IMHO, and with apologies for abusing some other dude's terminology, the emergence of sexism in RPGs is a function of two things: Simulationism and [/b]Narration[/b]. That it has been largely removed from many of the most popular RPGs is a function of the triumph of Gamism.
Interesting point. I hadn't considered phrasing the issue using those terms, since I tend not to use them much.
Basically, simulationism demands that the difference between girls and boys be quantified.
Depending on what you're interested in simulating, of course.
Narration demands that certain roles be filled -- and the maiden in distress role may be just as important as the knight in armor role, but one's just a bit more fun to enact.
Again, I think that depends on what you're choosing to narrate and how. My games regularly feature people in distress and people in armor, but neither of those roles map onto gender.
Shilsen:
To address some of your points.
1. Non-sexist advertising.
Frankly, the first thing that comes to mind is that there should be some advertising. Anywhere.
...
2. Non-sexist presentation of people.
...
3. Non-sexist treatment of people.
Have I missed a "Beer and Wenches" D&D ad?
Cos otherwise, I'm not seeing any reason for you to be unhappy.
I should clarify that (as I think I mentioned earlier) I'm not really unhappy with D&D's current status and I do think that 3e and 4e are much more egalitarian in their treatment of the sexes than any earlier edition. I'm just pointing out that they could do better.
As for advertising, I didn't refer to it in the original post (I think) and if I did later then I was in error. I've been referring to the presentation of the game, by which I mean things like the artwork, the miniatures, the modules, etc. I think these are the areas which tend to be much more gender-skewed, even if the core rules and mechanics are completely egalitarian. For example, modules and campaign setting pantheons tend to be heavily skewed towards males (which, in contrast, the PHB pantheon isn't). Small things, which most people don't notice or care about, of course.
Interesting discussion.
Something I've been thinking though, while there have been elements of discrimination (sexism) in D&D against women, it has been my experience that there far greater amounts of discrimination (especially in intensity) towards D&D by women.
I'm not saying it's two-way, nor that there is cause and effect (though maybe there is). But I've met for more women who have a visceral negative reaction against TRPGs than I have met male hobbyists who have even mildly sexist reactions.
That's a damn good point. I think a big part of the reason for that is the social idea of D&D as a retreat for socially inept men. That's something else which I'm interested in seeing the hobby overcome, and I think in some ways it's doing better in that area than it has before, just like with the sexism. And similarly, as with the sexism, there's still space for improvement.
It made me think that in this current rule set, which angle would be the easiest to work upon to bring more women to the hobby.
Tough question. I think there have been some decent answers in this thread, and it's probably a combination of many things.
BTW, I just did a quick scan of the art in the core books for 1e and 4e.
In 1E, I noticed 2 pictures of females in the PHB (one a female elf with the race pictures, the other a caster type at the end), maybe 8 or so in the DMG (I'm not sure whether or not to count the images at the bottom of the RDG page as one or many), and the MM had like 2 females that weren't on pages of monsters that were explicitly female.
In comparison, the 4E books had males and females for each of the races in the PHB, and females throughout the rest of the book, same for the DMG. For the MM, many of the monster pictures had male and female examples, including the player-character races, but some others like Goblins and Bugbears as well.
Note, I'm not bothering to compare the quality/style/amount of the art, just doing a quick look through the books for some perspective. And I really don't want to go through all the editions, but if somebody else does, hey, more power to you!
Thanks for that. I never actually played 1e, but I'm not at all surprise by what you noted. Some of my comments in the original post and later in this thread are inflected by my opinion about the nature of the art rather than just the quantity (it's still way more common to sexualize females in 4e art than men, for example), but just having more equal representation is a step forward.
I've opened similar threads on previous incarnations of ENworld, but I've mellowed since.
Fantasy worlds are usually sexist, but rarely downright misogynistic.
Probably true, but I tend to have issues with the former too, and think it's often just a milder/subtler form of the latter. Obviously many will (and, as this thread indicates, do) differ.
I will, however, never regard chainmail bikinis as legitimate, simply because they're absurd as fighting garb.
Agreed
Though that charge can be leveled at a lot of other armor in the books too, which seem specifically designed to show off some fairly vulnerable parts of the human (almost invariably female) body.
As for the 'evidence' given in the OP, in the vast majority it was people (including at least one moderator) takin' the proverbial pee, or just being harmlessly jocular. Otherwise, (maybe) one or two poor ignorant sods who truly probably don't know better. . . yet. Who knows, in a few years, growing up might sneak up on them. *shrug* Anyway, the targets here seem. . . odd choices indeed.
I think I'm referencing a much subtler form of sexism in my original post and elsewhere in this thread than what you're referring to, the (to borrow a phrase used by Jeff Wilder earlier) so-subtle-we're-not-even-aware-we're-sexist variety. Which, admittedly, is something possessed by lots of people in the real world, which is why I tend to note it here too. Many, of course, don't and/or simply disagree.
*raises hand*
I don't advocate diceless RP, since I enjoy the random aspects. But if there were an easy way to never utter a number aloud, and instead somehow convey the numbers instantly and only ever describe the effects via the narrative, I'd be all over it.
Wait - so you're
not actually working on this new system yet, Ari?
No wonder.
Yet I don't mind talking about stereotypes, I'm just somewhat opposed to assumptions as the one I responded to. Of course now I realize that the poster I responded to might have had different experiences.
