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

[Ariosto]

It's mildly interesting that the one game-mechanical recognition of player-character sex in the original set is an advantage (potential acquisition of a Unicorn steed) for females.

The illustrations are mainly of monsters. Female characters are in a minority, especially with the insertion of an all-male party in place of the removed Balrog entry. On the other hand, they convey the message (to borrow a movie line), "I'm not good; I'm just drawn by someone more talented than Greg Bell." (The artist signed "Cookie" -- C. Corey? -- in particular evinces more skill, even if only at copying.)

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by Oni

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

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but what's the point of including unpleasant setting elements (sexism, etc.) if they're never encountered by the players? They might as well not exist in that case.

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by DrunkonDuty

Wow, what a long thread. But I've gotten to the end.

Some of you are damn patient readers! I am too when it comes to work-related stuff, but I can't recall the last time I made it through a thread this size post by post. Good thing I started this one

So let me just say:

Great thread.

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

Thanks. Glad you liked it, and I esp. liked that you picked up (and apparently so did some others) a couple of new words due to it.

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

...

Woah! That's some pretty detailed numbers. And I tend to do that with keeping NPC lists too

Historically speaking, the list of previous monarchs has 11 names, of whom only 4 are female. After I realised this I expressed my mea culpa by making the female monarchs more interesting.

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

Well, that's a reasonable way to do it. Differences in gender norms is a good way to differentiate the various intelligent species that inhabit the D&D world.

Originally Posted by dbm

I want to share an experience that I had.

Interesting story. I've never LARPed myself. Too lazy

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

I've seen some good discussions (and some not so good ones) on ENWorld on similar subjects. And speaking of RPGs as instructional aids, I've run a quick freeform RPG session in a freshman comp class (so 25 players!) to illustrate a bunch of things. Worked pretty well and got students thinking about language, identity, gender, person-to-person interaction and other issues in interesting ways.

Originally Posted by Oni

It is the nature of people to separate, classify, and stratify pretty much everything based on what makes them different, or inversely group together by what makes them the same.

That I'll agree with.

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

If you take a look at the "solutions" post I made a couple pages earlier, what I'm advocating is not the total absence of gender roles but the avoidance of using one particular form of sexism as the implicit or explicit norm. Generally, the form of sexism that I see in D&D products is patriarchal sexism, with males presented as both the movers and shakers and masculinity as the norm. That's what I have issues with. As for writing us better than we are, I wouldn't say that's what I'm doing. I'm saying that in a fantasy setting which is patently not the real world, where the humans in it will have experienced drastically different things than any culture in our world, there's a pretty good argument for writing different and more variant forms of sexism if you're going to have it. And the added bonus that it makes the game world(s) less exclusionary towards a real-world gender is, well, a bonus in my book.

Originally Posted by Bumbles

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

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

That's something I'm definitely aware of, which is why I've been clarifying my definitions every so often, but in a thread this long some of the miscommunication is unfortunately a given, I think. Hell, people can't agree about what "ranger" and "munchkin" mean, so "sexism" is sure to lead to some divergence in definition

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.

That's basically how I see it.

Originally Posted by Oni

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

Agreed, but when we're talking about the presentation of the basic game in general (and by that I include the core rules - which we've generally agreed are quite non-sexist - and the campaign settings and the modules and the miniatures), then certain decisions have to be made about what direction to go, since they obviously can't adapt the way an individual campaign or DM can.

Originally Posted by Particle_Man

Didn't read 18 pages of threads.

Can't say I blame ya

Stat-wise, there has been an evolution:

...

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

Agreed. I think this is why one of the areas of consensus on this thread seems to be that mechanically the game is quite egalitarian to the sexes. Half-elves, on the other hand, got the shaft!

Originally Posted by 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?

Good question. I'm curious about that too.

Originally Posted by Hobo

You're welcome!

I'm certain of that too. I'm also certain...

I could get nitpicky about arguments I have with your post, but that's not particularly constructive. Suffice to say, as I noted earlier, that we definitely have very different positions about the existence, effects, and need (or, according to you, lack of need) for redress of sexism in society.

Originally Posted by Ariosto

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

Okay. I'm hoping someone pops in and posts it, if they find it.

I have found the following references to sex:

Interesting info. Thanks.

[Ariosto]

Near the end of the example of play in Vol.3, the referee is referred to as "he". I first lumped that with examples of old-fashioned "sexist" grammar -- but it was avoided (for instance with sentence fragments) up to that point.

Basically, there was no apparent effort to use "inclusive" language. Nowadays, I think there would probably be a conscious alternation of references to "she" and "her" in such a text.

(That can get a bit odd, too. The black female judge seems to have become a Hollywood cliché that draws attention to its tokenism by being so out of proportion.)

[ProfessorCirno]

As someone who works extensively in psychology, specifically social psychology, this thread has had posts that make me either cry or scream in rage. Or both.

And was that a link to the wikipedia article on Evolutionary Psychology? I just vomited all my blood.

Well, let's quote something from that link.

"Applying evolutionary theory to animal behavior is uncontroversial. However, adaptationist approaches to human psychology are contentious, with critics questioning the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology, and with more minor debates within the field itself"

Evolutionary psychology is highly controversial, with more and more people in the field looking down and distancing themselves from it. Far too often the theories it brings forth are either not testable or, worst, not falsifiable. There's been reported cases where their own results did not support the hypothesis or justify the conclusions, yet they print them nonetheless. I have no doubts that given time, it will be as well received as phrenology.

*Ahem*

As for sexism in the game, I think it's going down. There's a difference between looking sexy and looking sexual. The problem with most representations of women is that they go into the latter, not content with the former. Personally, I like my women smart, and dressed smart. That said, I do like settings where there's contentiousness about gender roles. Maybe one kingdom is very male oriented, but they border another country where there's a very strong matriarchy. Conflict is fuel for history, after all, and history is what makes your setting come to life.

Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why FATAL has not sold millions.

[Betote]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why FATAL has not sold millions.

Because there's still hope for the human race.

[Oni]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why FATAL has not sold millions.

Because men aren't buying what FATAL is selling. I mean really, how many men want to spend their evening sitting around rolling and cross referencing a chart to find out areola size.

I respect a person's right to create what they want, as long as they respect my right to be completely creeped out by it and and use it as an example of the worst game ever created.

[WisdomLikeSilence]

As a woman who has been playing D&D for 20 years, I just wanted to take a moment and thank Shilsen, not only for starting this thread, but for following up with such tact and thoughtfulness.

It's wonderful to have you representing the issues so well.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why FATAL has not sold millions.

Because real men don't think like that, even if many of them like to see the occasional chainmail bikini.

[ProfessorCirno]

And yet FATAL is little more then stereotypes and tropes that are consistant with what is thought of being "what a guy wants" as was stated by others in this thread - lots of math, lots of crunch, lots of objectification of women. My point is that they're just that - false stereotypes. If it was truly neccisary to market the game to "guys" in that fashion, then FATAL should be a best seller. Clearly, however, it is not. And therein lies the difficulty in trying to state what "real men" like. There is no barameter for being a "real man," taste-wise. Oh sure, there's lots of tough guy postering, but the second something like FATAL comes up, everyone blanches and turns away. What happened to guys loving crunch, math, and sexism? Suddenly it's not that strong.

Either in this or in one of the associated threads, someone said that if D&D stopped showing women in sexual positions and dress, it would somehow lose sales. Does anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?

[Ycore Rixle]

Originally Posted by shilsen

Actually, it's a major part of the sexism debate which I'm very aware of, and a part which I think is either wrong or misapplied and usually both. In the context of this thread, I personally think it's also irrelevant.

Fair enough. I thought from your reply to KM and your subsequent silence that you had never heard of it. As for being irrelevant to the thread, it seems the thread has changed a lot since the original post.

In short, since I am commenting on the existence of sexism in a fantasy world, which is inhabited by creatures that are patently not the same as real world humanity (and humans in the D&D world, if simply by reason of the fact that sexual dimorphism is much smaller - if not non-existent - there, are not really like real-world humans either) and have certainly not experienced the same history and cultural development as humans in the real world, any difference in real world cognitive abilities wouldn't matter.

But you started this thread to talk about sexism "in the settings, the marketing of the game, the general climate of the game, and even on sites such as ENWorld." (The quote is from your OP). Are you now saying that this thread is only about the settings? Like many of the posts in this thread, the ground keeps shifting.

As Canis commented, that's just an example of really bad science. Which is only one reason why I think it has no impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.

Canis was not right. He didn't even provide any evidence or research. He just stated his opinion. There's a lot to look at, but if you look at even just the slideshow debate from two Harvard psychologists that I posted, one thing you can point to is Spelke referring to herself and her own research. Pinker has a mountain of historical evidence to point to. Now it's not necessarily bad science to quote yourself, but it should always raise suspicion. Honestly, to call Pinker the practitioner of bad science requires more than just a handwave. He's a named chair at Harvard, for gosh sakes. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Simply stating that the variance is small in a lot of studies, without providing any research or any links, is hardly scientific! In fact, that lack of rigorous argument, and not evolutionary psychology, is bad science.

Even if (and that's a big if) biological hard-wired sexism existed, what sort of influence it has is so heavily mediated and overwhelmed by social and cultural (and, most importantly, individual) influences that I think they're irrelevant here.

I don't know what "they" refers to. The influence of hard-wired sexism?

You seem to be thinking that the research only supports the first clause of your sentence (if biological sexism exists). But the research says exactly what you claim isn't true in your second clause (that biological sexism outweighs in many cases environmental influences). Maybe that's just your sentence structure.

I get that you don't think it's good science. But it seems like you don't understand what it is saying in the first place. Again, that could be my misreading though. I just wanted to make sure that, as much as possible, we're on the same page here.

That's almost exclusively cultural.

That's a myth. There are consistent sex trends across cultures and time. One hundred percent? No, not one hundred percent. That's why they're trends. There are exceptions. But there's a reason that mythology was brought up in this thread. Because there are consistent, stable-over-time-and-culture sex trends. We see them even know in things like profession and career choice. I know you honestly believe there aren't these trends, though. Maybe you could tell me why.

Speaking for myself, I don't think it's true, because the science seems really poorly one. Canis, who's much more well-educated on the subject than me, asserts that it is and I believe him.

But Proserpine said that she didn't care if the science were good or not. That was my point. That's a declaration pregnant with enormous implications. It sounds like you actually do care if the science is good. Also, I would recommend reading the research yourself rather than taking someone's word for it. It's accessible, and as you say, you're used to humanities-speak.

There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere.

No doubt. There are six billion people in the world right now! Or more. Someone, somewhere, considers cheese wheels to be alien spy machines.

But we're talking about trends here. Not instances.

So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology.

Hm. Do you mean you don't see how it is caused, or how it could be caused?

If it's the first, fair enough. No one understands how consciousness arises. So no one claims (I don't think) to know how sexism is caused by biology.

But could it be caused by biology? Is there a possibility that it could? There certainly is. First of all, there are physical, measurable differences between the male and female brain. Hormones, for one! Hormones are huge! Right there, that is enough to show how sexism could be caused by biology. But there are also things like the preoptic area and suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus. Here's an article on the preoptic area.

So, I can understand not seeing how sexism is linked to biology. But that it could be - an idea which you seem to dismiss out of hand - is obvious from the research. There are zillions of mechanisms for it.

Hm, so the Larry Summers question: Do you think it's worth researching, this idea that sexism might be biological?

That's a big assumption. What you're describing as the facts of the world are things which I don't think are the facts of the world, and are rather both a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of them. And that is why we are differing here, not because you are focusing on the facts of the world and I am (or Proserpine is) not.

I assumed that facts weren't important to Proserpine because she said that even if the science were true, she wouldn't care.

I actually think that the reason we were disagreeing is because we were not talking about evidence. Frankly I probably would have lost interest by now if we were just arguing over whose statistics are better. But what I very much wish to argue for is the triumph of evidence, and science, and facts. As long as we're in agreement that the question (is there a biological basis for sexism?) should not be settled by what people think is true, but what the measureable, physical science says is true, then we have common ground.

[ProfessorCirno]

Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle

He's a named chair at Harvard, for gosh sakes

I feel the need to jump in and point out that this may not mean everything you're implying. Lawrence Summers was president of Harvard, yet had to resign when he stated that the two highest reasons for seeing less women then men in sciences and engineering was due to 1) women being inherently more lazy, and 2) men just being inherently better at both fields.

I'm not going to say anything about Pinkerton (other then the fact that he's an evolutionary psychologist), for the sake if simplicity, but simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.

[Ycore Rixle]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

And was that a link to the wikipedia article on Evolutionary Psychology? I just vomited all my blood.

Yikes!

It's germane to the topic. It has a lot to say about how sexism manifests in games. The Ultimatum Game, for example, is important.

It seems like you're suggesting that I was either mean-spirited or ignorant to post that link. I assure you that I'm not the former! I thought the link would help a lot of people to at least know of the field. There are probably many who are reading this thread - not you, since you work in the field - who had not heard of evolutionary psychology. No problem if people don't agree with it. But I didn't mean to make you vomit all (or even part!) of your blood. I just think it's important to be able to share ideas.

There's been reported cases where their own results did not support the hypothesis or justify the conclusions, yet they print them nonetheless.

There's no monolithic "they," as you actually pointed out yourself earlier in that paragraph. Can you show some articles that report data different from what was gathered? Because that other stuff you're talking about - cases where results did not support the hypothesis - is science as usual.

I have no doubts that given time, it will be as well received as phrenology.

Or, maybe, evolution.

It was probably hyperbole on your part, so this isn't meant particularly in response to that. But it brings it up. The "no doubts" attitude is a little rampant in this thread. I think we all need a big, giant dose of humility. Let's face it, people, we could all be totally wrong. Every idea needs to be given fair consideration, and well-meaning people can disagree and still be well-meaning.

[Ycore Rixle]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

I feel the need to jump in and point out that this may not mean everything you're implying. Lawrence Summers was president of Harvard, yet had to resign when he stated that the two highest reasons for seeing less women then men in sciences and engineering was due to 1) women being inherently more lazy, and 2) men just being inherently better at both fields.

I'm not going to say anything about Pinkerton (other then the fact that he's an evolutionary psychologist), for the sake if simplicity, but simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.

I didn't say he shouldn't be questioned. For gosh sakes, Spelke is also a named chair at Harvard. And I'm questioning her, in this thread. So, yeah, I think it's great to question named chairs at Harvard.

What I actually said was that dismissing them requires more than a handwave. _Some_ consideration should be given to the fact that these are people who devote their lives to the field, are clearly very intelligent, and are clearly highly valued and respected by their peers in the field. There's probably a reason for their position, and they probably have good intentions and are honest. So to disregard them without a bit of an argument, I think, is irresponsible.

[Bumbles]

And this folks, is why I only linked, and refused to argue over it.

I'm sure y'all mean well and all, but you're not going to settle it here.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?

All the time. I encourage it. Usually, in the smaller groups I ask for a male and a female character per player. It works out normally, although in the beginning the ideas of males how a female would act and why and vice versa tended to be a bit off.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

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

I already said in my first post on here that I've never encountered sexism in D&D other than in game settings we chose. And unless I need to count males who prefer to see half naked women in fantasy art, I haven't seen any on EN World either.

In society, yes. But not only towards females.

[pawsplay]

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.

There are probably few things as hellish as experiencing a vision of Utopia created by someone whose values differ substantially from your own.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

I've never encountered sexism in D&D other than in game settings we chose.

How much perceptions of what the game is "about" now depend on such commercial products is something to take into account. When creating one's own campaign was par for the course, presentation of any aspect in the basic rule books was moderated by the advice that "the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

The widespread use of someone else's extensively detailed "world" as a setting introduces a cumulative effect of details on the impression one gets. The more the game is bound to such definitions, the more important it is to consider the reception they are likely to get in different quarters.

There's a fine line to walk, if (as I think) a perennial part of the appeal of D&D is its fundamentally wide-open nature. TSR at first figured that aspect bode poorly for the sales of scenarios -- but was quickly proven wrong by Judges Guild. Aridáni and Hriháyal aside, Tékumel is probably too culturally exotic for the tamer brand image long since settled upon. As great diversity (each variation in which would offend someone, somewhere) is unlikely, the key should be to minimize off-putting elements in what's homogenized. If Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc., are ALL turn-offs in the same way, then the segment turned off that way might easily turn away to other games (or from the hobby altogether).

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Spatula

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but what's the point of including unpleasant setting elements (sexism, etc.) if they're never encountered by the players? They might as well not exist in that case.

Like the DMG2 advice suggests, a viable technique is to have a setting that is sexist/patriarchal/gender-normed, but for some reason that only applies to (most) female NPCs, not to PCs. This isn't a huge stretch - while all real cultures have gender differentiation, it's not so uncommon to have a norm that people are to be treated the way they behave, if that differs from the role they were born in. So a competent female fighter is treated the same as other, male, fighters. Wizards are treated as wizards, whether male or female.