Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 2709187" data-attributes="member: 2020">I do see, occasionally, a sexist tone towards female characters.  It's rare, and it's not immediately obvious, but it's there.  I see women encouraged to play Sorcerers and Thieves, and in some cases it has become the 'thing' to do for female player characters.  And that is sexist.  Why?  Sorcerers, and to a lesser extent Thieves, are perceived as having 'innately' gained their powers or abilities (in the case of thieves, through long hopeless days of scrounging.)  Neither of these classes requires a 'formal' education, in the sense that - say - wizards and assassins receive 'formal' training.  Or the way a fighter receives formal training.    The implication, although very, very indirect, is that females have no capacity to be trained, that they are not worth the effort and time to try and train.  In the older editions of the game, females were often mages.  There was subtle sexism there as well, in an absurd assumption that it is somehow easier to become a wizard than it is a fighter or cleric.  Nevermind that the training of a wizard is just as bad as a fighter's, and nevermind that surviving as a wizard is just as hard (or harder) as it is to be a fighter.  So yes, there is a very subtle sexism.  I see it in which characters are rolled up.  I doubt anyone would admit to it, but I see it.  I do NOT see sexism in pronouns.  Swordmaster and Swordmistress are the same to me.  So are mage and magistress.  Priest and priestess.  (Of course, warrior is warrior, paladin is paladin, and bard is bard.)</blockquote>

Verification