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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

There can't be any doubt about the gender of the wanton wench, aged madam and sly procuress.

<snip good points>
Which seems to indicate they are all women.

"Pimp" and "streetwalker" are both gender-neutral, according to some definitions.

Basically, though, the chart reflects Gary's perspective on the sexes of those who prostitute themselves, not the historical reality.

And if you want to see institutional sexism in action.... look at American graduate school.

American women are significantly more likely than men to enter graduate school but FAR less likely to finish it. And a disturbingly large percentage of those who do finish end up ditching that career entirely for something else. The sciences in particular are bad that way, though men also drop out of the sciences after attaining advanced degrees at a shocking rate. Just not as high as the rate at which women drop out. So higher level science education, teaching, and research are actually badly broken for both sexes, just broken WAY worse for women.

and

Speaking as someone in American graduate school, who also happens to teach undergraduates, let me just say - OMFG, yes!

Now that confuses me...I'm the grandson of 2 graduate profs, I've been through a few graduate programs (and graduated from 2), I can't say I've seen institutional sexism there in any greater force than elsewhere in our society.

What you seem to be describing isn't so much the school, but in the field the school is supposedly preparing you for.

[Clavis]

One of the hardest lessons of my life has been learning that some problems cannot be solved, only endured.

The lack of female D&D players seems to be one of those problems.

In my experience, most woman don't really care about the fantasy artwork, the inherent violence of the game, or any other genre convention of fantasy. After all, if inherent misogynism and sexism actually kept woman away, the 80s glam-metal scene wouldn't have existed. What seems to turn off women from D&D is the idea of being associated with male gamers. Many woman have an intensely negative stereotype about D&D players, and a fear that their social reputation will be ruined if they are known to have contact with gamers. Bereft of a female presence at their game tables, most D&D players simply re-enforce sexist stereotypes in their games. The vicious cycle continues, and I don't think all the marketing in the world or revising of the rules is ever going to change it.

If the media was filled with images of D&D players as desirable mates, the kind that would make all of a woman's friends envious, the books could be filled with pure filth and women would still be clamoring to join D&D games. But it's never going to happen.

For all the work that has gone into making D&D less sexist since 2nd Edition, I've noticed fewer female gamers interested in D&D, not more. As long as the game is called Dungeons and Dragons, I don't believe that it will ever be able to successfully marketed to a significantly larger female audience. The brand is at this point too closely associated with a type of gamer that most woman simply do not want to socialize with, and I see no viable mechanism through which that perception can be changed.

It's a shame, because I find playing in all-male groups to be far less fun and interesting than playing in mixed groups. I've accepted, however, that as long as I want to play D&D female gamers will be the exception, not the rule.

[Korgoth]

In our gaming group, everyone must come attired in an androgynous jumpsuit and address fellow players with the gender-neutral term "comrade". Characters may not use swords, spears or other oppressive phallocentric weapons. When making an attack, the sexist paleo-linguistic artifact-phrase "I thrust..." must be replaced with "I unfairly subjugate...".

All sexist pictures in our books have had beefcake pictures pasted over them. From a reactionaly-bourgeoise perspective that may sound like a form of "sexism" to you, but remember that the dynamics of superexploitative cultural products require a dyad of "oppressor-oppressed". Therefore it is impossible for beefcake art to actually be sexist. Rather, its existence reverses and overthrows the tyranny of exploitative "cheesecake" art. Fortunately no one at the table enjoys looking at the beefcake pictures, so it helps us keep our minds on the advancement of the revolution through proper gaming.

Dialectical materialism has allowed us to scientifically prove the superiority of our method. History is on our side, Larry Elmore... we will bury you!

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

It is sexist, but in a good way. Any product must have a target market, that's just good business. But to identify such a market, whether it's geeks or sports fans or teenagers or men or women, is necessarily exclusionary.

Yeah... I find myself reaching for new or different terminology. I wish there was an easy way to note which sort of sexism I refer to: the "sexism" of marketing a game to a target gender demographic, the "sexism" of explicitly attempting to exclude a gender, the "sexism" of merely failing to take efforts to include a gender, the "sexism" of excluding a gender or failing to include it in a context where it seems culturally reasonable to do so, the "sexism" of excluding a gender or failing to include it where it does not seem culturally reasonable to do so...

I could probably go on.

I just don't like trying to work my way around a set of terminology that uses the same word, "sexist," to describe something like My Little Pony and something like a golf course that refuses to sell tickets to women.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Clavis

One of the hardest lessons of my life has been learning that some problems cannot be solved, only endured.

And misdiagnosed!

In my experience, most woman don't really care about the fantasy artwork, the inherent violence of the game, or any other genre convention of fantasy.

Exactly! Most women in my experience don't care for that sort of thing. Some do, though.

After all, if inherent misogynism and sexism actually kept woman away, the 80s glam-metal scene wouldn't have existed.

Not all misogyny and sexism are created equal.

What seems to turn off women from D&D is the idea of being associated with male gamers.

If this were true, me and a lot of my friends wouldn't be married/involved. Though, to be fair, we are a handsome lot, given to charm...

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Bumbles

Your query has been addressed in the countless existing threads discussing the relative merits of 4th edition, and is really independent of any gender-bias that may exist in it.

If you think 4e is that way, and it bothers you, then start playing it another way is the only advice I can offer.

My query wasn't about 4e, I'm sorry if including my observation re 2e sexism vs 4e sexism was misleading.

My query concerned the aim of the anti-sexism drive; is it to make a game appealing to most women (or at least as high a proportion of women as men - most men don't like D&D either, after all) - arguably Blue Rose attempted that. Or is it to make a game which seeks to make guy stuff (kill-loot-power up) not exclusionary to the relatively few women who like that kind of thing? That seems to be the 4e route, IMO.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Yeah... I find myself reaching for new or different terminology.

Might I suggest, Gender-oriented, or gender-favored instead?

[billd91]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist? Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.

I believe there's a problem with the query. D&D isn't and never has been just about killing things and taking their stuff. It has been an element and some styles of play do focus on it, true. But I belive that statement, sometimes used flippantly and sometimes not, has been tossed around far too often to marginalize different views of the game and play styles that profess to focus on something other than the combat aspects of the game.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by roguerouge

Is it the girly part or the witchy part?

If your daughter wanted to be femme, would you actively try to thwart her desire to express herself? Or if she was merely curious about what being femme was like, and wanted to try it out in her imagination through this game?

If it's because the girly and the witchy parts are combined, well, then what do you want for representation of witches: back to green hags only?

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you're reacting this way, because you've not presented any evidence for your position beyond the fact that it's girly.

I think I answered this in the other thread already. It is not "femme" it is stereotype. The exact kind of stereotype harming our kids. It is the media painting girls as liking those colours (no pun intended) but this is not so true. A while ago I talked with a niece about all the bonbon coloured toys she had, and wow, she didn't like the colours. It was just that this type of toys DID NOT COME in a non-bonbon colour. Because it was doll stuff. If it had been up to her, she would have prefered blue and green colours over pink, purple and yellow. Same way my son never found soccer shoes in pink. It is a girl colour, made so only by the media (originally blue was girly and pink way boyish) so of course no such shoes were on sale. Plus, he quickly became afraid he'd be seen as girly for liking those types of colours. He was about 6 when he was attacked by a much older boy calling him gay for wearing a neon yellow sweater. Such stereotypes are not healthy. They are, however, good for the market, especially with the right advertising. There is nothing "femme" about that.

And if I had a daughter, she likely would have inherited my obesity and would be overweight in her teenage years. I very much doubt that some ideal weight characters would hold much appeal.

And yes, I do not like girly stuff combined with witch stuff. It gives all the wrong impressions, as I already explained in the other thread. I don't know where you pull up the green hag from. What about a more trutful representation of girls to begin with? All of the characters on the witch girl website have neon coloured backgrounds, save the necro girl, and that one, of course, is purple (this actually makes sense going by gothic style girls) and the only one not looking as if she was about to go to a fashion show is Amy. And even Monica looks like she's just spent hours on her make up - highly unlikely for a computer geek witch. None of those characters feels real. Now of course the game isn't about realism, but teenagers identify themselves more with their PCs in my experience, and young girls also seem to build female PCs more on what they would like to be. It is great for perfect looking girls to play this, the average akne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair would probably feel depressed in the long run. Yes, I've seen this happen in murder mystery RPGs, and I am rather sure it will happen with this one especially.

Now maybe you plan to encourage players to create less ideal PCs, but it didn't seem so from the website.

Now you keep going on about "not presenting evidence." You should probably have read my posts better then. Do I need to post EVIDENCE in front of it all? Not that it would help much because you'd likely ignore it as not important.

I'm sure that more girls will have fun with this than get depressed over it, mainly because I cannot see an obese, self conscious girl try this out, or the teenager with the think hair that never looks right (or maybe that is a reason to be depressed as well). I still think the concept has not been thought through to the end. but then, it is based on a book and didn't have that much space to adapt, I guess.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by S'mon

I think this thread is well into 'political' territory, but since the mods don't seem to mind, I have a query:

Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist? Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.

But is it true that women don#t enjoy these power fantasies, too? Is making a general assumption on this not potentially sexist?

Maybe it would be enough to state it clearly that women can be part of these power fantasies, too? That they are not just there for the sex appeal, but they are depicted as capable warriors and wizards, as cunning leaders or gifted sages? And from the Villain perspective, that they could also be brutal tyrants, murderous assassins and ancient liches?

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by S'mon

My query wasn't about 4e, I'm sorry if including my observation re 2e sexism vs 4e sexism was misleading.

Well, my suggestion still applies, play the game (whatever game it may be) in the way you enjoy it. Really, that's the only thing I can imagine working, as it seems to be people perceive the nature of the games so differently, I have to ascribe much of it to personal opinion, and ultimately that makes it an insurmountable problem.

Of course, you may find some people still don't like it. This may or may not include a gap in genders, and may not be related to the game itself, but a perception of it, because as mentioned above, there are folks who think D&D is that thing for geeks, or even who think it is the work of the devil.

To put it another way, I find the premise on which you're asking the question to be flawed. Sometimes it's not just what you're asking, but how you're asking it that matters.

And whoa, a bunch of us going in the same direction already. Interesting! Feel free to reply to one of them instead.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

Basically, though, the chart reflects Gary's perspective on the sexes of those who prostitute themselves, not the historical reality.

The chart is clearly an element of old-boy humor, but it also serves an example of using the richness of language to evoke different imagery with just a few, well-selected words. And I think that's partly why it's a favorite element of the 1e DMG.

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

Now that confuses me...I'm the grandson of 2 graduate profs, I've been through a few graduate programs (and graduated from 2), I can't say I've seen institutional sexism there in any greater force than elsewhere in our society.

What you seem to be describing isn't so much the school, but in the field the school is supposedly preparing you for.

It doesn't really surprise or confuse me, but I don't think it's necessarily blatant sexism in the graduate programs. I think it may have to do with assumptions of what the grad student has to do and how is affected by the underlying sexism of society in general.

Some graduate programs are grueling in the number of hours they require the student to put in. Hundreds of pages of effective reading, classes to teach, hours in the lab, and so on, every week. And this is right around the time a lot of people start to have families as well. And as far as society has come, the underlying assumption is that the mother will be the primary parent to take off time - first for prenatal care, maternity leave, when the kids get sick, the whole 9 yards. How compatible is that with some of the more grueling graduate programs out there? Are the expected workloads for those programs geared toward society's view of the male parent role? If so, that's some institutional sexism right there and you can certainly expect more female drop-outs as a result.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Bumbles

Might I suggest, Gender-oriented, or gender-favored instead?

Thanks, that sounds much better.

[ajanders]

[Deletia]
It is great for perfect looking girls to play this, the average akne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair would probably feel depressed in the long run. Yes, I've seen this happen in murder mystery RPGs, and I am rather sure it will happen with this one especially.

Now maybe you plan to encourage players to create less ideal PCs, but it didn't seem so from the website.

[Deletia]

As a person of the male gender, I can assure you that when I was an acne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair my characters were much cooler looking than I was. Except for the Dralasite.

In fact, my characters today are still much cooler-looking than I am: more devilishly charming, more ruggedly handsome, yadda-yadda...
Of course, I still don't have the perfect weight, but my hair and acne have improved.

Idealized people are a basic trend in art and in fantasy: this is not a gender specific issue.

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by S'mon

Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist? Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.

I don't think so, but then I don't think those power fantasies are intrinsically male. I think they're just power fantasies. I also think that there's a lot more to D&D than power fantasies.

And it seems to me that 4e D&D is if anything much more narrowly focused on the kill-loot fantasy than was 2e AD&D. Thus even as the art is 'less sexist', the game itself is 'more sexist'.

Without getting into edition wars, I disagree. I think 4e D&D is no more or less focused on the kill-loot angle than any other edition.

People, especially female players & GMs, have always used D&D for different stories than the inherent power-fantasy one, but if anything that's harder now.

My reading of the rules and experience clearly differs from yours. And I seriously doubt that there's any truth to that assertion that "especially female players & GMs" have used D&D for different ends. GMs and players have and do. I don't think there's any gender component there either. I've run D&D games for men and women who were previously gamers and for those who were completely new to it and had no real interest in focusing on power-fantasies. They played it many different ways and I didn't see it map onto gender in any way.

Or is that the 'anti sexists' want girls to be like boys - they want a game that encourages female players to enjoy the same kill-loot-power fantasy that most males like, without feeling excluded by sexist art or sexist game-world cultures?

I simply don't want women (or anyone, for that matter) to be excluded from the game by sexist art, game-world cultures or players. But I certainly don't think they need to focus on the same kill-loot-power fantasy as you put it. God knows I don't a lot of the time, nor do a lot of other people.

Originally Posted by Taralan

Altought I can see the remaining subtle sexism in D&D (lets call it male-centrism) it seems to me that it is rather mild and certainly less so than many other hobbys including most of all professionnal sports and related entertainment. The new editions make it a point to promote strong female characters in all roles and class, really diminishing the feeling of exclusion.

No disagreement about it being better than it's ever been, certainly.

It seems to me that D&D is far more subtly racist now than sexist. A sample of the art rarely depicts anything other than white characters except in very traditional depiction of semi-historical culture, such as the mwangi in pathfinder or the calimshan in FR for example... altough this too is getting better lately.

True. And some of the art which depicts non-white characters tends to devolve into, for lack of a better word, orientalism too. I think Eberron has been a little better in this regard as well, since I seem to recall the pictures of people from the primary nations not being mainly or majorly white. But I could be misremembering. And yes, this too has improved.

And of course, it is 20 times more heterocentric then male centric. I am unaware of any mention or depiction of homosexuality at all in the 40 years of existence of the game, be it in art, settings, adventure etc.... (except perhaps fringe products like the book of erotic fantasy).

Definitely true. When my girlfriend and I had the conversations about D&D which sparked this thread, the issues of racism and heterocentrism in D&D were something we discussed. I just happened to focus on one of the three in this thread.

Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle

That's not true for gaming. People freely choosing to act according to their will does not subordinate anyone else. No D&D gamer's choice forces another player into a subordinate position. Put it this way: If one group chooses to call their gaming group the He-Man Woman-Haters D&D club, that doesn't subordinate women. It might be stupid, rude, irrepsonsible, and risible, but it's not subordinating anyone else. It's just their choice. People choosing what they want to do, of their own free will, doesn't force anyone else to do anything, or assume any particular position, be it subordinate, ordinate, or cardinal.

Let's just say you have a very different idea of how people's surrounding culture(s) mediate their choices than I do.

Originally Posted by 1Mac

I'm reminded of Brienne in A Song of Ice and Fire, who also works pretty darn well. There's a trick to this sort of thing, however, to play it so it doesn't seem like you are creating such characters specifically to counter perceived stereotypes. Otherwise the pandering inherent becomes more sexist than if you had just left it alone.

True. A lot of it is in the presentation.

Joss Whedon, who is of course my master, nevertheless frequently skirts this line, and it is only because he is such a good writer that he usually avoids crossing it. Stuff like the Charlie's Angels remake, or Kiera Knightly's Gweneviere in that King Arthur movie, Keira Knightly's character in Pirates of the Caribbean ("Try wearing a corsette!") cross it with reckless, hilarious aplomb. My point being that if you are trying to correct for sexism, rather than create interesting characters, you frequently fall on your face.

I'll agree about the preferred aim being to create interesting characters rather than simply correct for sexism, though I'm not sure I'd buy all your examples as successful ones. Joss, I agree, is brilliant at it most of the time.

For me, however, the shining example of how to do it right is Battlestar Galactica. Now there's a show full of interesting, multifaceted people. They are sometimes strong, sometimes not, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and invariably always complex and compelling. And none of that maps inherently onto gender, which is why when BSG shows you a woman being rescued by a man, it's not the least bit sexist, because it's abundantly clear that she could just as well be rescued by another woman, and a man could just as well be rescued by a woman as by another man. And so on.

Also, in general, you could be forgiven for reading my OP and thinking that I thought the fantasy tropes I mentioned were in fact sexist, but I am not sure that is the case. That is, telling stories about beefy Herculeans hewing ogres and rescuing princesses is not in itself sexist. It is only in the context of a culture where those are the only stories being told, and where female passivity is the enforced cultural norm--as is the uber-action-male--are those stories problematic. But the story itself is neutral, and given that our cultural context is much different, I see nothing wrong in retelling such stories.

I agree about the story itself being neutral and the context being what makes it problematical or not. I'm guessing that I'm much more aware of or sensitive to the fact that our cultural context, even if very different, is still a very sexist and gender-skewed one, so I see those stories as potentially problematical if not used well.

I'm glad you concede that it could be a matter of personal taste, but I'll just clarify that this seems a minority position, depending on what you mean by justifying sexism. If you mean telling the sort of classic stories I outline, then that seems rather extreme. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone who tells such stories in their games is being sexist.

Yes, I get that mine might be a minority position. And no, I don't mean that telling such stories is being sexist. I've told such stories in my games, but they just didn't necessarily map onto gender the way the originals did.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

But is it true that women don#t enjoy these power fantasies, too? Is making a general assumption on this not potentially sexist?

Maybe it would be enough to state it clearly that women can be part of these power fantasies, too? That they are not just there for the sex appeal, but they are depicted as capable warriors and wizards, as cunning leaders or gifted sages? And from the Villain perspective, that they could also be brutal tyrants, murderous assassins and ancient liches?

Could it be that the way fantasy art portrays women is part of the problem?

A few years ago I knew a young woman who was a really good artist. She, too, while being rather the tomboy, portrayed females the usual, sexy looking way in her fantasy art. She did this because everyone else did it. At the same time, she had some trouble with the type of gear available for her female character in a computer game - mainly miniskirts and weird bras.

I may be wrong, because the same type of art is on book covers and those books are bought by females. But I can imagine non-artist females may not bother to look beyond the outward appearance of some fantasy in general, and especially RPGs where still more men play.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by billd91

I believe there's a problem with the query. D&D isn't and never has been just about killing things and taking their stuff. It has been an element and some styles of play do focus on it, true. But I belive that statement, sometimes used flippantly and sometimes not, has been tossed around far too often to marginalize different views of the game and play styles that profess to focus on something other than the combat aspects of the game.

It's the default mode of play. It's by far and away the most strongly supported by the rules. The classes are all good at killing things, or assisting in killing. The DMG has extensive rules for making dungeons and (prior to 4e) lots of space devoted to magic items. The MM is nothing but monsters to kill.

D&D isn't Call of Cthulhu. It's not Vampire. Both appeal a lot more strongly to women, imo.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by ajanders

As a person of the male gender, I can assure you that when I was an acne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair my characters were much cooler looking than I was. Except for the Dralasite.

In fact, my characters today are still much cooler-looking than I am: more devilishly charming, more ruggedly handsome, yadda-yadda...
Of course, I still don't have the perfect weight, but my hair and acne have improved.

Idealized people are a basic trend in art and in fantasy: this is not a gender specific issue.

Yeah true. However, girls ARE more sensitive about their appearance. I'm not sure if this is only due to the media, but it certainly plays a part. I would much rather see an rpg where the average sized, average looking PC of either gender can be as much or even more the hero than the pimped up supermodel fighter

[gizmo33]

The whole thing is self-reinforcing. The fewer women play DnD, the more alien the environment will be for women culturally. If I mention I play DnD, 90% of guys look at me funny, but 10% of guys are tolerant for some reason (because the play or do something similar or are geeks). IME the same situation for women is about 99.9% to .1%.

IME women are as aggressive about supporting the current gender roles as men are (look at their mate selection, soap-operas, etc.) Women I've played DnD with aren't congratulated for it by their female friends. I look forward to hearing about a woman who sits in her house and works on an adventure to run with her friends for six hours straight, and if a certain RPG can accomplish that then more power to it. I won't hold my breath.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by shilsen

And some of the art which depicts non-white characters tends to devolve into, for lack of a better word, orientalism too. I think Eberron has been a little better in this regard as well, since I seem to recall the pictures of people from the primary nations not being mainly or majorly white. But I could be misremembering. And yes, this too has improved.

Now that you mention it... I never paid attention to that. Maybe the market was originally aimed at caucasian people? Or maybe it is just because the artists were white. We tend to portray ourselves in our art, as i have noticed.