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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
