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

[Ycore Rixle]

Actually, it's a major part of the sexism debate which I'm very aware of, and a part which I think is either wrong or misapplied and usually both. In the context of this thread, I personally think it's also irrelevant.

Fair enough. I thought from your reply to KM and your subsequent silence that you had never heard of it. As for being irrelevant to the thread, it seems the thread has changed a lot since the original post.

In short, since I am commenting on the existence of sexism in a fantasy world, which is inhabited by creatures that are patently not the same as real world humanity (and humans in the D&D world, if simply by reason of the fact that sexual dimorphism is much smaller - if not non-existent - there, are not really like real-world humans either) and have certainly not experienced the same history and cultural development as humans in the real world, any difference in real world cognitive abilities wouldn't matter.

But you started this thread to talk about sexism "in the settings, the marketing of the game, the general climate of the game, and even on sites such as ENWorld." (The quote is from your OP). Are you now saying that this thread is only about the settings? Like many of the posts in this thread, the ground keeps shifting.

As Canis commented, that's just an example of really bad science. Which is only one reason why I think it has no impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.

Canis was not right. He didn't even provide any evidence or research. He just stated his opinion. There's a lot to look at, but if you look at even just the slideshow debate from two Harvard psychologists that I posted, one thing you can point to is Spelke referring to herself and her own research. Pinker has a mountain of historical evidence to point to. Now it's not necessarily bad science to quote yourself, but it should always raise suspicion. Honestly, to call Pinker the practitioner of bad science requires more than just a handwave. He's a named chair at Harvard, for gosh sakes. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Simply stating that the variance is small in a lot of studies, without providing any research or any links, is hardly scientific! In fact, that lack of rigorous argument, and not evolutionary psychology, is bad science.

Even if (and that's a big if) biological hard-wired sexism existed, what sort of influence it has is so heavily mediated and overwhelmed by social and cultural (and, most importantly, individual) influences that I think they're irrelevant here.

I don't know what "they" refers to. The influence of hard-wired sexism?

You seem to be thinking that the research only supports the first clause of your sentence (if biological sexism exists). But the research says exactly what you claim isn't true in your second clause (that biological sexism outweighs in many cases environmental influences). Maybe that's just your sentence structure.

I get that you don't think it's good science. But it seems like you don't understand what it is saying in the first place. Again, that could be my misreading though. I just wanted to make sure that, as much as possible, we're on the same page here.

That's almost exclusively cultural.

That's a myth. There are consistent sex trends across cultures and time. One hundred percent? No, not one hundred percent. That's why they're trends. There are exceptions. But there's a reason that mythology was brought up in this thread. Because there are consistent, stable-over-time-and-culture sex trends. We see them even know in things like profession and career choice. I know you honestly believe there aren't these trends, though. Maybe you could tell me why.

Speaking for myself, I don't think it's true, because the science seems really poorly one. Canis, who's much more well-educated on the subject than me, asserts that it is and I believe him.

But Proserpine said that she didn't care if the science were good or not. That was my point. That's a declaration pregnant with enormous implications. It sounds like you actually do care if the science is good. Also, I would recommend reading the research yourself rather than taking someone's word for it. It's accessible, and as you say, you're used to humanities-speak.

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.

No doubt. There are six billion people in the world right now! Or more. Someone, somewhere, considers cheese wheels to be alien spy machines.

But we're talking about trends here. Not instances.

So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology.

Hm. Do you mean you don't see how it is caused, or how it could be caused?

If it's the first, fair enough. No one understands how consciousness arises. So no one claims (I don't think) to know how sexism is caused by biology.

But could it be caused by biology? Is there a possibility that it could? There certainly is. First of all, there are physical, measurable differences between the male and female brain. Hormones, for one! Hormones are huge! Right there, that is enough to show how sexism could be caused by biology. But there are also things like the preoptic area and suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus. Here's an article on the preoptic area.

So, I can understand not seeing how sexism is linked to biology. But that it could be - an idea which you seem to dismiss out of hand - is obvious from the research. There are zillions of mechanisms for it.

Hm, so the Larry Summers question: Do you think it's worth researching, this idea that sexism might be biological?

That's a big assumption. What you're describing as the facts of the world are things which I don't think are the facts of the world, and are rather both a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of them. And that is why we are differing here, not because you are focusing on the facts of the world and I am (or Proserpine is) not.

I assumed that facts weren't important to Proserpine because she said that even if the science were true, she wouldn't care.

I actually think that the reason we were disagreeing is because we were not talking about evidence. Frankly I probably would have lost interest by now if we were just arguing over whose statistics are better. But what I very much wish to argue for is the triumph of evidence, and science, and facts. As long as we're in agreement that the question (is there a biological basis for sexism?) should not be settled by what people think is true, but what the measureable, physical science says is true, then we have common ground.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

He's a named chair at Harvard, for gosh sakes

I feel the need to jump in and point out that this may not mean everything you're implying. Lawrence Summers was president of Harvard, yet had to resign when he stated that the two highest reasons for seeing less women then men in sciences and engineering was due to 1) women being inherently more lazy, and 2) men just being inherently better at both fields.

I'm not going to say anything about Pinkerton (other then the fact that he's an evolutionary psychologist), for the sake if simplicity, but simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

And was that a link to the wikipedia article on Evolutionary Psychology? I just vomited all my blood.

Yikes!

It's germane to the topic. It has a lot to say about how sexism manifests in games. The Ultimatum Game, for example, is important.

It seems like you're suggesting that I was either mean-spirited or ignorant to post that link. I assure you that I'm not the former! I thought the link would help a lot of people to at least know of the field. There are probably many who are reading this thread - not you, since you work in the field - who had not heard of evolutionary psychology. No problem if people don't agree with it. But I didn't mean to make you vomit all (or even part!) of your blood. I just think it's important to be able to share ideas.

There's been reported cases where their own results did not support the hypothesis or justify the conclusions, yet they print them nonetheless.

There's no monolithic "they," as you actually pointed out yourself earlier in that paragraph. Can you show some articles that report data different from what was gathered? Because that other stuff you're talking about - cases where results did not support the hypothesis - is science as usual.

I have no doubts that given time, it will be as well received as phrenology.

Or, maybe, evolution.

It was probably hyperbole on your part, so this isn't meant particularly in response to that. But it brings it up. The "no doubts" attitude is a little rampant in this thread. I think we all need a big, giant dose of humility. Let's face it, people, we could all be totally wrong. Every idea needs to be given fair consideration, and well-meaning people can disagree and still be well-meaning.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I feel the need to jump in and point out that this may not mean everything you're implying. Lawrence Summers was president of Harvard, yet had to resign when he stated that the two highest reasons for seeing less women then men in sciences and engineering was due to 1) women being inherently more lazy, and 2) men just being inherently better at both fields.

I'm not going to say anything about Pinkerton (other then the fact that he's an evolutionary psychologist), for the sake if simplicity, but simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.

I didn't say he shouldn't be questioned. For gosh sakes, Spelke is also a named chair at Harvard. And I'm questioning her, in this thread. So, yeah, I think it's great to question named chairs at Harvard.

What I actually said was that dismissing them requires more than a handwave. _Some_ consideration should be given to the fact that these are people who devote their lives to the field, are clearly very intelligent, and are clearly highly valued and respected by their peers in the field. There's probably a reason for their position, and they probably have good intentions and are honest. So to disregard them without a bit of an argument, I think, is irresponsible.

 

[Bumbles]

And this folks, is why I only linked, and refused to argue over it.

I'm sure y'all mean well and all, but you're not going to settle it here.

 

[Lwaxy]

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?

All the time. I encourage it. Usually, in the smaller groups I ask for a male and a female character per player. It works out normally, although in the beginning the ideas of males how a female would act and why and vice versa tended to be a bit off.

 

[Lwaxy]

Out of curiosity, are there any women in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society?

I already said in my first post on here that I've never encountered sexism in D&D other than in game settings we chose. And unless I need to count males who prefer to see half naked women in fantasy art, I haven't seen any on EN World either.

In society, yes. But not only towards females.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

There are probably few things as hellish as experiencing a vision of Utopia created by someone whose values differ substantially from your own.

 

[Ariosto]

I've never encountered sexism in D&D other than in game settings we chose.

How much perceptions of what the game is "about" now depend on such commercial products is something to take into account. When creating one's own campaign was par for the course, presentation of any aspect in the basic rule books was moderated by the advice that "the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

The widespread use of someone else's extensively detailed "world" as a setting introduces a cumulative effect of details on the impression one gets. The more the game is bound to such definitions, the more important it is to consider the reception they are likely to get in different quarters.

There's a fine line to walk, if (as I think) a perennial part of the appeal of D&D is its fundamentally wide-open nature. TSR at first figured that aspect bode poorly for the sales of scenarios -- but was quickly proven wrong by Judges Guild. Aridáni and Hriháyal aside, Tékumel is probably too culturally exotic for the tamer brand image long since settled upon. As great diversity (each variation in which would offend someone, somewhere) is unlikely, the key should be to minimize off-putting elements in what's homogenized. If Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc., are ALL turn-offs in the same way, then the segment turned off that way might easily turn away to other games (or from the hobby altogether).

 

[S'mon]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but what's the point of including unpleasant setting elements (sexism, etc.) if they're never encountered by the players? They might as well not exist in that case.

Like the DMG2 advice suggests, a viable technique is to have a setting that is sexist/patriarchal/gender-normed, but for some reason that only applies to (most) female NPCs, not to PCs. This isn't a huge stretch - while all real cultures have gender differentiation, it's not so uncommon to have a norm that people are to be treated the way they behave, if that differs from the role they were born in. So a competent female fighter is treated the same as other, male, fighters. Wizards are treated as wizards, whether male or female.