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

[resistor]

My point is, these things aren't interchangeable, since one gender has historically been subordinated to the other in many areas, including gaming. Think of it this way (and I'm not trying to play oppression olympics, just trying to intellectualize the issue): you (hopefully) wouldn't call Black History Month racist, or Women's History Month sexist. Because... well, every other month is about the pursuits of white men.

Actually, I have an issue with the idea behind BHM and/or WHM: they claim that some people's "differentness" is more important than other people's "differentness." I don't begrudge the existence of BHM/WHM per se, but I do resent the implication that certain heritages are more deserving of recognition than others.

I think the key phrase in your assertion is "the pursuits of white men." I'm going to hypothesize a bit here, but I do not believe that there is a single person in the world the entirety of whose identity is "white man." All those people you refer to as "white men" are American, or English, or Scottish, etc. Or maybe they identify by creed, or by profession, or by region of birth.

My issue with the concept of a unitary group of "white men" is that it implies that they are the default majority on everything, when for any particular is not. Every person is made up of so many different identity elements that the fraction of people who hold the majority identity on every single one is vanishingly small.

Who gets to decide which "heritages" are important enough to get months, and which aren't? So, why don't I have my Scottish heritage month? What about Southern pride? (OK, I knew people growing up for whom every day was Southern pride day, so that one might be a bit moot...) What about Catholics-in-the-USA?

I am white. I am male. But that is not who I am. I, too, have heritages that are part of my identity, and resent the implication that they're not important.

 

[Ariosto]

D&D isn't based on historical fiction, all the books in the DMG 1e appendix are speculative fiction. Conan lives in a world that never existed, likewise Cugel, Elric and the Gray Mouser.

Do you mean to derive some conclusion from that observation?

To make plain my own point: I see no reason for a double standard.

 

[Proserpine]

Shilsen, the answer is simple.

You and your girlfriend will just have to start running a D&D "Arcane Female" campaign.

All characters are female and use the arcane power source. Any race applies.
Monsters must be either flammable or fit inside a tendriculos.

I'll look for the Story Hour.

Joking or not, that's a ridiculously rude and patronizing response.

The sexism you're decrying is not part of the D&D rules: it's part of the D&D setting and players.

And guess what? It's problematic. Hence the post. I don't know why some responders keep mentioning the mechanics and rules: we know they aren't sexist. But what you mentioned is, and that's not okay.

Greyhawk and the Realms are sexist because they date back to the 70's: given the cultural baggage of the 70's, I'm grateful they retained sexism and not bell-bottoms and platform shoes: I acknowledge that opinions differ.
That sexism has been retained because nobody really wanted to blow up Greyhawk and the Realms to satisfy some poorly defined notions of gender equity.

Well, if WotC wonders why it isn't attracting new players, I guess they can look towards "nobody" (which, funnily enough, narrowly includes people that have already been playing the game for awhile) not wanting their escapist fantasy game to cater equally to both sexes. I am younger than the average person here, and it's really jarring to play in settings that, for no rhyme or reason, are disproportionately male with regards to the pantheon (which barely has any historical justification, as even super sexist Greeks had interesting female goddesses in near equal proportions, both minor and major) and the leadership. It. Is. Dated. It is also implicitly sexist. Both are bad. Admitting to the former and making it seem like a good, awesome thing doesn't make the latter okay all of a sudden.

All I really can say at this point is that if you want a setting that treats females to your tastes, you'll clearly have to build it yourself and release it into the Internet.

So giving equal gender representation and encouraging better player attitudes towards females requires a new setting? Even as a female, my desire game wise is the same as many guys - I just don't think it makes sense to treat a particular gender unequally in something that should serve as an escapist, fun activity for everyone.

 

[billd91]

Actually, I have an issue with the idea behind BHM and/or WHM: they claim that some people's "differentness" is more important than other people's "differentness." I don't begrudge the existence of BHM/WHM per se, but I do resent the implication that certain heritages are more deserving of recognition than others.

But you have to realize, and this is what a lot of the backlash against BHM and WHM misses (in many cases, intentionally), is that the history of the US has made these very differences critical, far more critical in the long run than the differences between most European ethnic groups most often lumped together as "white". That's why these particular differences matter and are called out in specialty history months.
There's all sorts of diversity out there, not just gender and racial. But some have been more important to the development of the US and are more relevant today than others. And these are the ones that require the extra attention.

 

[Proserpine]

I am white. I am male. But that is not who I am. I, too, have heritages that are part of my identity, and resent the implication that they're not important.

Hello there. I was expecting for someone to take issue with that. My response would be way too political and get into some fancy feminist and race rhetoric, which isn't really appropriate for this forum. So I'll leave my response to this: even if I disagree, thanks for phrasing that so politely.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Seems some people are being reductive about D&D in order to justify the male-centrism.

I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs and non-sexist art is quite reasonable because it would be easy to change and I doubt any male customers would be lost as a result. As an example, I'm a big fan of the Eberron setting and until Shilsen mentioned it I hadn't even noticed it had more balanced gender representation. That shows nothing is being lost, at least for me.

Vampire demonstrates it's possible to have pictures of attractive, sexy women in an rpg without being sexist. While I do like the bare midriff on the PHB 4 cover, mostly because it's so contemporary (like the 70s moustaches in 1e art which seem so dated now), showing cleavage, midriff and thigh is going a bit far.

That said I think D&D has some intrinsic features which means even if those changes are made it will never appeal to women anything like as much as men. For the same reason action movies and shoot-em-up videogames are more popular with men while romcoms and Harlequin novels are more popular with women.

 

[Mallus]

I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs... is quite reasonable

Heh... that's because you're not the guy who has to create a whole bunch of new, and hopefully well-characterized female NPC's for shil's campaign.

At least I'll have help .

 

[S'mon]

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.

I've known obese male and female players, none of them ever had any interest in playing obese PCs. A PC may be an idealised self, or completely different, but most people play RPGs for escapism, not to replicate their own problems. I don't get the impression that female players have a problem with idealised depictions of female form in RPG art. Some don't like male-gaze sexualised depictions, which is a different issue.

 

[S'mon]

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

Many do enjoy them - my wife, for instance. She'll happily hack through a high level Neverwinter Nights module*. Conversely, my mother in law is of the opinion that women are inherently peaceful and mild, if they were in charge they would never start wars, etc. Both strands are common in feminist thought - "women are just like men" and "women are better/more peaceful than men". Neither is wholly true - that's the problem with generalisations. But it less common for women to enjoy fantasies of violence and power.

For all that,lots of women clearly do play and enjoy D&D, including hack & slash D&D. IME the RPG genre least attractive to female gamers is crunch heavy military sf like Traveller, especially Traveller: The New Era.

*She still has a strong interest in designing the fashion of the clothes her PC wears, though.

 

[shilsen]

Shilsen, the answer is simple.

You and your girlfriend will just have to start running a D&D "Arcane Female" campaign.

All characters are female and use the arcane power source. Any race applies.
Monsters must be either flammable or fit inside a tendriculos.

I'll look for the Story Hour.

I'll assume you're being facetious here. And nobody, not even me, would suggest that a campaign should be all Luna all the time. That way lies madness.

Seriously.

The sexism you're decrying is not part of the D&D rules: it's part of the D&D setting and players.

Proserpine's already commented on the above, so I'll just say that's precisely what my original post is about. I just think that can change and is slowly changing, a setting like Eberron being a case in point.

I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs and non-sexist art is quite reasonable because it would be easy to change and I doubt any male customers would be lost as a result.

Thanks. That's basically what I think, and while I figure a little loss of the existing fanbase in the short term is acceptable for a long term improvement, I don't think that really needs to happen. Hell, look at the way things are shaken up every time a new edition comes out. A more equitable form of the game is hardly as player-shaking as 3.5e or 4e was, and can be done easily enough.

As an example, I'm a big fan of the Eberron setting and until Shilsen mentioned it I hadn't even noticed it had more balanced gender representation. That shows nothing is being lost, at least for me.

I've had more than a few people comment on that before, face to face and on forums. I think Eberron very explicitly moving away from the faux-medieval setting approach was very helpful to that end.

That said I think D&D has some intrinsic features which means even if those changes are made it will never appeal to women anything like as much as men. For the same reason action movies and shoot-em-up videogames are more popular with men while romcoms and Harlequin novels are more popular with women.

That's a possibility, but I think it's possible it could be made to appeal more - or be less exclusionary - than it does now.

Heh... that's because you're not the guy who has to create a whole bunch of new, and hopefully well-characterized female NPC's for shil's campaign.

No pressure.

At least I'll have help .

I presume you're referring to Rolzup, but I'll obviously chip in there. And had started doing so in-game well before this thread, actually. It's just that you two do way more interesting NPCs than me.