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

[Oni]

That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.

To say that sexism as we know it is a direct product of the biological differences between the sexes is most likely folly. On the other hand, to say that there are no differences between the sexes is folly is well. One has only to look to see that the sexes are not the same. That is an admittedly simple statement but one worth recognizing. I touched on this earlier when I said the seeds of sexism lie in those fundamental differences. What those differences are really are is not as important as that they exist in the first place. 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.

The -ism's are largely fueled by some combination of three things, fear, power, and ignorance. Sexism, in my mind, tends to draw mostly on the latter two. The -ism's use differences as a tool, if two things have differences how can you say one is better than another.

The exact definition of what defines a man and a woman may differ from society to society and era to era, yet the divide itself is consistent. That is to say that sexism exist the world over. To me this indicates that it matters less what those differences may be and more that they are simply present. How else does one explain this tendency to separate and elevate taking place in so many diverse cultures?

There are of course exceptions, not every culture that has graced this earth has been some male dominated patriarchy. To me this lends truth to the idea that sexism itself is not biologically ingrained into the human mind, that the particulars are a learned behavior. However I believe that the need for classification and creation of social hierarchies is an ingrained part of human nature, as you simply will not find any society without some form of stratification. Hence the seeds of sexism being born of the biological differences between the sexes, simply because where there are differences -ism's are likely to follow in some form or another. Sexism isn't something people are born with, but something they will create again and again in some fashion or another because of humanities inborn incessant need to categorize things and put them in their place.

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.

 

[Bumbles]

I did get around to looking at it. Very interesting, and it might be fun to play in for a one-off campaign, but I don't think I'd care to play something like that for the long-term. I certainly wouldn't recommend it be the default for D&D core rules and campaign settings. It might work well as one area in a campaign setting, however.

Well, I wouldn't recommend any purposed setting as the default, whether it be Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape or this one. Such focus is less than desirable as a basis for the game. But then, I don't like having the deities in it that are there now.

Probably also why I don't particularly favor Vampire or Exalted.

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.

 

[Spatula]

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?

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.

 

[Spatula]

So you're saying that being sensitive to sexism, racism et al is a bad thing?

No, but patently absurd generalizations are. California is a HUGE state, and when it comes down to it, the people populating its urban centers are not significantly different than those living in big cities in other US states - probably because a lot of them are transplants from those other states. Ditto with the rural areas (of which CA has quite a lot of) and the suburbs.

 

[Oni]

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.

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.

 

[Particle_Man]

Didn't read 18 pages of threads.

Stat-wise, there has been an evolution:

1st ed AD&D, male and female characters explicitly had different maximum strengths at char. gen.

Don't remember if 2nd ed did away with this, but by 3rd ed. it was gone.

In 3.0, except for elves, females tended to be shorter than males. Since height was tied somewhat to the jump skill for jumping up, women could not jump up quite as high as men. In 3.5 this was pretty much fixed. In 4.0 height is still tied to the Jump part of the Athletics skill, but height is no longer differentiated by gender.

In OD&D, B/X D&D, BXCMI D&D, I don't believe there were stat differences between men and women, although I could be wrong.

Mind you, this is looking at the crunch not the fluff.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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?

 

[Desdichado]

Thanks for spelling out your position in more detail.

You're welcome!

Having spent time discussing these issues with my partner, I think that it's easy to misunderstand how your behaviour comes across to other people. I'm certainly not of the belief that you're a rampant sexist that thinks all women are beneath him and can be treated as objects or anything like that.

I'm certain of that too. I'm also certain that the women I know (and I know quite a few; I'm married to one, I have one as a daughter, a mother, a sister, a boss, etc.) aren't concerned with how I come across to them either. So, for my purposes, I pass a quick lithmus test as non-sexist.

You state that you don't think the people you game with are sexist, and I am sure you're probably right. Would you mind giving me a bit more detail about the make-up of the group - is it all male, a mix, and what sort of ages?

A mix, but mostly male. We had two women, but one moved away. We figured that the 2,000 mile commute was a bit much. We're all between about 35-45 years of age.

In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.

There's a few points: instances of sexism do not a sexist society make. Society is made up of individuals. Individuals can be sexist in a non-sexist society.

I think the most compelling argument is the sputtering feminist movement in Western society. I've read a number of articles on the subject, of this new wave of feminists, and how frankly, they're struggling for an identity. And why is that? Basically, its because the prior wave of feminists got what they wanted. There's nothing else left to go after that's not nitpicking, or even worse, payback for past wrongs or something.

Is there work to be done on an individual level? Yeah, sure, always. Is there work to be done on a societal level? You'll have a hard row to hoe to convince me that that's the case. Is there work to be done specifically in the gaming sub-culture? Eh, I'm not so sure about that still, but in terms of official products, I'm going to say no. In terms of "are there a lot of mouth-breathing morons in the hobby who lack social skills?" Well, yeah, I've seen my fair share. However, I think misinterpreting their complete lack of social skills generally for a problem with sexism specifically is misdiagnosing the problem.

Finally, to bring the issue back to gaming, I think it's clear (for me) that there are still problems within D&D as a gaming hobby in terms of sexism. I was thinking about the NPC's in Keep on the Shadowfell, and it's notable that the priest in Winterhaven is female, whereas the Lord is male. I also noted that the Lord's wife is not mentioned at all, presumably as the adventure writer didn't think she would be relevant to the game.

This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.

Whereas I, on the other hand, don't think it's indicative of anything at all. Or rather; the fact that you call that out as an example of a problem is indicative of why I struggle to take this call to action seriously.

Sexism, inasmuch as it is an imposition on members of one sex to put up with behavior that makes them uncomfortable or unhappy, is rightly to be condemned and eradicated from our own suite of behavior patterns. However, there comes a point when sensitivity to percieved *isms that are not intended become the imposition on everyone else. I think sensitivity to sexism in general is crossing that line today. Sensitivity to sexism in specific cases, of course, is subject to a great deal more variability.

 

[Ariosto]

I have gone over the original D&D set and found no references to "women's lib". I have found the following references to sex:

Volume 1:
The only sample character, Xylarthen, is male.
"The charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover." (Note that this is an obvious reference to Circe, ruler of Aeaea in Greek myth.)

Volume 2:
Dragons -- "If two or more dragons are encountered they will be mated pair ..."
Lycanthropes -- note similar to that concerning dragons
Minotaurs -- "The Minotaur is classically a bull-headed man (and all of us who have debated rules are well acquainted with such)."
Centaurs -- notes on demographics in lair; "Females are not generally armed and will not fight, and the young are also non-combatant, except in life-and-death situations."
Unicorns -- "Only a maiden (in the strictest sense of the term) of pure and noble heart may approach the fierce and elusive Unicorn. Unicorns may be ridden by maiden-warriors and will obey them."
Rocs -- sexuality implied by possible presence in lair of eggs, chicks, etc..

Volume 3 and Reference Sheets: nothing

In addition to the above, "masculine" pronouns are used by default in keeping with conventional English-language grammar of the time. Titles are also uniformly given only in masculine form, e.g., Patriarch (but not Matriarch) for a high-level cleric.

 

[Ariosto]

Note that OD&D books I have on hand are a late printing, so it's possible that some reference to "women's lib" was expurgated along with most explicit Tolkien references.