D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[Umbran]

It’s always worth analyzing the past, but we should be careful not to evaluate it purely through the lens of modern values. While this approach can highlight important insights, it risks oversimplifying contexts or judging them unfairly without considering the beliefs and circumstances of the time.

Ah, but...

That's kind of The Idea, Here. The problem isn't directly the art. The problem is the art in the context that it exists in. If you accurately point out that a dress is ill-fitting and you're a professional fashion designer at a runway show, you would be treated differently than if you accurately point out that a dress is ill-fitting and you're a groom standing at an altar and your bride is in front of you in that ill-fitting dress. Context helps determine meaning.

Sexism, in context, is related to social power.

Yes, very much so.

And that gives us the problem with @Belgos suggesting we worry about the "beliefs and circumstances of the time". The things we call the "values" we'd refer to of a given time are generally the values of those who have greater social power. The people who have the power set the rules, after all. And their rules will generally justify their actions.

But, to use an example far more extreme than happens in our game books to show the point: if a person is beaten for having the wrong skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender expression, or the like, the "beliefs and circumstances of the time" do not lessen the broken bones, bleeding, and pain.

Thus, the measure we should use is not the "value lens" of the time, but the harm done.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you are talking about half-elf, that is wrong. Sexual assault was part of the canon in some editions, but was not how they were all made.

The only race I can think of were sexual violence was baked into the entire race was with the Muls of Dark Sun. And that was in one setting for a few years.

They're talking about the half-orc. Which, yes, it was pretty explicit that they were the result of sexual assault. It took something like 30 years to completely shed that association.

 

[Steampunkette]

Thus, the measure we should use is not the "value lens" of the time, but the harm done.

I wanna frame this line and put it on a wall.

Yes. This. ALL of what Umbran just said.

And, specifically, that's what the paper seeks to do. It's not going through and saying "These are bad things done by bad people" and making a bunch of moral judgements. It's saying "These are the things that happened and this is a part of why there weren't many girl gamers in Early D&D and even now women and girls are still pushed out by some old traditions and habits."

The whole "This art is Sexist!" thing is missing the point. Someone going through to find counterexamples of people liking a specific piece of art or sexualized character or miniatures with minimal clothes are missing the point.

The point is that there was an atmosphere of a "Boys Club, No Girls Allowed" and when girls tried to make a space for themselves they were largely met with indifference or even disdain. And when they asked for accommodations, specifically, they were sometimes met with outright hostility.

 

[Chaltab]

The point is that there was an atmosphere of a "Boys Club, No Girls Allowed" and when girls tried to make a space for themselves they were largely met with indifference or even disdain. And when they asked for accommodations, specifically, they were sometimes met with outright hostility.

Exactly. I think the art pieces on Dragon 52 &114 are beautiful and not in and of themselves distasteful--though there are plenty of bad or silly sexualized images in old D&D as well.

Still, what really galls me is the pervasiveness of the hostility towards women in the space, or trying to make the game more accommodating.

 

[Steampunkette]

Exactly. I think the art pieces on Dragon 52 &114 are beautiful and not in and of themselves distasteful--though there are plenty of bad or silly sexualized images in old D&D as well.

Still, what really galls me is the pervasiveness of the hostility towards women in the space, or trying to make the game more accommodating.

And while this -particular- paper focused on sexism faced by women...

He also wrote a paper about the racial biases that kept the hobby largely white for a long period of time, and still work to attack any attempt to break up the homoracial structures of the game. Hence the big heroes' feast argument we recently saw over the idea that Tacos or Sushi or Ramen might be a part of a heroes' feast.

And all of those same forces and similar forces have affected the queer community and the disability community as well.

And there's always an eager pushback from the majority group to any ground gained using three main arguments:

1) "It's not historically accurate"
Laughable. There were no dragons, beholders, goblins, or elves, either. Yet this is a common go-to. Especially funny when their idea of any food in the same setting includes potatoes, tomatoes, yams, corn, or other New World foods, or the use of Tobacco in pipes. But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

2) "Catering to Minorities"
Representation for others means 'catering' to minorities or 'caving' to pressure and can never be simply agreeing that there needs to be a greater variety of representation. This is roughly akin to being upset at only getting 10 Christmas Presents this year while your three siblings each get one and you're mad because you got 13 last year before the triplets were born. Nevermind that there's been catering to the majority for decades and offering a few scraps to other groups does no harm to the majority.

3) "Reverse Bigotry"
Acknowledging sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, or transphobia existing is tantamount to attacking the creators of the games and/or their work rather than the neutral act of acknowledging that there are problems, identifying them, and working to affect change. This is actually an aspect of the DARVO abuse tactic. Deny there's any bigotry, Attack the people bringing it up, Reverse Victim and Offender.

With these powers, combined, you get really ugly arguments that there's very little resolution for except to slam that ignore button on the most egregious sealions and overt bigots.

 

[Gradine]

Doesn't the term "sexuality" encompass all of that and more though? Although I will say it often seems like people use "sexuality" when the intended meaning is "sexual orientation". Maybe it's because the names for sexual orientations end in "-sexuality".

No. There is "sexual orientation*" and "gender identity*", of which transgender and other gender non-conforming people fall under the latter, but can otherwise be homo-, hetero-, bi-, pan-sexual, and anything and everything in between.


*To say nothing of romantic orientation and gender expression, but we save those concepts for the upper division seminar.

 

[niklinna]

He also wrote a paper about the racial biases that kept the hobby largely white for a long period of time, and still work to attack any attempt to break up the homoracial structures of the game. Hence the big heroes' feast argument we recently saw over the idea that Tacos or Sushi or Ramen might be a part of a heroes' feast.

I am not familiar with the word "homoracial", could you explain it please? A quick Internet search yielded little (although the one exact hit looked like an interesting read). I'd guess it has something to do with "same race" or, more specifically, exclusion of other races (or perhaps ethnicities/cultures, given the heroes' feast example).

 

[mamba]

I am not familiar with the word "homoracial", could you explain it please?

Not familiar with it either, but you are on the right track… greek homos = same, so ‘same race’, homogeneous race, as opposed to diverse

 

[MGibster]

1) "It's not historically accurate"
Laughable. There were no dragons, beholders, goblins, or elves, either. Yet this is a common go-to. Especially funny when their idea of any food in the same setting includes potatoes, tomatoes, yams, corn, or other New World foods, or the use of Tobacco in pipes. But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

When it comes to our historical past it's important to remember that records were sketchy at best. I have it on good authority that when Caesar prosecuted his war against the Gauls most of his Roman legions were made up of hobgoblins. (citation below)

Part of D&D's strength is that it doesn't really adhere to any realistic time period. The values of most PCs and "good" characters tend to reflect modern western liberal ideals and the technology is a mishmash covering many centuries. I haven't heard of the Feast of Heroes controversy, but I don't want to live in a world without tacos. Tacos are awesome.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When it comes to our historical past it's important to remember that records were sketchy at best. I have it on good authority that when Caesar prosecuted his war against the Gauls most of his Roman legions were made up of hobgoblins. (citation below)

View attachment 388029
Part of D&D's strength is that it doesn't really adhere to any realistic time period. The values of most PCs and "good" characters tend to reflect modern western liberal ideals and the technology is a mishmash covering many centuries. I haven't heard of the Feast of Heroes controversy, but I don't want to live in a world without tacos. Tacos are awesome.

What's even more laughable (per @Steampunkette's entirely correct thesis) is that even if you cut out 100% of the supernatural elements of D&D, what little you would have left is STILL historically inaccurate.

Guns are older than plate armor. And I'm not just talking cannons, either, which are at least 200 years older than plate armor. I'm talking hand cannons are older than plate armor, by about a century. Yet the very idea that you might insert actual gunpowder weaponry into D&D is practically sacrilege to many "defenders" of what D&D is.

Historical accuracy has never been a priority. Not even in the areas where historical accuracy could theoretically have been implemented, where the supernatural does not impinge upon it. It has always been a fiction, down to its bones, that romanticizes, that cuts out things that are not welcome and ignores inconvenient history whenever that suited the creators. Even if we don't use the completely valid rebuttal that historical accuracy is still just as stylized as any other style (just as "realism" is stylized too!), the plain and simple fact is that D&D is not and has never been overly concerned about historical accuracy, and its creators actively flaunted history when they wished to.