female wizards because there is no way for them to learn the deeper mysteries.

Also, I have to ask: where would you stand on a PC race that displayed stronger sexual dimorphism than is typical than in humans?  We see it in nature- for example, sometimes one gender (not necessarily the males) is not just bigger, but RADICALLY bigger, for instance...sometimes 5x, 10x or 100x larger.  Similar behavioral differences exist in between genders in certain species, too.




Salamandyr said:


> That's a very unfair characterization of the argument.  No one, not even the most ardent fan of strength limitations, is arguing against physically strong women.  They argue, that physically strong women are not as strong as physically strong men, and the game should reflect that.  I don't agree, but it's an arguable point.
> 
> For instance, the world record for the deadlift by a woman, one Becca Swanson, is 683 lbs.  That's in incredible amount!  I could maybe lift half that, probably closer to a third.  She is dramatically stronger than me.  But the world record for a man?  Depending on how you calculate it, around 1100 lbs!  That's about one and a half as much!  Other weightlifting numbers show a similar disparity.
> 
> Again, I see no reason to impose every real world limit on fantasy characters.  I prefer to abide by "action movie" realism.  And it may be logically inconsistent for women being as strong as men  to break a persons verisimilitude, when, say, a person being able to outthink a computer, or read people's minds doesn't.  But it's not an inherent mark of sexism either.



Yep.  Since an RPG isn't a sim, there's no reason they have to model every bit of  reality _just so._

While no RW woman may outlift someone like Mark Henry or out jump Mike Powell or even Peter O'Connor, there's no reason to assume that would be the case in a fictional world.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its an excellent point, but not all RPGs are _*F*_RPGs.




They're not all FRPGs, but they are all _fantasies_.  So what we're talking about is people whose fantasy involves such things.  Thus the creepy!



> Also, I have to ask: where would you stand on a PC race that displayed  stronger sexual dimorphism than is typical than in humans?  We see it in  nature- for example, sometimes one gender (not necessarily the males)  is not just bigger, but RADICALLY bigger, for instance...sometimes 5x,  10x or 100x larger.  Similar behavioral differences exist in between  genders in certain species, too.




The important thing for me is that those PC races aren't represented in the player base.  I won't ever meet a female kenku. There's no "this is what _you_ are in the game".  Though the closer the fantasy race is to human, the creep needle starts to climb.


----------



## Ell-Egypto

Red Sonja, Valeria, Belit. Shall I go on ?


----------



## Morrus

Ell-Egypto said:


> Red Sonja, Valeria, Belit. Shall I go on ?




Definitely!  Keep going!  Nothing wrong with cool lists of awesome female protagonists!


----------



## Salamandyr

Ell-Egypto said:


> Red Sonja, Valeria, Belit. Shall I go on ?




None of those characters was stronger than Conan.


----------



## Kursk

Salamandyr said:


> None of those characters was stronger than Conan.




Nor, as strong.  But, still awesome fighters nonetheless!


----------



## Crothian

All of them can exist just fine in the rules of 1e.  I had many awesome fighters with less then an 18 strength. Stats do not make a character awesome.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> The image in my mind of who wants to enforce such things, and more importantly, _why_ (I mean, seriously, _why?_) is just not pleasant.  That said, I've never met such a person, so it's just a mental construct of a hypothetical fictional person in my head.




I think it's important to remember that this is your personal prejudice, Morrus, rather than a legitimate critique of people who happen to like this particular thing that you do not. I say that because it's important to remember that what someone enjoys in their fiction does not - necessarily - confer anything about their thoughts, feelings, or attitudes towards real people.

I've had players who chose to play characters that would murder shopkeepers in the game world who didn't give them a discount on their gear. That didn't mean that I was at all concerned about how they'd act when they went to the store on a snack run. Similarly, finding merit in the idea of ability score caps that are sex-dependent is not some sort of surefire indicator about how a person feels toward women.


----------



## Elf Witch

Crothian said:


> You need to work on this argument.  1e has strength caps for men an women. The game is based around 15th century Europe so using modern people with advanced training methods, superior nutrition, access to steroids an HGH, and many other modern advantages to prove it as unrealistic doesn't hold water.  3e has no such limits and what house rules people put in their own games is impossible to judge without knowing their game.  Plus 1e is nearly 40 years old so you want to stick to more current example.  Don't just use D&D because it is the most popular RPG.




I have seen strength caps discussed and the DM who want them for a sense of realism don't seem to get why a lot of female players resent them. I do and I will walk out of any game with them. Why should my character take a penalty just because I am playing a female. In a game with magic and  being able to survive a fall from the grand canyon it seems arbitrary to pick that one area for realism.


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> I think it's important to remember that this is your personal prejudice, Morrus




Hey, that's what I said!


----------



## Crothian

Elf Witch said:


> I have seen strength caps discussed and the DM who want them for a sense of realism don't seem to get why a lot of female players resent them. I do and I will walk out of any game with them. Why should my character take a penalty just because I am playing a female. In a game with magic and  being able to survive a fall from the grand canyon it seems arbitrary to pick that one area for realism.




Your character is not taking a penalty.  A cap is not a penalty and it is not like male characters do not have caps either because they do.  If you don't want to play in a game that has them that is fine.  I am not arguing for them.  My post was about the weakness of the original argument and not about disagreeing it.


----------



## Elf Witch

I just read through this thread and I am happy to see that the majority of the thread is not one of the woman folk are complaining again they must be PMS. I started gaming back in the 70s and I saw sexism up close. Being a female in a male dominated hobby required knowing how to deal with jerks on a regular basis. So many DMs thought it was perfectly acceptable to have every other NPC try and rape a female PC. Trying to find a female mini of your character that actually had clothes was next to impossible. 

Over time the hobby has matured though don't for one moment think sexism does not exist in our hobby. Look at the hoopla over at WOTC when they had Astrid's a place for female gamers to talk about issues relating to female gamers. So many male gamers where complaining that it was giving woman preferential treatment. They could not grasp the concept that this is a male dominated hobby and every other place is dominated by men. I suppose you could have a men's forum but why. And it was not like men were not allowed in to read and post. And several took great pleasure on being raging jerks about it. In the thread  discussing sexism in artwork and where to go to find more female friendly fantasy artwork male posters felt the need to complain how we were ruining gaming how cheesecake was an important part of the hobby ans what right did we have to come on and expect change. 

Nobody was saying ban cheesecake the discussion was mainly where can we find artwork and also how we would like to see artwork that better portrays female adventurers. Just like I am reading here people choosing to dismiss everything the OP posted because they are upset that they think she is for banning a gaming supplement. I certainly didn't get that. What I got from it was this a product that she find offensive and is pointing it out. I actually bought the product and after reading it sent it back to Amazon and wrote the company how as a female gamer I found the way the subject of rape was handled to be distasteful and because of that would not be buying anymore products. That is my right to decide where my money goes. And my right to let a business know why I will no longer do business with them. 

I have no issue with people who choose to buy the product so why should there be an issue with my choosing not to buy it. 

There is an issue happening at conventions female attendees are suffering sexual harassment,female cosplayers are being groped. This should not be happening and some cons are making an effort to stop it other say they are like Comiccon but in reality they are just giving the issue lip service. I know of woman harassed at gaming stores.


----------



## billd91

Crothian said:


> Your character is not taking a penalty.  A cap is not a penalty and it is not like male characters do not have caps either because they do.  If you don't want to play in a game that has them that is fine.  I am not arguing for them.  My post was about the weakness of the original argument and not about disagreeing it.




If you happen to roll above the cap (as a 1st edition female character could) then how is it not a penalty? It would require the player to subtract an amount to get to the cap. That it isn't a penalty across the entire span of possible results doesn't necessarily prevent it from being a penalty in some instances. 

But ultimately, whether it's technically a penalty or not by your definition, it's still an area in which the mechanics prevent a female character from achieving the potential results of a male character that appears to have had a negative effect on actual players and their satisfaction with the game. Defining whether it's technically a lower cap or a penalty seems like picking nits in an unnecessary way.


----------



## Elf Witch

Crothian said:


> Your character is not taking a penalty.  A cap is not a penalty and it is not like male characters do not have caps either because they do.  If you don't want to play in a game that has them that is fine.  I am not arguing for them.  My post was about the weakness of the original argument and not about disagreeing it.




Bull my character certainly is taking a penalty in the fact hat she will never be as good as male character of the same class. If I can only go as high as a 16 and male characters can go as high as 22 that is a +3 difference in a stat for a male character. And usually when they put these caps in they don't give you something else on racial stats there is sully a + to balance out the -.


----------



## Umbran

Crothian said:


> Your character is not taking a penalty.  A cap is not a penalty...




Okay, if you want to enter into semantics - a cap is not technically a penalty, in game rules terms.  But it is limitation on what kind of character you can have.  That's the functional issue, and not something we should forget.  It is saying, "You cannot have the type of female character you want, just 'cause it is female."


----------



## Crothian

Elf Witch said:


> Bull my character certainly is taking a penalty in the fact hat she will never be as good as male character of the same class. If I can only go as high as a 16 and male characters can go as high as 22 that is a +3 difference in a stat for a male character. And usually when they put these caps in they don't give you something else on racial stats there is sully a + to balance out the -.




What game are you talking about?  The bonuses look like 3e but 3e does not have any ability caps for anyone.  If you are complaining about someone's house rules then complain to them I have no control on anyone's house rules except my own and I have never used any house rules like these.


----------



## Crothian

Umbran said:


> Okay, if you want to enter into semantics - a cop is not technically a penalty.  But it is limitation on what kind of character you can have.  Let us not lose that, shall we.




You are right, penalty or cap it doesn't matter what we call it.  My bad on that one. I am not in support of gender based attribute caps just in case it looks like I am.

Under the rules of 1e D&D female humans are limited to an 18/50 and Male humans are limited to an 18/00. There is no character class in the PHB that a female human can not be and does not limit the kinds of characters they can be.  There are reasons to not have this rule in the book but I don't think saying it limits the kinds of female human character that can be played is one of them.


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> But it is limitation on what kind of character you can have.  That's the functional issue, and not something we should forget.




Speaking purely to the broader issue of players having limitations on what kind of character they can have, this isn't something that's universally condemnatory (or at least I don't believe it is). In terms of world-building, what isn't allowed can be just as important as what is, and it's entirely possible to have characters that - whether by game mechanics or role-playing - are disruptive because they go beyond the boundaries set by the GM or the source material.

For example, our GM once announced that his next campaign was going to have a Gothic Horror theme. We were all happy with this, but two of the players had already decided that they really wanted to play tag-team luchador wrestlers, one of which spoke in faux-Spanish, and the other talked like Hulk Hogan. The GM didn't ban their characters, instead trying to work around them, but it caused the tone of the campaign to take a big hit.

This is without getting into the issue that ability scores are the aspect of character generation where players have the least agency, being restricted to random rolls or a limited allocation of points.


----------



## billd91

Crothian said:


> You are right, penalty or cap it doesn't matter what we call it.  My bad on that one. I am not in support of gender based attribute caps just in case it looks like I am.
> 
> Under the rules of 1e D&D female humans are limited to an 18/50 and Male humans are limited to an 18/00. There is no character class in the PHB that a female human can not be and does not limit the kinds of characters they can be.  There are reasons to not have this rule in the book but I don't think saying it limits the kinds of female human character that can be played is one of them.




Actually it does limit. There's that space between the 18/50 and 18/00 where female human characters cannot go while male characters can and that area includes a substantial amount of mechanical benefit. That slice of characters may not be wide but that ultimately doesn't matter that much - the female character is barred from reaching it while the male is not.


----------



## Umbran

Alzrius said:


> Speaking purely to the broader issue of players having limitations on what kind of character they can have, this isn't something that's universally condemnatory (or at least I don't believe it is). In terms of world-building, what isn't allowed can be just as important as what is, and it's entirely possible to have characters that - whether by game mechanics or role-playing - are disruptive because they go beyond the boundaries set by the GM or the source material.




Okay, so the disruption to the game world is more important than the person at the table?  Glad we have that covered.

We aren't talking about some kid who wants to be uber-everything being told, "Sorry, you have to rein it in a bit."   It is a woman being told, "In my world, people like you are lacking in these senses..."

Doesn't mean one can't do it.  But the question of whether one *should* do it, for that kind of a reason, seems rather less clear - you have to have a pretty awesome artistic vision of a world to do that to someone one hopes is your friend (or customer, if you're a game designer).  How many such awesome worlds are going to be trashed by "Female PCs can be strong"?  

We aren't even saying the NPC population of women has to exactly match the men.  The issue at the moment is of the single female PC.  Your world is gonna shatter 'cause she's as strong as a male?  Really?  That's... a brittle world to build, I think.


----------



## Libertad

Some things I wish to address:

First off, the Strength cap, even if it did originate in the late 1970s of 1st Edition, still carries on.  Not just house rules, it almost made it into Hackmaster 5th Edition until women gamers suggested that this wasn't a good idea.  And it appeared in an earlier printing of Adventures Dark & Deep.

And although it's not a flat penalty, it will make many gamers think "you know, I should play as a man instead if I'm going to be a Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/etc."  So it does have an effect on people's willingness to play women PCs a lot of the time.

Also, I am not a woman.  I just like this avatar.


----------



## Alzrius

Umbran said:


> Okay, so the disruption to the game world is more important than the person at the table?  Glad we have that covered.




Since you've elected to respond with childish sarcasm, allow me to do you the discourtesy of replying in the same vein:

Okay, so one person's enjoying themselves is more important than them ruining the fun of the other people at the table? Glad we have that covered.



> _We aren't talking about some kid who wants to be uber-everything being told, "Sorry, you have to rein it in a bit."   It is a woman being told, "In my world, people like you are lacking in these senses..."_




No, we're not. Your post that I quoted was a universal statement in regards to the "functional issue" regarding "the limitations on what kind of character you can have." Furthermore, I said that I was speaking purely in regards to that.

You don't get to make large, sweeping statements and then claim that you were talking about one specific point.



> _Doesn't mean one can't do it.  But the question of whether one *should* do it, for that kind of a reason, seems rather less clear - you have to have a pretty awesome artistic vision of a world to do that to someone one hopes is your friend (or customer, if you're a game designer).  How many such awesome worlds are going to be trashed by "Female PCs can be strong"?
> 
> We aren't even saying the NPC population of women has to exactly match the men.  The issue at the moment is of the single female PC.  Your world is gonna shatter 'cause she's as strong as a male?  Really?  That's... a brittle world to build, I think._




This falls under the same response as above. If you want to talk about issues with sex-specific limitations, then talk about that. But that's not what you were talking about before - you were discussing the issue of limitations on players being able to play what they want, and that's the context in which I responded to you. Now, own it.


----------



## Crothian

Libertad said:


> First off, the Strength cap, even if it did originate in the late 1970s of 1st Edition, still carries on.  Not just house rules, it almost made it into Hackmaster 5th Edition until women gamers suggested that this wasn't a good idea.  And it appeared in an earlier printing of Adventures Dark & Deep.




So, it doesn't appear in Hackmaster but did in an early version of a game I've never heard of but does not now since you specified it was an early printing.  I'm not seeing what the problem is then as it seems that people are speaking up about it and games are being changed because of it.  Sounds like victory to me!


----------



## billd91

Alzrius said:


> Since you've elected to respond with childish sarcasm, allow me to do you the discourtesy of replying in the same vein:
> 
> Okay, so one person's enjoying themselves is more important than them ruining the fun of the other people at the table? Glad we have that covered.




Allowing female characters to have equal access to mechanical bonuses derived from their stats ruins the fun for the other people at the table?


----------



## Alzrius

billd91 said:


> Allowing female characters to have equal access to mechanical bonuses derived from their stats ruins the fun for the other people at the table?




I really have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Umbran made a statement to the effect that limiting the kind of character that a player can make is undesirable; this had no particular qualifiers attached to it, making the statement universal in nature. I pointed out - specifically mentioning that that was the issue I was speaking to - that this wasn't always true, since being able to make any kind of player you want without restrictions can, unto itself, result in disruptions.

The question of if player agency should be limited - and if so, to what degree - when designing their character is what I'm discussing there; not the issue of sexism in gaming. (One can say that this is a tangent to the original theme of the thread, and this is true; but that's part of the nature of discussion threads is that the original topic can branch out over the course of the discussion.)


----------



## Libertad

It is a victory, but people still try and slip it in now and again.



Celebrim said:


> 1.) *But let's not sit here and pretend this is about realism or sensitivity to peoples feelings.* You've got a whole laundry list of things you are complaining about and insisting that gamers conform to even to the extent that you seem to be saying that they can't be portrayed in a negative way, and that single 'incidents' while not as worthy of scorn are still at least a little worthy of scorn. You've managed to get more Puritanical than a guy whose been accused of being a prude. And by dodging around saying this is about being respectful and sensitive, you completely avoid the main thrust of my complaint which is that there is nothing at all nuanced, sensitive or respectful in the way you are viewing women or men.




How?  Again and again on message boards and in media I hear of women gamers talked down to for expressing disagreement with chainmail bikinis, saw lackadaisical attitude towards sexual assault which can trigger flashbacks in sufferers (of which there are many), and cosplayers repeatedly sexually harassed and groped at gaming conventions.  If I were being Puritannical I'd be advocating for no mention of sex, period, and shaming the women for "tempting" men.



> In any event, while for various reasons neither sex nor rape are major themes in my gaming, for the very reasons that its reasonably common (the exact numbers being a matter of controversy but certainly we agree 'too often') in the real world and is a very serious subject its also going to exist in at least the background of my world. I don't really intend to limit my campaign to your review or censure.




But it's not about individual home games. If you feel that you and your group can handle sexual assault without problems, I'm not stopping you.  But given the huge amount of people who suffer from it and are likely to get triggered when it's introduced in a gaming session I say that it's best to err on the side of caution and to not use it unless you're REALLY, REALLY SURE that nobody at your table will be affected.



> Chasing your links and your links' links leads to either to things that aren't what you say they are, or else a bunch of increasingly less than credible claims by persons who are clearly biased to accept anything that backs their desired conclusions. Casually chasing a handful debunked many of them with minutes. So I can't tell with certainty what is true or not, but I do know that on the basis of those links I wouldn't be nearly as dramatic and confrontational about the evidence as you are: it seems pretty weak, and if I really was undecided on this point and not you know married to a woman with PhD that can out run me, I'd be 'point to the chauvinists' after browsing your links.




Okay, if my links do not help my argument and are counter to what I said, then I'll concede the mistake.  But first I need to specifically know their factual fallacies, what they are and where.


----------



## Kursk

Elf Witch said:


> I have seen strength caps discussed and the DM who want them for a sense of realism don't seem to get why a lot of female players resent them. I do and I will walk out of any game with them.




That's the beauty of a free society.  Freedom of association.  That's the best way to deal with something one doesn't like.


----------



## Celebrim

Libertad said:


> How?




Because you continue to sterotype and project yourself on to every situation.



> Again and again on message boards and in media I hear of women gamers talked down to for expressing disagreement with chainmail bikinis




Ok, I'm not going to talk down to you for expressing disagreement with chainmail bikinis.  I don't like chainmail bikinis.  No character in my game would ever wear one.   Heck, I removed 'chain shirt' and 'breastplate' from my 3.X inspired armor list as unrealistic given the assumptions of 3.X (no hit locations).   And I also happen to find the general portrayal of women in fantasy media demeaning.  BUT.... that's just my personal feelings.  I can't claim to represent anyone.   In fact, there are many women that find the overt sexuality of fantasy heroines empowering, as a source of sexual and physical confidence for providing an alternative standard of sexual attractiveness for them to adhere to that they can more easily obtain than the typical cheerleader or supermodel standard.  There are gamer grrls that envision their fantasy heroines dressed in overtly sexual ways.  Not every women is going to think that Red Sonya is demeaning.   And if you are as conversant in feminist literature as you seem to be, you should know that it is a major controversy even within feminism as to whether embracing ones sexuality (or even promiscuity) and displaying oneself as a sexual object is empowering or demeaning.

Have you ever LARPed with women?  In my experience, the sexual excitement and possibilities of LARPing are a bigger attraction on the whole to female gamers than male gamers.  And I can remember going into a book store in the 90's and there were these two goth girls sitting on the floor with 'L.A. by Night' for VtM open in their laps and talking, and the are discussing the characters in the book, and one of them says something like, "Isn't he so dreamy?  Every time I'm an elevator now I fantasize that he's resting on the elevator above me."

So no, whether you are a woman or not (and I'm still not certain, because your profile says male), you don't get to speak for women.  You aren't their appointed champion.  You don't get to go around like a knight in shining armor defending them from the assaults of predatory males.  Because there isn't one single way of looking at any of this, and not even among women, and you know - maybe they don't necessarily need your protection.



> saw lackadaisical attitude towards sexual assault which can trigger flashbacks in sufferers (of which there are many)




Isn't this an individual group issue though?  I mean, even if sexual assault were to occur in my game, I would never be graphic about such a sensitive subject - not just because I'm worried that someone in the group has been sexual assaulted - but because dwelling on graphic anything can be prurient and voyeuristic and unhealthy.   But I don't get to tell another group where to draw that line, because there is a point where I think dealing with mature issues is something important for a game to do and one of those very important issues is the very real problem of evil.  And sometimes evil has to be portrayed, and how to do that correctly isn't a clear cut thing.  And I'm not going to banish that from my game, because that itself would tend to make the fantasy exercise unhealthy.   I disagree with claims that we aren't desensitized to murder.  There are so many assumptions being made in this larger argument that I just think are flat out wrong.



> and cosplayers repeatedly sexually harassed and groped at gaming conventions.




Nothing justifies that.  I'm not ever going to try to excuse that.  But this isn't a simple subject.  I had friend go to DragonCon, and a cosplay vampire (a girl) had made one of those real denture pieces that features very real and sharp fangs, come over to him sexually grope him and then sink her very real fangs into his neck: a complete stranger completely without provocation.  And she drew blood; a he did hit her, because well, assault and battery.  I mean, I don't know how readily you're going to accept this claim, but there is a lot of sexuality assumed around the cosplay culture and some women - certainly not all of them - are very much attracted to it by its sexuality and very much desire to be the center of attention because of it.  Some of that attention goes way beyond what they want, I'm sure, and again there is no excuse for that.   But when you get into these complicated whose flirting with who situations, sometimes the boundaries between what is sexual harassment and what is welcome flirtation get really blurred.   Now, I don't think that even needs to be part of a discussion of rape, but if you are going to start blurring the lines between 'rape bad' and 'this guy with pimples at dragon con was hitting on me badly', there we are.   You went there already.



> If I were being Puritannical I'd be advocating for no mention of sex, period, and shaming the women for "tempting" men.




It sure kinda sounds that way from here.



> *But it's not about individual home games.* If you feel that you and your group can handle sexual assault without problems, I'm not stopping you.  But given the huge amount of people who suffer from it and can't handle its portrayal in fiction without getting triggered, gamers included, I say that it's best to err on the side of caution and to not use it unless you're REALLY, REALLY SURE *that nobody at your table will be affected.*



 - emphasis added

Make up your mind.  Is it about home games or not?  Or is it about your desire to dictate to the gaming community what they should or should not publish based on your standards of what is moral or not?



> Okay, if my links do not help my argument and are counter to what I said, then I'll concede the mistake.  But first I need to specifically know their factual fallacies, what they are and where.




Would you like to go through them one at a time?   Let's start with the Scythians.  The actual essay you link to says: "There is ambiguous evidence as to the role of women among the Scythians."  There is very little hard evidence for Scythian women warriors beyond the usual role of aristocratic women leading men into battle in their spouses place, or of defending their homes, lives, and children in the last extremity - the real truth of 'women have always fought'.  To the extent that the evidence paints a picture of female warriors, we are talking a small minority, in one culture, during one period, using the horsebow - the one weapon of the ancient world that might equalize the genders somewhat in the way that say a rifle does - and that culture ultimately went extinct, conquered and assimilated by a culture without a female warrior tradition.   Not exactly evidence of equality of the sexes if you are basing equality of the sexes or any other person on what they are capable of (because if it was that, then mentally retarded people would be subhuman), and certainly not definitive evidence that female warriors are realistic much less commonplace.

And that's your strongest link.  You link repeatedly to the 'Women as Warriors Homepage', which is just filled with crap and garbage.  Would you like me to explain?


----------



## mythago

Celebrim, for someone who doesn't think anyone should "speak for women",  you yourself are doing a lot of speaking about how women gamers supposedly act and what they want and what their motivations are.

Do all female gamers want the exact same thing? Of course not, any more than all male gamers do. I'm not sure why that is supposed to block off a discussion about sexism in gaming generally, or to observe that, as a group, female gamers most likely do not want to be treated as exotic curiosities who are orthogonal to the 'real' gaming community. As Elf Witch says, things used to be much worse - I remember going to gaming cons and being treated like a talking zoo animal, frankly, which doesn't happen anymore - but we are not exactly at a point where, if my daughter came home from a gaming con annoyed that some guy challenged her geek cred, I would be utterly taken aback.

And it's frankly tiresome to see the same old non-arguments thrown up as chaff to distract from the meat of the discussion: if you don't like it don't hang with the jerks, women aren't fragile, free speech eleventy!!!!111, it's only a handful of people, let's not say bad things about the hobby. None of these things have to do with real issues about whether the gaming community has a problematic strain of sexism or whether we should discuss problems that _do_ in fact exist, and trying to shut down that discussion is, well, trying to shut down discussion.


----------



## mythago

Alzrius said:


> Speaking purely to the broader issue of players having limitations on what kind of character they can have, this isn't something that's universally condemnatory (or at least I don't believe it is). In terms of world-building, what isn't allowed can be just as important as what is, and it's entirely possible to have characters that - whether by game mechanics or role-playing - are disruptive because they go beyond the boundaries set by the GM or the source material.




Indeed so. The interesting question is why the GM or the source material chooses to set those particular boundaries, and whether it is in fact the case that those limitations are followed. If they're followed arbitrarily then the players are quite justified in asking whether "we have to do it this way" is in fact true.

For example, imagine that your GM, after telling everyone the game was going to be Gothic Horror, had slapstick comedy and jokey NPCs popping up regularly throughout the session. You might well have frowned at the guys playing luchadores, but then I think you'd probably also be asking why the GM wasn't bothering to stick to the Gothic Horror tone that was supposedly the theme of the campaign. Especially if the GM _had_ banned luchadores and said no, you all have to make characters that fit the Gothic Horror milieu.


----------



## Argyle King

In general, I'm pro-luchadore.  


On the topic of women in gaming...  

I never know what to say.  Apparently, I live in some weird alternate dimension where the people I game with aren't d-bags as a general rule.  Perhaps things were different back in the day.  Perhaps things are different elsewhere.  All I can say is that I tend to treat women gamers as gamers, and the people I game with tend to do the same.  

There aren't a lot of things which are off limits when it comes to my usual group.  There have been games in which some rather serious topics (such as rape) have come up during a game.  That in no way implies that I or anyone in my group condones the activity; neither does it imply it's something which runs rampant during our gaming.  The times when it did occur, it was handled in what I believe to be mature way.  It's also worth pointing out that it hasn't been something unique to female characters; I particularly remember a male wizard character suffering a shudder worthy fate at the hands of a despicable villain.  It's rare when it does happen in games I've been involved in, but, when it has happened, I feel it added to the scene or the story, and it wasn't something the group jokingly or casually tossed about.  

That being said, I do recognize that different topics may hit closer to home for some gamers based on the demographics they come from.  With a female player, I might discuss OOG how they felt about certain things, but I'd also do that with the other members of my group.  A close friend of mine lost a child a few years back; as such, there were some aspects of the story I had written at the time which I changed out of regard for his feelings.  I take time to know the people I game with.  Just a few days ago, I made some new acquaintances simply by talking to someone else at the local game store.      

I always find it odd that roleplaying games are social in nature, but there seems to be some strange aversion to being social among groups; between GM and player.  I've found that taking the time to talk to the people I game with solves a lot of problems.  Likewise, I've found that it's surprisingly easy to bring new players into the hobby simply by talking to people and doing so without being a jerk, bigot, or [some words I can't say on a public forum.]  I understand that not everyone has a great charisma score, but you'd be amazed at how many negative aspects of the tabletop hobby can be fixed by simply being social.  

I really don't know what else to say.  I always have difficulty weighing in when it comes to a topic of this nature.  I have that difficulty because I can't relate to it.  I'm not denying that sexism happens.  I'm sure it does, and it doesn't entirely surprise me that some members of the tabletop community act different toward girls; I recognize that some heads turn when someone of the female gender walks into the local game store.  I myself will admit to enjoying eye candy when it's available.  However, overall, I just really don't understand the mentality behind some of the stories I read online or hear from elsewhere.  I always ask myself, "why would I still game with people who acted like that?"  The answer I often come to is that I wouldn't.  At a Con or something, I understand you cannot always choose who you play with.

....nevermind.  I'm starting to ramble now, and I don't feel as though I'm adding anything.  So, in closing, I support luchadore gamers.


----------



## Kursk

Johnny3D3D said:


> On the topic of women in gaming...
> 
> I never know what to say.  Apparently, I live in some weird alternate dimension where the people I game with aren't d-bags as a general rule.  Perhaps things were different back in the day.  Perhaps things are different elsewhere.




Same here.  And no, it wasn't "different back in the day".  After gaming for almost 40 years I haven't run into these problems.  Probably comes down to the class of people you game with.

p.s.  There was one incident at my table about 20 years ago.  We had a new player that was female.  She got annoyed when I stood when she entered the room and came to sit at the table.  She thought it was sexist.  In her eyes I'm sure that she was correct.  I had to explain about different levels of upbringing and what not.  All was well until I opened a door for her.  Had to smooth that one out too.


----------



## mythago

Kursk said:


> Same here.  And no, it wasn't "different back in the day".  After gaming for almost 40 years I haven't run into these problems.  Probably comes down to the class of people you game with.




Kursk, I appreciate that your heart and your actions are in the right place, but I would urge you to consider that poor treatment of women in gaming culture may exist even if you personally haven't experienced it, and that if you're a man (as your post suggests) that you are less likely to have been on the receiving end. 

I mean, two women have posted in _this thread_ about how it was, in fact a lot worse "back in the day" and how sexism in gaming still exists. The mods have to keep a tight rein on this thread precisely because of how often the topic gets very heated. That really wouldn't be the case if the scope of the problem was limited to the occasional angry 15-year-old who couldn't handle being turned down for a date by the paladin's player. It would be an odd thing indeed if gaming were the sole hobby unusually more progressive than the culture around it. (Fercryinoutloud, even the Great Gygax opined that gaming is uninteresting to women because of their ladybrains.) We can't fix a problem we don't acknowledge, and it's precisely because many people talked and thought and tried to improve gaming culture that things _are_ much much better than they were "back in the day".

As a side note, WRT the woman who got annoyed at you, even though you meant it as simple courtesy, she may have felt as though your standing or opening doors was the equivalent of repeatedly announcing "WHOA DUDES LOOK THERE IS A GIRL IN THE ROOM" - which, if one has already had the experience of being treated like a creature from Mars by your co-hobbyists, may be something to which one is a bit sensitive. I'm also sorry to say that there are men who, unlike you, treat social courtesies such as yours not as appropriate gentlemanly behavior but as a political litmus test or a way to pull the girls' pigtails.


----------



## Kursk

mythago said:


> Kursk, I appreciate that your heart and your actions are in the right place, but I would urge you to consider that poor treatment of women in gaming culture may exist even if you personally haven't experienced it,




Sure.  But, after 40 years in countless groups, hundreds of players, scattered across the globe, statistically (see that scientific subject) it isn't wide spread.


----------



## Kursk

mythago said:


> As a side note, WRT the woman who got annoyed at you, even though you meant it as simple courtesy, she may have felt as though your standing or opening doors was the equivalent of repeatedly announcing "WHOA DUDES LOOK THERE IS A GIRL IN THE ROOM" - which, if one has already had the experience of being treated like a creature from Mars by your co-hobbyists, may be something to which one is a bit sensitive. I'm also sorry to say that there are men who, unlike you, treat social courtesies such as yours not as appropriate gentlemanly behavior but as a political litmus test or a way to pull the girls' pigtails.




You are 100% correct.  The lady in question had never before encountered a gentleman.  Thus, she was taken aback by the, to her mind, alien & suspicious action.  For her it was a matter of education and filling in gaps in her social upbringing.


----------



## MJS

I hold doors for people, not just women I find pretty. 
I think it is good to discuss gender equality - sexism hurts men as well, perhaps just as much, as women. It sucks for everybody. At a convention last weekend, I estimate it was around 20% female gamers. So, if we want the hobby to expand, we should be looking at this.
    I don't think chain mail bikinis and such are a problem. You have to look at the overall image - is she empowered, and equal to the bare-chested Conan? Boobs are great. Muscles are great. Its the overall tone I care about. The fantasy characters shouldn't be empowered because of showing skin. 
   The 5E playtest I was in had a father and daughter, and the daughter was an MVP as far as deducing things about the mystery at hand. The GM ignored her sometimes, though, and I made it a point to at least affirm what she said - hey, good idea, maybe we should do that...

What I didn't see was a lot of women GM's. I wonder if that is a key in getting more women players. Originally, TSR built the hobby by focusing on GM material - GM's who want to run their games are what drives the hobby IMO. 

Come to think of it - wow. I've never played in a woman's game. All my GM's, since 1987, have been guys. That's not good.


----------



## mythago

Kursk said:


> Sure.  But, after 40 years in countless groups, hundreds of players, scattered across the globe, statistically (see that scientific subject) it isn't wide spread.




I'm not quite sure what this means, particularly the "statistically" part, and I am a little puzzled that you cut off the last part of that sentence, which notes that if you're a man, your experience and perception of this problem may be somewhat different.

Also, the issue isn't simply about how an individual gaming group behaves. The hobby is a lot more than small clusters of people gathering in somebody's living room; that's why the debates about chainmail bikini art and attracting women to gaming and codes of conduct at gaming conventions. 

Again, I appreciate that you believe this _should be_ a nonissue, but declaring that it should be is not, sadly, enough to actually make it such.


----------



## Kursk

mythago said:


> I'm not quite sure what this means, particularly the "statistically" part,




Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_statistics  Based on known approx # of RPG gamers, I was referring to a representative sampling.


----------



## Kursk

Kursk said:


> Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_statistics  Based on known approx # of RPG gamers, I was referring to a representative sampling.





As to the cut off sentence.  I omitted as it is incorrect. And thus, not relevant to the conversation.


----------



## Kursk

MJS said:


> IWhat I didn't see was a lot of women GM's. I wonder if that is a key in getting more women players. Originally, TSR built the hobby by focusing on GM material - GM's who want to run their games are what drives the hobby IMO.
> 
> Come to think of it - wow. I've never played in a woman's game. All my GM's, since 1987, have been guys. That's not good.




I've played in a few.  As far as D&D type games, there is a scientific aspect often overlooked.  Human males are more attracted to activities involving violence than are human females.  It is genetic due to evolution of the species.


----------



## Celebrim

mythago said:


> Celebrim, for someone who doesn't think anyone should "speak for women",  you yourself are doing a lot of speaking about how women gamers supposedly act and what they want and what their motivations are.




No I'm not.  I have never said all women want the same thing.  I'm just relating some anecdotes that show that not all women fit the particular stereotypes that seem to motivate this thread.   I don't at all claim that these anecdotes relate to how all women act, or want, or what they've experienced - and have said so in my posts.   I'm only trying to counter this stereotype that all or even most women are delicate flowers being bruised the cruel touch of bestial and ignorant men, and how therefore we ought to be more sensitive so that we don't inadvertently hurt them.

I'm not at all surprised that back in the day if you showed up at a gaming con, you would have been an object of great curiosity and attraction and that many male gamers would have behaved very badly.   I'm a software developer, and female software developers are still such a tiny fraction of the community that if a male developers meets a good one, it's often the first one they've ever met.  Is the gaming community more sexist now than the software development community?  No, I don't think so, and even among the development community I see prejudices changing.  After I referred a female developer, one of my former managers admitted to me that the only reason he gave her an interview was because I referred her and that he was astounded by how well she'd done in the technical interview?   Why did he feel that way, was it because he was a particularly ape-like cretin prone to sexism?  No, it's just because he'd had only bad experiences with female developers prior to that and allowed himself to draw the conclusion that what was particular to individuals was a trait of the class.

If I could say anything in this thread it would be this.  It's always best to treat people as individuals and not members of a class.  It's always best to treat problems as individuals and not traits of a class.  You want to solve the problem of sexism?  One person, one relationship, at a time.



> None of these things have to do with real issues about whether the gaming community has a problematic strain of sexism or whether we should discuss problems that _do_ in fact exist, and trying to shut down that discussion is, well, trying to shut down discussion.




Here is my impression.  Is there sexism out there?  Yes.  There certainly is.  But a lot of what is put down as sexism is simply bad behavior, which everyone male and female is subjected to.   While I would hardly be surprised if my daughters came back from a gaming con with some story of mistreatment, if I had sons I would also hardly be surprised to here someone had been unpleasant to them.   And frankly, if you walking into a convention or gaming story full of single men, if you attract attention and are treated as some sort of talking animal - especially these days - I don't see it likely that sexism is primarily what is motivating that.   I think we can just drop the 'ism' and say that sex is probably what is motivating that.   It's not that it's most likely men in question have a particularly poor opinion of women's capabilities or don't think you belong.  It's that all the blood has drained out of there head at the thought of an attractive women who might share interests in common with them.   I'm not sure that that is an entirely curable problem.   For one thing, there is no guarantee that the awkward guy that makes you really uncomfortable is the sexist in the room.   For another, I still believe that the sad truth is that often the most sexist men, the true cads out there, are the ones that are most charming to women.   Simply educating men on how to treat women, doesn't address the real issue.   And finally, men are plenty jerks to each other.   

I'm not trying to shut down the discussion.  I just don't agree with you.  This is not the same thing.  If I was trying to shut down the discussion, I'd focus on the fact that it is entirely hypocritical to allow political discussions by women - and the OP goes well beyond discussing sexism at the gaming table in her politics - on the grounds that women have charged the moderators with sexism for not allowing politically charge discussions of sexism.  Would any other class of gamer be so privileged had they complained the moderators were being discriminatory?   For example, if I had complained that shutting down threads about the role of religion in gaming were motivated by anti-religious bias, would this allowed me free reign to discuss religion?  I actually approve of keeping the topic open, and I don't want to shut it down.   

No, the meat of this discussion is you don't apparently want to hear that the whole hobby does not stand convicted and therefore need not pay contrite penitence for its sins.   That while problems have and continue to exist, they are more complex than you want to portray here.  That throwing rape in to the discussion doesn't give you blanket moral authority, and for that matter that yes, not all women hold the exact same opinions and maybe perhaps we ought to be treating and thinking of women as individuals and not making presumptions about the dynamics in any particular situation.   And no, just because sexism exists you don't get to throw out real issues like free speech, or the fact that people are jerks to each other even without the excuse that the other person is a woman, or that it really is a minority of people who hold sexist views these, or that ultimately this particular model of 'feminism' strikes me as accepting far more of the world view of chauvinism than I accept.   It's too congruent with what I see as sexism, and far too ready to base its arguments on arguments that not only are shoddy scholarship but which only make sense as a rebuttal if you accept the chauvinist model of the world.  These aren't red herrings to distract people from the conversation.  This is what I actually believe, and you don't get to dismiss it because it's a man that says it, regardless of how tiresome you find it.  Frankly, the reason I'm in this thread at all, is I'm tired of this entirely self-destructive and unhelpful mode of thought being forced upon my daughters even at their young age.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_statistics  Based on known approx # of RPG gamers, I was referring to a representative sampling.




I'm curious - what numbers are you using (or approximating) for the total number of gamers and your sample size to determine the statistical relevance?


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> I'm curious - what numbers are you using (or approximating) for the total number of gamers and your sample size to determine the statistical relevance?




Basing it approx 3 million players in US.  Sample size 500.  Confidence Interval of 4.38 and Confidence level of 95%


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> Basing it approx 3 million players in US.  Sample size 500.  Confidence Interval of 4.38 and Confidence level of 95%




Yikes, you've gamed with a LOT more people than I have.  I'm only at about a dozen (except for a handful of convention games with people I don't know or don't know well enough that I'd know if they favoured gender ability caps).  I'm very, very jealous!

But I disagree with your conclusions.  Murderers are no doubt a very small percentage of the world population, but we don't allow it to happen.  It's still addressed, dealt with by law and policy, and universally condemned - the latter being what some folks are doing right here.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> Yikes, you've gamed with a LOT more people than I have.  I'm only at about a dozen




Well, gaming almost every week for 36 years and living in several HUGE metro areas...

That being said.  I can't prove a negative.  It is incumbent upon the OP to make a credible case (using data, evidence & logic) to make a case showing a "positive" as it were.  That hasn't happened yet on this thread.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> But I disagree with your conclusions.  Murderers are no doubt a very small percentage of the world population, but we don't allow it to happen.  It's still addressed, dealt with by law and policy, and universally condemned - the latter being what some folks are doing right here.




Well, YOU haven't defined what EXACTLY and PRECISELY you are now equating with murder.  So, over to you.  IF you intend to be taken seriously by intelligent people.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> Well, gaming almost every week for 36 years and living in several HUGE metro areas...




I've been gaming most weeks for 30 years, too.  You're pretty fortunate, I think! Your experience jives with what I 'feel' is the case - the problem area is a small minority of people.  Unfortunately a small minority is often all it takes; sometimes just one.  

So I don't agree that our shared opinion of the number of people involved elevates it to "not actually a problem" levels.  As long as women are telling us it's a problem, it's a problem.

The most common form of sexist behaviour I see written about on the internet is not so much gamers, but directed towards cosplayers.  I get the impression it can be quite unpleasant there.  Again, I've never seen it myself, but I don't doubt for a second that it happens.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> IF you intend to be taken seriously by intelligent people.




I beg your pardon?  Watch your manners, please, or this conversation will be very short.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> I beg your pardon?  Watch your manners, please, or this conversation will be very short.




I await your answer.  You are the one that equated something with murder that could be as innocuous as opening a door for someone.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> I await your answer.  You are the one that equated something with murder that could be as innocuous as opening a door for someone.




I'm not equating them at all; perhaps I poorly explained my point but I'm afraid your sudden hostility has brought this conversation to an end.  I've no idea what just happened there.  It's a shame; I was enjoying the conversation.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> I'm not equating them at all;




YES, you did.  Very clearly.  You compared allowing murderers to run free without action against them to allowing people who commit "sexism" to run around without action against them.  SO, please answer my question.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> YES, you did.  Very clearly.  You compared allowing murderers to run free without action against them to allowing people who commit "sexism" to run around without action against them.  SO, please answer my question.




I was talking about the relevance of the statistics in this case, not the similarity of the two things being measured.  I could have chosen anything. The answer to your question is: they're not similar; and their similarity or lack thereof has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was trying to say.


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> No, the meat of this discussion is you don't apparently want to hear that the whole hobby does not stand convicted and therefore need not pay contrite penitence for its sins.




Celebrim, you're ranting. Period. You're attacking things nobody has said, attributing things to other people's arguments ('women are delicate flowers', 'men are bestial') that they didn't actually say and then arguing as if they did (who, please, other than you, said anything about 'penance'?), falsely claiming that you are being shut down because you are a man, and arguing-while-saying-you're-not-arguing about ENworld's posting policies. You're correct that "red herring" is not the term for what you're doing, and I'm getting old so I don't remember the Latin names for the fallacies well anymore, but I think "strawmanning" is a pretty good fit. If you want to actually have an interactive, civil discussion, I'm all ears. If you just want to do the argument equivalent of looking for your glasses under the streetlight because the light is better there, well, you enjoy that.

Kursk, all the statistical methods in the world don't fix questionable data. "My own anecdotal experience" is informative; it's not scientific. Even assuming that you applied a proper statistical analysis and an accurate confidence interval, all you're saying is that you personally haven't encountered a thing. (Also, respectfully, your echoing Gygax's comment about lady gamers doesn't inspire me to perceive your observations as wholly unbiased.) If I were to count up the number of times that I'd been asked if I were the GM's girlfriend or told "the female GMs I've seen haven't been any good" and so on, and provided a "scientific" analysis showing this was a troublingly large number of incidents over time, I suspect you would not take that as objective proof that your own observations are not the full picture.


----------



## MJS

Kursk said:


> I've played in a few.  As far as D&D type games, there is a scientific aspect often overlooked.  Human males are more attracted to activities involving violence than are human females.  It is genetic due to evolution of the species.



 Adventuring is the draw, IMO, of D&D. Avoiding violence whenever possible is firmly at the root of the adventure RPG. (I just played Temple of the Frog - 2 men, 2 women players) 
  Personally, I think rules crunch, which is mostly combat, is off-putting to most people who might otherwise be inclined to an adventure game experience, and *perhaps* moreso women, but if true that would be in aggregate.) 
   I am hopeful that 5E will draw more new players/GMs -


----------



## Morrus

Celebrim said:


> on the grounds that women have charged the moderators with sexism for not allowing politically charge discussions of sexism.  Would any other class of gamer be so privileged had they complained the moderators were being discriminatory?   For example, if I had complained that shutting down threads about the role of religion in gaming were motivated by anti-religious bias, would this allowed me free reign to discuss religion?




Hi [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]; I'm not familiar with the complaints you're referring to - they certainly haven't been directed to me.  Could you drop me an email at morrus@hotmail.com and let me know more so that I can deal with them (if necessary)?  Thanks!


----------



## Alzrius

mythago said:


> Indeed so. The interesting question is why the GM or the source material chooses to set those particular boundaries, and whether it is in fact the case that those limitations are followed.




In regards to the former question ("why do they choose those") I actually don't find it all that interesting - how do you conclusively determine what someone else's motivations are? Even if they tell you, how do you know they're being honest?

In regards to the latter question, if the person(s) setting the limitations doesn't follow them, then that does smack of hypocrisy...but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt for at least a little while, in that maybe they have a reason for why they're violating their own rule. Of course, that degree of trust is presumed that the reason will (sooner, rather than later) be made clear.



> _If they're followed arbitrarily then the players are quite justified in asking whether "we have to do it this way" is in fact true._




I don't disagree, notwithstanding the above caveat about them giving a good reason for it.



> _For example, imagine that your GM, after telling everyone the game was going to be Gothic Horror, had slapstick comedy and jokey NPCs popping up regularly throughout the session. You might well have frowned at the guys playing luchadores, but then I think you'd probably also be asking why the GM wasn't bothering to stick to the Gothic Horror tone that was supposedly the theme of the campaign. Especially if the GM had banned luchadores and said no, you all have to make characters that fit the Gothic Horror milieu._




I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this example, simply because that's not at all what my GM would have done. 

Simply put, I'll agree that establishing limitations that are arbitrary in their application (which, I'll note, is different than a question of their scope) tends to call into question their reason for existing in the first place. But then, I was raising my initial objection to the idea that limitations are bad without that particular point being applied. In other words, presuming that limitations on what you can play are enforced fairly (or, to use a less loaded term, are applied using a consistent methodology), there's nothing inherently wrong with them, to me.



			
				Johnny3D3D said:
			
		

> In general, I'm pro-luchadore.




You are so dead to me, now.


----------



## Kursk

MJS said:


> Adventuring is the draw, IMO, of D&D. Avoiding violence whenever possible is firmly at the root of the adventure RPG.




If that WERE the case, it would be reflected in play.  It is not.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> I was talking about the relevance of the statistics in this case, not the similarity of the two things being measured.




Here is what you said. _"Murderers are no doubt a very small percentage of the world population,  but we don't allow it to happen.  It's still addressed, dealt with by  law and policy, and universally condemned -"


_It says what it says.  You WERE comparing it to murder. As if a possible act of "sexism" (WHOLLY undefined BTW) requires the urgency of handling as does an act of murder.

​


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> Here is what you said. _"Murderers are no doubt a very small percentage of the world population,  but we don't allow it to happen.  It's still addressed, dealt with by  law and policy, and universally condemned -"
> 
> 
> _It says what it says.  You WERE comparing it to murder. As if a possible act of "sexism" (WHOLLY undefined BTW) requires the urgency of handling as does an act of murder.
> 
> ​




OK, [MENTION=6750728]Kursk[/MENTION], I've tried to reason cordially with you a couple of times and to try to get you to drop the attitude.  Since you clearly have no interest in doing so, please do not post in this thread again. 

Additionally, since you're new here - red text is reserved for moderation posts; please avoid using it.  If any of this is unclear, my email address is at the bottom of every page.  In the meantime, here's a copy of the rules you recently agreed to should you feel like refreshing yourself as to their content, and perhaps consider revising your posting style.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> OK,  @_*Kursk*_ , I've tried to reason cordially with you a couple of times and to try to get you to drop the attitude.  Since you clearly have no interest in doing so, please do not post in this thread again.




No attitude.  I just was curious why you equated "sexual harrasment" with murder.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> No attitude.  I just was curious why you equated "sexual harrasment" with murder.




You were asked to stop posting in the thread.  You had to anyway, huh?  Well, I guess you'll now need to try refraining form posting on the boards for three days. I'm pretty sure now you're trolling, but _ If_ you decide to come back in three days, please do so with a different attitude.


----------



## Crothian

Kursk said:


> If that WERE the case, it would be reflected in play.  It is not.




It is in out games.  In 1e the majority of the XP is gained through treasure not fighting so players try to avoid combat when possible and get the treasure.  It also turns out to be a safer experience for the characters as the game can be quite deadly at times.


----------



## Elf Witch

Crothian said:


> So, it doesn't appear in Hackmaster but did in an early version of a game I've never heard of but does not now since you specified it was an early printing.  I'm not seeing what the problem is then as it seems that people are speaking up about it and games are being changed because of it.  Sounds like victory to me!




Actually it is not a victory, a victory would be never having to address this again. As a woman I see battles we thought we had one having to be fought over and over again.


----------



## Elf Witch

MJS said:


> I hold doors for people, not just women I find pretty.
> I think it is good to discuss gender equality - sexism hurts men as well, perhaps just as much, as women. It sucks for everybody. At a convention last weekend, I estimate it was around 20% female gamers. So, if we want the hobby to expand, we should be looking at this.
> I don't think chain mail bikinis and such are a problem. You have to look at the overall image - is she empowered, and equal to the bare-chested Conan? Boobs are great. Muscles are great. Its the overall tone I care about. The fantasy characters shouldn't be empowered because of showing skin.
> The 5E playtest I was in had a father and daughter, and the daughter was an MVP as far as deducing things about the mystery at hand. The GM ignored her sometimes, though, and I made it a point to at least affirm what she said - hey, good idea, maybe we should do that...
> 
> What I didn't see was a lot of women GM's. I wonder if that is a key in getting more women players. Originally, TSR built the hobby by focusing on GM material - GM's who want to run their games are what drives the hobby IMO.
> 
> Come to think of it - wow. I've never played in a woman's game. All my GM's, since 1987, have been guys. That's not good.




Boobs are not the issue I have absolutely no problem with a barbarian going topless as long as she is not living in the frozen wasteland. The issue with chain mail armor and other stripper armor is that it shown being worn on fighter/paladin types. The litmus test for this is simple would this kind of armor be appropriate for a male character to wear. 

There was a reason national geographic which ad pictures of topless woman was allowed in schools and Playboy is not it is how the material is presented.


----------



## Libertad

> So no, whether you are a woman or not (and I'm still not certain, because your profile says male), you don't get to speak for women. You aren't their appointed champion. You don't get to go around like a knight in shining armor defending them from the assaults of predatory males. Because there isn't one single way of looking at any of this, and not even among women, and you know - maybe they don't necessarily need your protection.





I didn't claim to speak for all women in my posts, but you're doing a lot of it by saying "they don't need your protection."  My original post is an examination of a systemic issue which does negatively affect many gamers, and why they're negative.  I'm not presenting my evidence as the end-all be-all, and you don't strengthen your argument by putting words in my mouth.




> Isn't this an individual group issue though? I mean, even if sexual assault were to occur in my game, I would never be graphic about such a sensitive subject - not just because I'm worried that someone in the group has been sexual assaulted - but because dwelling on graphic anything can be prurient and voyeuristic and unhealthy. But I don't get to tell another group where to draw that line, because there is a point where I think dealing with mature issues is something important for a game to do and one of those very important issues is the very real problem of evil. And sometimes evil has to be portrayed, and how to do that correctly isn't a clear cut thing. And I'm not going to banish that from my game, because that itself would tend to make the fantasy exercise unhealthy. I disagree with claims that we aren't desensitized to murder. There are so many assumptions being made in this larger argument that I just think are flat out wrong.





No, it's not an issue at the individual level.  Many rape victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and encountering rape scenes in fiction can trigger a flashback.  This is the origin of the term "trigger warning," to help warn people suffering from PTSD from content which can harm them.  Many depictions of rape in RPGs have no warning of the sort beyond the vague "Mature Audiences only."  And given the huge amount of men and women who have been sexually assaulted and/or abused, it's not unreasonable for publishers, players, and DMs to take care when putting it into their games.




> Nothing justifies that. I'm not ever going to try to excuse that. But this isn't a simple subject. I had friend go to DragonCon, and a cosplay vampire (a girl) had made one of those real denture pieces that features very real and sharp fangs, come over to him sexually grope him and then sink her very real fangs into his neck: a complete stranger completely without provocation. And she drew blood; a he did hit her, because well, assault and battery. I mean, I don't know how readily you're going to accept this claim, but there is a lot of sexuality assumed around the cosplay culture and some women - certainly not all of them - are very much attracted to it by its sexuality and very much desire to be the center of attention because of it. Some of that attention goes way beyond what they want, I'm sure, and again there is no excuse for that. But when you get into these complicated whose flirting with who situations, sometimes the boundaries between what is sexual harassment and what is welcome flirtation get really blurred. Now, I don't think that even needs to be part of a discussion of rape, but if you are going to start blurring the lines between 'rape bad' and 'this guy with pimples at dragon con was hitting on me badly', there we are. You went there already.





The lines between sexual harassment and good-hearted flirtation is when the attention becomes unwanted and the aggressor pursues efforts despite complaints otherwise.  When it's unwanted and unprovoked, and the harasser continues is when it becomes a problem.  It is related to rape in that it's not consensual, and a lot of rapists start off with ignoring their victim's protests.  Sexual harassment makes victims feel unsafe and attacked, worrying that the harasser isn't going to take "no" for an answer.




> Make up your mind. Is it about home games or not? Or is it about your desire to dictate to the gaming community what they should or should not publish based on your standards of what is moral or not?





Once again you're putting words in my mouth.  My main point is not that _"rape in fiction is bad, m'kay,"_ rather that _"rape in fiction, when unexpected and poorly handled, often causes more problems than good"_ and we should thus treat it with more care and sensitivity.



> Would you like to go through them one at a time? Let's start with the Scythians. The actual essay you link to says: "There is ambiguous evidence as to the role of women among the Scythians." There is very little hard evidence for Scythian women warriors beyond the usual role of aristocratic women leading men into battle in their spouses place, or of defending their homes, lives, and children in the last extremity - the real truth of 'women have always fought'. To the extent that the evidence paints a picture of female warriors, we are talking a small minority, in one culture, during one period, using the horsebow - the one weapon of the ancient world that might equalize the genders somewhat in the way that say a rifle does - and that culture ultimately went extinct, conquered and assimilated by a culture without a female warrior tradition. Not exactly evidence of equality of the sexes if you are basing equality of the sexes or any other person on what they are capable of (because if it was that, then mentally retarded people would be subhuman), and certainly not definitive evidence that female warriors are realistic much less commonplace.






> And that's your strongest link. You link repeatedly to the 'Women as Warriors Homepage', which is just filled with crap and garbage. Would you like me to explain?





A lot of historical evidence is present in writings and archeological data, as is the case of examination of most ancient civilizations.

I re-looked at the Scythian link, and it mentions the Sauromatians having warrior women, not the Scythians. On that I was wrong.  But there is evidence that Sauromatians contained women trained in battle among their number:




> However, there is both textual and archaeological evidence of women among the Scythians (albeit a minority) who enjoyed a fairly high status.The textual evidence consists of the famous Amazons, whose name is from the Greek _a-mazos_(without a breast), from their alleged custom of arresting the development of one breast to facilitate using the bow. Although the Amazons are featured in Greek myth, Herodotus, when he traveled in the Black Sea region, heard tales of actual women who had been warriors and war leaders.
> A significant number of burials of warrior women have indeed been found, some with evidence of battle wounds. In the Scythian region west of the Don 40 such burials had been found by the late 1990s, some in conjunction with royal grave mounds, and in the region Herodotus called Sauromatia, east of the Don, some 20 percent of excavated warrior burials from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE were of women.
> 
> Herodotus connects the Amazons, whom the Scythians called Oiorpata, "man-slayers," with the Sauromatians, who he says were a mixture of Scythians and Amazons and spoke Scythian. Herodotus's Sauromatians seem to be distinct from the Sarmatians who later displaced the Scythians from the western steppe (and for whom there is no evidence of warrior women). Herodotus says that Sauromatian women had to kill three of their enemy before they were allowed to marry. The appearance of warrior women in Scythian society appears to be a late phenomenon, judging by the age of burials, and may have been a reaction of some sort to the great change in Scythian society brought about by contact with Greek civilization, or, on the other hand, by social changes set in motion among indigenous peoples in the Black Sea region by the arrival of the Scythians. Such a change would be unlikely for the "real" Scythians from the steppe, among whom male dominance was already great when they arrived in the Black Sea region. The Sauromatians, however, might have been indigenous people, among whom there was relative gender equality, which led some women to become warriors.





And the fact that the ancient world wasn't gender-egalitarian, or that the Sauromatians lost to a superior military force, or that there isn't concrete evidence that the women warriors fought down to the last woman, doesn't disprove the "woman have always fought" idea; it just means "women have always fought" throughout history, not "women have always fought and won," or "women have always fought down to the last of them."


----------



## MJS

Kursk said:


> If that WERE the case, it would be reflected in play.  It is not.



  That is a matter of style. The style of D&D by Arneson and Gygax is more adventure game oriented - mapping, avoiding combat, maintaining your strength for when you need it. Violence occurs in most any adventure, but is not its focus.
 [MENTION=80916]elf[/MENTION]witch: Paladins in scanty armor is indeed an immersion-killing oddity. I strive to have some internal consistency in my RPGs, though I'm not over-serious either...


----------



## Crothian

Elf Witch said:


> Actually it is not a victory, a victory would be never having to address this again. As a woman I see battles we thought we had one having to be fought over and over again.




What games then are still doing this?  I am not familiar with any.


----------



## Libertad

Crothian said:


> What games then are still doing this?  I am not familiar with any.




In video games, Elder Scrolls III Morrowind had different stats based upon your race's gender.  And it's a relatively recent example, in 2002 as opposed to the late 70s.


----------



## Crothian

Libertad said:


> In video games, Elder Scrolls III Morrowind has different stats based upon your race's gender.




Isn't that game ten years old and not a tabletop RPG?


----------



## Libertad

That's why I listed it as a popular video game example.  And fantasy RPGs like Elder Scrolls and the table-top fandom are tangentially intertwined.

My point was that despite originating 35 years ago, the strength thing keeps popping up in RPGs.


----------



## Lwaxy

Oh wow... 

Ok, ignoring the somewhat off-topic parts, unfriendliness, trolling attempts and seemingly deliberate misunderstandings.

The "Sexism in RPG" is not about boobs or other more or less visible body parts. Neither the always almost naked barbarian nor the heroine constantly in various states of undress makes any logical sense in RPGs unless we explain it with weaki stuff like "her clothes are magic, they don't work if she wears pants" because no one in their sane mind would create an item like that. Ever. But really, even if they would and if women (or men) would use such un-clothing in my games... 

This is an example I have seen.

Player 1 is an experienced player who wants to play a sexy heroine, which is nonetheless a no-nonsense woman despite chainmail bikini-like clothes and overexpressed female attributes. This heroine likes teasing the males and play off on her looks - as a lot of RL women would if they'd look like that. Now player 2's hero compliments her on her looks, is impressed as she expects and maybe he plays on his own muscles to make her like him. Player 3's hero would make sexist in-game comments, maybe because the char in question can't hold up to the heroine, or he's jealous of the attention player 2's char gets. I'd be all fine with this because it is in-game and sexist people will probably always exist. The other PCs don't care. 

Payer 1 who plays the female char is male, nothing much more but the occasional comment about him doing a good job and being a woman and probably a few saucy jokes happen. A few games later, player 1 is female, you suddenly face out-game comments about her playing a stereotype sexy gal and how she would even know how to as she is rather the opposite body shape. And suggestions that she's just playing out her secret fantasies. Plus suggestions - out of earshot of player 1 but not mine - that she may be a tease in RL. 

Pardon me? The guy who played the heroine the first time was not only much fatter, he didn't even have the same gender. THAT is sexist (and stupid to boot) - one of the few times we had a real problem in a group because of comments like that. The same group had absolutely no issue with the same female player portraying a fat, drug addicted, lazy elf in a Shadow Run game a few months earlier... 

So all in all this does not look like a big deal for a lot of people I'm sure. But it is probably even worse than some very obvious instances. There are quite some examples of things like this going on in the world, including in RPG sessions, they seem so subtle and over all harmless. But those do the most harm in my view because people, mostly the male population, sees such comments and behaviours as normal when in reality it's more or less veiled sexism. 

There was never much sexism in any games I played at (I'm not counting not allowing crossgender here) but there was usually a little. In both directions, but directed at female players more often. And a lot of times the people doing it did not really notice, and some times players felt uncomfortable and didn't dare to say anything because it was all "in good fun."


----------



## Crothian

It seems to pop up very rarely and no one seems to have any current examples.  Did you also post this on video game message boards or are you just post to RPG focused ones with it?  I saw the exact same post on RPG Net and wonder if you braved posting it on not so strictly controlled sites?


----------



## Lwaxy

Celebrim said:


> So no, whether you are a woman or not (and I'm still not certain, because your profile says male), you don't get to speak for women.  You aren't their appointed champion.  You don't get to go around like a knight in shining armor defending them from the assaults of predatory males.  Because there isn't one single way of looking at any of this, and not even among women, and you know - maybe they don't necessarily need your protection.




A man can't speak for women? Since when? 

"We" don't need to appoint anyone. What "we" need is different from case to case. So while "we" may not need protection in a generalized way - yes, the victims of violence and sexism usually do. 

And because there is no way of knowing what past experiences people have, it should be common sense not to allow blantant sex and violence in any game unless it was clearly, unmistakenly marked as such.


----------



## billd91

Crothian said:


> It seems to pop up very rarely and no one seems to have any current examples.  Did you also post this on video game message boards or are you just post to RPG focused ones with it?  I saw the exact same post on RPG Net and wonder if you braved posting it on not so strictly controlled sites?




So just what are you accusing the poster of doing? This strikes me as an oddly hostile insinuation. Who cares where the OP posted it? Presumably, he posted it in forums he regularly goes to. Are you suggesting he cherry picked his sites to find ones that would be more receptive? Is that a bad thing?


----------



## Elf Witch

Crothian said:


> What games then are still doing this?  I am not familiar with any.




I think you are deliberately being obtuse. Hackmaster 5E which was recently published considered having strength caps. I was one of many gamers who wrote to tell them how unhappy that made me. The fact that it is still being considered in this century almost 40 years since it was taken out of DnD shows me that it is not a thing of the past.


----------



## Crothian

billd91 said:


> So just what are you accusing the poster of doing? This strikes me as an oddly hostile insinuation. Who cares where the OP posted it? Presumably, he posted it in forums he regularly goes to. Are you suggesting he cherry picked his sites to find ones that would be more receptive? Is that a bad thing?




It was a question, try not to look for fault where none exists.  I saw the same post on RPG Net and was curious if he posted it other places.  Since he also lists faults with video games I am also wondering if he posted to video game oriented sites.

Edit: he just joined here this very month so EN World is not a forum he regularly goes to.  RPG Net he has been there a little over a year so impossible to tell if that is a regular haunt of his or not.  Since I cannot tell, I ask questions.


----------



## Celebrim

Libertad said:


> I didn't claim to speak for all women in my posts, but you're doing a lot of it by saying "they don't need your protection."





I don't see how that follows.  What I am doing is pointing out the relationship between your post and chivalry.

The thing about sexism, is that people aren't always aware when they are being sexist, right?  Sometimes they have to be educated, so you have to challenge people on sexist attitudes when you see them.

As far as post-traumatic issues go, everything you say about victims of sexual violence is equally true about victims of violence generally.  I don't think it is unreasonable to be sensitive in the portrayal of the evils of this world.   I've had to deal with provoking emotional distress in players for introducing NPCs who had abusive parents.  There are all sorts of subjects that require care at the table.   If we wanted to put caution and advisory warnings for everything that could cause emotional distress, I don't know where we'd start or end.   But I really feel you are being disingenuous here.   These are issues that affect male and female gamers alike.  You make some lip service to that, but it's pretty inescapable that you bring up rape in the larger context of sexism toward women and your primary concerns are focused in that direction.   In the context of your OP, you bring up rape primarily with regard to an area where men are being insensitive towards women.  You aren't bringing up sensitivity about rape or any other subject in a gender neutral way when you bring it in an essay with the thesis that you have.   Even the first sentence of your rape discussion is, "Make no mistake, tabletop gaming is primarily a male-dominated hobby. But there are many women gamers out there..."  I don't feel I'm putting words in your mouth to interpret this as primarily being about protecting the feelings of women, nor to think that you are invoking rape primarily because by tying your argument to rape, you are implying if you disagree with me you must support rape.

As for me putting words in your mouth, you didn't seem to have a problem putting words in the mouths of the CthulhuTech developers (who as far as I can tell have never said what you quoted them as saying).   My guess is that the CthulhuTech developers probably said something a little less obviously dumb like, "Why do we treat sexual violence as inherently worse than all other violence?", which might be a question I could answer but isn't the 'common fallacy' you choose to debunk nor is it entirely obvious that it is a dumb question.   

But let's just start quoting you then:



> But they all have content which if examined closely, is very troubling. Magical Native Americans in Werewolf, Neo-Confederate apologia in Deadlands, and even a creation myth for the Drow in Complete Book of Elves which is no different than the real-world Curse of Ham (evil people are marked by their dark skin)...An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes. White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized and the original writers don't work anymore. I have no problem continuing buying from them...A writer who doubles down on his stereotypical "noble savage" African nation while ranting about the PC Police is digging himself into a deeper hole... Is World of Darkness: Gypsies racist? Yes. Is it sexist to impose an artificial limitation on female PCs in D&D? Yes. But that doesn't make all WoD and D&D players racist and sexist. We can acknowledge problematic content, change it and discard it, when it impacts other peoples' enjoyment by reinforcing systemic stereotypes and imposes arbitrary limits on common fantasy archetypes.




Wow.  So many ways I can "make a mistake".   So many ways I have to worry about giving offense to you.  So many things you need to apologize for and cry _mia culpa_ over. 

I'm not sure I can ever have a campaign that isn't going to be potentially offensive to someone.  Oh my, World of Warcraft portrayed native americans as cows!  That's so racist.  The Drow are black skinned, that's so racist!   

Who is going to be appointed to keep track of all of this?  I'm not that familiar with the stuff you site, but if my Tumessi make references to gypsy myths, is that over the line?  If I have nation that was among other things inspired by the thought, "What if the romanticized African Kingdoms portrayed in films like Eddie Murphy's 'Coming To America' were real?"  Is that too far into your 'noble savage' territory?  In my game red hair signifies a fairy ancestry, and its particularly common among the Concherri people.  Can you say, "Irish!  Racist!!"   I look at these laundry lists of things I'm suppose to take great umbrage at, and instead I just see people leaping to judgment and moral outrage because they can.  One of the starting traits you can choose for your character in my game is "Fair Sex".   I'll let the text speak for itself:

FAIRER SEX [TRAIT]
You are a female that comes from a culture and a race with significant differences in form and custom between the sexes.  As a result, you have a slighter and more fragile build than is typical for your race, but you have a well developed intuition and natural charm.
Prerequisite: Female, required background
Benefit: You begin with -4 Strength, but +2 Wisdom and +2 Charisma.  You cannot take this advantage if it would reduce your strength below 1.

"Problematic"!

And with such a laundry list we seem to have gone very far afield from you initial statement: "Many cases bear striking similarity; an uncomfortable attitude towards women gamers in various forms and degrees."

Back to your Scythians, isn't the whole point of citing the existence of a warrior culture that it is not unreasonable for women to be competent fighters?  So the fact that there is very ambiguous evidence for rare cultures or individuals that may have fought doesn't really address the heart of your complaint.   No one denies women have always fought.   The foulest chauvinist would be willing to accept that.  If you aren't accepting, "Women have always fought and won.", then you aren't accepting anything of relevance.   

Suppose for example we have this well meaning GM whose just finished Neil Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy or for whatever reason is suddenly and deeply enamored with the idea of a gritty semi-realistic adventure campaign set nominally in the real 17th century pre-Enlightenment Europe.   And he likes the Burning Wheel system or something similar as a resolution system for the swash buckling character driven game he envisions, and creates a custom character burner for the game where your characters starting abilities are based in part on life choices you make for the character.   He spends six months getting the game ready, and Jane Gamer hears about the game and wants to play.   
"Great", says the DM, "It would be interesting to have someone that can bring a real women's perspective to the table."
And so Jane comes to the first session where they are going to make characters and she says, "Hmmm... I notice that you have separate life paths for men and women."   
"Well, yes."  
"And I had really intended to play a female swashbuckler, but there is no way using the female lifepath to generate a character that is as skilled of a soldier as you could using the male life path."
"Well, yes.  Women weren't normally expected to have a martial role in 17th century France.  Many of the lifepath branches even on the character burner represent fairly rare backgrounds suitable only for heroic characters like we are planning to play.  But there isn't really a realistic lifepath that gives a women as much starting martial skill as is possible for the most skilled man.  You can however start with a woman whose martial skill is above the ordinary man, and of course you can focus on those skills as you develop your character in play."

Sexist?  Is Jane right to be outraged?  Things would be even worse if the DM had read "The Pillow Book" and was inspired to do realistic 11th century Japan.  Where I see this going is essentially saying it is wrong to have any setting which isn't egalitarian because it might make people uncomfortable.   And indeed, based on your laundry list, I suspect 'egalitarian' is a rather narrow term for the specifics of what you are going to eventually insist on.

And there is an additional problem.  Again, quoting you:



> Women exist, and comprise a significant portion of our population. We can afford some liberties with fantasy creatures because they're wholly fictional: if dwarves are strong due to divine blessings of Moradin, we can accept that as part of the setting.
> 
> When one crosses into reality is when things get problematic. When you deal with real people, inaccuracies are less tolerable. Particularly when we reinforce stereotypes.




I find this incoherent.   When you deal with real people, inaccuracies are less tolerable?   So gender dimorphism must be written into every setting to deal with the real differences between men and women?   After all, women really are less strong than men.   That isn't an inaccuracy.   Even in our modern age when women have so much more opportunity than ever before, we ought to be horrified at the suggestion of women boxing men or facing them in the octagon.  And while it isn't probably that rare for there to be a women who could kick my butt, it is the extremely rare women with the physical skills to play even high skill level football.  It isn't sexism to acknowledge that, especially if you are going to insist on 'accuracy' when dealing with things that are 'real'.  Not all gender dimorphism is a result of enculturation.  I think rather you are going to insist that the game be inaccurate if that is what it takes to avoid reinforcing stereotypes.   We can take liberties with a fantasy setting and have men and women be equally skilled in martial arts, have equal upper body strength, and so forth and I'm ok with that.   But I'm uncomfortable with is a blanket assumption that any setting that doesn't take such liberties is sexist, and by implication of your essay that the guy who "make this mistake" is uncomfortable with female gamers and doesn't take rape seriously enough.


----------



## Celebrim

Lwaxy said:


> A man can't speak for women? Since when?




I find that I can't speak for anyone but myself.



> "We" don't need to appoint anyone. What "we" need is different from case to case.




I believe that was my point.



> So while "we" may not need protection in a generalized way - yes, the victims of violence and sexism usually do.




The two aren't equal sets.



> And because there is no way of knowing what past experiences people have, it should be common sense not to allow blantant sex and violence in any game unless it was clearly, unmistakenly marked as such.




Sure.  And if that was the entirety of the essay under discussion, I would have nothing to quibble about except, "What does blatant mean in this context?"   And if this is only about labeling, would it be enough to simply have some sort of content rating system?  Should it be voluntary or should there be some committee that decides what should be labeled as potentially offensive?


----------



## Celebrim

Lwaxy said:


> So all in all this does not look like a big deal for a lot of people I'm sure.




If I had a group belittling another player for any reason, as a DM - and a friend - I'd consider it a big deal.  What I'd do about it would probably depend on the particular people involved, but I'd address it.  

There is some teasing that goes on in my group, which at the moment - being drawn from a group of developers - is all male.   One of my players is of IRL lawful inclination, while most of the group is IRL of a more chaotic bent.   The player also has low self-esteem, and being teased plays off his low self-esteem.   Those are issues I need to address as friend and a GM.  It doesn't matter what the gender is.   But its also true that some of the teasing is intended to be good natured.   In a lot of groups - I used to work construction while my wife was in school - being teased and tested like that is normal.  People want to see how you react to it.   I can't say what was going in this group, I wasn't there - it doesn't sound like good fun.  But if I was advising my girls how to handle being teased, it would be to try to handle it with humor and bravado - even if it made you really uncomfortable.  

I see disparagement of people by people as normal.  But that is not the same as believing it is right and proper.  There is much that is normal in the world that I don't wish to be so.



> and some times players felt uncomfortable and didn't dare to say anything because it was all "in good fun."




Sometimes it's not clear why people don't say anything.   I would certainly not believe because "it's all in good fun" would be the only reason.  Sometimes people are afraid they'll make things worse.   Sometimes they just want to avoid conflict.   Sometimes they think that it would be better to address it privately.   I don't know.   The real world is very complicated.


----------



## seti

A form of gamer sexism my wife has noticed, and mentioned, is the "Oh, how cute, a girl is playing. Let me help you." stuff. She knows the rules, guys. Back off. In fact, playing 4e, she's got her actions picked before it's even her turn. None of that "Umm...hmmm...what should I do?" stuff.

Now, we play with another couple, so there's 2 guys and two women at the table, and we're all close friends. No problems at all, there. But, FLGS play and Con play has created issues.

I walked out of a session once. It was at the FLGS. The DM didn't want a gay guy to play a gay character. He thought it was 'too silly' or something...I guess he was imagining this guy hitting on other male PCs? I have no clue. But, yeah...I thought that was some uncalled for discrimination, and complained to the owner of the shop. He agreed, and that one DM doesn't DM there anymore.

The stereotype of the fat smelly neck-bearded misogynistic male gamer needs to end too, though. Just like any other group, some gamers are jerks. Some are awesome, polite, open-minded, caring people. 

Most modern game books handle it well, in my experience. Using 'he' and 'she' in rule books, and the chain mail bikini isn't as prevalent as it used to be. But it's still there sometimes. Unless it's an illustration of a monster like a succubus; there's no aesthetic excuse for showing all sorts of cleavage and thigh. But it should go both ways. The incubus illustration should look like a male stripper/romance novel cover as well, then.  Games still need to work on the multicultural art, however. I want to see more variety in skin tone. Not just for humans, but all the fantasy races. Why aren't elves ever Indian or Ethiopian or Japanese in illustrations?


----------



## Celebrim

Ok, so I'm done fighting with you (for now).  Feel free to take up the steel again, and cross pens if you want.

This is obviously a topic you care a great deal about.  If you want to write a great essay on sexism in gaming, do the following:

a) Get rid of the links or at least change the way you use them.  Almost everyone is stronger in their own words than referencing someone else.  Most of the links detract from your point rather than strengthen it, and you are also importing the opinions of those writers and by inference the writer's they link to.   You can stand on your own.  You can write a better essay than the one you link to in 'this is historical', and you can organize your points better and more selectively than the sites you link to.   The only reason to have a link is when you are doing an in line footnote.  The list of links is lazy.

b) Avoid the subject of rape.  Speaking of lazy, invoking rape to make your point is pretty high on the list of lazy writing.  If you really want to make a point about rapes depiction at the table, only go there if you can clearly show cases of writers normalizing, glorifying, or justifying the act of rape.   Merely depicting rape in a negative way might be done in a way that is too graphic or pornographic, but that is a separate issue from sexism except when the author is actually doing that as part of an explicitly sexist ideology (see FATAL).  If you can find examples in gaming of rape being normalized or glorified, that makes a strong point - but you are also likely to find it is a point that doesn't help your overall thesis since most tables even if they have a problem with sexism aren't likely to take it to that level (and if they do, they are probably beyond reach anyway).   

c) Stay on target.  You bring a whole laundry list of political issues and assumptions along with what you want to say about sexism.  The more issues you try to address, the more you dilute your point and the more points of disagreement you potentially create with your audience.   As a related point, don't defend 'feminism' if what you are really trying to accomplish is keeping sexism off the table.   Feminists are an abstract group, like corporations, boy scouts, the catholic church, and government.   Feminism is a controversial topic even among women, and even within feminism.  I personally am rather sympathetic to the arguments of Christina Sommers in that somewhere along the line the movement got derailed from its original agenda.  Bringing it up becomes another distraction.   What you want to be defending is people.  A really good essay might involve anecdotes of real girl gamers, not a diatribe about your stand on feminism.  If you can make it personal, that's great too.  Honesty is attractive and invokes empathy.  A slightly less good but better essay would appeal to the women the readers know, or to their own experience.   And maybe you can also write a great essay on racism in gaming, but this isn't it.  You've bitten off more enough for one essay just in discussing sexism.

d) Be clear and specific.  If you are going to advocate for sensitive depictions in gaming materials, you better define what the standards are and how to achieve them.   Don't assume your standards are accepted or understood, because they aren't.  There has to be a level that you can be satisfied at, otherwise you come off as puritanical and impossible to please and vaguely advocating censorship.  And people have to be persuaded that your standards are good ones and worthy of adopting.  Clearly define what you mean by sexism, sexual harassment, and so forth.  Allow for the fact that we can make each other uncomfortable incidentally, and discuss what we do about it either as the uncomfortable party or the party that has incidentally given offense.   And as a related note, be very clear and careful when providing examples.   If 'WoD: Gypsies' is inherently racist don't just presume everyone is familiar with it and accepts your claims.  This is a sub-thesis you need to discuss in detail, compare with your standards, and prove as a conclusion.   And you better be prepared to demonstrate that the Vistani of Ravenloft aren't or are equally as racist by the standard you are using.   But again, it's not even clear to me that WoD: Gypsies belongs in this essay, and not in another one if this is about sexism (unless the book is also very sexist, I'm not that familiar with it).  So tell me about that Nibovian Wife monster and exactly why I should be offended by what is apparently a figure of horror, and why it is wrong for horror to have a sexual component to it?   Given the implicit sexuality of Dracula, would Vampires fail by the same standard?  Why or why not?   Don't assume everyone understands what you are trying to say because the whole point is not everyone has your perspective.  That's why you are writing, right?


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

*Unlurk.*

I think an important distinction has to be made between sexist stories, and sexist gamers.

Sexist adventure scenarios can, as a principle, serve a narrative purpose, if the party can handle it. The distinction of what is and what is not appropriate should depend on the circumstances, as with any work of fiction. 

Now, sexist gamers, that's a different thing: Frankly, if there is somebody on your table who doesn't know how to treat other people with respect, start hanging out with other people.


That all said, I, as a man, feel pretty offended by the semantic booby-trap (hehe) that discussions about the topic tend to become: To generally assume that any display of male, or, for that matter, virile behavior is either a conscious or an unconscious act of sexism, is equally sexist. 
Furthermore, I personally think that there are many immature women who trick themselves into thinking that they receive personal disrespect because of their gender, while they're really receiving disrespect because they behave like idiots. It's just that the idea that being the victim of a chauvinist conspiracy is endlessly more comfortable than to think that one is being held accountable for one's own actions...


----------



## Lwaxy

Le Noir Faineant said:


> *Unlurk.*
> 
> Furthermore, I personally think that there are many immature women who trick themselves into thinking that they receive personal disrespect because of their gender, while they're really receiving disrespect because they behave like idiots.




My former work place in a nutshell.


----------



## Elf Witch

It is not fair to generalize about either sex. And there are stupid woman behaving like jerks the same as there are men who do the same thing. 

Harassment and sexism is not either of the above. Take the harassment many female cosplays and other woman get at cons. It is not flirting, it is not deserved because they are dressed in attention gathering costumes. Walking up to a complete stranger and telling her she has great boobs and would like to come to my room and sit on my face is not flirting it is crude and off putting. Then following the woman around to the point that she starts to worry for her safety is called stalking. 

Some cons have started throwing out guys who behave this way and if the story of the female cosplayer biting someone on the neck and drawing blood is true then she should be thrown out of the con as well. 

Woman are not delicate snowflakes but we do worry more than men do about being sexually assaulted.  Yes men can and do get raped but woman are the victims far more especially if you take out the rape statistics of prison.


I know I was taught a different kind of safety than my brothers. Talking to other woman most were raised the same way. Most rape cases in the news are woman. Colleges warn young woman about the dangers of drinking around men you don't know well. We are taught to watch our drinks at clubs to avoid being roofied. 

People suffering from PTSD have triggers and there is no way to completely protect yourself from them. That being said if violence is a trigger playing RPGs might not be the best hobby. It is pretty apparent that almost all have some form of combat mechanic. But rape is not something I assume is going to be in a game. I do think that putting rape scenarios in published material is a mistake. A rape survivor walking in to play at a con or at a store may be completely blind sided to face a rape scenario. What goes on at home games where people know each other is a totally different matter.


----------



## MJS

Sexism, and racism for that matter, exist. We don't need to prove that here. It is a given, and we should listen to each other, especially those belonging to historically suppressed populations, to eliminate it from our games. Which most everyone is doing, and I applaud.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Elf Witch said:


> Boobs are not the issue I have absolutely no problem with a barbarian going topless as long as she is not living in the frozen wasteland. The issue with chain mail armor and other stripper armor is that it shown being worn on fighter/paladin types. The litmus test for this is simple would this kind of armor be appropriate for a male character to wear.
> 
> There was a reason national geographic which ad pictures of topless woman was allowed in schools and Playboy is not it is how the material is presented.




Well said.  A few years back, the players in my game were going to encounter a potential ally in a female warrior type.  When making major NPCs, I try to find a decent picture online to give the players a visual (example: Liam Cunningham as Davos Seaworth was a world weary cleric NPC) However, when trying to find one of a woman dressed in realistic armor and I could not - so I actually posted here and somebody pointed me to some website about "women in realistic armor" and I finally found some good choices.  Most of my original searches seemed to find women in chainmail bikini tops, or women in form fitting armor that was designed for Dolly Parton.

I agree with you on the situation as well - a female barbarian that is topless or in a leather/hide bikini is fine.  However, a female paladin should not be dressed in the chainmail bikini outfit if a male paladin would not don a skimpy chain shirt.

Sexism is an issue in gaming, though it has been getting better over the years.  Heck, I've also found that most guys are thrilled to have a woman (or women) in the group, but there has been a minority that are not so welcoming, or just not used to being around women.  Back in the late 90s, a gamer in my old group had his girlfriend join us midway through the campaign.  It was a huge group with the DM and 10 players, so I didn't notice anything unusual... however, later on, I found out that another guy that had joined the group a month earlier was leering at her so intensely that it made her uncomfortable, but she was too shy to call him out at the table.  The DM booted the leering guy out of the group between sessions because of it.  I've heard similar stories from other women gamers over the years.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

I would greatly appreciate if people would stop mixing up sexual harassment and sexism. This, I find extremely offensive towards men. Some posters here have written six or seven letter-sized pages of text on male sexism; what about discussing female double standards, while we're at it?

For example, the fantasies expressed in the worldwide bestseller _Shades of Grey_ dwarf any display of sexual encounters I have ever witnessed in any game. Yet, it's socially acceptable, for whatever reason. But, no, we sexist pigs, having our dungeon-looting party of dwarves and hobbits celebrate in the Waterdeep whorehouse, that is so GROSS!


----------



## mythago

I don't think anybody really disagrees with the idea that a rules  system or a GM may set limits on what the players or characters can do,  and that setting limits is not automatically a problem. The contrary  position is by definition somewhat absurd, really. So if you are uninterested in talking about whether _specific_ applications of arbitrary limits make sense, that's your prerogative, but may we take "it is not inherently bad for rules systems or GMs to make arbitrary decisions about what's in and what's out" as a given, absent somebody actually arguing that GMs running a grimdark Joe Abercrombie-style D&D setting are morally obliged to allow a pun-slinging rogue PCstraight out of _Myth Adventures_?



Alzrius said:


> In regards to the former question ("why do they choose those") I actually don't find it all that interesting - how do you conclusively determine what someone else's motivations are? Even if they tell you, how do you know they're being honest?
> 
> In regards to the latter question, if the person(s) setting the limitations doesn't follow them, then that does smack of hypocrisy...but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt for at least a little while, in that maybe they have a reason for why they're violating their own rule. Of course, that degree of trust is presumed that the reason will (sooner, rather than later) be made clear.




...so I can't assume they are being honest, but nonetheless there is an "atmosphere of trust" so I should just quietly assume there's some good reason I'm not being told, and I have to assume rather than ask because if I asked about it they might lie? I'm genuinely not following this. 

What is so awful about politely asking a GM, or a rules designer if you're in that context, why they're doing X when X doesn't seem to fit the limitations they've placed on the game? Because they might lie? Sure, or they might also say "Huh, you know, I hadn't thought of it that way." Or "I know it doesn't seem to make sense, but I promise you there are in-game reasons that you'll find out later." Or "HOW DAR U CHALLENGE MY AUTHORITAY" (which latter merits an entirely different reaction, obviously, but better to find out sooner rather than later if one's GM is a dipstick).


----------



## mythago

Le Noir Faineant said:


> I would greatly appreciate if people would stop mixing up sexual harassment and sexism. This, I find extremely offensive towards men. Some posters here have written six or seven letter-sized pages of text on male sexism; what about discussing female double standards, while we're at it?
> 
> For example, the fantasies expressed in the worldwide bestseller _Shades of Grey_ dwarf any display of sexual encounters I have ever witnessed in any game. Yet, it's socially acceptable, for whatever reason. But, no, we sexist pigs, having our dungeon-looting party of dwarves and hobbits celebrate in the Waterdeep whorehouse, that is so GROSS!





1) There is a popular mainstream bestselling "erotic romance" series which involves a lot of explicit male dominant/female submissive sex scenes.

2) Therefore, any female player who is bothered by the male players wanting their PCs to go _en masse_ to a whorehouse is engaging in a sexist double standard and is unfairly criticizing "virile" male behavior.

It's like one of those problems in kids' magazines where you have to go from STOP to RENT with only six changes of letters; the intervening logical process between #1 and #2 there is a mystery.



NewJeffCT said:


> Sexism is an issue in gaming, though it has been getting better over the years.




Oh gosh yes. Game designers have started to figure out that, hey, she-gamers spend money too. The guy who played with the original D&D boxed set as a teenager grew up and had daughters. The surrounding culture has matured, too. There's still a lot of room for improvement, though. (And not just on the issue of gender, either.)


----------



## Alzrius

mythago said:


> I don't think anybody really disagrees with the idea that a rules  system or a GM may set limits on what the players or characters can do,  and that setting limits is not automatically a problem. The contrary  position is by definition somewhat absurd, really.




I agree that it's an absurd presumption to think that the GM shouldn't set limits on what the PCs can do - but I've encountered people who seem to presume just that. Hence why I was speaking out against that when the specter of that presumption was raised here; I've encountered that attitude before, and I wanted to voice my disagreement with it. That's the sum total of what I was speaking to here.



> _So if you are uninterested in talking about whether specific applications of arbitrary limits make sense, that's your prerogative, but may we take "it is not inherently bad for rules systems or GMs to make arbitrary decisions about what's in and what's out" as a given, absent somebody actually arguing that GMs running a grimdark Joe Abercrombie-style D&D setting are morally obliged to allow a pun-slinging rogue PCstraight out of Myth Adventures?_




You may take it as a given if you wish, but as I said before, I've encountered that degree of player entitlement more than once before. You may think that arguing against such a stance is little more than tilting at windmills, but I've seen that attitude become a real part of some gamers' default assumptions towards how the game should be run (usually along the lines of "the players should tell the GM what they want to play beforehand, and the GM should then design the campaign around that, rather than the GM announcing what he's going to run and telling the players to make characters that conform to that regardless of their wishes").



> _...so I can't assume they are being honest, but nonetheless there is an "atmosphere of trust" so I should just quietly assume there's some good reason I'm not being told, and I have to assume rather than ask because if I asked about it they might lie? I'm genuinely not following this. _




Your confusion is understandable, since you're conflating two separate points I raised.

The first point is that the issue of asking what the motivation is for the GM imposing certain limitations to begin with. I feel that's a useless question to ask, because you can't ever _know_ what someone else's motivation is. If you think that the GM is imposing certain limits because it's a reflection of a politically incorrect ideology that they hold, how do you ascertain that? Do you ask them point blank if they're imposing (to use the example raised in this thread) limits on Strength scores for female PCs because they hate women? If so, how do you know that their answer (which we can presume is a negative) is honest, and not an attempt to avoid admitting to something they know you won't find acceptable? 

In other words, I'm saying that making presumptions about a person's attitudes and beliefs based on what they do or do not allow in their campaign is a foolish thing to do.

The second point is the issue of the GM imposing limits, and then breaking them. This is different because it's not a question of the GM's attitudes and beliefs, but of the internal logic and consistency in the game world. If no dwarves can be wizards, for example, and then the GM introduces a dwarven wizard NPC, that's a question of finding out why - in the context of the game world - that's possible. In that case, I'm saying that there is (or should be) enough trust in the GM to showcase how this can be reconciled with the limitations on the game world while still maintaining internal logic and consistency (which tends to be some sort of exception-based design).

To summarize, you can't ever truly know someone's motivations, but you can know if their actions remain consistent within the boundaries they set. Does that ease your confusion?



> _What is so awful about politely asking a GM, or a rules designer if you're in that context, why they're doing X when X doesn't seem to fit the limitations they've placed on the game? Because they might lie? Sure, or they might also say "Huh, you know, I hadn't thought of it that way." Or "I know it doesn't seem to make sense, but I promise you there are in-game reasons that you'll find out later." Or "HOW DAR U CHALLENGE MY AUTHORITAY" (which latter merits an entirely different reaction, obviously, but better to find out sooner rather than later if one's GM is a dipstick)._




Again, you're confusing the two issues. You can ask someone _how things work_, and you can ask them _why did they do this_ - the difference is that the former question can be answered objectively, whereas the latter cannot be.


----------



## Elf Witch

Le Noir Faineant said:


> I would greatly appreciate if people would stop mixing up sexual harassment and sexism. This, I find extremely offensive towards men. Some posters here have written six or seven letter-sized pages of text on male sexism; what about discussing female double standards, while we're at it?
> 
> For example, the fantasies expressed in the worldwide bestseller _Shades of Grey_ dwarf any display of sexual encounters I have ever witnessed in any game. Yet, it's socially acceptable, for whatever reason. But, no, we sexist pigs, having our dungeon-looting party of dwarves and hobbits celebrate in the Waterdeep whorehouse, that is so GROSS!




You really need to reread what has been said here. Not one poster has said anything about sexual fantasies. Having your fictional character visit a whore house is not the same thing as making crude sexual innuendo comments to a female player at the table or at a con. Sexism is not looking at a sexy dressed cosplayer and thinking privately how you would like to have sex with her.


----------



## mythago

Alzrius said:


> The first point is that the issue of asking what the motivation is for the GM imposing certain limitations to begin with. I feel that's a useless question to ask, because you can't ever _know_ what someone else's motivation is. If you think that the GM is imposing certain limits because it's a reflection of a politically incorrect ideology that they hold, how do you ascertain that? Do you ask them point blank if they're imposing (to use the example raised in this thread) limits on Strength scores for female PCs because they hate women? If so, how do you know that their answer (which we can presume is a negative) is honest, and not an attempt to avoid admitting to something they know you won't find acceptable?




The irony of "politically correct ideology" as a phrase is that it is, itself a politically-correct euphemism, and ultimately a self-serving one, meant to turn that frown upside down and turn what we might, less-euphemistically, characterize as anything ranging from unconscious short-sightedness to outright bigotry as a kind of brave, individualistic rebellion against rigid and punitive groupthink. Can we avoid this, please? We're grownups and don't need euphemisms.

Your argument is an odd one, as it presupposes that because we cannot actually read minds, communication is useless; further, that the only possible way to engage in a dialogue about contradictory rules is confrontational and accusatory. Instead of "Hey, Steph, why do you hate women?" one could just as easily ask "Why have a strength cap for females because of 'real world' human limitations when we don't apply those 'real world' limitations to, say, falling damage or fireballs?" or even just "Why is there a strength cap?"

Since we're talking about communication between people who get along well enough to game together, again, this is a dialogue, not a trial. Perhaps Stephanie will realize that, in the context of her game, it _doesn't_ make sense to insist on strict real-world limitations on upper-body strength while handwaving similar limitations on how human skin reacts to fire. Perhaps instead she'll explain that there is a good in-game reason that would be spoilers to explain right now (such as the curse of an evil god on all womankind, and the players will eventually defeat this evil god). 

I mean, let's take this out of the issue of gender for a moment, and assume that Stephanie the GM's boyfriend joins the game as a regular player. STGMB regularly gets treasure, positive NPC interactions and cutscenes that the rest of the group doesn't and hasn't gotten. Can I read Stephanie's mind? Of course not. Might there be good reasons for her actions? Of course. But I doubt anybody would advise me to STFU and hope that someday the reasons would become clear; I rather suspect that most, if not all, of the advice I would get here (other than "leave the game") would be to _talk to her_, to express my concerns in a constructive manner (because "Stephanie, stop letting your bedwarmer hog all the game time" is going to get us _nowhere) _and listen to what she says. It may be that Stephanie had no idea she was actually giving Bob special treatment! Or perhaps Bob has been doing particularly smart things with his character that I didn't notice, and Stephanie will point this out to me. Or perhaps there is a good in-game reason for all this that she can either explain, or tell me I will discover in the next few games, and asks me to trust her on this. (Or perhaps the response is angry denial and personal attacks, or weird evasiveness. _That_ kind of response, in and of itself, is an answer.)




Alzrius said:


> In other words, I'm saying that making presumptions about a person's attitudes and beliefs based on what they do or do not allow in their campaign is a foolish thing to do.




Yes, that would be the point of engaging in dialogue - so one does not make presumptions. "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time", btw, which you advocate as an appropriate position to take when a GM or a rules system appears to be in contradiction, it itself a presumption about a person's attitudes and beliefs.



Alzrius said:


> The second point is the issue of the GM imposing limits, and then breaking them. This is different because it's not a question of the GM's attitudes and beliefs, but of the internal logic and consistency in the game world. If no dwarves can be wizards, for example, and then the GM introduces a dwarven wizard NPC, that's a question of finding out why - in the context of the game world - that's possible. In that case, I'm saying that there is (or should be) enough trust in the GM to showcase how this can be reconciled with the limitations on the game world while still maintaining internal logic and consistency (which tends to be some sort of exception-based design).




If there is trust in the GM, shouldn't there be enough trust to be confident that one can ask "Wait, I thought the rule was X but this thing seems to violate rule X?" This is especially so when problem is less an exception to a particular rule (dwarves can't be wizards, women have a strength cap, but *this* NPC is unusual for specific reasons), but is an inconsistency in the underlying logic of the game. If a GM says that the milieu is going to adhere strictly to the social mores of Tokugawa-era Japan, then the players ought to be surprised if samurai are cheerfully running around shooting handguns without anyone batting an eye about it. That would be different from a game in which a particular samurai pulls a handgun on the players. ("Wait, I thought this was forbidden? Oh wait, Evil Lord Hoshio probably doesn't give a rip about the code of honor. Okay then.") 




Alzrius said:


> To summarize, you can't ever truly know someone's motivations, but you can know if their actions remain consistent within the boundaries they set. Does that ease your confusion?
> 
> 
> Again, you're confusing the two issues. You can ask someone _how things work_, and you can ask them _why did they do this_ - the difference is that the former question can be answered objectively, whereas the latter cannot be.




Certainly the latter can be answered objectively; one may disagree with the reasoning, but I don't see why it is impossible to answer objectively.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

mythago said:


> 1) There is a popular mainstream bestselling "erotic romance" series which involves a lot of explicit male dominant/female submissive sex scenes.
> 
> 2) Therefore, any female player who is bothered by the male players wanting their PCs to go _en masse_ to a whorehouse is engaging in a sexist double standard and is unfairly criticizing "virile" male behavior.
> 
> It's like one of those problems in kids' magazines where you have to go from STOP to RENT with only six changes of letters; the intervening logical process between #1 and #2 there is a mystery.




I congratulate you to that catchphrase! You should go fight the swordmaster.

Let me slowly lead you to the path of enlightenment, though: 
Would the example given in 2) be less exist, if there was no female player on the gaming table?
Because I think that's where you take away the wrong conclusion.



Elf Witch said:


> You really need to reread what has been said here. Not one poster has said anything about sexual fantasies. Having your fictional character visit a whore house is not the same thing as making crude sexual innuendo comments to a female player at the table or at a con. Sexism is not looking at a sexy dressed cosplayer and thinking privately how you would like to have sex with her.




Look, we agree, it's just semantics. As in, in the same post that you complained about con stalkers, you immediately afterwards mentioned DMs presenting topics in their games that possibly might - as in, have the potential chance to - offend PTSD victims. That's two very different things, and that's were I took offense.


----------



## mythago

Le Noir Faineant said:


> I congratulate you to that catchphrase! You should go fight the swordmaster.
> 
> Let me slowly lead you to the path of enlightenment, though:
> Would the example given in 2) be less exist, if there was no female player on the gaming table?
> Because I think that's where you take away the wrong conclusion.




But we haven't even gotten to the question of whether 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse' is or is not sexist (and you seem to be assuming that I do, in fact, think it is, which I have not said). You argued that because _Shades of Grey_ is a novel written by a woman and with a female targeted audience contains very explicit sex scenes, any female player who is bothered by 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse' is engaging in a double standard. I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second, and you still haven't explained it.


----------



## Lwaxy

And let's not forget a lot of women find "Shades of Grey" totally disgusting.


----------



## Elf Witch

Le Noir Faineant said:


> I congratulate you to that catchphrase! You should go fight the swordmaster.
> 
> Let me slowly lead you to the path of enlightenment, though:
> Would the example given in 2) be less exist, if there was no female player on the gaming table?
> Because I think that's where you take away the wrong conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, we agree, it's just semantics. As in, in the same post that you complained about con stalkers, you immediately afterwards mentioned DMs presenting topics in their games that possibly might - as in, have the potential chance to - offend PTSD victims. That's two very different things, and that's were I took offense.




I still don't understand what you are taking offense to? I am serious I don't understand your point at al. 

They are both subjects often brought up when discussing woman in gaming or woman in any fandom for that matter. 

What you described as characters going off to a whorehouse is not the same thing as rape in a game. Why would that even be an issue unless you are playing with underage children?


----------



## Elf Witch

Lwaxy said:


> And let's not forget a lot of women find "Shades of Grey" totally disgusting.




I don't find the topic disgusting I do find the novels badly written.


----------



## Alzrius

mythago said:


> The irony of "politically correct ideology" as a phrase is that it is, itself a politically-correct euphemism, and ultimately a self-serving one, meant to turn that frown upside down and turn what we might, less-euphemistically, characterize as anything ranging from unconscious short-sightedness to outright bigotry as a kind of brave, individualistic rebellion against rigid and punitive groupthink. Can we avoid this, please? We're grownups and don't need euphemisms.




I disagree with your characterization of the term. It's not a euphemism, but rather a shorthand. You may find it to connote a pejorative meaning towards issues of social justice, but I don't concur with you there; calling something "politically correct" does not imply that that which isn't politically correct is the purview of some sort of free-thinking radical who's fighting against oppressive group-think. As such, I feel no particular need to abandon the term.



> _Your argument is an odd one, as it presupposes that because we cannot actually read minds, communication is useless; further, that the only possible way to engage in a dialogue about contradictory rules is confrontational and accusatory. Instead of "Hey, Steph, why do you hate women?" one could just as easily ask "Why have a strength cap for females because of 'real world' human limitations when we don't apply those 'real world' limitations to, say, falling damage or fireballs?" or even just "Why is there a strength cap?"_




The problem with your reasoning here is that you've extended my original point to a ridiculous conclusion - you seem to think that I'm saying that because we can't objectively know someone else's thoughts and feelings, that all of communication is impossible. It's not; that's a fairly silly assertion to make, and it's not the one I'm making. I'm simply saying that making a leap between what people create, or consume, or enjoy has nothing to do with their attitudes and beliefs towards other people.

It's also important to point out the illogical leap you made between this and discussing "illogical" rules - that being a somewhat loaded term where most games are based around inductive reasoning, if not abductive - as the two aren't related (something which I pointed out in my previous post). That's without even getting into the weird presumption you made that it must be confrontational; again, you're reading too much into my example - that was only to point out that even with a direct question-and-answer session on the topic, you can't know what someone else's motivation is.

To that end, the other example questions you've posted don't really make any sort of point. Again, you can phrase the question any way you like, but when you're asking about someone else's opinions and beliefs, you aren't ever going to be sure that you're getting the truth from them. Hence, any kind of presumption - from a guess to them telling you outright - remains just a presumption, and as such has no informative value. If you think that a person is instituting a Strength cap for female characters because of prejudice, then there's no way for them to "prove" that that isn't the case.



> _Since we're talking about communication between people who get along well enough to game together, again, this is a dialogue, not a trial. Perhaps Stephanie will realize that, in the context of her game, it doesn't make sense to insist on strict real-world limitations on upper-body strength while handwaving similar limitations on how human skin reacts to fire. Perhaps instead she'll explain that there is a good in-game reason that would be spoilers to explain right now (such as the curse of an evil god on all womankind, and the players will eventually defeat this evil god). _




I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here. I've never held that there isn't any value in the exchange of information and ideas - there is. I'm just saying that you can't use anything as a definitive indicator of their beliefs. That doesn't undercut the value of communication. Likewise, I'm not saying that things should be "like a trial" - you're again reading too much into the example I posted before.



> _I mean, let's take this out of the issue of gender for a moment, and assume that Stephanie the GM's boyfriend joins the game as a regular player. STGMB regularly gets treasure, positive NPC interactions and cutscenes that the rest of the group doesn't and hasn't gotten. Can I read Stephanie's mind? Of course not. Might there be good reasons for her actions? Of course. But I doubt anybody would advise me to STFU and hope that someday the reasons would become clear; I rather suspect that most, if not all, of the advice I would get here (other than "leave the game") would be to talk to her, to express my concerns in a constructive manner (because "Stephanie, stop letting your bedwarmer hog all the game time" is going to get us nowhere) and listen to what she says. It may be that Stephanie had no idea she was actually giving Bob special treatment! Or perhaps Bob has been doing particularly smart things with his character that I didn't notice, and Stephanie will point this out to me. Or perhaps there is a good in-game reason for all this that she can either explain, or tell me I will discover in the next few games, and asks me to trust her on this. (Or perhaps the response is angry denial and personal attacks, or weird evasiveness. That kind of response, in and of itself, is an answer.)_




Again, you're arguing against a position that I've never taken. I said that when the GM violates a limitation that they've set down, you can hold this up to reasoning to the point of determining the objective question of why that's so. Now, I did personally advocate that you give the GM some breathing room to showcase that reason, and so reconcile the that exception to a limitation in a manner that satisfies internal logic and consistency...but you don't have to do so. If you want, you can just ask her why that is - and again, it goes without saying that you should do this in a non-confrontational manner (I've never suggested otherwise) - either way, the point is that this is something that can be subject to verification.



> _Yes, that would be the point of engaging in dialogue - so one does not make presumptions. "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time", btw, which you advocate as an appropriate position to take when a GM or a rules system appears to be in contradiction, it itself a presumption about a person's attitudes and beliefs._




It's all a presumption - asking them what their motivation is simply extends the presumption to "they're telling the truth" rather than "I've inferred their motivations based on their game." If that's enough for you, then that's fine.

That said, you're idea of "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time" is a hideous conflation - for the second time - of two separate ideas. The reconciliation of a limitation and an exception to that limitation is something that can be verified, and (I think) a good GM will make that clear over time. But "I'm sure they mean well" is just another guess that you've made about their motives.



> _If there is trust in the GM, shouldn't there be enough trust to be confident that one can ask "Wait, I thought the rule was X but this thing seems to violate rule X?" This is especially so when problem is less an exception to a particular rule (dwarves can't be wizards, women have a strength cap, but *this* NPC is unusual for specific reasons), but is an inconsistency in the underlying logic of the game. If a GM says that the milieu is going to adhere strictly to the social mores of Tokugawa-era Japan, then the players ought to be surprised if samurai are cheerfully running around shooting handguns without anyone batting an eye about it. That would be different from a game in which a particular samurai pulls a handgun on the players. ("Wait, I thought this was forbidden? Oh wait, Evil Lord Hoshio probably doesn't give a rip about the code of honor. Okay then.") _




By all means, ask. The question of when the GM presents the reconciliation of limits and exceptions to those limits is less important than there is one at all; I personally feel you should give the GM some breathing room in that regard, but it's fine if you need to know why that's happening the instant that it happens.



> _Certainly the latter can be answered objectively; one may disagree with the reasoning, but I don't see why it is impossible to answer objectively._




It's impossible to answer objectively because when you ask someone why they did something, you don't know if there answer is true or not. You can't ever know. Are they telling you their honest feelings, or are they making an argument to reconcile with what they think will satisfy your (presumed) objection? It can lead to a useful exchange of ideas, but ultimately you're going to have to decide if what their telling you is their honest feelings or not, and that's just a guess.


----------



## Lwaxy

Elf Witch said:


> I don't find the topic disgusting I do find the novels badly written.




Maybe it's the combination of topic and writing style for me but... waah


----------



## Libertad

Le Noir Faineant said:


> I would greatly appreciate if people would stop mixing up sexual harassment and sexism. This, I find extremely offensive towards men. Some posters here have written six or seven letter-sized pages of text on male sexism; what about discussing female double standards, while we're at it?
> 
> For example, the fantasies expressed in the worldwide bestseller _Shades of Grey_ dwarf any display of sexual encounters I have ever witnessed in any game. Yet, it's socially acceptable, for whatever reason. But, no, we sexist pigs, having our dungeon-looting party of dwarves and hobbits celebrate in the Waterdeep whorehouse, that is so GROSS!




In regards to sexual harassment, it can be related to sexism in incidents with overwhelming gender disparity, or when one party feels that they can "get away" with their behavior because of "she shouldn't complain for dressing that way!" or "he's a guy, of course he wants it!"

But in almost all countries in the world, and in the tabletop fandom, sexism towards women is much deeper, more pervasive, and more systemic.  Thus the focus on my original post; people who talk about sexism against women are not denying incidents of sexism against men or saying that they're not important, just like how people who focus on one problem in society are not denying other problems by default.

In regards to sexual themes in gaming sessions, it depends upon the comfort and context.  It can become harassing behavior if one player becomes the butt of unwelcome sexual jokes and in-game advances to make him/her uncomfortable.

In the case of conventions, it has to do with some men who think that since a woman is dressed all sexy that gives them the right to make unwelcome advances towards them.

Shades of Grey is different in that it's a media consumed in private.  And the reader is reading it of their own free will.

The difference is about consent.



Lwaxy said:


> Maybe it's the combination of topic and writing style for me but... waah




Well, it IS Twilight fanfiction!


----------



## Elf Witch

Lwaxy said:


> Maybe it's the combination of topic and writing style for me but... waah




I was beaten to the comment about it being Twilight fanfic. Though I give props to the writer for making something that brought her in income. The same with Stephanie Meyers. I don't judge what other people read. I have been judged and told that despite the hundreds of SF and Fantasy sitting on my shelves the fact that I enjoy a romance novel now and then means I am not a true geek. 

One of the things I have noticed that woman get subjected to a lot more than guys is the "true geek" crap. 

Over the years I have been told that I was not a true geek because I like make up and have an unholy passion for shoes. Though thanks to the Goths this has eased up and is not as bad as it was in the 70s and 80s. Now I get you are not a true geek because your knowledge of the Avengers comes from the movies. The fact that I read other comics like every issue of Birds of Prey, Witchblade, Wonder Woman doesn't count to these jerks. 

I was at a Doctor Who con and watched some guys savage a young girl because she was a not a true fan because she has only seen new Who.


----------



## Umbran

Elf Witch said:


> One of the things I have noticed that woman get subjected to a lot more than guys is the "true geek" crap.




Oh, goodness, yes.  The "true geek" and the related "fake geek girl" crud needs to die.


----------



## Lwaxy

Elf Witch said:


> the fact that I enjoy a romance novel now and then means I am not a true geek.




I got the same about liking mystery and criminal stories. And of course, considering the fact that I hate superman/batman/all other superhero stuff and read few comics, I also got the "not a true geek" comment a few times. I usually just throw it back at them for not liking Star Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5/Faerun etc 

Not sure as this is that much more of an issue with women, my husband keeps getting "not a true geek" a lot, too.


----------



## Celebrim

Lwaxy said:


> Not sure as this is that much more of an issue with women, my husband keeps getting "not a true geek" a lot, too.




My wife likes to say she is a 'half-geek'.  

I'd guess that this is a pretty common point of mild but still annoying and unacceptable sexism that women have to put up with more than men.   By the same standards, I'm not a true geek - but my geek credentials are rarely doubted.  I suspect my departure from mainstream geekdom would get more questioning if I was a woman though.

My advice is to treat this as the sort of minor hazing any cultural group does when trying to evaluate potential membership and go, "I'm geekier than thou" on them.  Don't focus on the sexism, since at least some of the time you'd be wrong - men would get the same treatment at least some of the time.  Throwing it back at them is the appropriate response.

For example...

a) I don't like Star Trek.  If given the 'you aren't a true geek' over this, I respond with a detailed critique as to why a true geek shouldn't like Star Trek - technobabble, soap opera in space, zero sum plots, self-contradiction, illogical and frequently bad movies, thrown away plot points, mass marketed appeal, frequent lack of depth, Voyager, etc.  Babylon 5 and the lamented untimely killed Firefly were better.
b) I don't like Dr. Who.  Sorry.  If you like Dr. Who, and it's not because your British and filled with nostalgia, its only because you are so starved for Sci Fi that your willing to swallow British treacle and dreck.  If you want British sci-fi TV, you should watch Red Dwarf, which by virtue of being aware it was schlocky, silly and campy managed to be both more fun and more thoughtful.

And so forth.  Basically, you only need a geek reason for not liking something, and to point out your affection for something further from the mainstream to totally blow up charges of you lack true geek cred.  At the worst, you'll end up in the sort of passionate argument about trivia that geeks love.


----------



## Lwaxy

Hehe we totally agree on Dr. Who and would probably get into an extensive discussion over Star Trek 

Being geeky became ok, if not cool, so I think we'll see the "true blood" geeks trying to separate from the perceived "half-bloods" even more in the future. "I got mundanes in my geekdom" kind of stuff. And of course, with more fans for any franchise this also means more women. And the % is females playing, albeit sometimes different RPGs, goes up.


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> I'd guess that this is a pretty common point of mild but still annoying and unacceptable sexism that women have to put up with more than men.   By the same standards, I'm not a true geek - but my geek credentials are rarely doubted.  I suspect my departure from mainstream geekdom would get more questioning if I was a woman though.




Yup. That's the point of the "fake geek girl" nonsense - the assumption that women can't really be geeks and/or must have some ulterior motive for involving themselves in geekdom, such as undeservedly absorbing praise from lonely neckbeards.



Celebrim said:


> My advice is to treat this as the sort of minor hazing any cultural group does when trying to evaluate potential membership and go, "I'm geekier than thou" on them.  Don't focus on the sexism, since at least some of the time you'd be wrong - men would get the same treatment at least some of the time.  Throwing it back at them is the appropriate response.




While I appreciate that you're trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I respectfully disagree that this is a workable solution, particularly given the actual experiences of women on the receiving end of the Fake Girl Geek nonsense.

First, the analogy of 'hazing' is inapt. Hazing is what happens when people who are in a particular group have the power to admit or deny entry to that group, and impose some hurdles on all new members - which they, themselves, went through when they were new - to make sure the applicant is worthy and membership is "earned". Geekdom isn't a group with a limited membership, where more experienced geeks all had to get quizzed on Dr. Who knowledge or THACO tables to be allowed to call themselves geeks, and now have the right to require the same of others. 

More, the idea of an exclusive Studio 54-type of club is pretty much anathema to the whole idea of geekery. (That point, along with an excellent takedown of the concept of Geekier Than Thou, was done much more cleverly than I could here.)

The nature of the community aside, the point of this Fake Geek Girl harassment _isn't_ to test and include. It's to exclude. She's not really a geek; she's _pretending_ to be a geek, and must be exposed for the fraud she is! And how do we know she's a geek? Why, because she's a girl, or at least a girl who doesn't fit the stereotype of what an _actual_ Geek Girl is like, presuming that the self-appointed Champion of Geekery admits such could exist.

(By the way, this is why it's sexism even if it were hazing; because women are assumed to be newbies merely by virtue of the fact that they are women.)

So, no, trying to out-geek is not a solution. For starters, it's utterly useless to someone who is a geek, but whose experience/familiarity/obsession doesn't match the Self-Appointed Champion's. You or I would probably not even blink at the idea of an 18-year-old who has been gaming since she was old enough to pick up a dice bag calling herself a "gaming geek", but she isn't going to "out-geek" the guy three times her age who cut his teeth on the original _Traveler_. And the Self-Appointed Champion, the type of person who really thinks there is a problem with Fake Geek Girls, is not likely to be the sort of person to graciously admit defeat and declare he's been outgunned, as opposed to, say, continuing to be hostile, or finding some other "reason" the Girl in question is truly a Fake Geek.

And going right back to the subject of the thread: There's a more important reason, though, that "just out-geek 'em" is not a solution. It's that the Fake Geek Girl Inquisition _is the problem._ When a community has a culture in which it's accepted, or at worst tolerated, to assume that women don't belong and have to prove their right to participate to anyone who feels like making it an issue? When participating in one's beloved hobby with others means having to deal with being treated as a malicious "fake" because one has the temerity to have boobs? _That_ is a problem, whether or not any individual woman is able to run the trivia gauntlet.

I suspect at this point you may be bursting to tell me that the guys who pull this BS are a minority; and that is probably true. But even a minority of badly-behaving people can poison a group, especially if the group seems to ignore or tolerate their behavior or treat it as something one just has to deal with, shrug.


----------



## Celebrim

mythago said:


> While I appreciate that you're trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I respectfully disagree that this is a workable solution, particularly given the actual experiences of women on the receiving end of the Fake Girl Geek nonsense.




Not only is it the workable solution, it's the only workable solution.  You think you are going to come into a social group and dictate terms to them?  Really?  That's your idea of how to gain acceptability?



> First, the analogy of 'hazing' is inapt.




No it isn't.



> Hazing is what happens when people who are in a particular group have the power to admit or deny entry to that group, and impose some hurdles on all new members - which they, themselves, went through when they were new - to make sure the applicant is worthy and membership is "earned". Geekdom isn't a group with a limited membership...




Sure it is.  All social and cultural groups have limited memberships and while you can't be denied entry into geekdom, you can be denied acceptance into it.  This is true of any cultural group, but its also true of any group of strangers.  Your acceptance is always predicated on your ability to impress the group that you belong.  To a certain extent, this is precisely how geekdom got started - the geeks were unable to impress any other group that they belonged.   Your membership to a certain extent depended on having that experience as a shared experience.

But every social and cultural group has a high percentage of members that desire exclusivity because it fosters high commonality and trust between members of the group.  You are threatening the groups cohesion when you try to force change on them, and frankly you are telling the groups 'it's me or you'.   That's not a very workable solution.



> where more experienced geeks all had to get quizzed on Dr. Who knowledge or THACO tables to be allowed to call themselves geeks, and now have the right to require the same of others.




Every group has the right to screen its membership and decide whether you have a right to participate socially, and even if you deny that they have that right it doesn't change the reality of the fact that they do behave this way - right or not.  This is true of cheerleaders, Hassidic Jews, feminists, communists, conservatives, jocks, construction workers, goths, etc.   You might get more harassment joining a construction crew as a woman, but harassment wouldn't be exclusive to you being a woman.  Believe me, it was a major obstacle for me to convince them an 'egghead' belonged in such a group.   

You want a challenge, you try fitting into social groups where you are the only member of your racial group.  Or try fitting into a group of inner city northerners whose only experience of the south is The Dukes of Hazard as a rural southerner.  You try convincing some Appalachian good old boy in his hunting cabin, that he can talk to you while you are wearing a federal agent badge because you are a member of his social group and sympathetic to his concerns.  You think you get him to accept you, call off his dogs, by expressing your outrage over his stereotyping?  It doesn't work that way.



> The nature of the community aside, the point of this Fake Geek Girl harassment _isn't_ to test and include. It's to exclude.




The nature of all harassment and testing isn't to include, but to exclude.  All social groups are inherently exclusive and not inclusive.  This includes the geeks, who have long since left the domain of when it was solely the group for people who didn't belong anywhere else.   Geekdom is increasingly 'cool', and the geeks with that old common culture experience are like, "What are you doing here?"   Ultimately, this isn't solely being motivated by fear of women, and I think it's wrong to view it that way.  It's fear of change.  Fear of social dissolution.  Your dealing with people many of whom are on the edge of being autistic wondering where there comfortable predictable social environment went, and you are telling me that the 'workable solution' is what?  Because I see a lot of criticism and outrage in your post, but not a lot that looks like a solution.



> And the Self-Appointed Champion, the type of person who really thinks there is a problem with Fake Geek Girls, is not likely to be the sort of person to graciously admit defeat and declare he's been outgunned, as opposed to, say, continuing to be hostile, or finding some other "reason" the Girl in question is truly a Fake Geek.




And you really think that someone uncomfortable with your entry into a social setting is going to be more likely to admit defeat and cease being hostile if you .... what?  Hold a rally?  Call for diversity training?  Angrily denounce his sexism?  Challenge him for membership in the group?  Threaten to exclude him?   Appeal to the other members of the group for sensitivity?   What do you think this is Survivor: GenCon?   You really think even the sympathetic people of a group, the non-sexist people of the group, are going to be really sympathetic if you try to rally them against their friend on account of his sexism?  You think this is a more workable solution than showing what you have in common?  You think that's a better solution than showing you can't be put at unease and that your are good natured regardless of whether you are treated poorly?   You think that's a better solution than showing you are emotionally tough and that you can give as good as you get?   Because I promise you it's not, whether we are talking entry into a gaming group or a business situation or a position of leadership.



> It's that the Fake Geek Girl Inquisition _is the problem._




It doesn't matter what the problem is.   Problems abound.   They won't stop.   What matters are the solutions, which you are very much not offering.



> When a community has a culture in which it's accepted, or at worst tolerated, to assume that women don't belong and have to prove their right to participate to anyone who feels like making it an issue? When participating in one's beloved hobby with others means having to deal with being treated as a malicious "fake" because one has the temerity to have boobs? _That_ is a problem, whether or not any individual woman is able to run the trivia gauntlet.




The world is filled with evils.  You will be excluded for all sorts of reasons, being a woman just one among many.   The geeks aren't so different from the rest of humanity as all of that. 



> I suspect at this point you may be bursting to tell me that the guys who pull this BS are a minority...




No.  That would be ridiculous.   It may be true, I don't really know, that the guys that pull this BS _simply because you are a woman_ are in a minority.   I suspect that is true because at some level most men, sexist or not, are going to be more accepting of you and more desirous to include you because you are a woman - which has it's own set of problems, not the least of which is feelings of jealousy and lost social status by some other members of the group.   But then again, it may not be.  It may be that most geeks are sexist.  I've never known 'most geeks'.   No, what I would tell you is that the percentage of people who 'pull this BS' is nearly 100%.  That you can pick up journal articles that discuss why membership in exclusive groups are favored and why all people like to feel that their groups are more exclusive than inclusive.  This is the reality of human interaction.   Some people are naturally good at it.   Most geeks are not.  I'm certainly not.  I can succeed by approaching the problem intellectually, and well, role-playing.



> seems to ignore or tolerate their behavior or treat it as something one just has to deal with, shrug.




It doesn't really matter in that since whether it's ignored or tolerated or not, one just has to deal with it.   That's one of the commonalities of the geek experience, I would think.  We've all had to deal with rejection.   You want to insist and believe that the hurdles are too high and you'll never get across them because every one is just so sexist?   That's not a solution.   Are you saying that the in crowd needs to champion you in order for you to gain admission?   That's not a solution either.


----------



## billd91

Celebrim said:


> Every group has the right to screen its membership and decide whether you have a right to participate socially, and even if you deny that they have that right it doesn't change the reality of the fact that they do behave this way - right or not.  This is true of cheerleaders, Hassidic Jews, feminists, communists, conservatives, jocks, construction workers, goths, etc.   You might get more harassment joining a construction crew as a woman, but harassment wouldn't be exclusive to you being a woman.  Believe me, it was a major obstacle for me to convince them an 'egghead' belonged in such a group.




Groups may do this, but not every group has the *right* to do it beyond their own little social clique. That's affording the practice a legitimacy that doesn't exist. That groups do this broadly doesn't make it a right at all. They certainly don't have the right to do it at a convention or on a web site that others have organized and are determined to make open and inviting.  



Celebrim said:


> And you really think that someone uncomfortable with your entry into a social setting is going to be more likely to admit defeat and cease being hostile if you .... what?  Hold a rally?  Call for diversity training?  Angrily denounce his sexism?  Challenge him for membership in the group?  Threaten to exclude him?   Appeal to the other members of the group for sensitivity?   What do you think this is Survivor: GenCon?   You really think even the sympathetic people of a group, the non-sexist people of the group, are going to be really sympathetic if you try to rally them against their friend on account of his sexism?  You think this is a more workable solution than showing what you have in common?  You think that's a better solution than showing you can't be put at unease and that your are good natured regardless of whether you are treated poorly?   You think that's a better solution than showing you are emotionally tough and that you can give as good as you get?   Because I promise you it's not, whether we are talking entry into a gaming group or a business situation or a position of leadership.




In the public venues in which this occurs, there are tools available that should be used including bringing in con security or other event organizers. And I, for one, am determined to do so when some cretin tries to alpha geek either my wife or daughter because they're not geeky enough for him. 

Private attitudes are private attitudes. But public behavior is public behavior and can, and should, be sanctioned appropriately.


----------



## Celebrim

billd91 said:


> Groups may do this, but not every group has the *right* to do it beyond their own little social clique. That's affording the practice a legitimacy that doesn't exist. That groups do this broadly doesn't make it a right at all.




Err... hmmm...  That may be too deep of water for me to dive into this morning on little sleep.



> They certainly don't have the right to do it at a convention or on a web site that others have organized and are determined to make open and inviting.
> 
> In the public venues in which this occurs, there are tools available that should be used including bringing in con security or other event organizers. And I, for one, am determined to do so when some cretin tries to alpha geek either my wife or daughter because they're not geeky enough for him.
> 
> Private attitudes are private attitudes. But public behavior is public behavior and can, and should, be sanctioned appropriately.




That may be true, but the original guide was explicitly not a guide to gaming with strangers.

Without being an expert on Convention etiquette, I'll say this, I tend to consider appealing to authority in any situation to intervene to be a last recourse which I am very reluctant to take.  I can certainly imagine it reaching that level, but I wouldn't imagine it is normal for it to reach that level.   In any event though, if that is solely the issue then there are problems.   You are solely dependent now on the judgment of the authority figure; you've kind of eliminated any control you have over the situation.  If the solution is really going to the authority figure to have them exclude the offending party and the authority figures are good with that, then what's the problem really?  What is being advocated for?  "You have a right to go to the authority figure every time you feel uncomfortable."; essay complete?


----------



## mythago

billd91 said it more concisely and wisely than I would have.

Celebrim, the solution is to talk about the problem, and _both as individuals and as a community_, work to solve the problem. That is exactly what we're doing here. And as practical action, that means, as billd91 notes, that the "sympathetic" and "non-sexist" members of the group need to tell the Self-Appointed Guardian to knock it off when he takes it upon himself to get in the face of a new female player, instead of quietly hoping that she can pull a nerd version of a _Karate Kid-_style finishing move to send him packing forever. It means that a public convention need to have policies and procedures in place to deal with people who _for whatever reason_ are harassing or "hazing" others - because, you know, if the organizers of a con really wanted some kind of hazing procedure in place for attendees, they'd probably have one, instead of expecting random people to appoint themselves that function. It also means, as gamers, being clear that what we care about is whether you want to love this hobby right along with us, and not whether you pee sitting down or go to every Gen Con or own the _original_ edition of Chainmail.

Celebrim, you keep bursting into these angry Grand Guignol rants about "contrition" and "diversity" and "sensitivity" and calling for rallies and repeately attributing arguments to people that they have never actually made. This is strawmanning. I get the impression that you are not doing so as a deliberate rhetorical tactic, but because you have very strong feels on the subject of sexism in general, but you may wish to consider that it detracts from your position. I mean, imagine how much consideration _you_ would give to somebody who demanded "Clearly, you think the solution is for girl gamers to politely beg for permission to game after cheerfully meeting whatever Neckbeard Trivia Tests any dude wants to throw their way"? Not much, I'm guessing (nor should you) - so why expect that others will give much consideration to your arguments cast in the same emotional, accusatory mode?

As a side note: before you start on a grand lecture about How the World Works, you might want to consider that other people, too, live in the world, and may have some experience - perhaps even more than you yourself! - on dealing with harassment, or being the a member of minority X in a group of Ys, or what does and doesn't work to handle a hostile person whose goal is to put you down and keep you out. And perhaps, in the context of the discussion, that longtime female gamers might have just a _bit_ more experience than you about the Fake Geek Girl issue and what does and doesn't work to address it.


----------



## Celebrim

mythago said:


> And as practical action, that means, as billd91 notes, that the "sympathetic" and "non-sexist" members of the group need to tell the Self-Appointed Guardian to knock it off when he takes it upon himself to get in the face of a new female player, instead of quietly hoping that she can pull a nerd version of a _Karate Kid-_style finishing move to send him packing forever.




First, the goal is never to send anyone packing forever.  

Secondly, judged as a practical action, what you've suggested at best buys the group some time.  I've said before that if I had one player being a jerk to another player, it was something I'd have to deal with.   I've never had to deal with this particular problem, but yeah, this is a pull the player aside at the end of the session and say, "What the heck, Bob?" sort of moment.  "How about we not act like a jerk toward the new player, k?"  And conversely, "I apologize for Bob's behavior Sue.  That was uncalled for and I'm going to talk to him about it."  

But there is a very strong possibility that me coming down on Bob, especially if I do it public like isn't going to have the effect you think.  

a) Bob could now be jealous of Sue.  Do you like Sue more than me?  Is that why you are favoring them?
b) Bob could see the fact that I've intervened on Sue's behalf, proof she's a weak link.  Why do you need to protect Sue?  That's just what I thought she'd do - run to daddy GM for protection.   Boo hoo.
c) The other players may side with Bob.  Look, we all got along before Sue came along.  Clearly Sue just doesn't fit in this group.  It's not that she's a woman or anything, it's just she just doesn't really have the right personality.

And you know, I don't know whether the odds are higher of all this happening if Sue is a woman, but I can tell you that its a pretty normal human dynamic even if it is a boy named Sue.  It certainly doesn't happen all the time (thank God), but it's the way I've seen people behave. 

At best, if Bob really is being a problem my siding with Sue is just buying some time.   Ultimately Sue still needs to convince Bob she brings value to the group, and the only way to do that is .... bring value to the group.   Then whatever was motivating Bob's dislike of Sue, hopefully we get a new Bob that says, "Wow, X really can bring value to the group."   One person.  One relationship at a time.



> Celebrim, you keep bursting into these angry Grand Guignol....




+1 geek point to you. 



> ...rants about "contrition" and "diversity" and "sensitivity" and calling for rallies and repeately attributing arguments to people that they have never actually made. This is strawmanning.




For example, contrition: 







> "An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes. White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized...I have no problem continuing buying from them. Gary Gygax later on said that the female strength cap was a mistake to include...What's more important is how they react to criticism."




Do you are do you not think that contrition was cited as the major reason a gaming company or group should receive our support if they were attacked?   Read the original essay again.  My problem with that is that there was no defined standard other than, "Someone was offended."  I asked for a particular standard, "Would my romanticized African Kingdom meet your standard of 'noble savage', or am I now in the damnable category of the non-contrite content creator?  How can I avoid earning your outrage in the first place, if defending my creation is not an acceptable act on my part?"

For example, diversity: 







> "The One Ring RPG have non-stripperific armor as the default design for women warriors in their artwork. This is progressive because many other RPGs (both tabletop and video games) design women's armor to be titillating.
> 
> The designers of Pathfinder RPG are making attempts to be racially and LGBT inclusive. And possibly one of the first RPG systems to have a transgender iconic (I don't know which one, though). Unfortunately it has stumbled in some regards (stereotypical gypsies and Darkest Africa pulps), but the designers took criticism into account and considered it valid.
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was the first Edition to alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns. Half of the PC class iconics were women (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard)."




And so forth.  I think it odd that you claim "contrition", "diversity", and "sensitivity" are topics I introduced to this discussion.



> but because you have very strong feels on the subject of sexism in general,




I have very strong feelings that it is a bad idea to view the world through the framework of 'isms', yes.



> but you may wish to consider that it detracts from your position. I mean, imagine how much consideration _you_ would give to somebody who demanded "Clearly, you think the solution is for girl gamers to politely beg for permission to game after cheerfully meeting whatever Neckbeard Trivia Tests any dude wants to throw their way"?




I'd like to think I'd give everyone my every consideration.  But put in a less snarky light, that's not entirely a bad idea.  I mean if you really think that's the dynamic that is going on, you might be surprised about how a frank question throws it into light: "I'm getting the feeling you don't want me here.  I really want to play this game.  May I?"   If there is any chance of the two of you playing together at all, maybe you'll embarrass him into acting decent.  If the answer is "No.", well then at least you've got that out on the table.  Or maybe go the other way and throw some flattery at the idiot, "Really?  You've been playing since the '70s?  What was it like back in the day?  Did you ever meet Gygax?"  

There is every reason to not act in the way a jerk expects you to.



> (nor should you)




I disagree.



> - so why expect that others will give much consideration to your arguments cast in the same emotional, accusatory mode?




Because I'd like to think that I would.  How many times have I told this board, you can't chase me away by getting angry or calling me an idiot.   I can deal with your honest emotion.  The only thing you can really do to belittle me is not take me seriously, or persistently misquote me, or be dishonest, or otherwise disengage from me.  



> As a side note: before you start on a grand lecture about How the World Works, you might want to consider that other people, too, live in the world, and may have some experience - perhaps even more than you yourself! - on dealing with harassment, or being the a member of minority X in a group of Ys, or what does and doesn't work to handle a hostile person whose goal is to put you down and keep you out. And perhaps, in the context of the discussion, that longtime female gamers might have just a _bit_ more experience than you about the Fake Geek Girl issue and what does and doesn't work to address it.




So tell me about your triumphs.  How did you go about winning acceptance?  How did you get your foot in the door?  How did you change people's minds?   That's far more value than any politically charged essay.

And you know, the story of how you called security on this jerk and had him removed from the convention.  That's a tragedy.  Even if it had to happen, even if the jerk left you know other choice because he'd become threatening, I feel sorry for everyone involved.


----------



## billd91

Celebrim said:


> Secondly, judged as a practical action, what you've suggested at best buys the group some time.  I've said before that if I had one player being a jerk to another player, it was something I'd have to deal with.   I've never had to deal with this particular problem, but yeah, this is a pull the player aside at the end of the session and say, "What the heck, Bob?" sort of moment.  "How about we not act like a jerk toward the new player, k?"  And conversely, "I apologize for Bob's behavior Sue.  That was uncalled for and I'm going to talk to him about it."
> 
> But there is a very strong possibility that me coming down on Bob, especially if I do it public like isn't going to have the effect you think.
> 
> a) Bob could now be jealous of Sue.  Do you like Sue more than me?  Is that why you are favoring them?
> b) Bob could see the fact that I've intervened on Sue's behalf, proof she's a weak link.  Why do you need to protect Sue?  That's just what I thought she'd do - run to daddy GM for protection.   Boo hoo.
> c) The other players may side with Bob.  Look, we all got along before Sue came along.  Clearly Sue just doesn't fit in this group.  It's not that she's a woman or anything, it's just she just doesn't really have the right personality.
> 
> And you know, I don't know whether the odds are higher of all this happening if Sue is a woman, but I can tell you that its a pretty normal human dynamic even if it is a boy named Sue.  It certainly doesn't happen all the time (thank God), but it's the way I've seen people behave.
> 
> At best, if Bob really is being a problem my siding with Sue is just buying some time.   Ultimately Sue still needs to convince Bob she brings value to the group, and the only way to do that is .... bring value to the group.   Then whatever was motivating Bob's dislike of Sue, hopefully we get a new Bob that says, "Wow, X really can bring value to the group."   One person.  One relationship at a time.




If this is the case and Bob is still being a jerk, then the problem is *Bob still being a jerk*. The presence of Sue may have revealed how much of a jerk Bob is, but the problem is still Bob and he's the one making it a problem for everyone else. Bob is still the appropriate target of correction. There may be some people who prefer not rocking the boat, but that's not exactly a good definition of justice in the face of unjust actions.


----------



## Celebrim

billd91 said:


> There may be some people who prefer not rocking the boat...




Do I seem like someone who is afraid to rock the boat?



> ..., but that's not exactly a good definition of justice in the face of unjust actions.




I'm a bit skeptical of bringing the agenda of receiving justice to my gaming table.   Among many reasons this sounds likely to go wrong is one should really really be careful before appealing to Justice - you are never quite certain where it going to fall.

So far we've been going with the assumption that Bob is being a jerk and Sue is innocent.  But that isn't always the case.   Bob may really be jealous with cause; Sue might be getting preferential treatment.   Sue might be innocent in that too (which means the problem that needs correcting might lie with neither Bob nor Sue), but then again she might not be.  For all we know, the fact that Sue gets preferential treatment and attention when she games might be one of her main reasons for liking gaming.  I've certainly known men that fit that standard.  So far we've assumed that Sue fits no sexist sterotypes, but that might not be true.  Out in the real world before we accepted that Bob is a jerk a priori, these table conflicts can look a lot more murky.  Once we get beyond, "Bob is making me feel uncomfortable, can you speak to him.", to "Bob is in the wrong, I demand justice!", things get really murky.

Asking the DM to pull a Karate Kid style finishing move on Bob is also a tragedy.   I'm not saying it can't happen.  I'm not saying there aren't times it shouldn't happen.  But... sometimes we ought to be careful about crying out for everyone to get what they deserve.  Making Bob the target of correction would give me no satisfaction, and not every group would survive that even if they generally agreed he deserved it.


----------



## billd91

Celebrim said:


> Do I seem like someone who is afraid to rock the boat?




I dunno. Based on my reading of your posts, you seem to be making a lot of excuses for bad behavior because that's simply how the world works, that's how people behave, or because there may be unintended consequences. It may be a misreading on my part, but the only element you seem to want to confront in this thread is any attempt to not just describe how things work but efforts to *change* them.



Celebrim said:


> I'm a bit skeptical of bringing the agenda of receiving justice to my gaming table.   Among many reasons this sounds likely to go wrong is one should really really be careful before appealing to Justice - you are never quite certain where it going to fall.
> 
> So far we've been going with the assumption that Bob is being a jerk and Sue is innocent.  But that isn't always the case.   Bob may really be jealous with cause; Sue might be getting preferential treatment.   Sue might be innocent in that too (which means the problem that needs correcting might lie with neither Bob nor Sue), but then again she might not be.  For all we know, the fact that Sue gets preferential treatment and attention when she games might be one of her main reasons for liking gaming.  I've certainly known men that fit that standard.  So far we've assumed that Sue fits no sexist sterotypes, but that might not be true.  Out in the real world before we accepted that Bob is a jerk a priori, these table conflicts can look a lot more murky.  Once we get beyond, "Bob is making me feel uncomfortable, can you speak to him.", to "Bob is in the wrong, I demand justice!", things get really murky.
> 
> Asking the DM to pull a Karate Kid style finishing move on Bob is also a tragedy.   I'm not saying it can't happen.  I'm not saying there aren't times it shouldn't happen.  But... sometimes we ought to be careful about crying out for everyone to get what they deserve.  Making Bob the target of correction would give me no satisfaction, and not every group would survive that even if they generally agreed he deserved it.




If Sue is actually being a problem because of her behavior, then deal with her. But your own hypothetical, to which I was responding, was written with Bob as the jerk. Why change the hypothetical now? The point is to deal with people in the way they deserve to be dealt - that's being just. And if it is Bob being the jerk, then Bob needs to be dealt with rather than make excuses for him not responding in a positive way to the message that he needs to stop being a jerk.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

mythago said:


> But we haven't even gotten to the question of whether 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse' is or is not sexist (and you seem to be assuming that I do, in fact, think it is, which I have not said). You argued that because _Shades of Grey_ is a novel written by a woman and with a female targeted audience contains very explicit sex scenes, any female player who is bothered by 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse' is engaging in a double standard. I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second, and you still haven't explained it.




By Hextor... So, if a man had written _Shades_, targeting a male audience, what would it be, in your opinion?


----------



## Celebrim

billd91 said:


> I dunno. Based on my reading of your posts, you seem to be making a lot of excuses for bad behavior...




I'm not excusing anything.  If I was excusing Bob's behavior, I wouldn't be describing it as being a jerk.  



> It may be a misreading on my part, but the only element you seem to want to confront in this thread is any attempt to not just describe how things work but efforts to *change* them.




First, I'm not confronting 'Bob', because he isn't in this thread.  'Bob' already got sent from the room. The only things I can confront are the things that are actually in the thread.   And I'm not confronting efforts to change things.  The world is clearly broken and needs to change.  I'm confronting the notion of how we change things.  Just because I don't approve of the particulars of your plan, doesn't mean I disagree that things or broken or that I approve of the thing you are trying to confront.  



> The point is to deal with people in the way they deserve to be dealt - that's being just.




It is a rare person these days that actually knows the definition of just.  It's actually refreshing.



> And if it is Bob being the jerk, then Bob needs to be dealt with rather than make excuses for him not responding in a positive way to the message that he needs to stop being a jerk.




For the purpose of the original example, if I approach Bob and say, "Dude, what was that?  How about we not act like a jerk to the new player?", and Bob comes back with, "How about we don't invite ***** to the gaming table?"   Then, I'm like, "Sorry Bob.  I can't really work with that, until you can learn to behave and treat other people like people out the door you go."

But not only do I insist that's still a tragedy and not a moral victory, I'd also insist in general that's probably the rare case where you can make a clean judgment of what the problem is and that there is no real way to solve it (or no better way to solve it).  Or that Bob is so clearly in the wrong, and has so clearly placed himself in a neat little stereotype with neat little biases. 

But maybe most of all, there is no change here.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

Elf Witch said:


> I still don't understand what you are taking offense to? I am serious I don't understand your point at al.




Fair enough, I'll try again, then. Also, please understand that I appreciate you as a woman (if the "witch" in your nick is gender denominator, as much as the "Le" is in mine) speaking out _soundly_ on the topic: While I disagree with the way things are said, we're perfectly on the same page when it comes to confronting sexist outings agressively.

What bothers me about the debate is that the OP did mix a plethora (yes, I am going there) of displays of sexist behavior, and that most of the posters in the thread followed up, without making a distinction. That makes most of this thread just the usual "mean men stories", which in my opinion misses the mark. As in, different forms of sexist behavior have been mentioned in this thread, and the arguments cross over in ways that are neither helpful, nor, frankly, appropriate.

_Sexist game-writing_ - Very much open for interpretation. What about narrative functions, what about the author's intentions, and, more importantly, what about free speech? 

_Sexist roleplaying_ - Very much open for interpretation, as well. "Am I a murderer because my character murders somebody?" - I think we know the answer to that one. 

_Sexism within gaming groups_ - NOT open for interpretation. There's banter, and there's serious offense, of course, but, really, a normal person can tell when a line is crossed.

_Sexism within the roleplaying community in general, or, sexism between people that don't know each other_ - also, NOT open for interpretation, and rarely excusable. Possibly criminal acts, really.


Those are different topics that should be addressed separately, in my opinion.



Now, what I find very problematic about this discussion, and about public discussions of sexism in general, is that there's always a certain notion that men need to be told. - In my experience, an average man, in adulthood, with responsibilities, with a job, with a formation, with an education, with manners, with life experience, with sexual experience, with relationship experience, with female family members, with female peers, with female coworkers, aaaaaaaaaaaand with or without a female sentimental partner, knows ABOUT AS WELL how to treat a woman, as women in general know how to treat men.

So, let's just not equate boys, or losers, or nutjobs, or creeps with normal men. Because for every chauvinist, or harasser, or stalker that you show me, I can show you a hundred men that are none of this. And not because they would be suppressing our innate bestial urges, but because men are just about as capable of civil conduct as women are.

Tika's chainmail bikini isn't the bane of modern women. Immature men are. But thank goodness there are less of them than women probably like to think.


----------



## FickleGM

The "dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse" is offensive to whomever is offended, regardless of gender. If the specific individual happens to be a woman, the existence of 50 Shades makes no difference...even if she read and enjoyed it. If she partakes in that sort of humor regularly, then claims offense, then we'll have something.


----------



## technoextreme

Celebrim said:


> To a certain extent, this is precisely how geekdom got started - the geeks were unable to impress any other group that they belonged.   Your membership to a certain extent depended on having that experience as a shared experience.



That is one of the most blatant no-true scotsman fallacies ever created. By your weird definition some of the most famous geeks around aren't geeks because what they did is universally considered to be cool.  Unless you really want to argue that the likes of Grant Imahara, Jamie Hyneman, Limor Fried, Adam Savage, and god only knows who else I'm missing aren't actually geeks.


> But every social and cultural group has a high percentage of members  that desire exclusivity because it fosters high commonality and trust  between members of the group.  You are threatening the groups cohesion  when you try to force change on them, and frankly you are telling the  groups 'it's me or you'.   That's not a very workable solution.




There is no commonality in the group though.  There never was.  
​


----------



## mythago

Le Noir Faineant said:


> By Hextor... So, if a man had written _Shades_, targeting a male audience, what would it be, in your opinion?




What do you mean, what would it "be"? What about having a male author or a male audience would make the books "be" something else? (I guess the author photo on the jacket would be different.) Your non sequitur aside, you _still_ haven't explained your claim because _Shades of Grey_ is a novel written by a woman and with a  female targeted audience contains very explicit sex scenes, any female  player who is bothered by 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse'  is engaging in a double standard. 

Regarding your other points:

_Sexist game writing and "free speech"_: You should probably think carefully about what you mean by 'free speech', because that term gets used rather vaguely, and often people forget it's a two-edged sword. Writing _Chicks Be Trippin': The RPG_ is free speech. Mocking the dudes who wrote the game as loser neckbeards? Also free speech. Announcing CBT:TRPG is the best game since the Sliced Bread OGL and you particularly like the Putting Her In Her Place random table? Free speech. Writing a review that CBT:TRPG achieves new heights of lamedom and would embarrass the average _Maxim_ reader with its juvenile bigotry? Also free speech!

When you talk about "narrative functions" and "author's intentions", it might be helpful if you expanded on that instead of merely presenting these phrases as if they were a) self-evident and b) clear rebuttals to any charge of bad behavior. Bigotry, even unconscious or intentional bigotry, is very often the _enemy_ of good writing and interesting narrative; it injects the author's failings into the work. Is it possible to write an interesting game with these elements anyway? Of course! Are "narrative function" and "authorial intent" magical _Power Words_ that make bigotry reasonable and beyond criticism? No.

_Sexist roleplaying_ - Yes, I do hope we all know that if I am LARPing, and while in character I shoot somebody dead because they are role-playing my character's worst enemy, that I am in fact a murderer, and the police are not going to be especially impressed if I explain that I really did like Bob very much, but I was only _role-playing_ murder and so it doesn't count if I, coincidentally, also happened to murder somebody In Real Life.

A more apt example than murder: "Am I a jerk because my character is a jerk?" A lot of the time, the answer is going to be yes_. _Surely you've had the common gamer misfortune of sharing a table with the guy (or gal) who just so happens to roleplay an evil, obnoxious backstabber who argues constantly, steals from other PCs, doesn't pull their weight and messes up important beats in the game - in other words, messes up everybody else's fun - and then whines _but I was rooooooleplaying!_ when called on it. It's possible to roleplay a jerk without _being_ a jerk; it's not easy, and it's certainly not automatic, as if a LARP-style hand gesture magically dissipates any real-life jerkitude. Similarly, it IS possible to play a character who's a bigot without ruining the game for people who are targets of that bigotry, but it's often very difficult and "but I'm just RPing!" is not magic.  

_Sexism within gaming groups_ - What happened to "very open to interpretation"? Do you truly believe that normal people cannot disagree on whether behavior in a gaming group is sexist? We might all agree on extreme examples, but look in this very thread for how people differ on whether less-obvious things are or aren't "sexism". This especially gets complicated when people throw in all the other factors that you mention in other contexts, like "intent".

_Sexism within the roleplaying community in general, or, sexism between people that don't know each other_ - There's no rational reason to artificially segregate this. If I walk into a convention and join a game full of people I don't know, and somebody makes a crack about dumb broads, is that not "sexism within a gaming group" as well as "sexism between people that don't know each other"?  

_"Normal men"_ - You'll note that the topic of the thread is not Men Behaving Badly, or Them Other Boys Don't Know How to Act. It is Sexism in Table-Top Gaming. Also, women can be sexist, including sexist towards other women, you'll be wholly unsurprised to hear. (In the comments to the link I provided earlier, you'll find a number of women excusing or even justifying the whole Fake Geek Girl thing.) The whole issue of 'normal men' is something you dragged in yourself, in your earlier comments about how mean gaming ladies pick on "virile men" and don't understand manly behavior like pretending your imaginary alter ego is having imaginary sex with imaginary prostitutes. Nobody, that I have seen, has suggested that sexism is some kind of endemic and uniquely male flaw. In the absence of someone claiming that it is, need we really derail the discussion into a pointless and redundant assurance that the (primarily male group of) people discussing the issue are not hating on the male gender?


----------



## Umbran

technoextreme said:


> There is no commonality in the group though.  There never was.




There is some commonality in the group, or there wouldn't be a group.  Don't confuse "no two are exactly the same" with "no commonality at all".  Definition of the group is rather like definition of a fictional genre - there's a whole set of tropes, and if you have a goodly enough smattering of them, you're recognizable as a member of the group.  The set of tropes, however, is fairly large.  And what people fail to see is that there is no one trope, or even small set of tropes, the lack of which clearly means you aren't part of the group.


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> Do I seem like someone who is afraid to rock the boat?




Well, actually, yes.

That is, while you certainly don't seem afraid to go into a towering, operating rage about matters on which you have strong feelings, over and over again you caution against behavior that is "rocking the boat" in real life. It might mess up the gaming group! We might have to call in _the authorities_! (i.e., the people running a convention, whose job it is, in part, to insure that the convention goes well for everyone). Confront Bob by out-geeking him so that you can turn it into a friendly trivia match, or deferentially and politely beg for him to let you play! And we mustn't be confrontational; Bad Things Could Happen, as we never know where the brutal sword of Justice might fall or what might happen. (A return of the Terror, I suppose. Or the President declaring martial law at GenCon.)

As billd91 already said, if Bob is being a jerk, then the problem is Bob, and we deal with Bob. There is no moral obligation for the players, the game and the community to bend over backward to work around Bob's issues, and should not prioritize Bob's inclusion and comfort over everyone else's. At a con, if Bob is violating the code of conduct and being a bad customer, it is very much in the interests of the people running that con to find out about it _at  the time_ and handle it appropriately - rather than to find out much later via social media that a lot of people are saying unpleasant things about the con because Bob was allowed to run rampant.

Does that mean there may be unpleasantness? In all likelihood, yes, because _Bob is a jerk_, and thus may not quietly accept criticism and vow to change his ways. That's unfortunate, but the alternative is to prioritize Bob over the people to whom he's being a jerk - which may be rather a lot of people. To suggest otherwise is, yes, to caution against rocking the boat.

BTW, you asked (in somewhat overwrought fashion) what 'triumphs' I have had in dealing with jerks. I will tell you what _doesn't_ work: pretending that Self-Appointed Guardian has any legitimacy or right to insist that I 'prove myself' before I can be allowed to game, or call myself a gamer, or participate in games at a con that I paid money to attend just like he did. What does work for me may not work for a lot of other people, precisely because I am an old gaming fart, I've been to (and run) gaming cons, and I have run into SAGs before and know the drill. A 20-year-old who just got into gaming by playing _World of Darkness_ last fall at college and whose buddies are totally cool with girl gamers? Is not going to find it helpful for me to tell her "Just look him dead in the eye and tell them you were painting miniatures back when he was still in diapers, and you have more gaming experience in your little finger than he does in his entire, pasty body." 

Of course, one of the things we're all working toward, I hope, is a community where that kind of behavior is treated on par with borrowing dice without permission or filching stuff from a dealer's table. That is, negatively, swiftly, and with repercussions in case anyone else thinks it's a good idea and they can do it with impunity.

BTW, I don't think it's a bad suggestion at all for Alice Newgamer to call out the real problem: "It seems like you don't want me in this game. Why is that?" I don't, however, think she needs to deferentially plead for permission to join. That doesn't shame the SAC so much as legitimize his belief that he is the Guardian of Gaming.


----------



## Umbran

Celebrim said:


> My advice is to treat this as the sort of minor hazing any cultural group does when trying to evaluate potential membership and go, "I'm geekier than thou" on them.




Your advice amounts to allowing people to be emotionally abused.  Sorry, but I don't count that as one of the world's great ideas.  

Turn your own idea around - the cultural group should be evaluating potential membership based in part on the question, "Are you a jerk?" and "Can you take beign asked to behave like a civilized human being?"



> Don't focus on the sexism, since at least some of the time you'd be wrong - men would get the same treatment at least some of the time.  Throwing it back at them is the appropriate response.




"Don't focus on the sexism," is really easy to say when you aren't so regularly subject to it.  And throwing it back at them is *not* an appropriate response.  That's turning it into an ego contest, and if you hadn't noticed those don't generally end well.  We are not wolves, and it seems to me we left our poo-flinging monkey stage behind several hundred thousand years ago.  We can, and should, do better.


----------



## Celebrim

Umbran said:


> Your advice amounts to allowing people to be emotionally abused.  Sorry, but I don't count that as one of the world's great ideas.




What??  No body is being allowed anything here.   No advice here can prevent a person from being 'emotionally abused'.  If someone makes some one else uncomfortable, even intensely uncomfortable, no advice can retroactively stop what has already occurred.  In this case the 'emotional abuse' in question is attack the identity of the person as a member of the social group, some variation presumably on, "You're not a real gamer, you're a girl!"  Nothing anyone could advice to the person who has been targeted in such a manner can prevent that from having happened.   What advice we must give must be in how to respond to that.

My advice is:

a) Wear your asbestos armor.   Words can hurt, I should know, but at some point you have to develop 'damage resistance' to insensitivity, jerkiness, and teasing.   I don't pretend that is easy, but it is necessary.  Fundamentally, you should not be letting anyone, and certainly not strangers, dictate to you your feelings or any sense of self-worth.
b) Put as good of face on it as you can.  It doesn't do to show you've been hurt, this just opens you up for additional bullying.  Also, being polite and good natured adds to your sympathy.  Yes, this often means treating people better than they deserve, but that isn't always a bad thing either.
c) Turn it back on them.  Answer the implicit and explicit challenge. Some people are just jerks and aren't going to let it go, but many didn't mean to be jerks and many are willing to change their impression of you if you engage them.  And like it or not, some of this is just biology.  Deal with it on that level.  Women in particular often inadvertently signal back low status and submissive behavior - distress cries, distress postures, losing self-control, threat displays, etc.  You'd be amazed at what signaling back high status by showing you aren't distressed can accomplish at times.   And I've seen women who are good at this, unconsciously imitating the demeanor of a high status male.  



> Turn your own idea around - the cultural group should be evaluating potential membership based in part on the question, "Are you a jerk?" and "Can you take beign asked to behave like a civilized human being?"




Certainly.  And this is actually a major source of discussion within geekdom.  Should we as people who in many cases were ostracized for failing to meet social norms, be understanding and accepting of everyone's antisocial behavior, and if not what do we do about it?   



> "Don't focus on the sexism," is really easy to say when you aren't so regularly subject to it.




I have the sense that emotional abuse is emotional abuse.  I think it unfair to say that people can't empathize with other people's pain, and if it were true that everyone's pain was so individual to them that no one else could understand it then think what a terrible thing you are saying.



> And throwing it back at them is *not* an appropriate response.  That's turning it into an ego contest, and if you hadn't noticed those don't generally end well.




I'm speaking from experience here.  I have had to socially integrate with a lot of different groups, many of which I was an obvious outsider in - from moving overseas to a 99% black nation, to moving back to rural America as a petwa speaking cultural foreigner, to working in construction as a college educated egghead, to working in academia as someone who is pretty far from the normal upper middle class progressive mold.   Fundamentally, this sort of hazing occurs everywhere and in every group, and fundamentally I think it is simply attempts to establish social trust.



> We are not wolves, and it seems to me we left our poo-flinging monkey stage behind several hundred thousand years ago.  We can, and should, do better.




That we ought to do better I can hardly and won't deny.  That we have left our poo-flinging monkey biology far behind I completely deny.  Human social dynamics are still at a very real level those of simian tribal nomadic hunter gatherers.  Any one with a biology background that watches a high school cafeteria or an episode of Survivor can immediately see that.  For example, have you noticed that in a business environment, the highest status male almost always gives way to the lower status males but only after he 'signals' or 'allows' them to pass first.  This is classic herd dominance behavior.  It isn't meant as that and we've actually progressed culturally to achieve that point - in less civilized places you still see much more overt dominance/subservience behavior demanded as a cultural norm.

Do I like it?  As a borderline autistic that instinctual does everything wrong, I can assure you I don't like it in the least.  But I've learned how to deal with it.


----------



## Mallus

Umbran said:


> Turn your own idea around - the cultural group should be evaluating potential membership based in part on the question, "Are you a jerk?" and "Can you take beign asked to behave like a civilized human being?"



Yeah, I kinda though the notion that nerd socializing is defined by tribes engaged agonistic one-upsmanship over who knows more Who, Trek, and Forgotten Realms minutiae was, well, an unflattering _caricature_. The worst of us. A joke. It certainly hasn't been my personal experience of nerdery, ie various genre fandoms. 

My social circles evaluated 'potential members' using criteria like, "Hey, do you like Star Trek/Babylon 5/LotR? Cool!", "Do you play D&D/RPGs? Cool!", and most importantly, "Are you a jerk? No. Cool!". 

(actually, we other criteria involving liking the films of Wes Anderson, clever-talk, and drinking, but, as with all things, that's negotiable)



> "Don't focus on the sexism," is really easy to say when you aren't so regularly subject to it.



I usually dislike using the term 'privilege' in it's current mostly-divorced-from-economics form, but a guy saying "Don't focus on the sexism" is a textbook example of it. Makes me reconsider my gut-level aversion to the term. 

I'll try to summarize my feeling on sexism in tabletop gaming:

I feel lucky, privileged even, that I don't encounter much of it. Because I don't game at cons or other public places. Because my gaming groups are wonderful people. Because the (limited number of) mainstream RPG products are relatively free of overt sexism. And, perhaps, most tellingly, because I'm a _guy_. 

I think RPGs have come a long way re: sexism encoded into the mechanics and the language choice in the rules text. 

I think RPGs are doing better re: sexism in the art. A caveat: I have no problem with some Frazetta-style depictions of women, ie fantasy pin-up art. I don't want or need every woman to be in 'realistic armor'. I have a problem when the default depictions of female figures are as slave girls, eye-candy, rescue-bait, etc. 

It's also a problem that --particularly with women, but not exclusively so-- there's such usually a limited number of body types/ethnicities/orientations on display in fantasy art. Diversity is nice -- especially when you arrive at it through a diversity of creators.

It's _not_ really a problem that offensive niche/outlier products exist. Nobody actually _plays_ F.A.T.A.L. It exists only as a gamer in-joke. I'm sure the number of Cthulhutech --a game I've only read about in online discussions-- campaigns is also fairly small. It sounds like Legend of the Overfiend: The Game -- how many people really want to play _that_? I'm guessing a number small enough to ignore completely. 

I think the stories I've read about con behavior are horrifying. I can't add much more than that. There are some badly-socialized people in our hobby. These people need to be educated and/or ostracized. 

I think the stories I've read about bad behavior in private games are even more horrifying. I can't image sessions where one player makes rape threats against other player's PCs. How these don't end --abruptly-- with the jackhole getting thrown out mystify me. Again, educate -- no, let's go straight to 'ostracize' here...  

Lastly, to be a bit curmudgeonly, I think there are some bad social justice-oriented criticisms/accusations of sexism out there. For example, the minor kerfuffle I read about online re: the Nibovian Wife monster in Monte Cook's Numenera. I accept that some people found it offensive. But I found the criticisms pretty shallow and unpersuasive; just bad readings fueling (too easy) indignation.

But that's fine. Sexism throughout our society still exists, even if we disagree at times over what qualifies as it.


----------



## Lwaxy

I have found throwing it back at people when they go on how I'm not a true this or that works VERY well. Either they get it, or if they don't they shut up about it at least half the time. 

But that's strying a bit far off topic as I can hardly (or at least don't want to) throw their sexism back them if I encounter it.


----------



## Celebrim

Lwaxy said:


> I have found throwing it back at people when they go on how I'm not a true this or that works VERY well. Either they get it, or if they don't they shut up about it at least half the time.
> 
> But that's strying a bit far off topic as I can hardly (or at least don't want to) throw their sexism back them if I encounter it.




I would never advice returning evil for evil.  

I would advice responding to challenges to whether you belong to group with presenting your credentials and an attitude of calm assurance (if only feigned because you are hurting inside) and good natured humor that you do belong and your belongingness is so great that it can weather any challenge.  I can't claim to know how it feels to be excluded or marginalized because you are a woman.  I do claim that I can know how it feels to be excluded or marginalized or belittled because I am me, and that I would like to believe that people are not so far different that we can't empathize with each other's common pain.   I believe that ultimately, whatever the proximate cause of the belittling or marginalizing behavior, there is a common root and that the sorts of things that work in one situation are likely to work to some degree in others.

When I say, don't focus on the 'sexism', I don't mean don't notice it or to pretend its not an issue.  I mean don't dwell on it like an insolvable problem that is going to forever characterize how you experience the world and all your relationships with other people.  Don't let it become the source of your own low sense of self-worth as if that jerk is the one to decide what value you have.   I say this not because I'm 'male privileged', but because I've seen over dwelling on the problem of sexism become itself something that women let define them and become a source of continual anxiety and fear.  I don't say it with the slightest sense that I'm asking anything easy of someone, and even if I was telling someone to do something harder than anything I've had to do, so what?   It's not like I'm saying that out of a low faith in anyone's capacity or out of any belittlement of the degree of the problem.  I'm saying that because I truly believe it can be done and that you'll be happier for it.  If I tell a person from a broken home whose suffered terribly in ways I can hardly imagine, "Yes, I've had it easier than you.  You are right to wallow in your misfortune.  Don't bother trying to overcome." or "Of course you can't succeed given all you've got to face.", I'm not really being very sympathetic at all.  Regardless of what someone was facing I would tell them, "Don't focus on your misfortune or the size of the obstacles you must face."


----------



## FickleGM

Is "wear your asbestos armor" supposed to be serious advice to anyone who wants to play a fun game?


----------



## Mallus

FickleGM said:


> Is "wear your asbestos armor" supposed to be serious advice to anyone who wants to play a fun game?



I guess it depends on how much of the hostile hotly-contested battle for dominance occurs _outside_ of the game world around your table.


----------



## FickleGM

For life advice, I'm okay with it, but it doesn't come across as the best advertisement to grow the hobby.

EDIT: "Oh, you will have a great time, just ignore the misogyny and marginalization that comes with playing."


----------



## Celebrim

FickleGM said:


> Is "wear your asbestos armor" supposed to be serious advice to anyone who wants to play a fun game?




No, it's serious advice for anyone who wants to interact with humans.


----------



## technoextreme

Umbran said:


> There is some commonality in the group, or there wouldn't be a group.



I don't think the really is though.  At least the most tenuous of connections I can make between all of the geeky activities I've seen in Boston is eccentricity but even that is kind of pushing it.  At best its probably a bunch of distinct and completely isolated subcultures that can get lumped in together as geekdom.


----------



## Celebrim

FickleGM said:


> For life advice, I'm okay with it, but it doesn't come across as the best advertisement to grow the hobby.




Ahhh, good.  It was intended as life advice.  It wasn't intended to be an advertisement to grow the hobby.

In my opinion, the best advertisement you can possibly have for the hobby is to run a large open inviting table where people have a good time.  

Are we going to get "I'm geekier than thou" over how many people we've introduced to the hobby, or can I take it as accepted that everyone understands life advice to a person who has experienced problems in some dysfunctional situation is not nearly the same as what you say to person who wants to know why you play or what it's like to play or is curious about joining your group?


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:


> No, it's serious advice for anyone who wants to interact with humans.



Cel, it's not unreasonable to expect/work towards/even demand a modicum of respect in social situations, both public and private. 

Respectful interaction can and does happen all the time, despite our primate brains.


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:


> Cel, it's not unreasonable to expect a modicum of respect in social situations, both public and private. "Polite company" happens every day, despite all the rudeness in our chest-thumping primate brains.




I think you are bordering on willful misunderstanding at this point, Mal.

No, of course it is not unreasonable to expect social dysfunction is not the norm.  In 30 years of gaming, I can rarely think of any cases of the sort of dysfunction we are talking about here - and most of those occurred with my grade school and high school groups.  But it is also unreasonable to expect that social tension and conflict will never happen, and in particular it is explicit to this thread that it has already happened.

The norm at EnWorld is polite conversation.  That doesn't mean that emotions don't occasionally run high, and ill considered words are not occasionally said.   Would it be bad advice to suggest to posters of EnWorld that they be slow to become offended and angry?


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

Oh lordy... Keep talking, governor, I mean, mythago. 



mythago said:


> What do you mean, what would it "be"? What about having a male author or a male audience would make the books "be" something else? (I guess the author photo on the jacket would be different.)




On the off chance that you're here to exchange ideas, and not just to post them... Would there be a difference for you if the DM who brought the party to the whorehouse was female?



> Writing _Chicks Be Trippin': The RPG_ is free speech.




And rightfully so. But are we talking about "Chicks Be Trippin'" (which I shall copyright tonight), or are we talking about _occasional _sexism in games? Deliberate, or accidental sexism? Or, rape in games? Or, rules that discriminate against female characters in games? - Again, on the off chance that you're simply not getting what I mean, instead of being deliberately confrontational, those are many different things, not one.



> Similarly, it IS possible to play a character who's a bigot without ruining the game for people who are targets of that bigotry, but it's often very difficult and "but I'm just RPing!" is not magic.




Again, and with the best intentions, I tell you, you're comparing apples and oranges. You seem to think of one specific kind of roleplaying; that is too narrow a point of view. For example, should I really go to my Dark Heresy group and tell them that, according to you, we are likely to support ethnic cleansings, as this is what our characters do? - Now, troll players, as you describe, again, are a completely different thing.



> We might all agree on extreme examples, but look in this very thread for how people differ on whether less-obvious things are or aren't "sexism". This especially gets complicated when people throw in all the other factors that you mention in other contexts, like "intent".




Most of this is really just bickering about semantics. Does your group enjoy playing together? Because, as long as nobody complains, _chances are_ people actually enjoy playing together. The more subtle examples of perceived sexism are all debatable, and they are not game-related.



> _Sexism within the roleplaying community in general, or, sexism between people that don't know each other_ - There's no rational reason to artificially segregate this.




Oh, well, yes it is. Because your conduct with strangers is different than with people you know and share a certain level of trust with. Hopefully.



> The whole issue of 'normal men' is something you dragged in yourself, in your earlier comments about how mean gaming ladies pick on "virile men" and don't understand manly behavior like pretending your imaginary alter ego is having imaginary sex with imaginary prostitutes.




YES YES, because "sexism", that's really something when the average person doesn't think of men patting women's buttocks, but of Demi Moore talking Michael Douglas into submissively boinking her on an office chair. Totally gender-neutered statement! I get ya!



> In the absence of someone claiming that it is, need we really derail the discussion into a pointless and redundant assurance that the (primarily male group of) people discussing the issue are not hating on the male gender?




Hating, I don't know. Discriminating against, for sure! Or was it a woman who was accused of her casual sexist remarks giving a PTSD patient a mental breakdown?


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

Mallus said:


> Cel, it's not unreasonable to expect/work towards/even demand a modicum of respect in social situations, both public and private.
> 
> Respectful interaction can and does happen all the time, despite our primate brains.




On a side note, I think what would make this discussion easier would be if we could all agree that people don't have to be in Jaeger-driving sync to hang out together. Especially in activity-based social environments, chances are you will have a lot of very different individuals working together in a relatively close environment. - Friction will happen, one way, or another.


----------



## Libramarian

Le Noir Faineant said:


> By Hextor... So, if a man had written _Shades_, targeting a male audience, what would it be, in your opinion?



Dude what. I guess it would be more regular pornography, you know like the enormous amount available for free from some of the most popular websites in the world 24/7 on demand. What could possibly be your point here? Are you implying that there is a dearth of male-oriented erotic material available due to suppression of male sexuality? Because I think that would be the most out of touch with reality thing that anyone has ever thought or said, ever.


----------



## Libertad

Telling people so ignore insults can be fine under certain circumstances, but when it comes to constant harassment and large-scale behavior it's not so good.  In many cases it shifts the burden and blame towards the targeted person instead of the person making trouble in the first place.  Like it or not, words can and do cut deep: racial slurs, insulting one's family, and mean-spirited homophobic "jokes" which aren't really jokes so much as the speaker's personal beliefs, can and do cause condemnation for anti-social behavior.  Otherwise the affected people depart elsewhere because they don't want to go through the BS, or just silently put up with the abuse.

In regards to table-top gaming, it's very applicable.  The hobby is inherently a social activity, and bullying behavior going uncriticized can lead to group disharmony.



technoextreme said:


> I don't think the really is though. At least the most tenuous of connections I can make between all of the geeky activities I've seen in Boston is eccentricity but even that is kind of pushing it. At best its probably a bunch of distinct and completely isolated subcultures that can get lumped in together as geekdom.




Geekdom in general is currently a very nebulous subculture, in part because a lot of its common elements (Sci-Fi and Fantasy) are now part of the mainstream.


----------



## mythago

Le Noir Faineant said:


> Oh lordy... Keep talking, governor, I mean, mythago.
> 
> 
> On the off chance that you're here to exchange ideas, and not just to post them... Would there be a difference for you if the DM who brought the party to the whorehouse was female?




A difference in what? Look: I'm _still_ waiting for you to explain the connection between _Shades of Grey_ and an alleged instance of a female gamer objecting to certain party members going to a whorehouse. You keep doing this "Look! A monkey!" routine where you throw out sarcastic comments and random questions that you then drop when they don't work out as you'd like. That's pretty much the definition of posting ideas rather than wanting to exchange them, by the way.



Le Noir Faineant said:


> And rightfully so. But are we talking about "Chicks Be Trippin'" (which I shall copyright tonight)




Titles can't be copyrighted. I wouldn't recommend trademarking it, though, unless you really plan to use it; trademark's a pain in the butt.



Le Noir Faineant said:


> or are we talking about _occasional _sexism in games? Deliberate, or accidental sexism? Or, rape in games? Or, rules that discriminate against female characters in games? - Again, on the off chance that you're simply not getting what I mean, instead of being deliberately confrontational, those are many different things, not one.




By 'many different things' do you mean they are different types of sexism which may require a different approach and response? Certainly. That's sort of the point of this whole thread, isn't it? To talk about the issue of sexism in tabletop games, and how that might be dealt with? 




Le Noir Faineant said:


> Again, and with the best intentions, I tell you, you're comparing apples and oranges. You seem to think of one specific kind of roleplaying; that is too narrow a point of view. For example, should I really go to my Dark Heresy group and tell them that, according to you, we are likely to support ethnic cleansings, as this is what our characters do?




Wouldn't that be a bit like me going to a gaming group and telling them that, according to you, there's nothing wrong with behaving like a perfect git at the gaming table as long as you first utter the magic words "I'm Just Roleplaying"? I mean, neither of us has said any such thing, but free speech and all that, it's not actually _illegal_ to strawman.



Le Noir Faineant said:


> Most of this is really just bickering about semantics. Does your group enjoy playing together? Because, as long as nobody complains, _chances are_ people actually enjoy playing together. The more subtle examples of perceived sexism are all debatable, and they are not game-related.




I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here. If sexism isn't blatant enough or clear-cut enough by the Standards of You, then they can't possibly be game-related? That if my group enjoys playing together, sexism doesn't exist in the gaming community anywhere?





Le Noir Faineant said:


> YES YES, because "sexism", that's really something when the average person doesn't think of men patting women's buttocks, but of Demi Moore talking Michael Douglas into submissively boinking her on an office chair. Totally gender-neutered statement! I get ya!
> 
> 
> 
> Hating, I don't know. Discriminating against, for sure! Or was it a woman who was accused of her casual sexist remarks giving a PTSD patient a mental breakdown?




I repeat: what?


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> I would advice responding to challenges to whether you belong to group with presenting your credentials and an attitude of calm assurance (if only feigned because you are hurting inside) and good natured humor that you do belong and your belongingness is so great that it can weather any challenge.




Celebrim, if you genuinely believe this, you don't appear to think it's a model of behavior that is particularly useful to you. You admit you have strong feelings and express them, and think it's perfectly OK to do so without "an attitude of calm assurance" or with "asbestos underwear". Why do you advocate others behave in this way?



Celebrim said:


> I can't claim to know how it feels to be excluded or marginalized because you are a woman.  I do claim that I can know how it feels to be excluded or marginalized or belittled because I am me, and that I would like to believe that people are not so far different that we can't empathize with each other's common pain.   I believe that ultimately, whatever the proximate cause of the belittling or marginalizing behavior, there is a common root and that the sorts of things that work in one situation are likely to work to some degree in others.




While I truly believe you mean well, here you in fact _do _claim to know how it feels to be excluded or marginalized because of being female, because you can apply empathy and your own experience to think of how it would feel and how to react in that situation. Of course you can be empathetic, but you know what truly helps with empathy and understanding? _Listening_. Lecturing on 'what ought to work', ranting about seeing too much sexism and telling women exactly how much sexism should bother then - that's not empathy.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant

Libramarian said:


> Dude what. I guess it would be more regular pornography, you know like the enormous amount available for free from some of the most popular websites in the world 24/7 on demand. What could possibly be your point here? Are you implying that there is a dearth of male-oriented erotic material available due to suppression of male sexuality? Because I think that would be the most out of touch with reality thing that anyone has ever thought or said, ever.




Nah. See, mythago, at least in the role that he or she takes in this discussion, takes a classic radical feminist position, whether consciously, or not: That men are not able to express their sexuality without hurting women. - As in, if a woman writes _Shades_, it's erotic romance. If a man writes _Shades_, it's porn.

This is also, why mythago can elsewhere equate completely unrelated processes and phenomena: It makes no difference, because mythago's logical conclusion is always the same. My seemingly "random questions" all lead to a discussion of that conclusion. (Of course, that's not going to happen, but aaah.)

That's also why the thread doesn't progress well: "Sexism in tabletop gaming" is a pretty diverse topic; I am merely suggesting we take the same approach as the team that did the ENWorld videos on the topic - separate approaches to separate situations.


----------



## Celebrim

mythago said:


> Celebrim, if you genuinely believe this, you don't appear to think it's a model of behavior that is particularly useful to you.




Mythago: One of the difficulties with internet communication is that it is very difficult to communicate emotions and context to your words.  That's the reason for example that sarcasm doesn't work very well over the internet.  All those physical indicators like body posture and tone of voice that people use to evaluate what people are saying are missing.

If you choose to see me as sitting at the keyboard "ranting", or being in a "towering, operating rage" there is very little I can do to effect that perception.  But for someone who was just not accusing me of not listening and lacking empathy, I'd suggest that choosing to see me as being in a rage is not particularly conducive to listening or empathy either.

If you want to continue to negatively portray me, and if you want to assume the worst about me, let me give you the web cam's eye view of how to do that.  Instead of imagining that I'm in a towering operating rage and that my deep flaw is an inability to remain calm and that I have all these huge emotions boiling out of me, a portrait that really doesn't have much relationship to the actual me, try going with "pompous" and "patronizing".  You'll be able to sell it better, it works really well in the context of a discussion of feminism, and it will have more relationship to my actual flaws that people who know me would recognize.  But, that's only if you are determined to see and hear me in the worst light.


----------



## mythago

Le Noir Faineant said:


> Nah. See, mythago, at least in the role that he or she takes in this discussion, takes a classic radical feminist position, whether consciously, or not: That men are not able to express their sexuality without hurting women. - As in, if a woman writes _Shades_, it's erotic romance. If a man writes _Shades_, it's porn.




I realize you'd _like_ this to be my position, and that having failed to establish that it's my position, you're just going to decide it is anyway; announcing "You just hate the penis!" is doubtless easier than defending some of the extremely silly arguments you've put forth in this thread - which you've made it rather clear you're unwilling and unable to do. It's also easier, I'm sure, than admitting that you're the one who is entwining male sexuality and harm to women, in your insistence that criticism of sexism is attacking "virile" male behavior, and that discussion of people who act in a sexist manner must be talking about, and picking on, "normal" men. The claim that criticizing Fake Geek Girl nonsense is criticizing "normal male sexuality" says nothing good about your perception of "normal male sexuality".  

(Irony alert: 'false consciousness' is a tenet of radical feminism. Congratulations, LNF, your Andrea Dworkin Secret Decoder Ring will arrive shortly via Amazon.)




Celebrim said:


> If you choose to see me as sitting at the keyboard "ranting", or being  in a "towering, operating rage" there is very little I can do to effect  that perception.




Well, no, you could write posts that aren't rants, that don't accuse others of dishonesty or stupidity because they disagree with you, and that don't engage in strawmanning and sarcastic exaggeration of the slightest disagreement. As I said before, Celebrim, I chose _not_ to see you in "the worst light", that is, _not_ to believe that when you were strawmanning others' arguments, making over-the-top interpretations of what they were saying, and repeatedly accusing them of bad faith, you were doing so out of malice and an attempt to win an Internet argument at any costs. I instead chose to conclude that you were arguing badly out of a surfeit of passion, rather than as an intentional technique. As you recall, I in fact told you this; you agreed that you had 'strong feelings' on the subject, and you also, somewhat to my surprise, said that if someone else were angrily dumping the full truckload of logical fallacies and accusations on you, that you would nonetheless try to give consideration to their arguments. 

Now, can we take it as a given that nobody is trying to brainwash your daughters, that all of us (well, almost all of us) really would like a gaming community where women's role is neither suspect nor ornamental, and get on with discussing the problem and possible solutions?


----------



## Celebrim

mythago said:


> Well, no, you could write posts that aren't rants, that don't accuse others of dishonesty or stupidity because they disagree with you, and that don't engage in strawmanning and sarcastic exaggeration of the slightest disagreement.




So I went back and read the thread to figure out where you saw this and how you and I got derailed in our conversation and where these (to me) weird perceptions come from, and I'm not seeing anything explicit in the text.  Therefore, I can only assume that its something about the assumptions we are making, and for that I have to do you the discourtesy of trying to figure out what assumptions you might have that might led you to go where you've gone on a logical basis.  I'm going to make that guess, and if I'm wrong you can tell me, but my best guess is that you and I are holding in our heads entirely different models of the scenario.

Your model I think looks like this:

a) There is an established functional group with opinions of women that are worth approving.
b) There is a woman who is a member of this group.
c) A person shows up in the group who makes a jerk of himself through some sexist comments.

What should happen here?  The logical conclusion here is, and I agree, that the woman in question should not refrain from showing her discomfort, and that the other members of the group should rally to protect their in group member.  If the group is a convention, you throw the bum out.  If the group is my gaming group where I'm the DM, I toss the guy who is being disruptive out on his ear the same way I would (I here joke) a guy that was boring dice without permission or engaging in other heinous behavior.

This is not the model I had in my head based on the original posters complaints about sexism in gaming.  The model I had made the situation significantly more ambiguous and arguably significantly worse.

a) There is an existing functional social group.  We can say nothing about the opinions and beliefs of its members or leadership.
b) There is a woman who is new to the particular social group (either new to gaming, or coming to the group from a different group).
c) A member of the existing social group behaves badly, and says and does things that strike the woman as being sexist (and probably strike me as being sexist).  As generic example he says or does something equivalent to, "You aren't a real gamer; you are a girl.", but really it could be a lot of different things.

This situation is not as simple or as easy as the model you hold in your head.  It might be great if we could move to a place where everything is like the model in your head, but we aren't there yet.  In my model, the offensive person could be the DM.  The group might be sexist and never considered their opinions, or the group might simply be insensitive and poorly socialized and is giving offense without meaning to really.  The group may have a diversity of opinion.  Or it may even be the case that there is no moral fault in the comments, and the woman has taken offense without cause and past judgment too quickly.  And, putting myself in the shoes of the woman, I certainly would not be sure what was going on and would doubt my first impression.

There is a lot of reasons why we each have our respective model.  For example, in my case I've both moved a lot and sought membership (as a complete or near stranger) in gaming groups, and have created new gaming groups featuring players from wildly diverse backgrounds - from gay men to evangelical Christians, from stereotypical gamer geeks and neckbeards to my wives college roommates - many of which had never gamed before.

Before I get too much further down this speculation and what I think it means, let me just stop and say, "Does your model of what is being discussed match what I think it does?"   

And also, just because I am firmly disagree with you, does not mean that I am ranting, or any of the other ways you have chosen to characterize my posts.  I have not called you stupid.  I have not called you dishonest.  Whatever you may think, I have not gone into a towering rage.  I think you are, as some others have done, reading things in I haven't said.  If you want to persist in responding to me as you have been and characterizing me as you have, there isn't much use in going further with this.

Lastly:



> Now, can we take it as a given that nobody is trying to brainwash your daughters




No, we can't.  Just in the past few weeks I've had to deal with:

a) Someone impressed upon them that what defined women/girls was that they liked pink, dolls, frilly things, and other traditional models of femininity. To my great pleasure, they rebelled against this characterization.  But nonetheless, this lead to a misunderstanding between us that required ironing out, because they assumed this was my mental model of 'girl', and it required my assurance and reinforcement that they had every choice to like pink, dolls, frilly things, and so forth at their pleasure or to choose something else - rock climbing, legos, checkers, etc. - if they preferred it.  

b) Someone impressed upon them that since they were girls, they couldn't read and enjoy stories about boys or from a male perspective.  This one I'm still dealing with.  

Now, it's possible the unknown shaper of their world views was some immature boy on a playground, but its also entirely possible that both perceptions came from an adult women expressing her views to them, and the second one in particular is one that could have come from a feminist and represents one of the things I really dislike in the modern '-ist' mindset - unconsidered side effects of advocating that everyone needs a hero that looks like them, tends to delegitimize having as heroes that don't look like you.  I agree with others who think that modern feminism does no favors to either men or women, and often has a terrible and insulting opinion of both.  Shallow advocacy of diversity ends up creating a world where you are expected to identify most with whoever looks most like you.  It might not be the intention to do that, but its where it ends up at (for example the 'Dead White Men' problem).  I can link you to essays by me ruing the lack of strong female leads, but I don't want my daughters to have the impression that there is 'boy's literature about and for boys' and 'girls literature about and for girls' and I certainly don't want them to think that they can't own and enjoy 'boy's literature'.


----------



## Mark Chance

As I've mentioned before, I don't have problems related to female gamers being treated badly in my gaming group because female gamers are not generally permitted in my gaming group. It's not called Man-Day Adventures for nothing. I don't have problems related to female gamers being treated badly in other games I run because I (a) don't treat female gamers badly and (b) I don't tolerate such boorish behavior. No gentleman would.


----------



## Hammerforge

Regarding the OP: Personally, I haven't seen this issue arise in any games I've been in, and I certainly wouldn't condone any disrespectful behavior toward anyone in a game session. But I wonder: What's next--legislation to govern what can and cannot be done at the game table in a private residence?


----------



## Hammerforge

Also, the suggested strength cap in 1E, mentioned in the OP, is really an imposition of a modern situation and worldview on a fantasy medieval setting. D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men. There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.


----------



## Morrus

Hammerforge said:


> Also, the suggested strength cap in 1E, mentioned in the OP, is really an imposition of a modern situation and worldview on a fantasy medieval setting. D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men. There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.




D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves.  It's not a simulation of medieval Europe.  If you want a medieval Europe simulator, you'll need a different game.

If someone were to pick and choose bits of medieval Europe to adopt in their game, and of all the things they could choose - like "no elves" or "civilizations not shaped by magic" or "general drudgery" - the thing they picked was "strength caps for women" I'd definitely be curious as to why.


----------



## Celebrim

Morrus said:


> D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves.




Usually.



> It's not a simulation of medieval Europe.  If you want a medieval Europe simulator, you'll need a different game.




No, you don't.  This quickly approaches claims that the person is having 'badwrongfun' if he wants to use D&D to run a game set in the Roman Republic, bronze age Judea, or a game set in Tekumel, or a game set in the Ice Ages were only stone tools are available, or D&D as a steampunk game inspired by the Firefly TV show, or D&D in Shoganate Japan, or D&D as a horror game in a qausi-Victorian era.  Could other game systems do a better job?  Maybe.  That's a matter of opinion.  D&D however, and particular D&D stripped to its D20 core, can do the job and we I think have little right to tell the DM, "Your game must have elves and dragons"  or "Your game must be set in a particular fantasy world or its not D&D." 

Some of the campaigns that EnWorld posters most fondly remember weren't trope fantasy worlds.

But more to the point, the problem of sexism isn't something we need to address merely in dungeons and dragons, but in any game it could turn up in.  If it is invariably true that mechanical differences between men and women is sexist, then our justification for saying that can't be, "Well dragons exist, so why are you insisting on 'realism' in portraying the sexes?"



> If someone were to pick and choose bits of medieval Europe to adopt in their game, and of all the things they could choose - like "no elves" or "civilizations not shaped by magic" or "general drudgery" - the thing they picked was "strength caps for women" I'd definitely be curious as to why.




If that was the only thing they choose, it might seem pretty salient to me as well.   But this dodges the point I raised earlier.  What if the DM in question was not chose just one bit or another, but had clearly spent great effort to make a particular setting evocative and simulationist - be it 16th century Europe or 16th century Japan.  Is what we are ultimately saying is that it is badwrongfun to have a setting which lacks the egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and progressive politics of modern America?   I have a campaign that is entirely set within goblin society.  The goblins as I have portrayed them are highly sexist beings that do see females only as having value as baby making machines.  Roles for independent females within that society are limited, and female characters face great discrimination.  Rape is considered a normal aspect of society and not really frowned upon.  Without going into the campaign secrets, I believe that ultimately the issues I'm addressing in this 'anti-campaign' (with the players starting out in the role of traditional D&D villains) are worthy of exploration.  Are we suggesting that my goblin campaign must be censured for fear that it might make women uncomfortable and that it is not only badwrongfun but entirely immoral and worthy of scorn?


----------



## Morrus

Celebrim said:


> No, you don't.  This quickly approaches claims that the person is having 'badwrongfun' if he wants to use D&D to run a game set in the Roman Republic,




You're adding that yourself.  I never said that. I said default D&D wasn't - as claimed - medieval Europe.



> n.  D&D however, and particular D&D stripped to its D20 core, can do the job




Nobody said it couldn't. Again, you're adding stuff from your own mind; that didn't come from me.  I was just responding to someone who told us D&D was medieval Europe.



> and we I think have little right to tell the DM, "Your game must have elves and dragons"  or "Your game must be set in a particular fantasy world or its not D&D."




And I didn't say_ that_, either.  I said that D&D wasn't medieval Europe.

 What your campaign has in it is your business, but pronouncing that D&D is medieval Europe just flat-out isn't true.  You'd have to _make_ it medieval Europe.



> But more to the point, the problem of sexism isn't something we need to address merely in dungeons and dragons, but in any game it could turn up in.




Obviously.  That, and many other things, are true.  As it happens, though, I was replying to a post about D&D being medieval Europe.



> Is what we are ultimately saying is that it is badwrongfun to have a setting which lacks the egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and progressive politics of modern America?   I have a campaign that is entirely set within goblin society.  The goblins as I have portrayed them are highly sexist beings that do see females only as having value as baby making machines.  Roles for independent females within that society are limited, and female characters face great discrimination.  Rape is considered a normal aspect of society and not really frowned upon.  Without going into the campaign secrets, I believe that ultimately the issues I'm addressing in this 'anti-campaign' (with the players starting out in the role of traditional D&D villains) are worthy of exploration.  Are we suggesting that my goblin campaign must be censured for fear that it might make women uncomfortable and that it is not only badwrongfun but entirely immoral and worthy of scorn?




Who's the "we" you're addressing there?  Me? You were replying to my post.  No, when I say "D&D is not medieval Europe" I am not suggesting any of those things.

I think you've conjured quite an epic narrative out of my opining that D&D isn't medieval Europe.  For the record, the only conclusion to extrapolate from that post is that D&D isn't medieval Europe.

Just to be clear - my post said that D&D isn't medieval Europe.  

What your campaign setting is is your business.  But equally, you can't pronounce "D&D is playing evil goblins in a vast multicultural space empire spanning all of space and time".  The very best you can say is that your campaign is.


----------



## Mallus

Hammerforge said:


> D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe.



Yes, a medieval Europe awash in hobbits, remarkable plentiful gold coins, wizards, and carnivorous Jello cubes. Tres accurate! 



> There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.



The norm for PC _adventurers_. It's an important distinction. 

PCs start out as exceptions, especially in older version of D&D which don't have NPC class/leveling mechanics. There the 'norm' is "you're a 0 level human forever, deal with it". Acquisition of HPs is pretty clearly "exceptional" and also the norm for PCs. 

This invites the question: why is 'realism' important when dealing with men's strength relative to women, but no so important elsewhere in the system? 

I mean, put whatever you want in your campaigns, but don't pretend it's realistic or logical when it's obviously not.


----------



## technoextreme

Libertad said:


> Geekdom in general is currently a very nebulous subculture, in part because a lot of its common elements (Sci-Fi and Fantasy) are now part of the mainstream.



I hated fantasy for the longest of times and sci-fi wasn't something that I was really ecstatic with.  And yet my geeky activities make anything that you guys could ever come up with pale in comparison.   Its really one of the annoying things about that term because the only examples that ever seem to arise are watching television and reading books which isn't the be all end all of geekiness.


Hammerforge said:


> Also, the suggested strength cap in 1E,  mentioned in the OP, is really an imposition of a modern situation and  worldview on a fantasy medieval setting. D&D, as we all know, is  patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not  weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not  safe to say that they were as strong as men. There may have been rare  exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.



You do realize that the exception is what you are trying to pass off as the norm.  Women combatants were incredibly common throughout history.
EDIT:
Hell even gender conventions weren't even exactly set in stone either.


----------



## Hammerforge

Morrus said:


> D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves.  It's not a simulation of medieval Europe.  If you want a medieval Europe simulator, you'll need a different game.




I didn't say it was a simulation of medieval Europe in terms of being exactly like it. I said it was patterned after it. It is markedly similar to medieval Europe in many respects and was not meant to mirror contemporary worldviews. Sorry, I disagree.


----------



## Hammerforge

Mallus said:


> Yes, a medieval Europe awash in hobbits, remarkable plentiful gold coins, wizards, and carnivorous Jello cubes. Tres accurate!




Of course there are fantasy elements, but that does not lessen what I said. It was intended to have elements of medieval Europe with fantasy elements mixed in. That says nothing about modern worldviews imposed on it. 




> The norm for PC _adventurers_. It's an important distinction.




Yes, adventurers who are products of their society and culture, so that brings us back to the original question rather than getting us anywhere: What are the attitudes of that society? That, of course, is up to each DM/GM, but my point was that it's silly to expect a ruleset (1E) to reflect a 21st-century mind-set when it was not meant to do so. 

And yes, PCs are exceptional, but they still had many weaknesses and limitations, at least in 1E. They were a cut above the rest, but that is far from justifying the imposition of a modern worldview. Sorry, my point still stands.


----------



## billd91

Mallus said:


> This invites the question: why is 'realism' important when dealing with men's strength relative to women, but no so important elsewhere in the system?
> 
> I mean, put whatever you want in your campaigns, but don't pretend it's realistic or logical when it's obviously not.




I'd characterize questions about strength penalties/caps on female characters a bit differently. Attacking the realism when there are unrealistic elements of the game just opens the door to a lot complaints. "Why should crossbows suck so much compared to longbows because of their reload times?" "Why shouldn't my unarmored guy have a worse AC than the guy in full plate?" and so on. Certain sops to realism make the game better and more immersive. 

The question I have is "Is the 'realism' when dealing with men's strength relative women's so important when it negatively affects a sizable segment of the gaming population?" To its credit, D&D answered this question back in 1989 by getting rid of the strength cap.


----------



## Nellisir

Hammerforge said:


> D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men.



I'm pretty sure a medieval laundress would kick my ass in an arm wrestling competition.

(Edit: and no, I don't lift weights or work out.  I'm self-employed in construction. Another carpenter and I were discussing this last week.  The sheer amount of physical labor that was necessary before electricity is staggering.  I can't imagine cutting boards, beams, and posts all day with a handsaw - or rather, I can, and it hurts.)


----------



## Celebrim

Morrus said:


> You're adding that yourself.  I never said that. I said default D&D wasn't - as claimed - medieval Europe.




Well, as long as we are going to be semantic about it, the person you were responding to did not, as you claim, say D&D was medieval Europe.   He in fact said, "D&D is patterned after medieval Europe", which is arguably quite as true or untrue as the claim that "D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves." depending on how generous we are going to be in our understanding (which is apparently not much).  Certainly the default setting of D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves _that is patterned after medieval Europe._  Elves and dragons are after all features of fantasy medieval Europe, things that the medieval may have believed weren't fantasy but a real if rare and usually unseen part of their world.  The hobbits and the elves are patterned after Tolkien's grand fantasy conception of middle earth, which is inarguably inspired and patterned after Medieval Europe and medieval epic romances.  Neither of you however qualified your statement with 'default' or 'most usual'.

Yes, you do have to make D&D medieval Europe, but whatever setting you choose you have to make that too.  You have to either homebrew or buy a setting book.  Either way, you are making the world.  There are published guides for playing D&D as a Viking campaign, or as a Roman campaign, or in bronze age Judea, or in Victorian Europe, and many many other besides.  Is 'Masque of the Red Death' not D&D?   And if it is D&D, then it is inarguably true that D&D is not "a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves."  

D&D is far more than that. 



> Again, you're adding stuff from your own mind; that didn't come from me.  I was just responding to someone who told us D&D was medieval Europe.




Ok fine.  So tell me what you think anyway.  Is it inarguably sexist for a character burner/builder to generate different results for men and women?



> What your campaign setting is is your business.  But equally, you can't pronounce "D&D is playing evil goblins in a vast multicultural space empire spanning all of space and time".  The very best you can say is that your campaign is.




And equally the very best you can say is "my campaign is a fantasy setting with dragons and elves".  That's not even true of every published setting for D&D, much less homebrews.  So if the originally poster was taking too much of short cut by saying D&D is patterned after medieval Europe, your focusing on that particular phrasing I think very much misses the point.  Let's have a frank and open discussion about sexism in gaming, so long as you are allowing this thread to be open, and not a frank discussion about semantics and the meaning of the word 'is' and 'we'.  

By 'we' I mean those of us participating in the thread.  Do we stand by the conclusion that it is inarguably true that a published setting or rules set with a character burner or builder that generates different results for men and women is sexist?  Is that something we all could endorse as obvious, and can we all agree that anyone who disagrees is self-evidently sexist?  Because ultimately by raising the cry of 'sexist' we are passing moral judgment.  You've closed threads before because the cry of 'sexist' was raised over issues like this.   This is your house, and you are participating in the thread.  I'd like to know what you think.


----------



## technoextreme

Hammerforge said:


> And yes, PCs are exceptional, but they still had many weaknesses and limitations, at least in 1E. They were a cut above the rest, but that is far from justifying the imposition of a modern worldview. Sorry, my point still stands.



How much you want to bet that even in campaign settings where it would be completely appropriate like Maztica it is completely absent?


> Ok fine.  So tell me what you think anyway.  Is it inarguably sexist for  a character burner/builder to generate different results for men and  women?​




From a historical standpoint and not just cherry picking a subset yes it is entirely sexist.
​


----------



## Morrus

Celebrim said:


> Well, as long as we are going to be semantic about it, the person you were responding to did not, as you claim, say D&D was medieval Europe.   He in fact said, "D&D is patterned after medieval Europe", which is arguably quite as true or untrue as the claim that "D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves." depending on how generous we are going to be in our understanding (which is apparently not much).  Certainly the default setting of D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves _that is patterned after medieval Europe._  Elves and dragons are after all features of fantasy medieval Europe, things that the medieval may have believed weren't fantasy but a real if rare and usually unseen part of their world.  The hobbits and the elves are patterned after Tolkien's grand fantasy conception of middle earth, which is inarguably inspired and patterned after Medieval Europe and medieval epic romances.  Neither of you however qualified your statement with 'default' or 'most usual'.
> 
> Yes, you do have to make D&D medieval Europe, but whatever setting you choose you have to make that too.  You have to either homebrew or buy a setting book.  Either way, you are making the world.  There are published guides for playing D&D as a Viking campaign, or as a Roman campaign, or in bronze age Judea, or in Victorian Europe, and many many other besides.  Is 'Masque of the Red Death' not D&D?   And if it is D&D, then it is inarguably true that D&D is not "a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves."
> 
> D&D is far more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok fine.  So tell me what you think anyway.  Is it inarguably sexist for a character burner/builder to generate different results for men and women?
> 
> 
> 
> And equally the very best you can say is "my campaign is a fantasy setting with dragons and elves".  That's not even true of every published setting for D&D, much less homebrews.  So if the originally poster was taking too much of short cut by saying D&D is patterned after medieval Europe, your focusing on that particular phrasing I think very much misses the point.  Let's have a frank and open discussion about sexism in gaming, so long as you are allowing this thread to be open, and not a frank discussion about semantics and the meaning of the word 'is' and 'we'.
> 
> By 'we' I mean those of us participating in the thread.  Do we stand by the conclusion that it is inarguably true that a published setting or rules set with a character burner or builder that generates different results for men and women is sexist?  Is that something we all could endorse as obvious, and can we all agree that anyone who disagrees is self-evidently sexist?  Because ultimately by raising the cry of 'sexist' we are passing moral judgment.  You've closed threads before because the cry of 'sexist' was raised over issues like this.   This is your house, and you are participating in the thread.  I'd like to know what you think.




I've never made it a secret that I consider inbuilt mechanical ability caps for women to be sexist. I've opined on that many times. I'm pretty sure I've also done so in this very thread, but I'm not going to scour it to check.   I've even produced videos about it.  It's no secret.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hammerforge said:


> Of course there are fantasy elements, but that does not lessen what I said. It was intended to have elements of medieval Europe with fantasy elements mixed in. That says nothing about modern worldviews imposed on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, adventurers who are products of their society and culture, so that brings us back to the original question rather than getting us anywhere: What are the attitudes of that society? That, of course, is up to each DM/GM, but my point was that it's silly to expect a ruleset (1E) to reflect a 21st-century mind-set when it was not meant to do so.
> 
> And yes, PCs are exceptional, but they still had many weaknesses and limitations, at least in 1E. They were a cut above the rest, but that is far from justifying the imposition of a modern worldview. Sorry, my point still stands.




And that point would be that female characters are stuck with less potential for greatness in certain classes in a _fantasy _game just because a rule says so. Its so funny because OD&D and B/X play just fine without these stat modifiers. If you happen to roll an 18 STR for your female halfling its all good and won't break the game. Personally I find the whole exceptional strength range more game breaking than removing the caps for females would be. The limitations imposed are arbitrary and ridiculous. Why can't a half-orc male be as strong as a human male?  Same arbitrary reasoning. 

Equality in stat generation doesn't have to equate to a modern worldview for the campaign world. In the population at large, on average, men will be stronger than women. The population average is what is going to drive tradition and culture, not a few outlier adventurers. There can be a handful of 18/00 female fighters running around in the world without a universal opinion that women are stronger than men. Not using the stat caps will have little effect on the campaign game world but a huge effect (for the better) on how others perceive your attitudes towards players in your game.


----------



## Celebrim

ExploderWizard said:


> Equality in stat generation doesn't have to equate to a modern worldview for the campaign world. In the population at large, on average, men will be stronger than women.




Suppose instead of a character burner/builder, the source book has a demographics generator (handily included also as a program on an accompanying CD) that lets a DM quickly generate villages, towns, and provinces in rich detail.  And this particular generator is trying to model exactly what you've here asserted - that men are on average stronger than women - such that for a village or town the average strength of the men is a point or two higher than the average strength of the women.  And further, the maximum strength possible for an NPC in the demographic generator is a point or two higher for male characters than female characters, so that the strongest NPC's in a 'world' will be overwhelmingly male.

Is this game also sexist?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Celebrim said:


> Suppose instead of a character burner/builder, the source book has a demographics generator (handily included also as a program on an accompanying CD) that lets a DM quickly generate villages, towns, and provinces in rich detail. And this particular generator is trying to model exactly what you've here asserted - that men are on average stronger than women - such that for a village or town the average strength of the men is a point or two higher than the average strength of the women. And further, the maximum strength possible for an NPC in the demographic generator is a point or two higher for male characters than female characters, so that the strongest NPC's in a 'world' will be overwhelmingly male.
> 
> Is this game also sexist?




Not really IMO. Demographics, npc ability score distribution, etc. are all background data. Background data doesn't directly affect the enjoyment of actual people playing the game like PC stat caps do. 
I'm all about making sure the real people who gathered to play are treated with respect and afforded equal opportunies. I don't care about making sure that fantasy worlds are all politically correct. Anyone who gets overly butthurt over fictional places not involving actual people should work on getting a life instead of playing an rpg.


----------



## Celebrim

ExploderWizard said:


> Not really IMO. Demographics, npc ability score distribution, etc. are all background data. Background data doesn't directly affect the enjoyment of actual people playing the game like PC stat caps do.
> I'm all about making sure the real people who gathered to play are treated with respect and afforded equal opportunies. I don't care about making sure that fantasy worlds are all politically correct. Anyone who gets overly butthurt over fictional places not involving actual people should work on getting a life instead of playing an rpg.




Ok, now suppose that in a fit of purist for sim, the same game has the following character builder options:

a) Construct a village.  Each player is randomly assigned an inhabitant of the village as their character.

OR the more generous optional rule

b) Construct a village.  Each player may select the character in the village that they wish to play.

Is this game system now sexist?   Note, I'm not asking if this is a particularly well designed game.  I'm not asking you if this is a game you'd like to play.  I'm not asking if the game would be enjoyable for every body.   I'm asking is this game actually immoral and worthy of condemnation on those grounds.  Would such a design actually motivated by hatred and fear of women, and ought we when encountering the design be uncomfortable by the implications of the design for women?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Celebrim said:


> Ok, now suppose that in a fit of purist for sim, the same game has the following character builder options:
> 
> a) Construct a village. Each player is randomly assigned an inhabitant of the village as their character.
> 
> OR the more generous optional rule
> 
> b) Construct a village. Each player may select the character in the village that they wish to play.
> 
> Is this game system now sexist? Note, I'm not asking if this is a particularly well designed game. I'm not asking you if this is a game you'd like to play. I'm not asking if the game would be enjoyable for every body. I'm asking is this game actually immoral and worthy of condemnation on those grounds. Would such a design actually motivated by hatred and fear of women, and ought we when encountering the design be uncomfortable by the implications of the design for women?




Now we are back to forcing the background demographic assumptions upon active players. I would not consider such a game to be immoral purely on those grounds but it would be unfair from a gamist standpoint. As to the motivation of the designers, I wouldn't really care. There might be as many women who would love the game as hate it and they shouldn't be denied the right to play it if they want.


----------



## Hammerforge

Nellisir said:


> I'm pretty sure a medieval laundress would kick my ass in an arm wrestling competition.




Maybe, but you're from a different society altogether, one that medieval Europe/D&D is not patterned after. The relevant question is: Would she beat a typical medieval male adult in an arm-wrestling contest?


----------



## Hammerforge

technoextreme said:


> How much you want to bet that even in campaign settings where it would be completely appropriate like Maztica it is completely absent?




What would that prove? It might just mean that the creators of that setting were doing the very thing I am arguing against: imposing a contemporary worldview onto an ancient setting.


----------



## Hammerforge

ExploderWizard said:


> And that point would be that female characters are stuck with less potential for greatness in certain classes in a _fantasy _game just because a rule says so.]




Well, that's really taking things to extremes. In 1E, the maximum strength allowed a female human character is 18/01-50. That's considerable strength, and it's hardly "less potential for greatness" unless you first think that women must have strength equal to men in order to achieve greatness. I'm sure women have much more going for them than just how physically strong they are. 



> Its so funny because OD&D and B/X play just fine without these stat modifiers. If you happen to roll an 18 STR for your female halfling its all good and won't break the game.




The playability or brokenness of the game is really not the issue.



> Equality in stat generation doesn't have to equate to a modern worldview for the campaign world.




Given the way the OP wrote it, it did.


----------



## Kursk

Morrus said:


> You were asked to stop posting in the thread.  You had to anyway, huh?  Well, I guess you'll now need to try refraining form posting on the boards for three days. I'm pretty sure now you're trolling, but _ If_ you decide to come back in three days, please do so with a different attitude.




Dude, you got caught lying.  Man up and take responsibility.  Don't take take it out on the messenger.  That's just being a spineless coward.


----------



## Morrus

Kursk said:


> Dude, you got caught lying.  Man up and take responsibility.  Don't take take it out on the messenger.  That's just being a spineless coward.




Permanent this time?  If you insist.  I guess you knew that, though.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hammerforge said:


> Well, that's really taking things to extremes. In 1E, the maximum strength allowed a female human character is 18/01-50. That's considerable strength, and it's hardly "less potential for greatness" unless you first think that women must have strength equal to men in order to achieve greatness. I'm sure women have much more going for them than just how physically strong they are.




Math doesn't lie. +1 to hit +3 damage vs +3 to hit +6 damage = less potential. 

Perhaps if the game system provided paths other than STR for the fighter class to do its job then having less raw muscle wouldn't be as huge a disadvantage. Its just the nature of AD&D. A female GURPS fighter has options that the AD&D fighter doesn't. She could put fewer points in ST but have a higher DX and weapon skills. She would do less base damage with weapons but have the skill to better target chinks in armor and be as _effective_ a fighter as someone with a higher ST. 

So in AD&D a fighter's STR is the biggest thing going for them, regardless of gender.


----------



## Celebrim

ExploderWizard said:


> I would not consider such a game to be immoral purely on those grounds but it would be unfair from a gamist standpoint.




I could quibble with your use of the word fair, but generously attempting to understand you, I'll simply say that this game I've imagined is clearly not gamist.  So, it would be 'unfair' to judge it from a gamist perspective.   I've already declared that the motivation of the designer was purist for simulation.  Whether the village is an office building and the name of the game is 'Paychecks and Papers' or a medieval village and the name of the game is 'Drudgery and Toil', I think it is pretty clearly the intention of the designer to immerse the players into the setting by making them play ordinary members of the society in question.  This is RPG as pure exploration of setting experience.   

As far as treating the players with respect, surely you agree my rules I've just presented treat all players alike regardless of gender?  The players gender has no bearing on the gender of the character they end up with.  Men may play female characters and women males.  If the rules are 'unfair' because one person ends up with a child with dysentery and another the manorial lord, it didn't happen on the basis of the player's gender.  Those are just the breaks, like having differing stats when you roll up stats randomly.  Moreover, a game that is about the interaction of a peasant child with dysentery and a manorial lord might be a pretty interesting 'Indie' sort of game IMO.   It wouldn't be D&D, but it would be role playing.  And maybe most importantly, for the purposes of the story it is not a given that the child with dysentery is less important than the manorial lord.   Maybe the game doesn't judge and evaluate and set the worth of people solely on their upper body strength and their ability to kick butt.

So having said that, I will now go one step further in this logic.  If the demographics generator isn't sexist, and it isn't sexist to construct and play a game using the rules I just presented, we can't say that it is sexist to construct, publish, and play a game in which a character burner/builder generates different results for men and women.  Why, because clearly we could now introduce a third optional means of character generation - run the character burner for a single individual and play that - and it would be exactly equivalent to either of the prior options.  And we could introduce a fourth option for character generation, run the character burner for a single individual but now you are allowed to make a certain number of choices in the generation non-randomly, assigning the results of the tables as you like rather than according to the results of the dice.  And again, this is exactly equivalent in the results to the prior character generation options (if you don't believe me, the logical proof is use option #2 for character generation, and set the size of the village to be the infinity).  

In other words, if the demographics generator isn't itself sexist, its an inescapable conclusion of logic that we cannot on the basis of whether or not a games character burner produces different results for men and women judge the game as sexist.  We must have additional criteria.  The asserted standard doesn't work.

And there is a very good reason we should be happy that the asserted standard doesn't work.   We live in a world where the average strength of men and women and the maximum strength of men and women differs.   If the demographic generator for our imaginary game is sexist, then our own world is inherently sexist and men really are superior to women.  If we cannot be comfortable with the proposed demographics generator, we cannot be comfortable with who we are as people and we continually assassinate our own rationality to insist that yes men and women have the same strength and anyone who reminds us otherwise is sexist.  If encoding into a game different results of body strength is enough to damn the game, how much more must we damn our own genes and damn the world for men and women being different.

Of course, out in the real world, the basis for our belief in the value of a person isn't their ability to lift weights or kick butt.  So what's so wrong with a game judging the value of the person on something other than their ability to lift weights or kick butt, to say nothing of the fact that in a fantasy game lifting weights might well not be the only or most effective way to kick butt or that in a modern setting pretty much anyone who is a crack shot with a firearm is the peer in martial virtue to anyone else.  What is really so terrible about a game encoding those beliefs?

And lastly, as the final step in my logic, anyone who insists that a game encode mechanical gender equality in its rules is a sexist and worthy of condemnation.  It is of course acceptable to fantasize about or imagine a world were this holds true, or to dodge the issue entirely by noting that the realistic strength cap for both genders is well above what is allowed for a starting character of either gender and so such a rule serves no purpose.  In point of fact, all the games I've created and rules sets I've created are pretty much games of this sort.*  But to accept that all views of reality must assert the anti-rational, anti-historical, and ultimately sexist view that men and women have always been equals in war, as if the real value of a person was their upper body strength and martial virtue, and what was really empowering was to portray women in the comfortable role of men with breasts, is wholly and entirely sexist.  It is a threat to the emotional and mental well-being of my female loved ones, friends and family, to assert that the real standard on whether you respect women is whether you show them as being equal butt kickers to men, to say little of what I think that says about our attitude to violence.   I will not tolerate it and I will call it out.

Fundamentally, my standard of what is and isn't sexist has to be based on objective truth.  It is sexist to say, "You can't be a real gamer, because you are a girl.", because that is objectively false.  It is sexist to say that the only value of women is in the kitchen or making babies, because that is objectively false.  It is sexist to say "A woman can't be a warrior.", because that is objectively false.  But it can't be sexist to assert the objective truth that women on average are less strong than men, or that the maximum strength of men is greater than that of women.  If that assertion makes you uncomfortable, your problem isn't with me but with reality.  I would suggest the problem is that you are still stuck in the chauvinist mindset that what makes a person valuable is their martial virtue, an attitude which unfortunately D&D encodes indirectly because of its legacy as a war game, and you have inadvertently taken up the assumptions of the thing you deplore.

The reason I've been asking the whole time for standards, is I think ultimately this trivial standards like 'does the character burner generate the same options regardless of the gender of the character' are useless.  I can imagine sexist games which allow fully muscled women and non-sexist games which don't.  We shouldn't be using such standards as criteria.

However, if any gamer persists in their sexist belief that all such games are damnable, I'll endeavor to be at least as forgiving of them as they are of mine.  

*My D&D house rules assumes strength caps are irrelevant, since they would be for either gender much higher not only than 18 but at least 23 - the highest strength you could normally obtain - and that in any event high level characters represent not normal people, but superheroes.  Likewise, my SIPS rules set assumes that all characters are prepubescent 9-11 year olds, an age when strength differences between boys and girls are trivially lower than the granularity of the rules set.  Nonetheless, if I did become fascinated with a high simulationist game or wanted to add nods to simulationist rules set that encoded some gender differences, I'd not expect to receive censure for it and am generally uncomfortable with blanket damnation of any other designer that has so done so without consideration of their motivations.


----------



## Celebrim

ExploderWizard said:


> So in AD&D a fighter's STR is the biggest thing going for them, regardless of gender.




And that, and not in the gender rules, is where the sexism is inherent to the system.  D&D has always privileged strength as the most important stat, and violent combat as the privileged resolution system.  It wasn't I think intentional sexism.  I think it was just a result of evolving the game from war gaming roots.


----------



## billd91

Celebrim said:


> And that, and not in the gender rules, is where the sexism is inherent to the system.  D&D has always privileged strength as the most important stat, and violent combat as the privileged resolution system.  It wasn't I think intentional sexism.  I think it was just a result of evolving the game from war gaming roots.




Where, in D&D's war gaming roots, do female characters get a strength cap? Was it built into Chainmail? It didn't appear in OD&D according to other posts (I don't own a copy, myself). If its first appearance is in AD&D's 1st edition, then how could it be a result of evolving the game from its war gaming roots?

More likely, it's an example of a misguided attempt to inject some quasi-simulationist realism without thinking about the chilling effect it would have on getting female players to accept the game and getting male players to accept female players as equals.


----------



## Crothian

ExploderWizard said:


> Perhaps if the game system provided paths other than STR for the fighter class to do its job then having less raw muscle wouldn't be as huge a disadvantage. Its just the nature of AD&D.




You mean options like specialization and double specialization and magic items that increase strength, and magic items that allow all characters to increase their strength beyond attribute limitations.  Sine most characters don't have an 18 strength anyway strength becomes a small percentage of where the bonuses come from.


----------



## Celebrim

billd91 said:


> Where, in D&D's war gaming roots, do female characters get a strength cap?




Where in D&D's war gaming roots do female characters appear at all? 

But I'm afraid you've entirely missed the point by even asking this question at all.  Even without strength caps, the fact that the original game focuses its system as it does on your ability to kick butt means that it has an inherently male centric point of view.  It is the sort of system you'd expect a male wargaming nerd from the late 1960's to create.  The real distinctions in system would be to compare the tactical wargame AD&D is to the sort of more modern systems that don't privilege violence as the foremost skill or combat as the foremost means of conflict resolution or even violent conflict as the foremost sort of conflict. 



> the chilling effect it would have on...getting male players to accept female players as equals.




Really?  You really think that strength caps were having a chilling effect on getting male players to accept female players as equals?  First of all, none of the people I've ever gamed with ever had a problem accepting female players as equals.  They would have been thrilled to have a girl interested in gaming.  Back in junior high or high school some of them would have flirted disastrously as befitting poorly socialized guys with 3 charisma scores but there certainly wouldn't have been the assumption that girls couldn't play.  Second of all, it is not my sense that the reason in 1982 or 1985 the only girls I knew that played were younger sisters of older brothers that played was because of the chilling effect of strength caps on their readiness to game.   No my sense is that there were very few women (or girls, as my peers would have been back then) comfortable with being deemed nerds, hanging out with nerds, and generally threatening their status amongst 'normals' by doing something as geeky and uncool as play D&D.  But we would have loved to get them in the game if they had shown interest and we would have all gladly tossed out the strength cap rules if we at all thought that was what was keeping 'girls' away from our gaming table.  I don't recall ever remembering it mentioned by any woman then, however salient it might seem now.


----------



## technoextreme

Hammerforge said:


> What would that prove? It might just mean that the creators of that setting were doing the very thing I am arguing against: imposing a contemporary worldview onto an ancient setting.



Ehhh... I'm sure that everyone here would be fine with having transgendered characters.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Celebrim said:


> And that, and not in the gender rules, is where the sexism is inherent to the system.  D&D has always privileged strength as the most important stat, and violent combat as the privileged resolution system.  It wasn't I think intentional sexism.  I think it was just a result of evolving the game from war gaming roots.




What? OD&D doesn't feature sexist stat mods, and Chainmail provides no differences if you want to say that a particular unit of troops are all female. 



Crothian said:


> You mean options like specialization and double specialization and magic items that increase strength, and magic items that allow all characters to increase their strength beyond attribute limitations.  Sine most characters don't have an 18 strength anyway strength becomes a small percentage of where the bonuses come from.




All available to every fighter character right?  So why the stubborn refusal to unlock the 51-00 range for females ar chargen? It truly boggles the mind. 

What if in the default setting we retained the STR limits for females but put a limit of 16 on INT for male characters. So now if want to play a male magic user your INT would be capped at 16. No 8th & 9th level spells for you. It would be ok though because there are magic items that can be used to raise your INT. It balances out. Men are better at hitting things and women are better at high level magic. You don't need power Word Kill because you have biceps. 

Makes   no    sense.


----------



## Crothian

ExploderWizard said:


> All available to every fighter character right?  So why the stubborn refusal to unlock the 51-00 range for females ar chargen? It truly boggles the mind.




Who is refusing  anything? The makers of the game got rid of attribute limits based on gender in 2e so not them. No one in this thread has come up in favor if them.

edit: and in answer to the other point I would have no problem if a game restricted human males to a 16 intelligence because human males in the game might be stupid does not mean human males are stupid.  I don't see fantasy games as a reflection of our reality.


----------



## Libertad

Hammerforge said:


> Regarding the OP: Personally, I haven't seen this issue arise in any games I've been in, and I certainly wouldn't condone any disrespectful behavior toward anyone in a game session. But I wonder: What's next--legislation to govern what can and cannot be done at the game table in a private residence?




I never said that a "one size fits all" ban was the ideal approach.  When it comes to private gaming sessions, I suggested in "Confronting Problematic Behavior at the Table" that players and DMs discuss problems where players feel uncomfortable and/or unwelcome, and to speak up when players start treating other players badly.  And to be careful in the handling of certain subjects; not a ban, but to treat it with more care and sensitivity than most other things in a session.  For example, if one of your players is an arachnophobe, you might not want to run a spider-themed dungeon with corpses in cocoons without consulting with said player first.


----------



## billd91

Crothian said:


> edit: and in answer to the other point I would have no problem if a game restricted human males to a 16 intelligence because human males in the game might be stupid does not mean human males are stupid.  I don't see fantasy games as a reflection of our reality.




You know, it's really easy to think this when you come from the privileged position. How do you think an African-American player might feel if a game included the same intelligence cap for dark-skinned characters?


----------



## Morrus

Crothian said:


> edit: and in answer to the other point I would have no problem if a game restricted human males to a 16 intelligence because human males in the game might be stupid does not mean human males are stupid.  I don't see fantasy games as a reflection of our reality.




No, you wouldn't. You'd see it as an amusing oddity. Because, hey, discrimination against men _would_ be an amusing oddity. Women don't have that benefit.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don't know how I feel about En World opening up to political discussions in the RP forums, I think those kinds of discussions can generate emnity on message boards sometimes....but since its being discussed, might as well put in my two cents. I feel like fantasy settings are just that: fantasy. They ought to be whatever people at the table are comfortable with and desire. If that means modern social sensibilities, why not? If it means having real world -isms exist in tbe setting, maybe even as dominant ways of thinking, i upthink its fine if everyone is okay with it. I would make a distinction between a setting that is sexist (Duke Vendar scoffs at the notion of a female knight) versus a system that is sexist (the designers flatly forbid female fighters or something). I think its okay to include some of these elements for background if everyone is fine with it (i have had women at the table who wanted to play in a setting where equality is the rule, but i have also had women who wanted to play a female character who breaks through the sexist assumptions of the surrounding culture). I think the key is to realize this is one of those touchy areas and requires a lot more attention from the GM than less controversial elements.

its also helpful to remember fantasy isnt the only kind of rpg. I play quite a few historical games and you run into an interesting problem with those when it comes to sexism-racism. Some people dobt want to encounter the historical prejudices and injustices in a game set in the past (and that is pefectly reasonable) but others get just as offended by the idea of glossing over those details (and that is also perfectly reasonable). A WWII game set in Germany that completely ignores the holocaust is going to be a problem for some people. A game set in colonial America that acts as if slavery never happened is going to be an insult to others.

I made a Roman game a while back and one of our historical advisers was a feminist writer. My initial instinct was to just ignore the issue of women and the limitations placed on them by romn society, but she felt this ignored historical realities that were important and ignored key aspects of Roman literature from the time. So she convinced me to address and deal with it in the game. I made a note that people should do whatever they want, and feel free to ifnore the restrictions, but included them because she convinced me it might be just as bad for me to not even address the issue. I still don't know if it was the right call or not, but I think this is sometimes more complicated and less black and white than folks make it out to be.


----------



## Crothian

billd91 said:


> You know, it's really easy to think this when you come from the privileged position. How do you think an African-American player might feel if a game included the same intelligence cap for dark-skinned characters?




No, it is just my opinion. Just because it doesn't bother me doesn't mean it won't bother other males and doesn't make it okay to do.


----------



## billd91

Crothian said:


> No, it is just my opinion. Just because it doesn't bother me doesn't mean it won't bother other males and doesn't make it okay to do.




Fair enough. Often, when someone says "Well, it wouldn't bother me," it comes with the subtext "so it shouldn't bother you." Glad to hear that's not the case.


----------



## Hammerforge

ExploderWizard said:


> Math doesn't lie. +1 to hit +3 damage vs +3 to hit +6 damage = less potential.




Yes, math doesn't lie, but it's still clear that you're taking things to extremes because 1) strength is not the only path to greatness, even for fighters (consider the effects that dexterity bonuses have on combat, and there are no gender-based limits for dex in 1E), and 2) the mathematical differences you indicate do not even come close to amounting to the vast differences you're implying. The 18/01-50 bonuses are still significant, and while not "great" it would be safe to call them "less great" rather than bad or mediocre, which you seem to be implying. IOW, you are exaggerating to make your point, and your conclusion is a non sequitur.



> Perhaps if the game system provided paths other than STR for the fighter class to do its job then having less raw muscle wouldn't be as huge a disadvantage.




There are other paths, namely, dexterity. Also, you're confirming here what I suspected: Being limited to 18/01-50 strength is not a "huge disadvantage." It's not as good an advantage as having 18/00 strength, but to call it a huge disadvantage is going to extremes.


----------



## MJS

Morrus said:


> No, you wouldn't. You'd see it as an amusing oddity. Because, hey, discrimination against men _would_ be an amusing oddity. Women don't have that benefit.



That's right, the women are smarter (cue Grateful Dead)

hey IDK about INT, but is it not measurably true that females psychologically mature ahead of males? 
Maybe from now on IMC, males have -1 to WIS. Only female clerics/druids can get to 18 naturally.... I'll send a letter to Wizards asking them to put this in 6E....


----------



## Hammerforge

Libertad said:


> Originally Posted by Hammerforge
> Regarding the OP: Personally, I haven't seen this issue arise in any games I've been in, and I certainly wouldn't condone any disrespectful behavior toward anyone in a game session. But I wonder: What's next--legislation to govern what can and cannot be done at the game table in a private residence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that a "one size fits all" ban was the ideal approach.
Click to expand...



And I never claimed you did. My point was that the kind of thinking displayed in the article is the kind of thinking behind legislation that ensures equality. Such legislation is good, but I also wonder if it could get to the point that a DM who allows a strength cap for women, for example, could be legally accused of committing a hate crime.



> When it comes to private gaming sessions, I suggested in "Confronting Problematic Behavior at the Table" that players and DMs discuss problems where players feel uncomfortable and/or unwelcome, and to speak up when players start treating other players badly.




I agree completely. In far too many games I've played in and run, what I've noticed is that people tend to choose the path of least resistance by keeping silent about something that troubles them instead of telling the DM directly or the DM confronting the troublemaker. One of my players bowed out of my campaign a while back under the pretext of having to spend more time with his newborn son. I suspected there was more to it than that since it isn't difficult to commit to a once-per-month game session. After a hiatus I started up the campaign again--without inviting back a couple of problem players. Guess what? That same player rejoined the game and only *then* told me that he had been offended by something one or both of those problem players had said, something I had not been aware of.



> And to be careful in the handling of certain subjects; not a ban, but to treat it with more care and sensitivity than most other things in a session.  For example, if one of your players is an arachnophobe, you might not want to run a spider-themed dungeon with corpses in cocoons without consulting with said player first.




Or I would tell the player in advance that he/she would be better served in another game, *and* I would expect that player to tell me about said phobia up front before the campaign begins.


----------



## Hammerforge

Also, something about the OP that made me think was something it did *not* take into account (unless I missed it): the objectification of women via distinctly sexually alluring images. I've seen quite a number of illustrations in RPG rulebooks and supplementary material that are clearly intended to present women in a way that resembles softcore porn: scantily clad and posing in such a way as to be sexually alluring. The mind-set behind this kind of artwork is to portray women as nothing more than sex objects, not human beings to respect but objects to use for the sole purpose of sexual gratification. While rape scenes are obviously far worse, the mind-set underlying the two is the same: The female is not seen as a human being worthy of respect, love, and a relationship, but rather a sex toy to use and discard when one's lust has been satiated.


----------



## technoextreme

Celebrim said:


> And lastly, as the final step in my logic, anyone who insists that a game encode mechanical gender equality in its rules is a sexist and worthy of condemnation.  It is of course acceptable to fantasize about or imagine a world were this holds true, or to dodge the issue entirely by noting that the realistic strength cap for both genders is well above what is allowed for a starting character of either gender and so such a rule serves no purpose.  In point of fact, all the games I've created and rules sets I've created are pretty much games of this sort.*  But to accept that all views of reality must assert the anti-rational, anti-historical, and ultimately sexist view that men and women have always been equals in war, as if the real value of a person was their upper body strength and martial virtue, and what was really empowering was to portray women in the comfortable role of men with breasts, is wholly and entirely sexist.  It is a threat to the emotional and mental well-being of my female loved ones, friends and family, to assert that the real standard on whether you respect women is whether you show them as being equal butt kickers to men, to say little of what I think that says about our attitude to violence.   I will not tolerate it and I will call it out.



Except as I said earlier the concept of gender and sex historically was never set in this rigid structure.  Hell there were entire societies where men and women would fight together on equal terms.  Ergo, its pretty sexist to try and justify your entire argument because it has nothing to do with historical precedence.


----------



## mythago

Celebrim said:


> Before I get too much further down this speculation and what I think it means, let me just stop and say, "Does your model of what is being discussed match what I think it does?"




At the risk of sounding Super Unhelpful, I didn't have either as a specific 'model' in mind, both because sexism in tabletop gaming is broader than those two models and because specific subsets of sexism, e.g. "Fake Geek Girl" policing, include behavior not described in either model. 

Addressing only the second model you describe (given that I doubt we disagree at all on the first), it's true that the second model is more ambiguous, and it's true that it is more nuanced; sexism can be blatant, it can be unconscious or clueless. Where I would respectfully disagree is with your putting yourself into the shoes of the woman being given the Trivia Quiz treatment. First, as you've said, you personally have a particular point of view where you are _extremely_ reluctant to label behavior as sexist unless it is very blatant, as in your first model, and you are very inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. You decry people who see everything through the lens of -isms, but most people, I submit, do not fall into one extreme or the other. Second, your model does not consider that this may be far from the first time that the gamer in question has run into this scenario, or others like it. So the problem is not just "this one time, this thing happened", but a pattern. If a female gamer only runs into Bob the Jerk one time out of ten while gaming, or attending cons, that may not sound too bad; it's a minority of jerks, right? But that still means that ten percent of her interactions are having to divert energy to this nonsense - energy she wouldn't have to spend but for the fact of being female.

And, at the risk of being a broken record, issues of sexism go well beyond Fake Geek Girl policing. 




Celebrim said:


> And also, just because I am firmly disagree with you, does not mean that I am ranting, or any of the other ways you have chosen to characterize my posts. I have not called you stupid.  I have not called you dishonest.




In fact, you have accused me of arguing dishonestly, stating that I refuse to acknowledge arguments that I "don't apparently want to hear", that I am falsely claiming moral authority, that I dismissed your arguments because of your gender, and that I am anti-free-speech. I'm happy to have a respectful discussion, even if we disagree, but you're right: there's probably not much use in continuing a conversation where you angrily accuse me of dishonest and vile tactics, and then accuse me of lying about your having done so. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think you are doing this on purpose. But I would ask that you carefully consider what you've said and whether "you're in denial, you man-hating liar" is the best way to advance your point.




Celebrim said:


> No, we can't.  Just in the past few weeks I've had to deal with:




That was sloppy and inaccurate on my part, and you are quite right to call me on it. What I was referring to is your comment, linked above, in which you appeared to suggest that people talking about sexism in tabletop gaming were trying to brainwash your daughters with their sexism-paranoid feminism. To be accurate, what I should have said is that in the context of this discussion, nobody _here_, to my knowledge, is insisting that your daughters accept a particular political or social philosophy. As a parent myself, I am all too familiar with the problem of people trying to shove their own gender anxieties and fetishes onto other people's children.


----------



## mythago

Hammerforge said:


> And I never claimed you did. My point was that the kind of thinking displayed in the article is the kind of thinking behind legislation that ensures equality. Such legislation is good, but I also wonder if it could get to the point that a DM who allows a strength cap for women, for example, could be legally accused of committing a hate crime.




In the US? No, it couldn't; that is not what 'hate crimes' or how 'hate crime' laws work. Even in countries that do restrict certain speech - for example, which make it a crime to deny the Holocaust - this wouldn't fall into that category. Goodness.


----------



## VelvetViolet

I find Paizo's attempts to be inclusive rather bizarre, since D&D is founded on racism being measurably true (e.g. dwarves are genetically hardwired to be good at appraising precious metals, half-orcs are genetically stupider than humans, etc) and ethnic cleansing and crime fantasy being a common past time (e.g. breaking into the homes of goblins, orcs, gnolls and other "ugly" peoples to kill them and take their stuff).

It's very strange to me when in the game world, its okay to be racist towards elves and orcs (even killing them), but when someone is prejudiced toward black people, gay people, or female people, they're irredeemably evil as in the real world. Just because elves and orcs are fictional doesn't excuse prejudice against them or the racist way they're designed. D&D societies display this bizarre moral system where they treat their own kind with 21st century liberal attitudes, but otherwise act like conquistadors/cowboys/etc.

Hiromu Arakawa invented a new human ethnicity for her manga (Ishvalans) with dark skin, white hair and red eyes, and then proceeded to explore the prejudice against them after they were victims of genocide and the horrible struggles they faced. It definitely blew all those shallow D&D sourcebooks on races out of the water.


----------



## mythago

Raneth said:


> I find Paizo's attempts to be inclusive rather bizarre, since D&D is founded on racism being measurably true (e.g. dwarves are genetically hardwired to be good at appraising precious metals, half-orcs are genetically stupider than humans, etc) and ethnic cleansing and crime fantasy being a common past time (e.g. breaking into the homes of goblins, orcs, gnolls and other "ugly" peoples to kill them and take their stuff).




Let's not forget the drow, an irredeemably evil, demon-worshipping culture where not only was everyone actually black-skinned, but their social and political structure was _matriarchal_ (horrors!) 

D&D is rooted less in "medieval Europe" per se than in Tolkien, where all the orcs were in fact evil creations/slaves of Sauron, and not a race of humanoids with families and villages and so forth. D&D for a long time had a weird hybrid of the two, where orcs, goblins and so on were actually people, but stereotypically evil so it was OK to kill them - one of the main plot points in _Order of the Stick_ is the genocide of goblin races by "lawful good" paladins, and showing families destroyed, children slaughtered, peaceful villages razed because well, they're evil, right? QED.

I suspect the blind spot here is less racism (which is also a problem, and deserves its own full discussion) than the way D&D looks at intelligent beings who are 'monsters'. (Yes, the dragon is evil, but it was just lolling around on its hoard minding its own business until you armored bozos walked in.)


----------



## Lwaxy

And that is why I never allowed any race to be totally evil (nor good alinged people to just rob them) unless there was an ingame reason, i.e all Urukhai were created to be evil). Although I am all in favor to skip the mental ability adjustments for good. 

Anyway, this is going off topic, if there is need to discuss racism/portrayal of races in RPG it needs its own thread.


----------



## VelvetViolet

mythago said:


> Let's not forget the drow, an irredeemably evil, demon-worshipping culture where not only was everyone actually black-skinned, but their social and political structure was _matriarchal_ (horrors!)



It would've been equally as stupid if everyone had snow white skin and were patriarchal, _except detractors wouldn't have noticed_. The Drow are just evil WASPs with the colors inverted.

In a parallel universe where, say, black women had colonized the world, D&D would feature white patriarchal drow and still be considered racist/sexist.


----------



## mythago

Raneth said:


> It would've been equally as stupid if everyone had snow white skin and were patriarchal




....ah, but that's the point. They weren't. (As my dad used to say, "Yeah, and if Grandma had a beard, she'd be Grandpa.") We're not in a parallel universe, we're in this one, where the evil elves are black-skinned and worship a demon goddess and are not only matriarchal, but oppressively and violently so. They're the D&D version of the ancient Greek's terrified myths about the Amazons; a society run by women? They're evil and will subjugate us!

If what you're trying to say is that everybody is bigoted and in a mirror-mirror universe it would be the opposite, um, that's a pretty hard hypothesis to test. It's also a bit beside the point. Are you trying to argue that bigotry doesn't count because, in theory, everybody in power would do it? So what? Is that some kind of claim that two wrongs (one in a fictional parallel universe) make a right?


----------



## Nellisir

Hammerforge said:


> Maybe, but you're from a different society altogether, one that medieval Europe/D&D is not patterned after. The relevant question is: Would she beat a typical medieval male adult in an arm-wrestling contest?




Never mind; I really don't want to get into this.


----------



## VelvetViolet

mythago said:


> ....ah, but that's the point. They weren't. (As my dad used to say, "Yeah, and if Grandma had a beard, she'd be Grandpa.") We're not in a parallel universe, we're in this one, where the evil elves are black-skinned and worship a demon goddess and are not only matriarchal, but oppressively and violently so. They're the D&D version of the ancient Greek's terrified myths about the Amazons; a society run by women? They're evil and will subjugate us!
> 
> If what you're trying to say is that everybody is bigoted and in a mirror-mirror universe it would be the opposite, um, that's a pretty hard hypothesis to test. It's also a bit beside the point. Are you trying to argue that bigotry doesn't count because, in theory, everybody in power would do it? So what? Is that some kind of claim that two wrongs (one in a fictional parallel universe) make a right?



No. I'm saying that societies that consist of exaggerated stereotypes are silly. Whether its drow or _A Handmaid's Tale_, they're equally silly.

If the Drow had been morally relativistic and less man-hating lunatics, we wouldn't be arguing how racist they are. We'd be arguing "is it morally right for drow women to force their husbands into the kitchen or to abandon their unwanted sons in the wilderness?" Seriously, sci-fi writers do this sort of thing all the time.


----------



## evilbob

OP:  Great thread.  Definitely something that needs more discussion.  Thanks for starting it.  Sorry you basically have to go on the defensive for every position you're taking.

I haven't really gotten into this thread, but some of the more recent post discussions are actually handled pretty well by the OP.  Here are some examples:
- Bigotry is bad.  It doesn't matter if "reverse bigotry" "would" have happened or not; that doesn't justify bigotry.
- The reason why you cannot compare racism against elves to racism against black people is because elves don't exist.  You can certainly explore why racism against elves might be bad in a game, but that doesn't mean that it somehow justifies additional racism against actual people who do exist.  Also see:  sexism.
- Men and women haven't always been considered equal throughout history.  That doesn't justify sexism now.  History is full of really bad mistakes.  We're talking about now.  Even fantasy games set in a historical world do not get a pass because the people who are playing those games are living now, and the feelings they have are being felt now.

A lot of arguments against the OP tend to boil down to "slippery slope" accusations:
"Why can't I include rape when I include spiders?  I can't know if you're agoraphobic any more than I know if you're sensitive to rape!"
"If you start telling people they can't include X in their games, that's restricting their free speech!"  (The idea being that asking someone not to say something will eventually lead to them not being able to say it.)

These are false premises.  The first example (while a little over-the-top) ignores the fact that pretty much anyone can tell the social, sub-textual, and reasonable difference between those two extremes.  It's not fair to try to justify an easily recognizably heinous example with an easily recognizably softer one.  The second example is exactly the same, although it seems different:  the idea that anyone will actually censor your right to say something is absurd.  It's about realizing that speech has consequences, not that speech is (or would ever be) restricted.  To put that another way:  it's not about what you CAN or CANNOT do; it's about what you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Raneth said:


> It's very strange to me when in the game world, its okay to be racist towards elves and orcs (even killing them), but when someone is prejudiced toward black people, gay people, or female people, they're irredeemably evil as in the real world. Just because elves and orcs are fictional doesn't excuse prejudice against them or the racist way they're designed. D&D societies display this bizarre moral system where they treat their own kind with 21st century liberal attitudes, but otherwise act like conquistadors/cowboys/etc.




It's posts like this that make me wonder how I've made it this far being a black guy being part of this hobby since the early 80's. It's posts like this that really make me wonder, if even for a split second, that maybe the people who made fun of me for playing a "white people's game" didnt have a point. 

I was considering going full court press on getting my 11 year old and his friends into RPG's this year. 

Now I'm thinking maybe, just maybe I should stick with the board and card games (Settlers, Pandemic, Munchkin) that I've been introducing them too. And keep them as far away from the RPG community as possible.


----------



## Bedrockgames

ShinHakkaider said:


> It's posts like this that make me wonder how I've made it this far being a black guy being part of this hobby since the early 80's. It's posts like this that really make me wonder, if even for a split second, that maybe the people who made fun of me for playing a "white people's game" didnt have a point.
> 
> I was considering going full court press on getting my 11 year old and his friends into RPG's this year.
> 
> Now I'm thinking maybe, just maybe I should stick with the board and card games (Settlers, Pandemic, Munchkin) that I've been introducing them too. And keep them as far away from the RPG community as possible.



I really hope you stick with it and introduce them to RPGs. Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on this point a bit. I would be interested to know what it is in particular about the post that made you feel this way and what it is about RPGs in general that you think causes a lot of people to view it as a white-man's game. I've been gaming since the 80s and it has been getting more diverse in my area, but not much improved since the late 90s I would say.


----------



## Morrus

Raneth said:


> I find Paizo's attempts to be inclusive rather bizarre, since D&D is founded on racism being measurably true (e.g. dwarves are genetically hardwired to be good at appraising precious metals, half-orcs are genetically stupider than humans, etc) and ethnic cleansing and crime fantasy being a common past time (e.g. breaking into the homes of goblins, orcs, gnolls and other "ugly" peoples to kill them and take their stuff).
> 
> It's very strange to me when in the game world, its okay to be racist towards elves and orcs (even killing them), but when someone is prejudiced toward black people, gay people, or female people, they're irredeemably evil as in the real world. Just because elves and orcs are fictional doesn't excuse prejudice against them or the racist way they're designed. D&D societies display this bizarre moral system where they treat their own kind with 21st century liberal attitudes, but otherwise act like conquistadors/cowboys/etc.




You cannot discriminate against fictional races.  It's impossible.  You_ can _discriminate against real people.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Bedrock, I dont want to derail the sexism thrust of the thread so I'll be brief. It was the tone of post that just rubbed me the wrong way. 

It was the implications that fictional creatures somehow carry as much if not more weight than actual REAL living people who exist. 

It was also the idea of racist = irredeemably evil. Which is not the case ESPECIALLY in the US where the first defense against the accusation of racism is "well theyre not all saints" or "Just deal with it" or "You should have a thicker skin". I'm dealing with an issue RIGHT NOW with the seeming acceptance of young white people dressing up in blackface and seeing NOTHING wrong with it at all. 

To the second part: 
I grew up in areas in NYC where if you were black and male and if you read and knew how to construct and speak in complete sentences you were considered "Acting white". Oddly enough reading Comic Books was OKAY. But anything out of the ordinary, like say the D&D Red Box or the Advanced D&D players handbook was considered a "white people's game" mainly because at the time (and still) there arent a whole lot of black people who are into RPG's. 

And historically having been part of several RPG forum communities? I can't say that I blame them. 

I see a company like Paizo purposefully looking to be more inclusive and then getting derided for it? Kinda makes me think that racial inclusion at least is a lost cause. Gender and Sexism issues are good to go I think because almost everyone at least knows someone else of the opposite gender. And these days alot of people know of at least one person who is LGBT. But I'm pretty certain that in terms of race there's not a lot of mixing. Especially of black males. So there's that. 

Back to the topic at hand...


----------



## Bedrockgames

ShinHakkaider, thanks for the response. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position, and that makes a lot of sense. I've seen this debate here and on other forums, and while I think it is fair to for people to argue whether all fantasy RPG settings need to be inclusive, I don't think people should be giving Paizo grief for trying to be more inclusive.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Bedrockgames said:


> ShinHakkaider, thanks for the response. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position, and that makes a lot of sense. I've seen this debate here and on other forums, and while I think it is fair to for people to argue whether all fantasy RPG settings need to be inclusive, I don't think people should be giving Paizo grief for trying to be more inclusive.




No Problem BedrockGames. 

And just to clarify my stance on inclusivity in RPG's? My favorite RPG genres are Supers and FRPG's. 

Supers for fairly obvious reasons I guess. Your race and sex really shouldnt matter that much if you can take over someone's mind or benchpress a tank. (but superhero comics have their own issues around sexism and racism. But theyre handling it a hell of a lot better than the RPG community seems to be doing)

And as for FRPG's? I've NEVER seen them as medieval simulators. EVER. Are there peices of medieval touches in these games? ABSOLUTELY. You see it in the dress and in the armor and in a bunch of other things. But Greyhawk, FR, Planescape and Golarion ARE NOT medieval Europe. 

The idea that people claim this and then get pissed off when anyone OTHER than a white/Euro d00d shows up in game just annoys the hell out of me. People who get annoyed with the idea of Asian monks in their D&D are people I just dont need around me. People who scratch their heads at a half-elf PC who's mother or father was black are people I dont need around me. People who go on and on about how Pirates in their D&D game are okay but NO GUNS in their D&D games are people I dont need around me. 

Because IT IS FRPG that makes it inclusive. For someone who isnt white and wants to play a character who isnt white because it's NOT medieval Europe it allows people to do just that without worrying if it's historically accurate. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT HISTORY!! LOL!!


----------



## VelvetViolet

Nowhere did I imply hypothetical reverse bigotry justifies bigotry. Discussing hypothetical histories were [insert race] colonized the world is just speculation. There is absolutely no line of logic where that justifies letting people get slaughtered in Sudan or using racial slurs. I meant to criticize the drow for being cartoonishly evil, and that this applies to all such fictional groups regardless of their race/gender. I wrote a topic about my dislike of always chaotic evil races elsewhere.

But back onto fictional racism, my point is that fictional characters in the D&D world are free to be racist against elves and orcs, but the moment they're racist against black/gay/women people or whoever, they're considered scumbags _by the other people in the game world_. It's a weird double standard that doesn't accurately reflect human psychology. I would like D&D books to address the topic of racism against fantasy races and real races alike and how to maturely handle it (and not through revenge fantasy).

Fantasy and scifi races were (and still are) meant to be stand-ins for humans of exotic extraction. Basically, they exist to recreate the original racist stereotypes like noble savage and exotic dancer without offending real people by saying that they're aliens/elves and that makes it okay. I don't believe it does.

I feel this reflects a very deep-seated psychological problem with people: inborn prejudice. Since racism is UnPC, writers and gamers decide to project their inherent xenophobia/xenophilia onto fictional constructs instead. But it's still (vicariously) racist and those writers/gamers would be racist against real people if they weren't trained to be accepting by society.

D&D is just conquistador/cowboy/crime/etc fantasy with the indians and chinese and poor people replaced with elves and orcs to look politically correct. But at its core it's still White Man's Manifest Destiny (or, if you live in an alternate universe where [insert race] people colonized the world, [insert race]'s Manifest Destiny).


----------



## FickleGM

I believe that it reflects human psychology very accurately. Humans have always had the ability to nonchalantly hate and ridicule and attack any group that they can "dehumanize" or otherwise rationalize as being "evil".


----------



## Celebrim

Raneth said:


> Fantasy and scifi races were (and still are) meant to be stand-ins for humans of exotic extraction.




I completely and utterly disagree.  Maybe this is true occasionally, but it hardly the norm.



> Basically, they exist to recreate the original racist stereotypes like noble savage and exotic dancer without offending real people by saying that they're aliens/elves and that makes it okay.




This is a weird, narrow, and overly political way to approach sci-fi and fantasy literature.   The 'buggers' in Orson Scott Card's 'Ender's Game' aren't meant as stand in for any human ethnic group, much less a specific ethnic group.   Racism, even particular cases of racism, is not the highest level we can discuss the problem of The Other, hatred, war, and violence at.  It's an important part of the conversation, but it isn't the whole of the conversation.   The Ruhml in Dickerson's 'The Alien Way' aren't a stand in for any real human racial group.  Neither are the Cobbies in 'A Deepness in the Sky' intended as caricatures of any real ethnic group. The Wookies in Star Wars would be trivialized to make them stand ins for any real human rational group and are not best understood in this light.   

Likewise, Elves aren't meant to stand in for any human racial group.   Dwarves aren't meant to stand in for any human racial group.  Elves and Dwarves and the like are pretty pervasive to human myth the world over.   The best explanations I've seen are that ties them to anything real is that they are inspired by contact with people with genetic abnormalities - real little people - and attempts to explain or rationalize this uncanny experience in the absence of any real scientific understanding.  But even that is I think too shallow to example the power the archetypes have over our thought, nor do I think it particularly insightful to treat the presence of dwarves, fairies, and elves as a proxy for prejudices against real dwarves and midgets.

I think it's a very bad policy to assume that the only thing that a writer has to say is some sort of xenophobia/xenophilia prejudice.  You've basically just condemned the whole of science fiction and fantasy fandom as vicarious racists.



> I feel this reflects a very deep-seated psychological problem with people: inborn prejudice.




I agree it is a deep-seated problem, but consider prejudice to be just one symptom of a deeper and more pervasive problem.


----------



## Libramarian

Raneth said:


> I find Paizo's attempts to be inclusive rather bizarre, since D&D is founded on racism being measurably true (e.g. dwarves are genetically hardwired to be good at appraising precious metals, half-orcs are genetically stupider than humans, etc) and ethnic cleansing and crime fantasy being a common past time (e.g. breaking into the homes of goblins, orcs, gnolls and other "ugly" peoples to kill them and take their stuff).



The belief that there are inherent differences between races isn't necessarily racism: it's racialism. Racialism only becomes racism if you believe that these differences entail that one race is superior to another (I am neither a racialist nor a racist, but I've seen Henry Louis Gates make this distinction and it seems like a good one). In D&D, racialism between humanoids is true, but--I feel that this isn't acknowledged enough--racialism between humans is untrue (unlike the Elder Scrolls videogames, where the difference between a black person and a "Nord" is equivalent to the difference between an Orc and a cat-person).


> Just because elves and orcs are fictional doesn't excuse prejudice against them or the racist way they're designed.



D&D monsters aren't just fictional, they're magical--meaning they don't just lack real-world existence, they have properties that are impossible in the real world, like inherent and irredeemable evilness. I think that actually does excuse prejudice against them.

Is D&D about confronting and exploring issues of racism and genocide? No, but I don't think it has a responsibility to be about that. D&D is pretty unabashedly on the escapist side of the entertainment spectrum. It's cool if you push your D&D in that direction but I don't think it's reasonable or useful to expect everyone to do so, unless you have a problem with all forms of escapist entertainment and think that everything should be about moral self-improvement all the time.


----------



## Nellisir

Celebrim said:


> This is a weird, narrow, and overly political way to approach sci-fi and fantasy literature.   The 'buggers' in Orson Scott Card's 'Ender's Game' aren't meant as stand in for any human ethnic group, much less a specific ethnic group.   Racism, even particular cases of racism, is not the highest level we can discuss the problem of The Other, hatred, war, and violence at.  It's an important part of the conversation, but it isn't the whole of the conversation.   The Ruhml in Dickerson's 'The Alien Way' aren't a stand in for any real human racial group.  Neither are the Cobbies in 'A Deepness in the Sky' intended as caricatures of any real ethnic group.




I kinda want to know what groups CJ Cherryh's hani, mahendo'sat, stsho, and kif are supposed to represent.  And to be really great, please interpret the tc'a and chi, and the knnn as human cultural groups or archtypes.

The whole point of something like _sfik_ or _man'chi_, to mix series, is that they are unhuman qualities that can't be totally understood.


----------



## Lwaxy

Ok, enough with going off topic... go here for a racism in RPGs poll.


----------



## WayneLigon

Raneth said:


> Fantasy and scifi races were (and still are) meant to be stand-ins for humans of exotic extraction. Basically, they exist to recreate the original racist stereotypes like noble savage and exotic dancer without offending real people by saying that they're aliens/elves and that makes it okay. I don't believe it does.




I'd have to go with 'no, they are not'. Creating other races is a concept that was used long before anyone ever even thought such depictions might offend some group. Just because some writers might use it that way (or make claims to that fact) doesn't mean all or even a majority of writers create races for that reason. Most of the fiction I've read, authors have no problem with having racism among the various human peoples and don't need stand-ins.


----------



## goatunit

Excellent post, Libertad. Thank you for writing it.


----------



## Samloyal23

Morrus said:


> You cannot discriminate against fictional races.  It's impossible.  You_ can _discriminate against real people.




But you can play a character in the game who does discriminate against them, and that would be racism. You would be playing a racist. In that case you have to wonder if it would affect your character's alignment. If you play a dwarf who hates an elf because of the elf's race, not because of something that elf did, can your dwarf be considered "good"? Something to think about...


----------



## Umbran

Please note that the post you're responding to is over a year old.


----------

