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

[Mathew_Freeman]

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?

I would be really, really interested to hear about this.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by shilsen

Suffice to say, as I noted earlier, that we definitely have very different positions about the existence, effects, and need (or, according to you, lack of need) for redress of sexism in society.

Some of us don't subscribe to Critical Theory/Political Correctness/Frankfurt School Marxism or even feminism - doesn't mean we don't want female players to enjoy our games.

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

ADoes anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?

What is this, 1979? Where have you been the last 30 years?

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.

That would equally apply to Pinker's enemies.

For the record, I'm on the Pinker side of this debate, I don't think the Boas/Stephen Jay Gould side of the human nature vs nurture debate have any interest in the empirical evidence.

I also think this debate is clearly political and not appropriate for ENW.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by S'mon

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

No, just that Californians being stereotyped as being sensitive to sexism, racism, et al is discriminatory to Californians who are insensitive to such things!

Pity the poor Chula Vista Klansman! Or the Mendocino Misogynist!

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Oni

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

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

Y'know, I REALLY have to buy this game sometime, just to read it. Good grief, i've never seen it, but, man, does reading things like this make me want to. Kinda like wanting to see burning cars on the side of the road.

Originally Posted by Hobo

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

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where there is a Gay Pride parade where one of the marchers jumps in front of Homer and says something to the effect of "I'm gay and I'm here!" and Homer replies, "Yeah, so? You've been here for years. Ok, you're here!" Always made me chuckle.

[Ycore Rixle]

Originally Posted by S'mon

That would equally apply to Pinker's enemies.

For the record, I'm on the Pinker side of this debate, I don't think the Boas/Stephen Jay Gould side of the human nature vs nurture debate have any interest in the empirical evidence.

I also think this debate is clearly political and not appropriate for ENW.

Yeah. I'm surprised the mods have let it go on so long. But as long as it's here, I feel compelled to reply, as if my silence would imply assent. Or maybe I'm just the guy in the XKCD strip.

BTW, Professor Cirno, what you posted about Larry Summers is incorrect. He did not say what you said he did. Although I grant you that the difference, while tremendously important, is apparently very hard for some people to see (or perhaps to acknowledge).

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by 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.

Um, no. That's logic of, "since a little bit is good, a lot must be better" - if I like a scoop of ice cream, then I must really want to buy a 17-scoop mega-sundae! It sounds logical, but does not regularly hold up in the real world. A small amount of something may be pleasing, while a larger amount of it makes us want to throw up.

Especially when many would say there's a qualitative difference between the sexism of chainmail-bikini art, and some of the really misogynistic stuff in FATAL. Thus, the analogy fails.

Does anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?

Does anyone here honestly have the expertise in marketing and the demographic data on D&D sales to be able to make a well-informed judgment on that?

[Rel]

I've been reading this thread for days and done some lengthy soul searching and introspection. I've come to the conclusion that I think of the majority of females as basically inferior to me.

But then I think of the majority of everybody as basically inferior to me. So I must be the very model of egalitarianism!

Yay!

I'm awesome.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

How much perceptions of what the game is "about" now depend on such commercial products is something to take into account....

The widespread use of someone else's extensively detailed "world" as a setting introduces a cumulative effect of details on the impression one gets...

Indeed.

We've always adapted the worlds we played in to a certain degree as to minimize problems, and I usually ask my players which, if any, gender or racial unbalanced settings they want to keep. Or if they'd like to turn things the other way round. A few times they did want to turn it around, which didn't change game play at all but made the worlds more fascinating. The only down point is that you can't use all official material as it is, but it isn't hard to adapt either.

I found that very often, players of both genders care little about sexism in a game setting. They just want to play. And there are always ways to go around it in-game.

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by DrunkonDuty

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

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

I keep stats for just about everything in my game...except this. Non-party NPCs are something that, other than the important historical or plot-based ones, I make up and wing as I go along...and often just as quickly forget.

In-party NPCs (i.e. hired muscle, significant rescuees, rent-a-Clerics, etc. that stick around long enough to actually earn ExP) I *do* have stats for, and so far in my current campaign it's a 12-12 tie. The ratio of PCs so far is skewed heavily male; currently at 46-17 (many of those were quick deaths or early retirements), but if the players had stuck strictly to their own gender for every character they brought in it would be 53-10. (and the female player has had at least 2 male PCs so far)

The background, on the other hand, *is* sexist; somewhat intentionally so. In the 1100-year history of the (Human) Empire that the PCs are trying to defend and rebuild the tattered remains of, there have been 51 butts on the throne. 50 were male. (and the lone female, some 800 years ago, was arguably the most competent of the lot) The truly significant power-broker NPCs the PCs have met or heard of are also male or assumed to be so...well, more correctly, were male; as they're all undead. And power in other aspects of the Empire (trading, commerce, etc.) tends to be mostly held by men. One significant historical figure the PCs were sent to resurrect - the greatest military mind the Empire has known - was (and now is) female; so there's exceptions...but that's what they are: exceptions.

I usually have it that the NPC leaders within any given temple are the same gender as the deity (thus, Zeus types are usually male, Demeter types are usually female, etc.) mostly for simplicity.

Now if (when) the PCs start dealing with Elves, or with certain other Human cultures, they'll be in for a bit of culture shock. Elven leaders are almost all female, and females hold most other types of power as well....

Lan-"do undead care about gender?"-efan

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by 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.

You just about summed up Proserpine's response, I think. I tend to get less upset about such stuff, though I don't feel any the less strongly about it.

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

As for sexism in the game, I think it's going down. There's a difference between looking sexy and looking sexual. The problem with most representations of women is that they go into the latter, not content with the former. Personally, I like my women smart, and dressed smart.

Agreed on all counts. It's definitely better than it was. There's just scope for more improvement.

That said, I do like settings where there's contentiousness about gender roles. Maybe one kingdom is very male oriented, but they border another country where there's a very strong matriarchy. Conflict is fuel for history, after all, and history is what makes your setting come to life.

As I (and others) have mentioned earlier, I think it's perfectly fine to have gender roles and sexism explored and presented in campaign settings. I just draw the line at it always (or very primarily) being patriarchies presented as the norm or even worse (in my estimation) patriarchy presented as the default without a second thought about it, so there's the veneer of it not being sexist even when it is.

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

While I agree with almost everything you stated, I wouldn't say that marketing to men, dumb as I may consider it, automatically leads to FATAL being a success. At least partly, as Betote says...

Originally Posted by Betote

Because there's still hope for the human race.

Yup.

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks. That's very gratifying. I thought the subject needed a little discussion, and I've been working hard to keep it from being shut down or devolving into flame wars or overly political arguments. So far so good.

BTW, WisdomLikeSilence, would you care to expand a little on your thoughts on the subject, esp. whether you've seen sexism in the game or on ENWorld? I'm especially interested in whether you see the often implicit, sometimes explicit, "this is for the boys" vibe I'm often criticizing.

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

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

Going by some of the comments on the thread, apparently some people do

Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle

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

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

I think we're talking about many different things at once, since this is a large, complicated and contentious topics, and emphasizing different things at different points. So I think it's safe to say, especially when someone is replying to some other poster's individual points, that different areas may be focused on.

That said, here's my position on the subject that you've been raising, namely biological hard-wired sexism. I'm clarifying this to make my position clear and also to explain why I'm not going to argue about it any further with you. The primary reason that I'm not going to argue is because, as Bumbles noted, none of us (or the other people on different sides of the divide) are going to persuade the other about our positions, esp. on an internet forum. A smaller reason is that I don't really see it as relevant to this issue of sexism in gaming, as I noted before. I'm also not quite sure that you and I are using "sexism" in exactly the same way.

To clarify, when I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do not mean differences between the sexes. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm.

So, for me, the existence (or not) of biological difference is immaterial because it does not and cannot justify sexism. Even if there are broad trends of any kind, to justify the exclusion or marginalization of an individual based on them is, to me, fundamentally wrong because it means you stop treating the individual as an individual. And it seems especially ludicrous to me for it to be an issue in a game which is about the use of the imagination, since it is tantamount to saying that certain individuals, because of their sex, are actually incapable of using their imagination in a way which is required.

I hope that sums up my position on the subject well enough, but even if not, I'm going to avoid this argument, as I said. It's simply not worth it to me, just like arguing with Hobo about whether sexism exists in society or not wouldn't be useful in this thread, and I fundamentally don't see it as germane.

The "no doubts" attitude is a little rampant in this thread. I think we all need a big, giant dose of humility. Let's face it, people, we could all be totally wrong. Every idea needs to be given fair consideration, and well-meaning people can disagree and still be well-meaning.

I don't know about the "no doubts" attitude, but I agree about giving all ideas fair consideration. Something I'm consistently trying to take into account is the fact that people whose attitudes I see as fostering something which I abhor (sexism, in this case) are often completely honest and well-intentioned in their opinions. Where I am disagreeing with you specifically is in our estimation of what ideas are actually relevant to this discussion, but that isn't surprising since we have a lot of people taking very different tacks on the subject.

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed, which is why I quit on the arguing about it too.

Well, specifically about that subject

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

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

Personally, I find that the ideas of males about how another male who isn't them should act are off too. And females about males/females too. Most people just aren't that good at working out what makes others tick, which is why the whole "I don't want players to play different genders because they do it badly" argument doesn't fly for me. I think people don't play their own genders very well

Originally Posted by pawsplay

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

Good point. Agreed.

Originally Posted by Ariosto

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

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

That's generally my take on it. One of the things I do enjoy about D&D is its versatility, and I think that versatility is somewhat compromised if one works with some of the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumptions that I've been saying I see in it. Though of course some of those assumptions are also foisted on the game by (some in) the gaming community at large.

Originally Posted by S'mon

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

I think that's actually the way many (most?) groups which play in settings featuring evident sexist elements play. It's a lot better than the "this is the way things are so deal with it" approach.

Originally Posted by S'mon

Some of us don't subscribe to Critical Theory/Political Correctness/Frankfurt School Marxism or even feminism - doesn't mean we don't want female players to enjoy our games.

Sure. I think at least part of the reason for the diverse opinions/positions in the thread is that some people are focusing on their own games and others are talking about gaming (or D&D) far outside their own campaigns.

Originally Posted by Rel

I've been reading this thread for days and done some lengthy soul searching and introspection. I've come to the conclusion that I think of the majority of females as basically inferior to me.

But then I think of the majority of everybody as basically inferior to me. So I must be the very model of egalitarianism!

Yay!

I'm awesome.

That's generally my take on myself vis-a-vis everyone else, except I tend to not qualify it with "majority"

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

I found that very often, players of both genders care little about sexism in a game setting. They just want to play. And there are always ways to go around it in-game.

I'd guess that players caring little about sexism in the setting would probably be much more common than not. That's one reason why I figured this conversation would draw more "Why does this matter? I don't give a damn" comments than it actually has.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by shilsen

Personally, I find that the ideas of males about how another male who isn't them should act are off too. And females about males/females too. Most people just aren't that good at working out what makes others tick, which is why the whole "I don't want players to play different genders because they do it badly" argument doesn't fly for me. I think people don't play their own genders very well

Haha, now that you mention it, most new players do tend to have trouble there.

Originally Posted by shilsen

I'd guess that players caring little about sexism in the setting would probably be much more common than not. That's one reason why I figured this conversation would draw more "Why does this matter? I don't give a damn" comments than it actually has.

Maybe the "don't give a damn" people went to the negative damn-giving scale and didn't even read this thread

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by shilsen

Personally, I find that the ideas of males about how another male who isn't them should act are off too. And females about males/females too. Most people just aren't that good at working out what makes others tick, which is why the whole "I don't want players to play different genders because they do it badly" argument doesn't fly for me. I think people don't play their own genders very well

This may be true, but at least you don't have as much of a problem with how it appears to others. A guy role-playing a guy badly isn't as likely to offend as the same guy playing a girl badly. At least in my experience anyway.

A stigmata thing, I guess. I suspect the same thing can go for cultures and other potential defining aspects of a character.

This probably applies to actors and writers in the real world as well.

Which probably explains why Matt Groening is so successful parodying the Republican Party.

[Hussar]

...A stigmata thing....

Off topic - sorry, totally a personal pet peeve here. Feel free to ignore. Unless you're bleeding from your hands and feet, the word you were looking for was stigma. :P

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Feel free to ignore.

I will then.

Me, I prefer to use stigma for parts of flowers.

[Ycore Rixle]

Originally Posted by shilsen

I'm also not quite sure that you and I are using "sexism" in exactly the same way.

To clarify, when I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do not mean differences between the sexes. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm.

We definitely are not using "sexism" in exactly the same way. I went over that in my post on p.3, I think it is.

I think that we can agree on this: If "sexism" means a) supposing one sex superior to the other, or b) judging an individual based on his membership in a collective rather than his own actions, then it is not welcome in D&D. However, I don't think that any of that sort of sexism is present to any significance in D&D, on ENWorld, or anywhere else that you indicted in your original post.

Even if there are broad trends of any kind, to justify the exclusion or marginalization of an individual based on them is, to me, fundamentally wrong because it means you stop treating the individual as an individual.

Hallelujah! Preach on! Abso-[eric's grandma-censored]-lutely!

Trends say nothing about an individual. It is collectivism of the basest, most vile, most primitive sort to judge an individual based on his membership in a group that he did not choose to be in.

But again, there is no significant instance of that in D&D, or on ENWorld. This is a notably open, understanding, kind community. I'm thinking of Angelsboi and others. ENWorld has changed a fair amount over the last nine+ years, but it's been a great place all the way. I'm sorry, but I felt I had to defend it when I saw your original post calling it out for something that it does not do to any significant degree.

Anyway, we both agree that individuals should always be judged as individuals, and that we would not like to see D&D, RPGs in general, or ENWorld suggest otherwise.

What I object to is your implication that D&D, RPGs in general, and ENWorld are somehow doing a bad thing by engaging in "behavior, conditions, and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."

They're not. Are there trends? Yes. That's because, god bless the 21st century, this is the era of the geek and gaming is huge. It's a big place. Biological trends will show up. But that doesn't mean that anyone is doing anything wrong.

Is it possible to have "behavior, conditions, and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" in a bad way? Sure. But we're just nowhere near that. A stereotype does not force a mind. We're nowhere near the point where an average young kid coming into the game - or an average parent looking at it over his kid's shoulder - is going to think, "Yikes! My kid's going to learn to disdain, belittle, and demean women because of this game!" The truth is that the game is just fine.

Are there stereotypes in the game? Sure, they come up. But it's ok. Stereotypes don't force minds. We can laugh at stereotypes and enjoy them because we know they're not always true. We can use them in our art because sometimes they are true (Avenue Q has a great song about this). We can face them because we must: biology brought them and it's not taking them back. Far more dangerous than the occasional stereotype that comes up in our game is the idea that our game should be censored.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Y'know, I REALLY have to buy this game sometime, just to read it. Good grief, i've never seen it, but, man, does reading things like this make me want to. Kinda like wanting to see burning cars on the side of the road.

No. No, you don't need to do that to yourself, nor do you need to put money into the hands of the guys who designed that unpolished turd of a game.

Do a Google search for reviews of it. Many are cleaned up to be hosted on sites like GameWyrd and RPGnet.

However, some actually present samples of the actual game text...the most infamous was posted at RPGnet and taken down- no doubt because of the rough language from both of the reviewers...AND the portions of the game quoted.

Its still exists- though because of said language, I won't link directly to it.

Look for it by combining a search for "FATAL" or "F.A.T.A.L." and RPGnet Wiki, and you'll find the review rebuttal by the game's creator...as well as a link to the review itself.

Along with a clean discussion of F.A.T.A.L., you can see what some of the "also rans" for "Worst RPG Ever" were before it made its pooptastic appearance.

Worst RPGs ever - RPGnetWiki.

and its discussion as "The Game That Must Not Be Named"

http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:GHI

That should pretty much satisfy your curiosity.

[shilsen]

I'll post more later, but on the subject of dumb/sexist art in RPGs, I just saw this post in the "Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art" thread and it cracked me up