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

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

As I'm sure others will point out before I finish this, there is a well established trend that men have better spatial reasoning ability than women. That says nothing about any individual. But the trend is well known and well supported by research (for example, Simon Baron-Cohen has an article on the front page of edge.org, or at least he did a day ago, talking about boys vs. girls and brain development, and iirc, it touches on spatial reasoning).

Actually, I think we may be seeing an important point coming out of this thread. Namely, the world is sexist. Human nature makes male brains and female brains different (on average, saying nothing about an individual). RPGs should leverage that. How can they best do it? I don't know, but I believe that selling them, in a free market of money and ideas, is the best way to arrive at the best product. So vive la difference!

Ah, but the gender difference is, in most studies, smaller than the difference between my spatial reasoning on Tuesday when I had really good coffee and my spatial reasoning on Wednesday when I got up late and neglected to grab some.

Is that really a meaningful enough difference to keep writing articles about?

EDIT:
Resistor also makes an excellent point. The noise in these studies tends to swamp the effects. When your noise is gale force winds and your effects are dainty farts..... you're doing something wrong in your study design or there is no significant effect. Yet, that's 99% of the data we have and people talk about the effects more than the noise.

Odd that. Almost like people are picking through their research with fine-toothed combs to support largely insupportable points.

 

[Bumbles]

He's stated several times in the thread that racism, sexism, and other discrimination which maps directly onto the real world is not necessarily okay.

If you say so, I don't recall seeing it, but the possibility that he might have was why I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that such did exist, and that's why I chose not to argue about it, but I did feel it was important enough to advise a more careful wording. I've seen that sort of thing lead to serious arguments before.

And damn. Shilsen can defend himself, but the following comments are neither constructive nor productive when it comes to the discussion. "You should be hit with a wet trout"? Really? (And in that part of your response, you're focusing specifically on the analogy rather than the point he made, dictating how the content should be articulated. Commendable.)

Well, the analogy was the part I found most troublesome. It was rather silly and deserving of being hit with a wet trout. Of course, if you're not familiar with what that bit, I'll direct you to:

Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may wish to look for other descriptions of the practice, but I hope you can recognize the intent more clearly now.

I saw no reason to argue with any of the rest, perhaps because I didn't disagree with it, perhaps because I saw no point to arguing. However, the analogy...now that I found troublesome enough to note.

Hence the trouting. Of course, if you're not familiar with the concept, then you may be taking offense to it, without understanding the intended levity.

Dude. There are studies saying you can "catch fatness" like a common cold. There are also many stupid studies that support sexist ideas. The blog you linked to says: "That there is some biological basis behind the observation that men are better at math than women is plain old common sense, because there have never been any sociological explanations that made sense." Hmm. I am not sensing a bias!

I really don't care, as I'm not espousing a position on it, I was merely providing reference to one page, and pointing out the existence of others. I'm sincerely not interested in discussing the merits of it, and I guess I should have included that kind of disclaimer in the first place. Oh well.

 

[Hussar]

bowdlerize to expurgate (a play, novel, etc.) by removing or modifying passages prudishly considered immodest.

To expurgate or remove is to "exclude". I have made no such statement.

Thank you, I do understand bowlderize. I, on the other hand, have no idea what the part I quoted was trying to say. Could you rephrase it.

You have said that anything other than traditional fantasy is a bowdlerization of the genre of historical fiction. Could you please clarify what you mean by historical fiction?

In other words, could you please answer the questions I posted?

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Dude. There are studies saying you can "catch fatness" like a common cold. There are also many stupid studies that support sexist ideas. The blog you linked to says: "That there is some biological basis behind the observation that men are better at math than women is plain old common sense, because there have never been any sociological explanations that made sense." Hmm. I am not sensing a bias!

I haven't read that blog, so I can't speak for it.

Please check out these slides from Stephen Pinker. He's a psychology professor at Harvard, or was the last time I looked.

Of course, they're slides from a debate. So you can check out the other side, too.

But there is a long, famous history of studies showing sex differences in cognitive ability.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Actually, stuff like this is really, REALLY hard to test impartially.

One of my best friends from college is now a doctoral candidate in psychology, and he's done a lot of work on "stereotype threat" (if I remember the term correctly) in male vs. female testing like this.

The basic observation is that, if you're measuring how well females do at a stereotypically male-dominated subject (as, mathematics), they will score measurably worse if they take the test in a room mixed with male subjects, or with a male proctor.

Like I said, really REALLY hard to measure.

I know what you're saying, but at this point that's like saying, "It's really, really hard to test evolution impartially." Yes, it's hard. It's especially hard to quantify. But just because it's hard doesn't mean it isn't true. Especially when it's repeated over, and over, and over again. As Stephen Pinker says in the talk I provided in my last post, "10 kinds of evidence suggest that the contribution of biology > 0."

Girls' performance on testing with males in the room isn't the issue (although it's misleading anyway, since there is also evidence that suggests guys test worse with girls in the room. They distract each other! More power to them! It's good to be distracting! I wish I were distracting! )

The point is that it's not about testing. It's about whether or not there are sex differences in cognitive ability. And there are, according to the significant preponderance of evidence.

Ok, apologies to mods if we're way off topic here. Feel free to delete - it's late.

But in an effort to wrench this back on to the RPG topic, here's what we can take away from all this: there are sex differences that create trends between men and women. It's no one's fault. It's biology. No one did anything wrong, or played D&D wrong, or published a topless elf maiden when they should have published an androgynous otaku ninja bishonen. It's just the way things are. D&D doesn't ignore 52% of the population. 52% of the population ignores D&D. Well, not 52% because there are tons of women that enjoy killing things and taking their stuff. But the point is, there are sex differences, and they create statistical trends, and that's ok.

 

[Ariosto]

Hussar, it is tiresome that you repeat* your false claim as to what I have "stated." I cannot help but recall time you have spent in other threads backpedaling, after catching flack for your imputation to others of positions as extreme as your own.

If you would speak for yourself instead, you are welcome to post your questions.

*Actually, I see now that you have mutated it into an even more bizarre form!

 

[Cadfan]

Others would say that's the ultimate example of nonprejudice: You forget or ignore that people even HAVE differences, unless you make a special effort. To be color-blind or gender-blind is largely encouraged in the "progressive" nations today.

The problem with that theory is that "color blind" or "gender blind" is frequently a convenient rhetorical move. Start by assuming that what you like is normal and color or gender blind. After all, you and people like you are normal, and YOU like it, so it must be normal, right?

Then assume that anything people of a different race or gender like or want is weird and different and ethnic or gender specific. Got that? Try to believe that you like what you like without reference to your race or gender, but other people or other races or genders who do not like it are motivated by race or gender.

Then demand color or gender blindness, which is now rhetorically equated to the stuff you like, and automatically dismissive of other people's differing opinions.

This is only really convincing to other people who also like the same things as you. Anyone on the outside looking in isn't going to buy that lots of people with Trait X liking something is X-neutral while lots of people without Trait X disliking it is X-motivated. But when you're in the majority, its a great way to steal the language of non discrimination and use it against people who really just want a piece of what you take for granted.

That's why I'm a bit suspicious of people who claim that they genuinely forget that people even have differences along ethnic or gender related lines. Even if its not a malicious rhetorical move, the easiest way to forget that there are actual differences out there is to have a cavalier provinciality where you believe that your way of doing things is normal, and to live in a nice little bubble where other people all do things the way you like. That's forgivable, everyone (everyone who lives in a comfortable majority of some kind, at least) does it to a degree, but it certainly isn't a positive thing.

 

[Bumbles]

Bumbles - Let's be honest though. While, I'm sure somewhere in the thirty year and thousands of published pages history of D&D, there have been good matriarchies, the one that stands out and iconic and most D&D, is Drow.

Evil is often more popular than good. It gets all the stylish outfits.

More seriously though, are the drow an icon because they are a matriarchy, or are they just an icon that is a matriarchy?

It's similar to the question of them being dark-skinned. I don't think it represents a racist agenda any more than them being a matriarchy represents an agenda. (And yes, I have seen that argument espoused, as well as both of them together).

Had D&D been based on Mercedes Lackey or Anne McCaffery, instead of Howard or Lieber, it would have been a VERY different game.

Of course, the same applies if it had been Terry Pratchett and China Mieville. Or Neil Gaiman and Lois McMaster Bujold. Or...

But, the hobby? I think that could use a bit more work.

So can the real world for that matter.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Ah, but the gender difference is, in most studies, smaller than the difference between my spatial reasoning on Tuesday when I had really good coffee and my spatial reasoning on Wednesday when I got up late and neglected to grab some.

It's not, though. Well, you threw the word "most" in there, and it's not like I've done a count on every single article like this ever published. (Cue Napoleon: "How could you even know that?")

Not sure what else to say. That's just not right. Take a look at the Pinker slides above. They have tons more articles listed in them.

Also, consider Occam's Razor. What's the simpler explanation? That there's a sex-based difference, or that somehow, despite a culture that has produced more girls in college and girls with better grades throughout school, there is an error in test after test after test, or a bias in society, that produces the continuing and indisputable gender differences in profession choice, science achievement, and so on?

Again, for D&D, the implication is that we should take advantage of the hand that the world has dealt us. Like anything, we'll do better work if we're not fighting reality. After Francis Bacon: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

 

[Hussar]

It's similar to the question of them being dark-skinned. I don't think it represents a racist agenda any more than them being a matriarchy represents an agenda. (And yes, I have seen that argument espoused, as well as both of them together).

Oh hey, yeah, I totally agree with you here. There is no agenda, at least no concious one in AD&D on this front. 100% agree. It's an icon that is a matriarchy. I do not even remotely think that EGG was pushing any sort of agenda when he created the Drow, other than, "He he he, this will totally kill those characters!"

And, true, the real world could use more work in the issue.

Ariosto - twice now I have asked you to clarify your statement. I asked politely both times. I read your posts as stating that D&D should be exclusionary. I have provided quotes to show why I think that. You claim that I am misrepresenting your point. Twice I have asked you to clarify. Why do you refuse? I honestly cannot understand your point in the part that I quoted in the second post. I believe that you misstated your point about historical fiction and asked for a clarification.

Since you refuse to clarify your points, how can I possibly change my interpretation of them? With that in mind, let me ask directly what I find confusing:

1. Do you advocate that D&D should continue to focus its inspiration on traditional fantasy (Tolkien, Moorcock, Lieber, etc)?
2. Do you believe that new fantasy has anything to add to the hobby? And, if so, what?
3. Do you believe that D&D, as it was originally created, borrowed heavily from traditional fantasy sources (as well as others such as myth and whatnot)?
4. I believe that by focusing the hobby on certain genre titles and writers, specifically traditional fantasy writers, it narrows D&D's appeal to women. Would you agree or disagree?

There, that should clear up any disagreements. Thank you for your time.