[Polyhedron] Are women interested in this type of fantasy?

[Dinkeldog]

My opinion remains that you're trying to describe an exceptional situation by looking at ordinary situations. The exceptional is by definition not ordinary. So you have a woman that rescues her man. It's happened before on TV and in movies. Maybe not as often as the opposite, but a little Girl Power seems to go a long way.

 

[Lizard]

She is tied up in the back of the lab with only her beauty as a quality. Often she doesn't even have a personality. Mysogynistic? Perhaps. But making a PC version isn't suddenly going to get women to think "Flash Gordon is such a cool concept!". Let's face it, that kind of pulp sci fi was written with a certain demographic in mind, and it wasn't the empowered woman.

Well, there's my point, you see. Flash Gordon/John Carter/Green Star/T'schai(sp) aren't cool because they feature mindless women as prizes to be won by the hero. They're cool because of stunning vistas, strange races and cultures, endless opportunities for heroism and excitement, scheming villains, daring leaps from balconies to passing air-cars, knocking the ray guns from your foes hand with your sword, and flying off into the sunset on a winged snake. That's what's cool and fun, and that's as likely to appeal to any woman who games as any man.

The best recent example is Star Wars. Star Wars was very much a modern-day (well, to the extent 1977 is 'modern') Flash Gordon serial -- but Princess Leia wasn't a helpless token to be rescued and nothing more. She was someone *worthy* of heroes like Han and Luke. She shot blasters, fired the guns on the Falcon, and dissed Tarkin.

ILJ is not a post-modern deconstructionist neo-feminist reinterpretation of planetary romance stories. It is, I humbly submit, wholly faithful to the spirit and tone of the novels which inspired it. It does not include the 'Emasculate' feat, nor the 'Butch Warrior Woman' Advanced Class. Following the thematic lines of D&D 3e, it simply does not make the assumption that the game requires macho men and helpless women; it contains precisely *one* sentence noting that heroic roles are not limited to males only.

(Are people also upset that the 'iconic paladin' in 3e is female? Or that there's no longer any Strength penalty for female characters?)

 

[David Argall]

You sure about that?

"Actually the answer is "you don't know". But you have an assumption you are very willing to put forth as fact... "

Now this would seem to be very much assumption since you only know of me what I have posted. Which makes it rather reckless assumption given the number of people who sail under false colors on the internet.

"why is that?"

Well for starting evidence that women do prefer men who rescue them over men they rescue, consider that men are distinctly larger than women.
This is the result of large numbers of our female ancestors choosing the larger male [the one better able to rescue her and harder to rescue]. It is not the result of male force. Females of most species have little problem in finding ways to slipe in the preferred male. It can be called the result of evolution, but that is a chicken vs egg question. Evolution operates thru female choice. So we have the vote of our female ancestors, the rescuer is superior to the rescued.

 

[Particle_Man]

Re: Re: From Marsha Chance

It is, and it isn't, which is what is confusing to some people. Back to my wife: She didn't answer the way she did because she's a woman, but the fact she is a woman did figure into her answer.

That's almost zen.

And it's sort of what Marsha said. Back to her husband: He didn't answer the way he did because he's a man, but the fact he is a man did figure into his answer.

And unless in both cases the spouse is a post-operative transexual (and according to some theories, perhaps not even then), on what basis could either Mark or Marsha make the claim that the gender of the spouse figured into the answer? Why not height, mood, phrasing of the question, eye colour or shoe size?

 

[jdavis]

I don't know. Am I? You have said I am. I have already said I'm not, but admitted I could be typing such things while blacked out. I asked for you to quote me making such a generalization, which you've failed to do. You did make an mild effort at some sort of convoluted "guilt by association" rap, but that's it.

Given your failure to substantiate, and my already stated answer to your question about whether or not I'm generalizing, I guess I'll stick with my take on my comments.

Well there was a question mark there, see I am actually asking you what your point is. If you are not trying to make a generalized statement then what was the point of saying that all the women you know (execpt for the teenage one who's opinion you don't respect) agree? What was your point then? Here I'll give the quotes you desire then:

What about the incompetent ones? You know, only a competent woman would agree with opinion X. If a woman agrees with opinion Y, she is therefore incompetent.

So only a competent woman would agree with X?

I showed the initial posts of this thread to my wife, an extraordinarily competent woman. I then asked if her she would have been attracted to me if I were an ineffectual man who required her to basically mother me. Her response was a very sarcastic, "Yeah, right!" For my wife, that is rather strong language.

Your wife is an extraordinarily competent woman and she said X so women who say Y are incompetent?

Of all the females of any age that I know, I can only think of one that finds the idea of the ineffectual, "fixer-upper" man attractive, and this particular young lady is 15. While I risk be accused of "ageism," I try not to put much stock in the relationship experiences and opinions of 15-year-old girls.

So only silly 15 year olds would say Y? If you are not making a statement that most women would say one thing then what type of statement are you making? Why justify competence, why go on about how only silly girls would make the other choice, why post this bit later:

Well for starting evidence that women do prefer men who rescue them over men they rescue, consider that men are distinctly larger than women.

So women prefer fat men?

This is the result of large numbers of our female ancestors choosing the larger male [the one better able to rescue her and harder to rescue]. It is not the result of male force. Females of most species have little problem in finding ways to slipe in the preferred male. It can be called the result of evolution, but that is a chicken vs egg question. Evolution operates thru female choice. So we have the vote of our female ancestors, the rescuer is superior to the rescued.

SO that is why Fat women don't date as much, they only respect people bigger than them? That also explains why we are much more powerful and larger than cavemen? You say I'm misrepresenting you by saying that you are making a statement on how most women would react and using all the women you know as proof, then you go and make a statement that most women have chosen that way throughout history, I must admit I'm sort of confused to what your point actually is then?

Look I will agree that women are drawn to competent men, heck there is no arguement that people in general do not prefer the incompetent as mates. My only problem is the stereotyping and generailzations that are going on, you cannot state how a person will choose in a romantic situation because falling in love is not something that people make a consious choice about, love is a emotional response not a logical response, therefore you cannot really make any kind of pre judgement in this situation. Some will say yes some will say no and some will say "I rather rescue a princess instead of a prince to start with". There is just no way of making a statement on how a majority of the 6,302,508,958* people on this planet will react to this sort of romantic situation. Giving information on how people you know responded is what the thread asked for but how can you tell us how people you don't know would react? How can you answer any question for people you don't know?

 

[Mark Chance]

Well there was a question mark there, see I am actually asking you what your point is. If you are not trying to make a generalized statement then what was the point of saying that all the women you know (execpt for the teenage one who's opinion you don't respect) agree?

You're all over the place on this. All the women that I know more or less agree with my wife. That is not a generalization about all women. That is a fact about something on the order of a half-dozen or so women.

jdavis gets really confused
Here I'll give the quotes you desire then: So only a competent woman would agree with X? Your wife is an extraordinarily competent woman and she said X so women who say Y are incompetent?

Now you just need to get some relevant context. My queries about competence versus incompetence were directed to Kahuna Burger, who very flatly stated that all of the "competent women" that she knows agree with her opinions about the matters in question. The apparent corrolary to her statement is that any woman who disagrees with her is incompetent.

This is obviously not an appropriate, honest line of argumentation, and I have not accused anyone of being competent or incompetent based on their opinions about anything.

jdavis starts making false attributions
why post this bit later: So women prefer fat men? SO that is why Fat women don't date as much, they only respect people bigger than them?

Excuse me? Now you've completely lost it. I've not mentioned word one about weight.

jdavis gets something right!
You say I'm misrepresenting you by saying

and then jdavis gets confused again
that you are making a statement on how most women would react and using all the women you know as proof

Once more, I made no such statement. Nowhere did I ever say anything approaching: All women I know believe X; therefore, most women believe X.

and then jdavis returns to the false attributions
then you go and make a statement that most women have chosen that way throughout history

And, literally for the last time, I made no such statement.

jdavis admits he's confused, the first step to getting help
I must admit I'm sort of confused to what your point actually is then?

Yes, you are quite confused. About that much, you're correct. Given your confusion, if not deliberate obtuseness, the rest of your post doesn't merit comment since it isn't actually directed against anything I've posted.

 

[Erik Mona]

I love this thread.

Someone said:
>>>
Poly was just playing it the safest way they could think of. Wonder if it occurred to them to depict a man and a woman fighting back-to-back, depending upon each other for mutual defense?
>>>

Actually, I wasn't trying to be "safe." I just thought it would be interesting to take the lame, cliche, "on every single cover" composition and flip the gender roles because I hadn't seen it done before. Now, I'm _certain_ it has been done before--it's frankly not all that clever. We were lucky enough to get a really fantastic cover image, and I'm pleased as punch that the issue has generated this much debate.

At the end of the day, however, I think the most important message here is that to have a truly informed opinion on the matter, you really should go out and buy a copy of the magazine as soon as humanly possible.

--Erik

 

[fusangite]

The reversal of the role is nothing more than being PC, and is completely worthless for both the genre and from a marketing point of view.

Many campaign worlds are based on inverting something about this world. There is a reason Throught The Looking Glass was a seminal work in the history of fantasy literature; you can go back further to More's Utopia. The basis of much great fantasy is the inversion of a particular basic trope. To suggest that such a key tradition of Western literature is "completely worthless" is very unfortunate.

Will women receive these images the same way men would? Of course not. Will these images do anything to create a greater degree of gender equality in society? Too early to tell. Will this subgenre of space opera be as popular as the one which it inverts? Almost certainly not. However, just because this little piece of satire/inversion doesn't solve the greate gender issues of our time is no reason to declare it valueless.

Bizarro Superman think you have short memory.

 

[SemperJase]

Re: Can't resist any more...

SJ, the topic starter, clearly thinks that inverting the standard gender roles vis a vis pulp space fiction is somehow going 'turn the world upside down'. From other posts of his, I'd wager that he feels that way about real life as well.

The first sentence is wrong. I said they seemed to be trying to turn human nature upsidedown. The world is in no danger as a result of ILJ.

I'm not entirely sure what was meant by the second sentence.

Here is my view. There are definable gender roles in nature and society. The woman as protector of her mate is generally not a feminine role. By extension, it seemed logical that women in general may not be interested in that type of fantasy.

[real-life story]My wife is a strong-willed, assertive woman. I love that about her. Yet even she looks to me for protection.

A while back, we were in downtown Denver walking down the mall. A bum came up and accosted us for money. After telling him no, he became aggressive. My wife (instinctually?) stepped behind me. She clearly was looking at me to be the protector. Thankfully, it didn't escalate. He walked away after I pushed him away from us.

Even strong willed, assertive women want their men to be men. [/real-life story]

In raising the question, it appears I didn't take one thing into account. Perhaps women gamers may not necessarily representative of women in general. [Flame suit on]
Women who fantasize about killing orcs and dragons may be likely to explore (in a game situation) a romantic adventure with their rescuee.


Lizard, I enjoyed your mini-game enough to read it. Out of 25,000 words, that section was the most thought provoking for me. I find this topic more interesting than say, the pros and cons of Marikon racial traits.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Re: Re: Can't resist any more...

The first sentence is wrong. I said they seemed to be trying to turn human nature upsidedown. The world is in no danger as a result of ILJ.

No offense intended, SJ, but the while there may be a vast distinction between turning Human Nature and turning the World upside down they are both such sufficiently vast acts as to invite a certain amount of criticism and, potentially, ridicule.

In fact I'd say the vastness implicit in that statement is the cause of the issue a lot of people are taking with your arguments, rather than the more civilized dispute people have had or not had with your argument overall.

While you are certainly well within the rights of any discourse to state a belief in a human nature and to ascribe certain attributes to that right, your opponents are equally within their rights to attack the argument based on the impossibility of accurately addressing such a topic through such means as a small, specific, and local portion of the human race.

Indeed, even were it possible to demonstrate that every member of the human race currently shares such a broad and essentially rhetorical quality the argument would still be limited by the fact that it would only address such a portion of the human race as exists now, not those of the past or future or in other potential circumstances.

A less absolutely worded version of the argument would contribute a great deal to its credibility, allow the topic to return to its focus, and cause less consternation all around.

This is the sort of thing Compositionists all over America, and elsewhere I assume, have to continually address. If it doesn't get done rhetoric tends to get bogged down in arguments over means and semantics, as it has here, to the tune of much mutual frustration.

Also please fix the grammar error in your signature, clergy is a plural group noun and does not agree with has. Looks like a grammar checker got to it and mangled it. Not normally a problem in this informal medium, but seeing the same error everytime I read your otherwise fascinating messages did make me want to speak out about it.