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

[S'mon]

Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose. If I include sexism or racism or authoritarianism in my games, you can be sure I'll have tried as hard as I can to make it have a purpose - a purpose that my players will at least not be irritated by, if not actively appreciate.

It's generally good not to annoy your players. But I've had a lot of players who'd be annoyed by your approach to world-building; different strokes etc.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Sure. I am not in the least bit motivated by the desire for authenticity or verisimilitude in worldbuilding for its own sake; what I care about is whether or not a world or a story is interesting, not whether it is what would have most likely happened (a question impossible to answer in any case).

I save verisimilitude for characters and their behaviour in play.

 

[shilsen]

Maybe the "don't give a damn" people went to the negative damn-giving scale and didn't even read this thread

That's what I presume happened in at least a few cases, if not most.

...stigmata...

Off topic - sorry, totally a personal pet peeve here. Feel free to ignore. Unless you're bleeding from your hands and feet, the word you were looking for was stigma.

I will then.

Me, I prefer to use stigma for parts of flowers.

And here I thought you were the guy asking for precise use of language !

We definitely are not using "sexism" in exactly the same way. I went over that in my post on p.3, I think it is.

I think that we can agree on this: If "sexism" means a) supposing one sex superior to the other, or b) judging an individual based on his membership in a collective rather than his own actions, then it is not welcome in D&D.

That we agree on. Much of what I'm focusing on here is a third form of sexism, i.e. privileging the experience/taste/desire of one sex and especially treating that sex as the default.

However, I don't think that any of that sort of sexism is present to any significance in D&D, on ENWorld, or anywhere else that you indicted in your original post.

Fair enough. It's clear we differ on this point. I think the third type of sexism I mentioned above tends to happen a good deal in both D&D and on ENWorld, where the implicit (often unexamined) assumption is that the audience is male. That happens, of course, at least partly because men do make up the much larger part of the D&D market, but I don't think that's a justifiable reason.

But again, there is no significant instance of that in D&D, or on ENWorld. This is a notably open, understanding, kind community. I'm thinking of Angelsboi and others. ENWorld has changed a fair amount over the last nine+ years, but it's been a great place all the way. I'm sorry, but I felt I had to defend it when I saw your original post calling it out for something that it does not do to any significant degree.

I'm guessing more than a few people posted at first in order to defend ENWorld. Personally, I think ENWorld is a great place, hence the inordinate amounts of time I've spent and do spend here. I love the community. But thinking it's a great place doesn't mean I don't think it could do better. Thinking that it is usually open, understanding and kind doesn't mean I think it is never implicitly exclusionary. Both can and do coexist in many groups and communities outside ENWorld, so I'm not surprised that I see it here too. And, of course, some people don't.

What I object to is your implication that D&D, RPGs in general, and ENWorld are somehow doing a bad thing by engaging in "behavior, conditions, and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
...

Fair enough. Again, I differ. Even leaving aside our differences on the biological bases of such stereotypes, I seriously don't see how fostering stereotypes can be anything but detrimental, esp. when these stereotypes are used in an exclusionary fashion.

Actually, I have to agree that F.A.T.A.L. is a game targeted towards men. Its so misogynistic that a woman who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology.

Agreed, except I'd say that anyone who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology.

And I can agree that it is so far skewed in that regards that you could make a case for it being the RPG most aimed at men.

However, just because it is "the RPG most aimed at men" doesn't mean its "the RPG aimed at most men." In fact, I'd argue that it is the aimed at a vanishingly small subset of men- virulently misogynistic male gamers.

What he said.

Likewise, it's not the idea of an evil matriarchy that oppresses its male citizens that's problematic, it's the idea that the only matriarchy around is evil and oppresses its menfolk that is the problem. Gary, I'm sure, wasn't saying outright that any society ruled by women is naturally going to be evil and oppressive of men, but the suggestion, as unintentional as it may have been, is unfortunate: that societies ruled by men may be good or evil as their cultures dictate, but it seems like there's only one society ruled by women and it's full of evil sadists!

Nobody reasonable accuses Gary or anyone who wrote about the drow of being anti-black, anti-woman jerkbags. We can still recognise the problems in the drow race without suggesting it was intentional.

Agreed. With a lot of the stuff which I'm pointing to, I think at least part of the reason (though there are many) that people don't see them as problematic is because they're not intended to be sexist. But intent goes only thus far. If the vast majority of societies in D&D are patriarchal, that doesn't mean the people creating them intentionally are trying to make a point (or even thinking) that men should be in charge. But it does show, to me, that patriarchy is what is "normal", to them. And that I have a problem with, since it's both exclusionary and, well, boring and uncreative.

Dark wasn't so much a descriptor of evil so much as a marker of inferiority.

Yes, this tallies with my experience. The meme in Western culture is dark skin = inferior, not dark skin = evil.

Agreed, but that is still a very problematic meme, in my opinion. To tie it back to the subject of this thread, a meme where women are evil would be a problem. But a meme where women are inferior would also be a problem, I think. As would the one that women are the other, separate in some way from the norm, which is one I do see in the D&D community.

There is no cultural context that cannot be said to be full of problems.

Right. So why does that mean we can't notice, comment on and critique the problems? I'm with mhacdebhandia (see the last bit quoted in this post) here.

You might as well be objecting to the pseudo-medieval focus of the game for all the good that argument does you.

Been there done that already, including in this thread

Wasn't this thread about sexism in D&D and on EN World? I would recommend sticking to that topic, honestly.

Thanks for the attempt, Mustrum, but when do threads on ENWorld stay tightly focused, esp. over a long stretch? Anyway, let's see if this long response ties things a little back to the original subject.

Well, I do, actually. In my games, there's absolutely no assumption that the world resembles medieval Europe in anything more than a superficial and localised fashion. In my current game, using the Scales of War adventure path, the PCs may carry crossbows and longswords, but the feel of the world - at least the target I'm aiming to hit, even if I don't quite make it - is much more "imperial China in one of its least unified periods" or "declining imperial Rome". Magistrates held over from the imperial bureaucracy instead of a mayor or town council, for instance.

Interesting. I tend to ignore or actively avoid the pseudo-medieval European vibe in D&D too, at least in part because (as I think I've mentioned before) I find it kinda ludicrous. Introducing the elements of D&D into a world and trying to make it seem like it could map inexorably to one historical period in one geographical area in our world seems really strange to me. And just very unimaginative. I'd have to say that a lot of the issues with sexism that I'm referencing also have less to do with people trying to actually be sexist and more with laziness and not seeing that there's a lot out there beyond their own experiences and history.

Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose.

Agreed.

 

[SteveC]

Actually, I have to agree that F.A.T.A.L. is a game targeted towards men. Its so misogynistic that a woman who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology.

And I can agree that it is so far skewed in that regards that you could make a case for it being the RPG most aimed at men.

However, just because it is "the RPG most aimed at men" doesn't mean its "the RPG aimed at most men." In fact, I'd argue that it is the aimed at a vanishingly small subset of men- virulently misogynistic male gamers.

I really have to disagree with this assertion: FATAL is designed for a caricature that doesn't really exist except for perhaps in some very disturbed adolescent boys. There's a real serious problem when it gets bantered about as the ultimate example of a game designed for men.

And that's the real problem with this discussion: D&D is a game designed almost entirely by and for men. That doesn't mean it's a sexist game at all, because there's a planear gulf of distance between something that's designed from the male perspective and something that's sexist. That's what is missed here: male perspective != sexist. It's easiest to see this if you reverse it and ask if a game designed by women for a female audience would automatically be sexist.

D&D, especially after WotC purchased it, has gone out of it's way to not be sexist, down to choices made for characters and language. It also still remains a game that's going to appeal to a primarily male audience. Why? Because, at it's core, the heroic model of "killing things and taking their stuff" is something that appeals more to men than women. That doesn't mean that women can't or don't enjoy the hobby or killing and looting (far from it) of course.

 

[Set]

Yeah, I've seen the claim, what I have not seen is anyone, ever, within Western civilisation* actually saying "black skin tone indicates evil". Not even the Nazis.

You don't have to go nearly that far. Check out Brigham Young, whose views about black skin being the mark of Cain, a sign of punishment for past transgressions and a sign of moral taint are fairly well established, and were shared by a fairly large and influential group. Any further discussion on that particular group would probably violate the board's policy, 'though...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I really have to disagree with this assertion: FATAL is designed for a caricature that doesn't really exist except for perhaps in some very disturbed adolescent boys. There's a real serious problem when it gets bantered about as the ultimate example of a game designed for men..

I'm afraid I have to disabuse you of this. The caricature exists.

If you do a search for "F.A.T.A.L. + rpgnet + rebuttal," you'd find a point-by-point rebuttal that makes it incredibly clear that the game's creator is 1) not an adolescent boy, 2) is an adult male, and 3) quite sincere in his assertion that he has created the ultimate RPG.

It is, in a sense, the "ultimate" game for men insofar as it clearly isn't designed to appeal to females of any age. It is equally clear that it is a game designed for men- again, a small subset of them- in much the same way as RaHoWa RPG is a game designed for (a subset of) white people* ( Worst RPGs ever - RPGnetWiki ). As for its appeal to adolescent boys...well, IMHO, there is too much misogyny in its rules to appeal to any boy who isn't well on his way to being a very sick adult male.

*For those who don't know, RaHoWa RPG is a game in which the object is to hunt down and kill minorities- RaHoWa stands for "Racial Holy War."

 

[Bumbles]

And here I thought you were the guy asking for precise use of language !

Not quite. Besides, different people often have different ideas about what is hitting on the target. Sad but true. More important than precision is recognition of the possibility of some mutual misunderstanding, as two or more people can use the same words, but mean different things.

I don't think that was quite the problem with the disagreement over the word stigmata though. Me, I'll stick with what I said, I see stigma, I think of flowers.

Right. So why does that mean we can't notice, comment on and critique the problems? I'm with mhacdebhandia (see the last bit quoted in this post) here.

What it means is that you should recognize that particular issue. Putting that in your mind may save you a lot of trouble when you make your critiques of the problems as you perceive them, since it can prevent you from taking a course of action that's more divisive and less likely to resolve any of your issues.

Interesting. I tend to ignore or actively avoid the pseudo-medieval European vibe in D&D too, at least in part because (as I think I've mentioned before) I find it kinda ludicrous. Introducing the elements of D&D into a world and trying to make it seem like it could map inexorably to one historical period in one geographical area in our world seems really strange to me. And just very unimaginative.

And while this isn't a particularly a bad thing, if you haven't seen some of the protests, then you might not understand where I'm coming from on it.

Me, I've done a few things that are probably similar to what you've done. And I know Eberron is loved by many for the things it has done which are in this vein.

Writing a protest on GH or FR though, would not be as well received though.

Well, I do, actually. In my games, there's absolutely no assumption that the world resembles medieval Europe in anything more than a superficial and localised fashion. In my current game, using the Scales of War adventure path, the PCs may carry crossbows and longswords, but the feel of the world - at least the target I'm aiming to hit, even if I don't quite make it - is much more "imperial China in one of its least unified periods" or "declining imperial Rome". Magistrates held over from the imperial bureaucracy instead of a mayor or town council, for instance.

Ahem, there is a difference between exploring other historical areas to base your role-playing in, and objecting to one particular version. So you are doing a pseudo-imperial China/Rome game...this is not the same as declaiming that D&D's default set-up is terribad.

I have no objection to the former, I even encourage it, it's the latter that I find tends to be tiresome.

I'd much rather you go about designing the setting you find interesting instead.

Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose. If I include sexism or racism or authoritarianism in my games, you can be sure I'll have tried as hard as I can to make it have a purpose - a purpose that my players will at least not be irritated by, if not actively appreciate.

Exactly what I've been saying. Avoiding things is one thing. I avoid questions about consuming alcohol in games myself. And gender discrimination too for that matter.

Oh, and before I forget, here's a request, it's a bit involved, and you'll want to do it before you read too far:

Imagine a fighter. Fix the image in your head. Write down a description if you want. If you feel particularly up to the task, you can make a drawing.

Now do the same for a mage, a cleric and a thief.

Now really stop and do that.

Or decide "eh, I'm not going to do that"

Last chance to stop.

Ok, so you may have figured out from the context of the thread what I was asking you to do, which was to share your own conceptions, if unconsciously. If you want to involve your gaming group, and they don't know about this thread, or you can spring it on them, then you might try to use them as a sample.

Just a thought based on recalling an experiment from high school. Everybody was asked to draw a scientist. Most drew men in lab coats. I doubt anybody would guess what I drew.

 

[Wayside]

If you do a search for "F.A.T.A.L. + rpgnet + rebuttal," you'd find a point-by-point rebuttal that makes it incredibly clear that the game's creator is 1) not an adolescent boy, 2) is an adult male, and 3) quite sincere in his assertion that he has created the ultimate RPG.

Maybe. But it's also possible that both the game and the rebuttal were for the lulz and you're the victim of some epic trolling.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Stigmata" is the plural of "stigma." "Stigmata" does carry a religious connotation, so "stigmas" is usually used as the plural of "stigma" when that religious connotation isn't desired.

While it's true that "stigma" is part of the anatomy of flowers (and other plants, and even animals), it is a far less common usage that using it to mean "mark of shame."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


Jeff

P.S. Chicks rule.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

So you are doing a pseudo-imperial China/Rome game...this is not the same as declaiming that D&D's default set-up is terribad.

True. I have, however, seen quite a bit of sloppy argumentation from people that relies on the idea that "D&D is like medieval Europe" to defend sexism and other silliness - and criticising "D&D is like medieval Europe" in that context is not meant to be an attack on people who like games set in worlds much like medieval Europe, but instead is aimed at pointing out that the world described by the rules and features of D&D would look nothing like medieval Europe, so defending anything about D&D on the grounds of similarity to medieval Europe is literally ridiculous: it makes me laugh.

Ok, so you may have figured out from the context of the thread what I was asking you to do, which was to share your own conceptions, if unconsciously.

I might think first of a white human man in heavy armour when you tell me "think of a D&D fighter", but just because I am a product of my race, class, age, and gender doesn't mean that I can't go "hmm, you know, there's no reason for 'a D&D fighter' to be human, male, or white".

Everyone is a product of their social environment. That doesn't mean that we can't recognise when our responses and expectations are coloured unnecessarily.

Again, maybe I do think of a white guy in a lab coat when you tell me "think of a scientist", but the only two working postgraduate scientists I know personally are both white women who don't wear lab coats: one is a psychologist studying human perception, the other is a biochemist studying proteins. That doesn't mean that I should assume the "default" scientist is a white woman, either!

In some ways I think it argues against the idea of a "typical X" at all. No matter what race, gender, or any other grouping you select as your "typical X", their race, gender, or other markers will not be representative of all Xs.

(Statistical choices aren't much help, either. Who ends up being X in life isn't even remotely free of influence from the very ideas that make a typical scientist in most people's minds "a white guy in a lab coat" - so even if you argue that the statistically typical scientist is a white guy, it's still problematic to say that means the "best" representation of a typical scientist is a white guy.)