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

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by shilsen

And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam in this post, I seriously don't see why the societal factors and biology of our world should even be that relevant to how we portray the sexes and sexism in a fantasy world, much (if not all) of which clearly does not share either our societal factors and biology.

In most settings (published & homebrew), it's taken that (most) 'humans' are essentially identical to real world humans, sexual dimorphism and all. There are exceptions, like the Wilderlands' Amazons, but the base line human is a human much like those of the real world. Basing arguments on rules for generating PCs is a complete red herring IMO. There are good metagame reasons for not imposing Strength penalties on female PCs. They have nothing to do with non-heroic female NPCs, who are normally assumed to have similar strength to real-world human females; likewise human males.

Apart from Order of the Stick, I have never seen a setting where the world is created based on the PC-centric rules in the PHB.

As for nature vs nurture, obviously the two sides of this politically charged argument are unlikely to agree on either premises or conclusions.

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by shilsen

I'm not presuming that everyone is going to be interested in or able to engage in a discussion with me on the subject. More than a few people have popped in to say essentially "you're wrong" and left, and that's fine too.

Which is, really, what I'm doing too. I'm just following up a little bit since you were kind enough to reply rather than read, and pass over my comments.

Originally Posted by shilsen

In that case, is the behavior of those of us posting in this thread really that important or offensive to you?

I'm not offended, I'm just saying.

Originally Posted by shilsen

I'll have to pass. From what little I've seen of Circvs Maximvs, it doesn't make for polite and well-reasoned discussion, especially on inflammatory subjects. And admittedly some of that is sheer laziness

Well, it's neither here nor there, but I'd suggest you have another look. I find the opposite to be true. Without moderation to hide behind, people are more responsible for what they say. There are some real douchey comments from real douchey people from time to time, but since everyone is free to call them on their douchiness, that's the minority. The climate at Circvs Maximvs actually is more conducive to polite and well-reasoned discussion than here in many ways. At least in my opinion.

Although you do have to be prepared for the occasional unexpected wild ride from time to time.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by shilsen

And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam in this post, I seriously don't see why the societal factors and biology of our world should even be that relevant to how we portray the sexes and sexism in a fantasy world, much (if not all) of which clearly does not share either our societal factors and biology.

Because it's easier that way. Like I brought up in another thread about why people expect some form of realism (in that case physical realism) in their games, it's easiest to handle game settings as an exercise in exception, by describing where it's different from what we know and understand, than by construction.

We all have experience with a variety of modern social relationships, we all have some familiarity with past ones via our knowledge of history, portrayals in historical media, portrayals adapted into modern media, and the modern products of those past relationships. Structuring a campaign setting with all sorts of alternative social relationships takes a lot of hard work, particularly when these alternatives are probably going to be filtered through the brain as comparisons with the ones we already know anyway.

[Ycore Rixle]

Originally Posted by ardoughter

Sexism may be caused by biology but that does not mean that is cannot be argued against or decryed.

You're right. That was a poor argument of mine, and it doesn't follow at all. Sorry about that. There are plenty of things caused by biology that can and should be argued against and decried. Like cancer and lifespans that are way, way too short. Forgive me, it was late.

What I meant was that if sexism is not counter to a good life as a human, then it should not be argued against or decried. If it's biological in origin, and not harmful to life, then it should not only be accepted but exploited.

For instance, schools can do very well to consider sex trends in their organization, curricula, and pedagogy. Arguing that differences between boys and girls, on average, can be socialized out of existence is very harmful to our boys and girls. That goes for D&D and RPGs, too: arguing that differences between men and women are only social (despite strong evidence to the contrary) can only hurt the game and limit its audience.

[Hussar]

If you are going to deal with issues of sexism in game, I would first be really, really up front with your players on it. I'm a huge believer in groups sitting down, before character generation, before play, and discussing and hashing out elements that they all would like to see in the game. The buy in for the campaign tends to work better when everyone is singing from the same page (or at least humming along).

Sexism, like any other real world issue, can get people pissed off. And that's not something you probably want at your gaming table. You have to know your players for this to work. If you are going to, for example, explore the idea that women are X (whether that be exploited, or on top matriarchy, or whatever), then make sure your players are groovy with this in the game. If they're not on board, your game's going to die a painful death, so, you might as well know up front.

Now, personally, I think the issue should be dealt with at a more community level. Individual games can certainly do what they can, but, I think it does help the hobby in general if we are more supportive of any trend that expands the hobby. To be 100% honest here, this has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with wanting the hobby to be so culturally accepted and ingrained that it's perfectly mainstream. That being able to find a tabletop group anywhere, anytime, is no more difficult than finding a local team to join. If that means making some efforts to open things up to women, hey, I'm all for it.

I'm not entirely sure how to do that, although, perhaps smacking the guy oggling the breasts of the girl who happened to come into the FLGS is a damn good start.

[Gentlegamer]

Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Gentlegamer

Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .

Is there one? This promises to be hilarious.

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by ardoughter

In regards to the settings, I would agree with the OP that very few of the settings stand up to scrutily with regard to numbers of sentient species and top level predators. I cannot imagine that Elves/Eladrin could have reproduction biology resembling humans or the world would be buried under the weight of starving elves.

Nice image!

Other than that, it will be as sexist as the society that create it. There is so much of our daily assumption that we do not question and that will be reflected in the campaigns we create, unless someone calls us on it.
This also applies to the gamer culture in general also.

True. Which is why I'm calling

Originally Posted by S'mon

In most settings (published & homebrew), it's taken that (most) 'humans' are essentially identical to real world humans, sexual dimorphism and all.

I agree that it seems to be so. Obviously, I have some issues with that. And I think it's especially amusing (though I understand why it exists) when that gets applied to non-human fantasy species to, which it often/usually does.

There are exceptions, like the Wilderlands' Amazons, but the base line human is a human much like those of the real world. Basing arguments on rules for generating PCs is a complete red herring IMO. There are good metagame reasons for not imposing Strength penalties on female PCs. They have nothing to do with non-heroic female NPCs, who are normally assumed to have similar strength to real-world human females; likewise human males.

Fair enough. We'll have to differ about the red herring angle, since I think the fact that female PCs (and many NPCs, for that matter) can have exactly the same stats (physical and mental) as any male PCs is relevant.

Originally Posted by Hobo

Well, it's neither here nor there, but I'd suggest you have another look. I find the opposite to be true. Without moderation to hide behind, people are more responsible for what they say. There are some real douchey comments from real douchey people from time to time, but since everyone is free to call them on their douchiness, that's the minority. The climate at Circvs Maximvs actually is more conducive to polite and well-reasoned discussion than here in many ways. At least in my opinion.

Okay. Maybe I'll take a look at it another time, but I'm not putting money on it, more due to time issues than anything else.

Although you do have to be prepared for the occasional unexpected wild ride from time to time.

So I noticed

Originally Posted by billd91

Because it's easier that way. Like I brought up in another thread about why people expect some form of realism (in that case physical realism) in their games, it's easiest to handle game settings as an exercise in exception, by describing where it's different from what we know and understand, than by construction.

We all have experience with a variety of modern social relationships, we all have some familiarity with past ones via our knowledge of history, portrayals in historical media, portrayals adapted into modern media, and the modern products of those past relationships. Structuring a campaign setting with all sorts of alternative social relationships takes a lot of hard work, particularly when these alternatives are probably going to be filtered through the brain as comparisons with the ones we already know anyway.

That's a reasonable and very plausible explanation. And I understand the reasons which you listed, even though I may sometimes decry the end results.

Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle

What I meant was that if sexism is not counter to a good life as a human, then it should not be argued against or decried. If it's biological in origin, and not harmful to life, then it should not only be accepted but exploited.

I personally think - and find, in my experience - that sexism tends to be pretty harmful to a good life. And by sexism I specifically mean when one treats someone not as an individual but rather as a member of a particular group and assumes certain things about them on that basis.

For instance, schools can do very well to consider sex trends in their organization, curricula, and pedagogy. Arguing that differences between boys and girls, on average, can be socialized out of existence is very harmful to our boys and girls. That goes for D&D and RPGs, too: arguing that differences between men and women are only social (despite strong evidence to the contrary) can only hurt the game and limit its audience.

I obviously differ with you about the strong evidence, since I think the social and cultural differences heavily supersede and mediate any biological ones. Also, since we - as human beings - are constantly overriding and mediating our biology in order to go about our day-to-day lives, I also have some issues with heavy emphasis on gender as the determinant of individual identity. And, to tie it back to the issue of gaming again, especially so when it comes to an individual playing a game which is essentially about the imagination.

Originally Posted by Hussar

If you are going to deal with issues of sexism in game, I would first be really, really up front with your players on it. I'm a huge believer in groups sitting down, before character generation, before play, and discussing and hashing out elements that they all would like to see in the game. The buy in for the campaign tends to work better when everyone is singing from the same page (or at least humming along).

Sexism, like any other real world issue, can get people pissed off. And that's not something you probably want at your gaming table. You have to know your players for this to work. If you are going to, for example, explore the idea that women are X (whether that be exploited, or on top matriarchy, or whatever), then make sure your players are groovy with this in the game. If they're not on board, your game's going to die a painful death, so, you might as well know up front.

Good point. And, as you said, this is just a good idea in general. Making sure everyone is on the same page helps a lot.

Now, personally, I think the issue should be dealt with at a more community level. Individual games can certainly do what they can, but, I think it does help the hobby in general if we are more supportive of any trend that expands the hobby. To be 100% honest here, this has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with wanting the hobby to be so culturally accepted and ingrained that it's perfectly mainstream. That being able to find a tabletop group anywhere, anytime, is no more difficult than finding a local team to join. If that means making some efforts to open things up to women, hey, I'm all for it.

I appreciate the honesty. My primary aim, personally, is much more about just being equally accepting and inclusive to different people and less about improving the cultural acceptance of the hobby. But I do think that making D&D less of a boy's club would be a good move to that end.

I'm not entirely sure how to do that, although, perhaps smacking the guy oggling the breasts of the girl who happened to come into the FLGS is a damn good start.

Good move. A lot of the time I think the issue with sexism in the community is not so much about people being sexist themselves, but simply not saying anything when other people are. Which, while arguably not being as poor a form of behavior, certainly does allow the behavior to continue and perhaps flourish.

Originally Posted by Gentlegamer

Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .

Originally Posted by Mallus

Is there one? This promises to be hilarious.

Like Mallus, I'm very interested to hear it.

[DrunkonDuty]

Wow, what a long thread. But I've gotten to the end. So let me just say:

Great thread.

In general terms I'd have to agree with the OP and the others (Proserpine, Matthew Freedman* and Canis to name the ones I can remember.) I won't add my .02 cents worth, the above mentioned posters (and others!) have said everything I would want to say and in much more erudite ways than I could. And I have learnt two new words: cisgender and solipsism. Cool stuff. Oh and Shilsen, thanks for offering a few solutions to the issues at hand.

I can respond to Lanefan's question about female roles in a campaign.

My main campaign that I have been running for some years now has been a conscious attempt on my part to make gender neutral campaign setting. My NPC list has 208 names on it. Of these 90 are female.

Now the main part of the list lists dwarves. It's a dwarf campaign. And I have specifically said that there is no sexual inequality among the dwarves (not so other races.) I have 162 dwarves named. 73 are female. I've broken it down further by rough groupings. The Royal Household has 17 named people, 8 female. The King is male. The Queen is just the Royal consort and has no political power. The Ordinary Folk section has 52 names, only 22 female. I can say I did a little better in the Military and Clergy where just over half of the NPCs listed are female (22 out of 39) and they are mostly senior, highly repsected people whom the PCs get to deal with. Historically speaking, the list of previous monarchs has 11 names, of whom only 4 are female. After I realised this I expressed my mea culpa by making the female monarchs more interesting.

All up I'd say I've done a pretty good job. But even when consciously trying to make myself be gender neutral in campaign design there's still some classic gender roles come in. The King for example. Without even thinking about it I made the monarch male. So to the Heir Apparent. (At least I made it a Constitutional monarchy!) Since then I've tried to to do it randomly.

The non-dwarves are where the real disparity seems to leak in: 56 names, of whom only 17 are female. But then in this case the human and giant societies are meant to be something of a contrast to the dwarves.

Of the PCs we've had, over the course of play, 3 female players, 4 male. Currently down to 4 male, 1 female (of whom only 2 males are original players.) 2 of the women play(ed) male characters. 1 male player plays a female character. Everyone else plays their own gender. In terms of problems with transgender characters: none. Neither me nor the players are in anyway bothered by this.


*BTW Matthew, I understood your first post as you intended it. Your written communication skills are not that bad.

cheers.

[dbm]

Wow, this is a loooong thread. It's very hard to keep up.

Originally Posted by Mathew_Freeman

This is, to a certain extent, what I was trying to get at when I stated that men cannot understand what it feels like to a woman to live in a sexist world, because they don't experience it.

I want to share an experience that I had.

I am in to LARP as well as table-top, and I used to go to the Gathering here in the UK. For those of you who haven't come across this, it is a large-scale fest system which is based (at a high level) on the political manoeuvrings of a set of factions. One of the factions is called the Tarantulas and is based on the classic Drow. As well as having a couple of events which are aimed at everyone attending, the game also featured smaller events. One set of these were the 'parliaments'. Each faction had one and they were primarily designed so that only members of that faction would attend.

Back when I played (about 10 years ago now) I was a human, and my character was an ambassador, so I decided to go to all the parliaments. When I attended the Drow parliament, I turned up and looked round the room. Everyone else there was a Drow - jet black skin, platinum white hair. And they all had weapons, and a reputation for killing people on a whim.

At that moment, I felt genuinely scared that I (my character) might be killed. I made me appreciate what it must be like to be a racial minority in an environment that was hostile to them.

I am very meritocratic, so prejudice is never something I have gone in to. After that experience my views on equality were further re-enforced.

I'm not advocating the use of RPGs as instructional aides, but emersive gaming is a powerful tool in exploring society's problems and learning how you personally can overcome them in your dealings with people.

Cheers,
Dan

[Oni]

Originally Posted by shilsen

That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.

To say that sexism as we know it is a direct product of the biological differences between the sexes is most likely folly. On the other hand, to say that there are no differences between the sexes is folly is well. One has only to look to see that the sexes are not the same. That is an admittedly simple statement but one worth recognizing. I touched on this earlier when I said the seeds of sexism lie in those fundamental differences. What those differences are really are is not as important as that they exist in the first place. It is the nature of people to separate, classify, and stratify pretty much everything based on what makes them different, or inversely group together by what makes them the same.

The -ism's are largely fueled by some combination of three things, fear, power, and ignorance. Sexism, in my mind, tends to draw mostly on the latter two. The -ism's use differences as a tool, if two things have differences how can you say one is better than another.

The exact definition of what defines a man and a woman may differ from society to society and era to era, yet the divide itself is consistent. That is to say that sexism exist the world over. To me this indicates that it matters less what those differences may be and more that they are simply present. How else does one explain this tendency to separate and elevate taking place in so many diverse cultures?

There are of course exceptions, not every culture that has graced this earth has been some male dominated patriarchy. To me this lends truth to the idea that sexism itself is not biologically ingrained into the human mind, that the particulars are a learned behavior. However I believe that the need for classification and creation of social hierarchies is an ingrained part of human nature, as you simply will not find any society without some form of stratification. Hence the seeds of sexism being born of the biological differences between the sexes, simply because where there are differences -ism's are likely to follow in some form or another. Sexism isn't something people are born with, but something they will create again and again in some fashion or another because of humanities inborn incessant need to categorize things and put them in their place.

If the humans of some fantasy world are just that, human, then the basics of human nature need apply if we are to relate to them as such. If you start exorcising the faults and foible of humanity just because they are repugnant or offensive, then what do you have left when your done? Real world sexism is relevant as it lies in the nature of humanity create such constructs. I think you would write us better than we are, I would rather write us simply as we are. I think those are both legitimate approaches.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by shilsen

I did get around to looking at it. Very interesting, and it might be fun to play in for a one-off campaign, but I don't think I'd care to play something like that for the long-term. I certainly wouldn't recommend it be the default for D&D core rules and campaign settings. It might work well as one area in a campaign setting, however.

Well, I wouldn't recommend any purposed setting as the default, whether it be Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape or this one. Such focus is less than desirable as a basis for the game. But then, I don't like having the deities in it that are there now.

Probably also why I don't particularly favor Vampire or Exalted.

Oh, and before I forget, I should note that one thing I've noticed in this thread is people using the same or similar words, but not meaning quite the same things.

Some of the disagreement may arise from that miscommunication. So just a head's up on that issue.

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by Oni

If the humans of some fantasy world are just that, human, then the basics of human nature need apply if we are to relate to them as such. If you start exorcising the faults and foible of humanity just because they are repugnant or offensive, then what do you have left when your done?

An escapist pursuit that can be enjoyed by everyone.

I'm all for simulationism - up to the point where it impacts the fun. Some folks enjoy the opportunity to succeed despite being beaten down by the world around them, but when only one person in the group is getting the beatdown... And in the case of male sexism vs females (or other forms of common discrimination), there's the added dimension of the female player already having to put up with the unpleasant situations in real life. Not many people would want to deal with it some more in their fun time.

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by S'mon

So you're saying that being sensitive to sexism, racism et al is a bad thing?

No, but patently absurd generalizations are. California is a HUGE state, and when it comes down to it, the people populating its urban centers are not significantly different than those living in big cities in other US states - probably because a lot of them are transplants from those other states. Ditto with the rural areas (of which CA has quite a lot of) and the suburbs.

[Oni]

Originally Posted by Spatula

An escapist pursuit that can be enjoyed by everyone.

I'm all for simulationism - up to the point where it impacts the fun. Some folks enjoy the opportunity to succeed despite being beaten down by the world around them, but when only one person in the group is getting the beatdown... And in the case of male sexism vs females (or other forms of common discrimination), there's the added dimension of the female player already having to put up with the unpleasant situations in real life. Not many people would want to deal with it some more in their fun time.

Just as I don't see a need to cut away those things we find disagreeable, neither do I see the need to rub someone's face in it either. You do what any good DM does, focus on what the players enjoy and are interested in, not what they dislike or makes them uncomfortable.

[Particle_Man]

Didn't read 18 pages of threads.

Stat-wise, there has been an evolution:

1st ed AD&D, male and female characters explicitly had different maximum strengths at char. gen.

Don't remember if 2nd ed did away with this, but by 3rd ed. it was gone.

In 3.0, except for elves, females tended to be shorter than males. Since height was tied somewhat to the jump skill for jumping up, women could not jump up quite as high as men. In 3.5 this was pretty much fixed. In 4.0 height is still tied to the Jump part of the Athletics skill, but height is no longer differentiated by gender.

In OD&D, B/X D&D, BXCMI D&D, I don't believe there were stat differences between men and women, although I could be wrong.

Mind you, this is looking at the crunch not the fluff.

[Jeff Wilder]

There are obviously some men in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society.

Out of curiosity, are there any women in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society?

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by Mathew_Freeman

Thanks for spelling out your position in more detail.

You're welcome!

Having spent time discussing these issues with my partner, I think that it's easy to misunderstand how your behaviour comes across to other people. I'm certainly not of the belief that you're a rampant sexist that thinks all women are beneath him and can be treated as objects or anything like that.

I'm certain of that too. I'm also certain that the women I know (and I know quite a few; I'm married to one, I have one as a daughter, a mother, a sister, a boss, etc.) aren't concerned with how I come across to them either. So, for my purposes, I pass a quick lithmus test as non-sexist.

You state that you don't think the people you game with are sexist, and I am sure you're probably right. Would you mind giving me a bit more detail about the make-up of the group - is it all male, a mix, and what sort of ages?

A mix, but mostly male. We had two women, but one moved away. We figured that the 2,000 mile commute was a bit much. We're all between about 35-45 years of age.

In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.

There's a few points: instances of sexism do not a sexist society make. Society is made up of individuals. Individuals can be sexist in a non-sexist society.

I think the most compelling argument is the sputtering feminist movement in Western society. I've read a number of articles on the subject, of this new wave of feminists, and how frankly, they're struggling for an identity. And why is that? Basically, its because the prior wave of feminists got what they wanted. There's nothing else left to go after that's not nitpicking, or even worse, payback for past wrongs or something.

Is there work to be done on an individual level? Yeah, sure, always. Is there work to be done on a societal level? You'll have a hard row to hoe to convince me that that's the case. Is there work to be done specifically in the gaming sub-culture? Eh, I'm not so sure about that still, but in terms of official products, I'm going to say no. In terms of "are there a lot of mouth-breathing morons in the hobby who lack social skills?" Well, yeah, I've seen my fair share. However, I think misinterpreting their complete lack of social skills generally for a problem with sexism specifically is misdiagnosing the problem.

Finally, to bring the issue back to gaming, I think it's clear (for me) that there are still problems within D&D as a gaming hobby in terms of sexism. I was thinking about the NPC's in Keep on the Shadowfell, and it's notable that the priest in Winterhaven is female, whereas the Lord is male. I also noted that the Lord's wife is not mentioned at all, presumably as the adventure writer didn't think she would be relevant to the game.

This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.

Whereas I, on the other hand, don't think it's indicative of anything at all. Or rather; the fact that you call that out as an example of a problem is indicative of why I struggle to take this call to action seriously.

Sexism, inasmuch as it is an imposition on members of one sex to put up with behavior that makes them uncomfortable or unhappy, is rightly to be condemned and eradicated from our own suite of behavior patterns. However, there comes a point when sensitivity to percieved *isms that are not intended become the imposition on everyone else. I think sensitivity to sexism in general is crossing that line today. Sensitivity to sexism in specific cases, of course, is subject to a great deal more variability.

[Ariosto]

I have gone over the original D&D set and found no references to "women's lib". I have found the following references to sex:

Volume 1:
The only sample character, Xylarthen, is male.
"The charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover." (Note that this is an obvious reference to Circe, ruler of Aeaea in Greek myth.)

Volume 2:
Dragons -- "If two or more dragons are encountered they will be mated pair ..."
Lycanthropes -- note similar to that concerning dragons
Minotaurs -- "The Minotaur is classically a bull-headed man (and all of us who have debated rules are well acquainted with such)."
Centaurs -- notes on demographics in lair; "Females are not generally armed and will not fight, and the young are also non-combatant, except in life-and-death situations."
Unicorns -- "Only a maiden (in the strictest sense of the term) of pure and noble heart may approach the fierce and elusive Unicorn. Unicorns may be ridden by maiden-warriors and will obey them."
Rocs -- sexuality implied by possible presence in lair of eggs, chicks, etc..

Volume 3 and Reference Sheets: nothing

In addition to the above, "masculine" pronouns are used by default in keeping with conventional English-language grammar of the time. Titles are also uniformly given only in masculine form, e.g., Patriarch (but not Matriarch) for a high-level cleric.

[Ariosto]

Note that OD&D books I have on hand are a late printing, so it's possible that some reference to "women's lib" was expurgated along with most explicit Tolkien references.