Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7650069" data-attributes="member: 177">Edit: Sorry, KM.&nbsp; Didn't see your post, above.&nbsp; Feel free to remove this, if you feel it detracts from your discussion.Given that &quot;strength&quot;, both in real-world and game terms is vaguely defined, yes, it sure looks kind of sexist, and problematic.&nbsp; Doubly so when you over-focus on the average, rather than noting that even if there's a difference on average, the distributions are very broad and largely overlapping.&nbsp; Triply so when you fail to note that much of the difference in averages in the current population is apt to be the result of current culturally imposed gender roles and behaviors, rather than biology, so that they may not apply in the fictional culture.&nbsp; At the upper levels of training, can men out-perform women at many contests of upper-body strength?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; But isn't the 'average' we point to more a result of day-today labors?&nbsp; Isn't a woman who does a lot of physical work apt to be stronger than a desk-jockey man?If we really wanted to do it right, why not put in strength bonuses and penalties based upon life-work, rather than gender?&nbsp; Then, if in the society much of the upper-body strength work was performed by men, then we'd get the effect that men are stronger, but still not restrict a woman who had similar life-work.&nbsp; Insisting on tying modifiers to gender, and thus hard-baking the cultural differences into the rule-set, sure looks like sexism.&nbsp; And to me it seems entirely sexist to say that a fantasy world &quot;needs&quot; to reflect this. The world (real or fictional) will not end.&nbsp; Birds won't fall dead from the sky.&nbsp; Popcorn won't de-pop.&nbsp; Dogs and cats won't start living together in peace and harmony, upsetting the normal order of things.&nbsp; Nothing particularly bad will happen if you don't bake those things into your rule set.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no &quot;need&quot;. </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7650069, member: 177"] [B]Edit:[/B] Sorry, KM. Didn't see your post, above. Feel free to remove this, if you feel it detracts from your discussion. Given that "strength", both in real-world and game terms is vaguely defined, yes, it sure looks kind of sexist, and problematic. Doubly so when you over-focus on the average, rather than noting that even if there's a difference on average, the distributions are very broad and largely overlapping. Triply so when you fail to note that much of the difference in averages in the current population is apt to be the result of current culturally imposed gender roles and behaviors, rather than biology, so that they may not apply in the fictional culture. At the upper levels of training, can men out-perform women at many contests of upper-body strength? Yes. But isn't the 'average' we point to more a result of day-today labors? Isn't a woman who does a lot of physical work apt to be stronger than a desk-jockey man? If we really wanted to do it right, why not put in strength bonuses and penalties based upon life-work, rather than gender? Then, if in the society much of the upper-body strength work was performed by men, then we'd get the effect that men are stronger, but still not restrict a woman who had similar life-work. Insisting on tying modifiers to gender, and thus hard-baking the cultural differences into the rule-set, sure looks like sexism. And to me it seems entirely sexist to say that a fantasy world "needs" to reflect this. The world (real or fictional) will not end. Birds won't fall dead from the sky. Popcorn won't de-pop. Dogs and cats won't start living together in peace and harmony, upsetting the normal order of things. Nothing particularly bad will happen if you don't bake those things into your rule set. [I]There is no "need". [/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification