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

[ExploderWizard]

What's wrong with being sexy?

Don't worry Nigel. It wasn't wasted. I got it.

 

[shilsen]

Thank you for the name check, particularly given how badly I put myself over with my first post in this thread!

No problem. Not expressing oneself as clearly as one would want is par for the course on the internet, I think, and with a subject as complex (and potentially inflammatory) as this one I figure we can all cut each other a little slack.

Um, that doesn't actually look like much of an improvement to me. Let me put it another way, if you want to argue for caution in exploring certain themes in your games, that's one thing, but accepting some forms of discrimination but not others as fit for covering, well, I advise against saying it like that. I think it comes out as a little bit discriminatory itself. I know you're not trying to say that, but it can come across that way.

Okay. I think the rest of my posts on the thread make it clear I'm not trying to say that, of course, which you noted. I think my "solutions" post especially indicates that I think sexism is a subject which can be fit for covering, and am just expressing a preference for it being handled in a more self-aware and non-exclusionary manner.

It really doesn't, as it doesn't serve as an effective analogy since it's really quite flawed. Not in a minor way, but a fundamental one. And you were doing so well up till then...

Fair enough. I won't argue about that.

Thanks. So far I have nothing much to offer in the way of feedback on your suggestions, but I do appreciate you bringing them up. Some of them would be quite workable, and you managed to avoid the particular bit I cautioned you about above.

So so far so good.

Thanks.

Also, what did you think of the review of the campaign setting I linked to earlier?

Whoops! I forgot to check that. I'll do so soon.

Well, they're related, aren't they? If I don't believe that our society is rampantly sexist, then I can't very well engage you in a discussion about a problem which I don't recognize. If you don't put forward some particulars about what the problem is, then what am I supposed to be discussing with you?

I'm not presuming that everyone is going to be interested in or able to engage in a discussion with me on the subject. More than a few people have popped in to say essentially "you're wrong" and left, and that's fine too. And if you fundamentally don't believe our society is sexist, then there's such a divergence in our base attitudes that I'm not sure there's much basis for discussion. Or at least not much in this forum on this subject.

I suspect that you're probably right. I'm not ancient, by any means, but I'm old enough that when someone describes "my" society in a way that contradicts my many years of experience with it, then I don't just go, "oh, wow, I've never thought of it that way before!" because, let's face it; I have thought of it that way before and rejected that claim as untenable with my experience.

Fair enough. That's obviously your right. But it does make it much less likely that you'll find this discussion particularly interesting or edifying, doesn't it?

I suppose what I don't like is the vibe, explicitly stated in Matthew_Freeman's post here, but really kinda running throughout the thread as a whole (as much of it as I've read anyway, which admittedly is far from the entire thing:

Maybe it's because you haven't read the entire thing, but I don't see that as a vibe which runs through it. Obviously I'm not doing a head-count, but I think there are just as many people not agreeing with Matthew_Freeman (or with me, or anyone else) as there are agreeing. We've had a lot of posts from people who either don't see the sexism I do or don't think it's an issue or don't think anything needs to be changed or ... well, a lot of other positions.

So... either we're anti-sexism activists, or we're unaware and ignorant people who are contributing to the problem. What does not seem to enter the realm of possibility for you is that I (and I consider myself a fairly representative gamer for my age group) am perfectly aware of what is and isn't sexist behavior and yet I still see no call for change in the gaming arena over all.

I would wager Mathew_Freeman isn't arguing that only these two positions exist, but he'd have to be the one to answer that. Even if he were, he's only one person expressing an opinion on the thread, just as you are. To fixate on that and say it's endemic to the entire thread is a little overly defensive, IMO.

Especially since you say:

I make no claims about the discussion on ENWorld in general, or about gamers other than those I know personally, because I've been posting very infrequently here the last few years, and besides, I'm neither responsible for their behavior, nor particularly interested in it either.

In that case, is the behavior of those of us posting in this thread really that important or offensive to you?

Now, if you had posited some specific situations that we could discuss, well, then we could have a discussion. But since you haven't; you've merely claimed that there is a widespread problem that I don't see, and wanted to jump straight into talking about solutions, I'm having trouble engaging in the conversation.

Okay. Off the top of my head, a few examples which have been raised in this thread, over the course of it are the difference between the core rules (which are thoroughly egalitarian) and other elements of the game such as miniatures, campaign settings and modules, most of which are invariably skewed heavily towards men. And most of these were examples raised by people besides me.

Of course, I'd love to have a conversation about sexism in our society overall (as opposed to limiting it to gaming) but due to the nature of this place, this is a horrible venue for it. I'd do it on Circvs Maximvs, though.

I'll have to pass. From what little I've seen of Circvs Maximvs, it doesn't make for polite and well-reasoned discussion, especially on inflammatory subjects. And admittedly some of that is sheer laziness Actually keeping up with this thread is taking up enough time as it is.

shilsen, this was way upthread, but I wanted to clarify.

...

This wildly misinterprets what I meant, though i concede that I could have been unclear. I meant the above as examples where the effort to create non-sexist characters at the expense of actual characterization goes terribly awry. The kinds of characters Keira Knightly tends to play are a caution to those who think removing sexism is an unalloyed good without any other consideration.

Aha! Thanks for the clarification. I wholly agree.

Anyway, this thread has gotten way more gnarled and bifurcated since yesterday, such that I could not possibly absorb it all. But since I'm here, something I thought worth highlighting while I skimmed. Earlier I said that there is nothing inherently sexist in classic myth and fantasy, that their association with sexism depend on cultural factors that are no longer relevant today. A few people are saying that association is enough reason to purge those elements from fantasy in general and fantasy gaming in the specific.

Someone upthread said that this attitude, and not the attitude of fantasy preservationists, is what is exclusionary and divisive, and I think that is right. Writing fantasy from a more modern sensibility as far as gender goes is great, but that doesn't make classic fantasy tropes invalid simply because they may carry some sexist baggage. It doesn't even make them sexist.

Again, I agree. As I've said earlier, I think the manner of usage is what makes something sexist or not. I have no problem with using classic fantasy tropes. It's when they (intentionally or not) make one gender seem more important or normative than another that I have a problem with it.

What's wrong with being sexy?

As Mallus said, nothing. And I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the game shouldn't include elements which are sexy, so that's a little reductionist.

On the bright side, that unpleasant experience caused me to develop some GMing techniques to help ensure that future female players IMCs wouldn't have their enjoyment affected by perceived sexism, and in two subsequent lengthy campaigns with several female players (including two Californians!) I've not had any complaints.

Good to hear. Care to post some of these GMing techniques?

P.S. What's special about Californians? I think I'm missing a reference/joke.

 

[mlund]

The thing I run afoul of in seeking to create purely egalitarian societies in a fantasy setting is that I work under the general assumption that all the "civilized" races had their night in the barrel when it comes to barbarism / tribalism. In a points-of-light setting, I'd have to generally assume that the distance between any given civilization and a hasty return to barbarism / tribalism is approximately 1-2 generations.

Given that the "civilized" races reproduce sexually I infer that they have established gender roles and traditions that are survival adaptations. In a survival-oriented form of tribalism the survival of the female members of the tribe is far more important than the survival of the male members. A tribe that loses half its adult males in a war once every 20 years can get by alright. A tribe that loses half its adult females in such a calamity every 20 years won't survive.

How that plays out can range from matriarchy all the way to patriarchy, but sexism seems inevitable. Whether ruled by women or men the tribe is going to put a hefty emphasis on women conforming to the role of motherhood and keeping them out of the way of harm unrelated to pregnancy. Meanwhile men will be placed into the way of such harms in greater proportion, and will make up a disproportionate number of the landless, homeless, exiles, criminals, and mate-less.

That's going to logically carry over into a Points of Light society. Maybe women are a ruling caste and any violence against a woman by a man is punishable by death. Maybe women are objectified to the point of being property - extremely valuable property, but property none the less. Likely most "background" societies are somewhere in between, but an onus to conform to gender-roles and the sexism that comes with it is unlikely to disappear.

I recommend keeping a weather eye open to how this cuts both ways. Sexism is not exclusively women being forced to conformity by oppressive men. Even in a matriarchal society you may very well see fewer young women as warriors on parapets or among cloistered clergy and more of them focused on raising children. However you can also expect males without their own families and homes to be regarded with some antipathy. Armed foreign males are going to be assessed as threats in many villages and smaller towns too, regardless of patriarchy or matriarchy.

Adventurers are generally freaks who take outrageous risks and refuse to conform to socially valuable roles of mothers and fathers. Until they establish roots or reputation that give them social value / status they are going to catch flak for failing to conform to social norms, which are largely rooted in gender roles.

- Marty Lund

 

[Bumbles]

Okay. I think the rest of my posts on the thread make it clear I'm not trying to say that, of course, which you noted.

Well, I hope they do, but I know I can barely keep track of my own posts let alone everybody else's. So while I'm willing to cut you some slack, I'm also going to suggest parts where you could possibly be saying things poorly, which is a bad thing when it's a potentially divisive subject like this.

Anyway, take a look at that review, wish I knew if the PDF was still available, but if not, maybe there's an opportunity for another one!

 

[Ariosto]

In the 4E PHB:

Six of 11 non-evil deities (55%) are female. Two of eight evil deities (25%) are female. All together, eight of 19 deities (42%) are female.

Among sample adventurer descriptions, females are 1/3 of dragonborn, dwarves, elves, half-elves, humans and tieflings; and 2/3 of eladrin and halflings. Overall, 10 of 24 (42%) are female.

My guess is that the illustration on p. 34 is meant to suggest that female dragonborn have breasts ... and wear armor designed to show cleavage.

The primary (big, section-leading) illustrations of the classes are male for cleric, fighter (dragonborn, see above), paladin, rogue, warlord, wizard; female for ranger and warlock. Females are two of eight (25%). Of course, this is based on features other than genitalia ... but in this context I would not expect the artists to make females look masculine.

My subjective impression of the rest of the art is that female figures are a minority.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

A FOLLOW-UP – SOLUTIONS:

...

Thoughts and feedback?

Shilsen, did you (or Proserpine) read my earlier posts?

I don't see any response. Maybe I am missing it.

But it seems like there was a major piece of the whole sexism debate that you weren't even aware of. Namely, the research on sex differences in cognitive abilities.

Do you have any thoughts or feedback on that? The research I linked to is on page 13. It has a lot of impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.

As for your proposed solutions, I think there is a problem with #4. Both of them don't work equally well in a mass-marketed product. Precisely because of biological, hard-wired sexism. For the same reason pink footballs and machine gun slug-throwing Barbies don't sell as well as pigskin footballs and Malibu Barbies, "rescue the prince" plotlines don't sell as well as "rescue the princess" stories.

 

[Gentlegamer]

As Mallus said, nothing. And I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the game shouldn't include elements which are sexy, so that's a little reductionist.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8IrZ4sKLQw]YouTube - Spinal Tap: it's a fine line between stupid ... and clever[/ame]

 

[Proserpine]

Shilsen, did you (or Proserpine) read my earlier posts?

I don't see any response. Maybe I am missing it.

But it seems like there was a major piece of the whole sexism debate that you weren't even aware of. Namely, the research on sex differences in cognitive abilities.

Do you have any thoughts or feedback on that? The research I linked to is on page 13.

As for your proposed solutions, I think there is a problem with #4. Both of them don't work equally well in a mass-marketed product. Precisely because of biological, hard-wired sexism. For the same reason pink footballs and machine gun slug-throwing Barbies don't sell as well as pigskin footballs and Malibu Barbies, "rescue the prince" plotlines don't sell as well as "rescue the princess" stories.

1) Many people commented on "research" regarding sex differences and cognitive abilities. Plenty of them (including a biologist) pointed out that these studies have a tendency to be pretty flawed. But whether or not that research is tried and true fact is immaterial to me, as social factors play a far larger role when it comes to differences among the genders. That's why "masculinity" meant something different in ancient Athens than it means in the USA today than it means in contemporary India than it means in Columbia... you get the picture.

2) How is sexism "biological, hard-wired"? Do you mean gender differences, not sexism? As I mentioned, I think biology plays a really small role, especially in comparison to social factors.

3) I did read those slides you linked (for both sides of the debate). Like someone else said, neither were very compelling to me. What's pretty clear to me (and somewhat touched upon in those slides, actually) is that the initial interest/participation in areas which supposedly cater to male cognitive abilities is much less gender skewed than at higher levels. As a current university student, that's something I've certainly noticed: many of my fellow female undergraduates are either in the hard sciences or economics (paired with political science or some marketing major, usually). Which ultimately means a lot of women do pursue things that were once (and are still) considered more "masculine," or biologically better suited for men. I mean, ever hear of a thing called sports?

4) Mattel makes motorcycle, doctor, and tattoo barbie, you know. Motorcycle barbie is apparently is also quite expensive, meaning there's demand for it. Seriously. And guys (especially in my generation) are starting to wear pink and pastel colors, or make-up, or whatever else quite freely. As I've said before, these things are fluid - they are not fixed and biologically determined.

5) When shilsen was running the game I play in (and I'm the only woman), he did create a "save the male in distress" scenario. And no one really noticed, including myself. Men and women alike seriously aren't losing out from abandoning dated, sexist scenarios.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

But whether or not that research is tried and true fact is immaterial to me, as social factors play a far larger role when it comes to differences among the genders.

Well, glad you read them. I don't understand how you can not care about whether or not the research is true or not. The research disproves exactly what you state there about social factors. Why don't you care if it is true or not?

I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.

But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you. Perhaps, in a thread on a fantasy game, I am indeed the odd one out.

Edit: Assuming #2 is a legitimate rather than rhetorical question, the answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology.

 

[Ariosto]

The wider cultural context from which people approach the game is something to consider.

In the 1970s, the D&Ders I met were mostly also into SF -- and SF was into exploring the human condition as well as escaping it. On Norton's Witch World or Bradley's Darkover, there were significant cultural differences from Earth. However, there were also similarities.

To look at sex relationships with blinders on regarding economics and social class can really skew things -- and the looking in our society that gets prestige is mostly from a pretty particular class. The academic observers for the most part are outsiders to a broad swathe of reality even in our society, and even further removed from the experiences that shape people in pre-industrial agrarian ones.

The need for a thesis that appeals to the academy, especially in the humanities, is notably different from the need a "pulp fiction" writer has for verisimilitude that appeals to the common reader.

The Witches of Estcarp are a matriarchy founded on an exclusive claim to the prerogative of magic. The role of females in the ruling Houses of Darkover, whose laran powers and matrix technology give an economic basis for their political hegemony, is also significant. Darkovan patriarchy, though, gives rise to the Guild of Renunciates.

There are impostures in both of those power structures, and a simple "oppressed sex" paradigm is simplistic and superficial next to the writers' dealings with more fundamentally human issues. The stories of Renunciates concern betrayals of trust that on deeper analysis are not peculiarly masculine, and the "freedom" of apartheid is not utopia but exile. Male or female, and whatever our sexuality, we are not complete in isolation; blades cut their wielders.

Among the peasants who must make up most of the population of an ancient or medieval civilization, men and women depend on each other for survival. There is neither bread to eat, nor a thread to wear, unless their assigned labors are joined. Neither, of course, are there children to take care of them in their old age.

Many of us today are in similar circumstances, except that there are no such set and sustainable complimentary "spheres". This is especially awkward when our upbringing was in the conceptual framework of a "middle class" with different expectations. It can be hard on both a woman and a man to find that she is the "bread winner".

Enough rambling for now! Better to post the thing and get feedback than to go over it more on my own.