Genders - What's the difference?

[pawsplay]

I
In SW, there's a Hindrance called "Young", meant for lucky child protagonists/sidekicks like Short Round in the Temple of Doom. Even though my PC is 12, the system didn't obligate me to take it. It was merely an optional mechanical descriptor... one I didn't use it since it clashed w/my concept. Instead, I choose other disadvantages; she's pursued by several would-be kidnappers and she smokes.

I prefer that approach. In fact, I think it's so inevitible that, as I said upthread, I think implementing mechanical options is practically solving the problem twice.

In both cases, we've left realism far behind, as soon as we boarded that sparking, cigar-shaped rocket, and punched out the giant ape who was guarding the enormous ruby...

...

...

Paging Doctor Freud!

 

[billd91]

It is kind of hard to inject any rule on certain subject matter without offending Chick. Ditto for his equivalents on this issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Jack Chick has no interest in playing RPGs with me.

I would say that the main question isn't whether or not I'd alienate Jack Chick or someone else might offend the local Women's Studies department, but whether I'd alienate someone else already inclined or curious enough to play were it not for the alienating factor.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I feel like I am trying to have a reasonable discussion. I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel really frustrated that the "discussion" seems to be acceptable only when it remains in the realm of agreeing or softballing. You do not seem to enjoy talking about what is "broadly acceptable." I don't understand how refusing to offer points up for discussion, or impugning the civility of this board, or expressing privileged-class martyrdom (not that I am accusing you personally of doing that) is "reasonable," how someone can propose to characterize men and women broadly and not expect their preconceptions to be challenged.

Okay.

 

[nedjer]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Jack Chick has no interest in playing RPGs with me.

I would say that the main question isn't whether or not I'd alienate Jack Chick or someone else might offend the local Women's Studies department, but whether I'd alienate someone else already inclined or curious enough to play were it not for the alienating factor.

Keep hearing this Jack's name, so I pop over to a web site that appears to be associated with the name. This site, which may or may not have anything to do with the Jack mentioned here, contains material that if published in Scotland would result in arrest and imprisonment for sectarianism under Scottish Law. It would certainly be considered unsuitable for children.

 

[pawsplay]

Keep hearing this Jack's name, so I pop over to a web site that appears to be associated with the name. This site, which may or may not have anything to do with the Jack mentioned here, contains material that if published in Scotland would result in arrest and imprisonment for sectarianism under Scottish Law. It would certainly be considered unsuitable for children.

That's the one.

 

[RedTonic]

There is a whole list I could make of things that men or women are NOT better at in an appreciable way. Neither is better at math in a consistent and holistic sense. Neither is better at multi-tasking, although women do it more often (meaning that men more often screw up by focusing when they should be multi-tasking, while women are more likely to screw up by multi-tasking when focusing would be more efficient). Neither has better "pain tolerance" whatever that means; pain has only a limited relationship to physiological distress; it is primarily a psychological phenomenon. The same woman who gives birth to three children might balk at getting her ribs cracked in a friendly game of football. Men and women both achieve in every art and science. Both succeed at almost all professions to some extent; I know a male midwife. Neither is more "right-brained" or "left-braineD" whatever that means; women tend to use more decentralized thinking, but A) that is only a typicality, not a universality (i.e. not true of all or even necessarily most men and women) and B) brain activity obviously involves strategy choices as well as physiology, and men and women are socialized to approach problems differently. Neither is more verbally adept, although women develop their conversational skills sooner and use them more as adults; women are not however better listeners. Women and men both are capable of anger, cruelty, and bullying. Although the top shootists are men, I can't discern any reason to believe women are not as good or nearly so at aiming and firing a gun. Neither is better at withstanding G-forces; women can (on average) take more acceleration change but men tend to have more upper body strength helping them withstand more acceleration absolutely; of course exercise softens both differences (cardio health for men, upper body muscular structure for women). It's doubtful they differ much in empathy, although women are often perceived to be more empatic.

A handful of actual differences: women survive famines better. They live longer. They are more flexible, and stay that way longer, on average. They are more prone to depression (although there are reasons to suspect social factors rather than physiology, or in addition to). Women can give birth. They have fewer sex-linked genetic disorders. Women can produce milk. Men have more upper body strength. They also have the ability to rotate their shoulders with more momentum. Men are more prone to schizophrenia, and autism. They not uncommonly inherit sex-linked genetic disorders like color blindness and male pattern baldness. They can impregnate multiple women. They have a longer stride. Men continue to grow in height and musculature well into their twenties, and could gain muscle even into their 40s if active. Men are capable of reproduction until almost the end of their lives. Boys are more kinetic when young, take longer to potty train, and develop vocabulary more slowly until later in life. Men grow beards and more body hair.

The only differences I would find even potentially useful in a game, setting aside the cost-benefit discussion that has already been highlighted, would be men's greater lifting capabity and throwing ability, and women's greater stamina under extreme conditions and greater flexibility. .... That would be a wash for 3e rogues, monks, and barbarians, but would favor male fighters, male halflings, and female rangers.

More or less what I said several pages ago, but longer. Including schizophrenia.

"Racial Holy Wars"

How bizarre. It's not enough that many groups commit wholesale fantasy genocide against fantasy races, but now someone wants us to re-enact WWII with dragons on the side.

All of this talk about what types of characters girls get to be reminds me of when I was in elementary school and I was only allowed to pretend to be the Pink or Yellow Power Ranger during recess. Lame.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Jack Chick has no interest in playing RPGs with me.

I would say that the main question isn't whether or not I'd alienate Jack Chick or someone else might offend the local Women's Studies department, but whether I'd alienate someone else already inclined or curious enough to play were it not for the alienating factor.

That's fair enough. Generally, when I game, I want to steer a course fairly near the middle between avoiding those who are highly offensive and also avoiding those who are easily offended. I guess I may be somewhat lucky at the moment that I have that. It doesn't really matter much to me, either, what the highly offensive or easily offended topic is. I'm more annoyed by the offense given or received than the particulars.

I've always told beginners, "If we start doing anything that makes you uncomfortable, or would make you uncomfortable if your grandmother was sitting right next to you--tell us, and we'll stop." Though granted, that might not be the best standard, since both of my grandmothers had off-beat personalities.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Keep hearing this Jack's name, so I pop over to a web site that appears to be associated with the name. This site, which may or may not have anything to do with the Jack mentioned here, contains material that if published in Scotland would result in arrest and imprisonment for sectarianism under Scottish Law. It would certainly be considered unsuitable for children.

You got the right site.

 

[nedjer]

That's the one.

Not a huge amount of compassion reaching out to me via the website.

 

[RedTonic]

I think he's got a pretty twisted mind. That's another topic, though. I shouldn't have brought him up at all!