roleplaying across the gender line

[mythago]

Research does support the "bimbo effect," but frankly I'm too lazy to dig up the cites; I'll just do the fusangite thing and call it an observed fact.

I think I can make generalizations about the fantasy genre and D&D's place in it.

You can make generalizations about anything; that doesn't make them accurate ones. That said, "fantasy genre" and "D&D" are two different topics.

The D&D core rules make it plain that there is really no difference between male and female characters. No ability restrictions, no class restrictions, plenty of examples with both male and female PCs. Gender isn't even discussed in the character-generating process.

The "fantasy genre" is so big that you are going to have major clashes with D&D no matter what small part of it you point to and say "This is TRUE fantasy."

And please, please don't drag in the old argument about what life was really like in bronze-age or medieval Europe. Not unless you're going to run an all-human campaign with no real magic, anyway.

As the GM, your game can have whatever flavor and character you want, and that's fine. I really, really don't understand why you can't say that most of your NPCs are male because that's how you designed the world, rather than trying to persuade us (badly) that the D&D rules require it.

 

[jgbrowning]

This nonsense has got to stop.

The last couple of pages have been full of women's rights crusaders arguing the point, ignoring reality and using the disappointingly absurd PHB definition of men and women (two distinct genders which are in all ways identical except for appearance (Ember notwithstanding)) to support their ridiculous statements.

The "genderless" world of the PHB might be fun to game in, if your campaign consists of treehugging social utopias wherein Adventurers' Guilds send unisex groups of politically correct, enlightened young men and women into dungeons (which exist for no logical reason other than to provide housing for monsters - must be another assumed D&D social reform) for the express purpose of killing the inhabitants and stealing their belongings. I assume that in this world, men aren't the men that we of real-world Earth are familiar with. Neither are women anything remotely resembling the mothers, sisters and, in some rare instances, wives and girlfriends that we interact with IRL (or even are - mythago et al). And might I point out that the vast majority, if not all, of the non-human living creatures in the real world that organise themselves socially, do so on the basis of distinct gender roles, one way or the other. Also, I can't remember ever hearing the term "dominant female", though that could, admittedly, be due to the patriarchal society I live in. (And we won't get into why, after X million years of evolution, the dominant animal on the planet is still largely patriarchal.)

However, if the societal makeup of your setting is in any way important to your campaign, and you decide to model your societies on the only real-world societal evidence we have, (ie.: societies driven by the dynamic facilitated by differing gender roles), then the members of those societies will need to be modelled after real-life humans.

Which means that they will need to:

a) have hormones. These are what cause our brains to favour different methods of dealing with unfulfilled needs (whether physiological, safety, social, esteem or self-actualisation needs).

b) reproduce sexually. As opposed to the unisexual, Barbie-and-Ken style plastic genital mound humans of the PHB.

Such real-life humans (and any fantasy races modelled after them) will react emotionally, as well as logically in any given situation.

Not only that, but in the dangerous, low-technology (compared to d20 Modern) world of the typical D&D campaign, people will die with alarming (to our modern sensibilities) frequency. Even given access to healing magic, life in such a setting will tend to be extremely cheap, and in fact, this life-is-cheap mentality is a staple of the dark and gritty sub-genre so many of us like to play in.

Of course YMMV and you might game in a setting featuring an enlightened society where people never (or rarely) suffer from violence, and disease and starvation are unheard of. Good for you - several authors with far more imagination than I, have made their fortunes translating their vision of such a utopia to print.

However, since such a society has never existed, I personally feel limited in my choice of research material, and therefore avoid such societies in my campaign.

And if you're reading this, I suspect you do too. No, I don't want to hear from people who do game in such a setting - I'm sure you exist, and I'm sure you have fun and I'm sure you wish you could have paid for only 25% of the PHB because that's about how much of it you would use in such a setting.

Therefore, in the violent world of a typical D&D campaign, people will die with distressing regularity. Related to this is the fact that the dominance of a people is often solely determined by their numbers. (And technology being low, less time will be able to be devoted to cerebral pursuits such as education and philosophy, and thus such blights as racism will be rampant - there will be precious little successful multiculturalism in such a world, and therefore cultures will strive to become dominant, should they be in a position to be able to doinate.)

This will place extreme importance on the ability to procreate. Now it's a given that a community of 10 men and 100 women will be able to generate offspring much faster than a community of 10 women and 100 men.

Therefore, in such a brutal setting, the importance of women with the ability to bear healthy children will be paramount. Not only that, but a year of her not being pregnant will be considered a wasted year, especially factoring in high infant mortality in such a world. So while it's barbaric and oppressive to our modern way of thinking, it's a simple matter of survival to state that a woman in her prime is far more valuable to her comunity being constantly pregnant and caring for infants than engaging in activities (beside childbirth) that could get her killed. Such as combat.

This mindset will lead to a woman's life being considered far more valuable than a man's life, and so their place in society will be very clearly-defined and safe.

Patriarchal oppression doesn't really come into it. Because individualism only becomes important with safety (eg. the importance every military organisation places on conformity), people will be defined by their usefulness to the community and how efficiently they fulfill that role.

Therefore, a healthy woman of childbearing age risking her life will be simply abhorrent to the majority of people living in a dangerous world.

I'm going to leave this one all alone, not break it up, so it glows with all its rational glory unhindered. I like others to have a chance to reread this and enjoy it as much as I did.. hehehe

well, to make one little comment... ah, so much "reality" in a "fantasy" im sorry if I appear to be "ignoring reality" when discussing Dungeons and Dragons... hohohoho!

why do you find it so metally challanging to allow women equal roles, and quote
...uhum.... "science"......
for why that would occur, when your talking about a game with Dragons?

*ROFL*

i hope you have a few studies about the mating/feeding habits of dragons hanging around to reference for your game as well... *ROFL*

and im pretty certain magic wouldn't effect evolution? um.. assuming evolution was how humans came to be, instead of a GOD creating them? hehehehe

ok.. im gonna reread this again... hehehe keep up the good fight, you wacky guy you!

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Originally posted by fusangite
No. The quote of mine to which you are responding is my statement that the people adventurers are most likely to encounter in the fantasy genre are male. This is not sexism. It is a statement about the kinds of stories which generally tend to be told in this genre.

Using a sexist genre as a reason for why men have a dominate role in a game based upon the genre and then asserting your statement as being non-sexist because its modeled after a genre that is, is.. well.. um.. questionable?

Let me reiterate: it is not sexist to state that in the fantasy genre, there are more male soldiers than female soldiers, more male alchemists than female alchemists, more male armourers than female armourers, more male highwaymen than female highwaymen, etc. Virtually all feminists would agree with me that any society, patriarchal or otherwise would have a larger proportion of males in combatant roles than females.

No it is not sexist to state such. It is sexist to say that it is not sexist because the sexist genre is that way.

It is very sexist to say that DnD NPCs should mostly be male because your "sources" for this statement are all sexist. Whether literary or patriachal.

D&D is designed to tell certain kinds of stories -- in aggregate, in these kinds of stories, one is more likely to run into male characters. This is not a controversial statement -- go to any university English department and I'm pretty damn confident they'll back me up -- people study literary genres and make generalizations about these genres. I don't think my take on the fantasy genre is completely out of whack here.

Why is one more likely to run into male characters? Seems that in and of itself should show you that its sexist, because being not sexist would sort of imply a 50/50 ratio?

Your right. In being right, you show that the genre is sexist and when you promolgate the genre you're being sexist as well because you're following the stereotypes of that genre.

Every english department will also tell you that your using an arguement used to defend sexism. Until last century almost all literature was written by a white male.

If you based your game off literature your game would have a tremendous bias towards white men, you would defend it by saying all the literature is that way. Unfortunately that is also sexist.

Well, I think I'll just re-iterate the threat I articulated to barsoomcore: am I going to have to lock you in a dark room with nothing but a TV playing The Human Animal from PBS?

Unfortunatly science, even questionable science, isn't "proof" enough as to why you want to continue having sexist games when the ability of "fantasy" (that stuff that doesn't exist in the real world, remember?) allows you to have games that are not sexist. If you want to be sexist thats fine, if you want to play that way thats fine.

But this aside, I don't think you understand what a generalization is. When one states that something is generally true, this does not mean that it is absolutely true in all situations at all times and under all conditions. Rather, the sciences tell us what "tends" to happen most of the time.

That stated, however, actually people have measured pupil dilation, dopamine levels and other important variables in order to state that women are more immediately affecting of men than the reverse. I suppose, as you point out, some form of extreme social conditioning could over-ride this.

I have to say I'm getting tired of people warming over the same piece of sophistry again and again. If I said that women were generally shorter than men, I can imagine you all displaying your erudition by excitedly informing me that you personally know women who are taller than men.

Its not sohistry. Its pointing out that you're talking about a different thing than what the game defines as "charisma". Dopamine levels, pupil dilation, dont show anything beyond a phyisical reaction thats do to an evolutionary desire to procreate. That desire doesn't mean that one sex has more "force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness." You've only pointed out that there is "physical attractiveness." by showing a physical reaction to it.. but you haven't done anything to show if such reations means that, independant of the observer, charisma, as those 5 traits, is modified by sex.

You've also been saying that men are more subject than women to these physical traits. Women too have similair reations to men, increased attractiveness to more traditionally "manly" features when on their periods.. blah blah... there's lots of studies that show people are biologically attracted to each other.. sometimes more than othertimes.

your core statement that women should have a charisma bonus vers. men, just because they are women doesn't hold up very well when viewed from either position.

oh and by-the-way, that stereotype your talking about... the one about women being more attractive and men being more "affected' by women then women being affected by men is also sexist.

Oh you've got me there. You're absolutely right. 2 + 2 does not always equal 4.

tell me how you figured that out without using your perception. If i were to assign different meanings (perceptions) for those symbols i could easily prove you wrong.

I dont quite understand how your proposal that two special symbols always equal another special symbol negates my statement of "where there is perception, there is interpretation."
What are you chosing to perceive to begin with? What's doing that choosing? anyway.. off topic..

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

see ya later

Just done arguing with people who base their fantasy off a real world and say that they're not being sexist. never mind that the real world is sexist.

catch ya on another thread,

joe b.

 

[mythago]

However, since such a society has never existed

No society with elves, dwarves, half-orcs or clerics of Wee Jas has ever existed in reality, either, so if you have aspirations of "modelling on history," you must omit all those things from your game.

(BTW, if you're going to play the faux-history card, you might recall that until the Victorian era it was believed that women--not men--were the ones driven by lust. So your male PCs should be the ones getting the extra Charisma bonus.)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Snoweel, and assume that when you snip about tree-huggers and Barbie dolls, you're trolling. Because the alternative is to assume that, yes, you don't have much imagination. Who says that a society that welcomes female paladins must be utopian? Or tree-huggy, or liberal, or even a very pleasant place to live?

The former Soviet Union officially enshrined the equality of the sexes, you may recall, and it didn't make the place a PC utopia. Quite the opposite.

Neither are women anything remotely resembling the mothers, sisters and, in some rare instances, wives and girlfriends that we interact with IRL (or even are - mythago et al).

Yeah, I can't imagine why I (being a woman et al) would have the slightest idea of what real-world women are like...

Look, if you want to run the David Buss/John Gray Honorary D&D Game, go for it. Just don't stamp your foot and get insulting when it's pointed out that it's your choice to run such a game. "History and biology make me do it!" is silly.

 

[fusangite]

Using a sexist genre as a reason for why men have a dominate role in a game based upon the genre and then asserting your statement as being non-sexist because its modeled after a genre that is, is.. well.. um.. questionable?
Your right. In being right, you show that the genre is sexist and when you promolgate the genre you're being sexist as well because you're following the stereotypes of that genre.
No it is not sexist to state such. It is sexist to say that it is not sexist because the sexist genre is that way.
It is very sexist to say that DnD NPCs should mostly be male because your "sources" for this statement are all sexist. Whether literary or patriachal.

So, you've decided that all societies which observe a sexual division of labour are "sexist." That's great. You've also conceded that fantasy is therefore a "sexist" genre.

So here's my question -- why do you play D&D? Clearly some kind of speculative sci-fi game based on The Left Hand of Darkness would be more your speed.

 

[fusangite]

Thanks nharwell for posting the selection of reading. I'll look at it during my December break from school. I'm afraid I won't be able to forward my own competing list until then.

I'll hold off posting further statements on the issue of whether males or females are biologically more likely to be persuasive to one another in isolated interactions until I've reviewed my reading on the subject.

However, I have no difficulty in standing by my two generalizations that:

In medieval societies and in the mainstream of fantasy genre literature
(a) a party of adventurers is more likely to encounter and interact with male characters than females because
i. a party of adventurers will be involved in pursuits which centre on violent confrontation; men outnumber women in industries associated with violence
ii. the sexual division of labour is such that men are over-represented in public social roles while women are over-represented in roles outside of the public sphere
(b) in an isolated interaction, a woman is more likely to be persuasive to a man than a man is to a woman all other things being equal

Even if I grant that there is absolutely no physiological difference between how men respond to attractive women compared to how women respond to attractive men, I don't think there will be too much dispute about how medieval society socialized these two genders to respond to one another. Female sexuality was considered, in the medieval period, to be irresistable to men.

Some people have tried to argue that D&D is not designed to run in a high fantasy medieval or bronze age world. I don't know how to argue with this statement; if you can ready the core rule books from cover to cover and not believe that this is genre in which D&D is situated, I don't see how anything I could possibly post would help. Read the list of martial and simple weapons -- it's a list of European medieval weapons.

Now, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I concede
(a) that women and men are physiologically and neurochemically identical in how they react to one another
(b) that women and men are socialized to react identically to one another
Even if I grant both of these highly dubious assertions, the fact that men significantly outnumber women in the interactions within the genre in which D&D is situated will mean that female characters will be more charismatic because most of their interactions will be with people of the opposite gender whereas male characters' interactions will be mainly with people of the same gender.

Al, as to your request that I specifically respond to your comments on page six, I have re-read your post and find that your observation arises out of a misunderstanding of what I have been saying. I have found, as has SnowEel, that men after often motivated to play female characters for reasons that would make them unsuitable for my game. I therefore disallow men from playing female characters and sometimes decide not to invite men to join my game if they are attached to a female character concept because of the motivations I've observed for people wanting to play such characters. This is not about power gaming in the sense that I am trying rigorously to prevent people from exploiting the rules; this is about the social dynamic of my games. As I have now said five times, the de facto enhancement bonuses argument is not sufficient in isolation to justify my policy; rather, it is one of the two arguments that I feel is objectively defensible and has therefore been one of the main foci of our debate.

 

[Snoweel]

They're determined to make us run our games their way, aren't they Fus?

And their lack of argument as to why we shouldn't has forced them to resort to the old "well it's fantasy!!!!!!!!"

Yeah - so only the genes that allowed humans do see invisibility and breathe fire managed to survive natural(???) selection.

I may as well dump my homebrew and game in the Forgotten Realms. Pfeh.

God forbid anyone should want their game to follow any semblance of logic. I mean, if DRAGONS exist, there can't be logic in a game, can there?!?!?! How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cause see, fusangite? It's fantasy. It's not real. Stuff doesn't have to make any sense at all.

Cause it's fantasy. Hell, you could even have your campaign's equivalent of Julius Caesar (who is a seductive siren), using his huge charisma to seduce Cleopatra (who, btw, is the greatest general of her time, inspiring her troops to fanatical loyalty through her massive charisma). Cleo would be completely smitten by the feminine wiles of Caesar, falling completely under his control until her (all female) senate thrust knives into her body.

And I assume one of the killers would rise up to become a mighty general in her own right until Caesar seduces her too.

mythago wrote:
No society with elves, dwarves, half-orcs or clerics of Wee Jas has ever existed in reality, either, so if you have aspirations of "modelling on history," you must omit all those things from your game.

Umm, how so?

Throughout history, many cultures have considered other cultures to not even be human. Even as recently as the invasion and colonisation of my homeland, Australia.

So there's a wealth of research material for me on how one culture might react to the presence of another they consider unhuman - such as demihumans. J.R.R. Tolkien managed it. So did a lot of other fantasy writers.

As for magic - I went "low-magic" for the simple reason that I couldn't grasp exactly how massively influential the presence of quantifiable magic would be on the development of a society.

I figured that magic-users would basically dominate society at every level, leaving fighters and rogues an underpowered choice for PC classes. Which I don't like - It's easier to research feudal societies ruled by warrior aristocracies.

Even at a low magic level, I've surmised that unless a community (kingdom/empire/whatever) contained competing religions, it would inevitably end up a theocracy. Without competing Wizards' Guilds, a magocracy.

See mythago, you're wasting your time playing the "but it's fantasy" card when telling me how to run my game. I've defended my standpoint on these boards before and won. I've had a lot of practice and I've put more thought into this topic than anybody.

I can't be beaten. Not on this.

It might be fantasy, but it's still gotta make sense.

 

[Al]

Al, as to your request that I specifically respond to your comments on page six, I have re-read your post and find that your observation arises out of a misunderstanding of what I have been saying. I have found, as has SnowEel, that men after often motivated to play female characters for reasons that would make them unsuitable for my game. I therefore disallow men from playing female characters and sometimes decide not to invite men to join my game if they are attached to a female character concept because of the motivations I've observed for people wanting to play such characters. This is not about power gaming in the sense that I am trying rigorously to prevent people from exploiting the rules; this is about the social dynamic of my games. As I have now said five times, the de facto enhancement bonuses argument is not sufficient in isolation to justify my policy; rather, it is one of the two arguments that I feel is objectively defensible and has therefore been one of the main foci of our debate.

Fair point. In that case, I'll stop heckling. It is a shame that you've made the call, but I can see that you have had poor experiences of cross-gender gaming. It is no my place, nor anyone else's, to tell you how to run your game: we are only here to make suggestions supported by rational arguments. I've stated my case, so jumping up and down and shouting the same points is not going to work.

Nitpick's Note:

And I assume one of the killers would rise up to become a mighty general in her own right until Caesar seduces her too.

Assuming you are referring to Mark Antony, he didn't betray Caesar. At least, not in this history. If it's another cunning inversion, I'm afraid it's too cunning for me

Excuse me whilst I cross the floor: I can see a daft argument, even coming from my own 'side'.

Until last century almost all literature was written by a white male.

??? Aside from the wealth of Oriental literature, we have Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, George Eliot (who was female), etc.

oh and by-the-way, that stereotype your talking about... the one about women being more attractive and men being more "affected' by women then women being affected by men is also sexist.

I thought fusangite already posted his sources and psychological research.

The whole 'sexist' label posted on fusangite is unfair and inaccurate. He has stated, correctly, that females would be less dominant in a medieval society. Psychological research has shown that females tend to be less confrontational than males (please don't dispute this or name specific anecdotal examples) and in a feudal society, this handicaps advancement significantly so. Even if females and males had equivalent strength, psychology states that fewer females would *seek* a position in the armed forces: where the power lay in a feudal society. This also explains the 'majority male' argument which he has correctly made.

Indeed, the mechanical argument made by fusangite holds firm: this is the irony. My original doubt was that the mechanical argument was sufficient to justify the call, though this was a misunderstanding. The mechanical argument was one of the two pillars supporting his case- the other being the social dynamic (which no-one is able to prove either way, so it turns into anecdote tennis, which I am not willing to indulge in much further). My objection to fusangite was the validity of the latter argument, but further debate is not going to get anywhere: neither side can bring empirical evidence on this question.

With regard to the mechanical argument, fusangite is correct.

 

[Tsyr]

I've been following this thread, not posting a whole lot, but I'm gonna pop my head up out of the trenches again...

They're determined to make us run our games their way, aren't they Fus?

Actualy, you're free to run your games however you please. That's the glory of these games. We don't have to agree, though. We can even think you're wrong, human nature being what it is. Doesn't mean we can make you play differently.

And their lack of argument as to why we shouldn't has forced them to resort to the old "well it's fantasy!!!!!!!!"

And, as much as you might want to get sarcastic and insulting about it, that actualy is a viable defense for these games. A lot of questions just can't be resolved any way except that answer. That, or creating your own game concepts that work differently from what is "standard" for DnD. Elves and Humans/Humans and Orcs interbreading. Same species then, right? Well, according to modern science, yes, since the offspring are fertile. But they aren't supposed to be the same species. And if they are, why can't orcs and elves interbreed? (Granted, I guess humans could be a half-orc/half-elf, but that's not how it's presented).

I may as well dump my homebrew and game in the Forgotten Realms. Pfeh.

But since FR is so horribly wrong you couldn't ever do that, could you? It would just kill you, I'm sure.

(*Note: I'm not a fan of FR either. Doesn't mean I couldn't game there if I had to.)

God forbid anyone should want their game to follow any semblance of logic. I mean, if DRAGONS exist, there can't be logic in a game, can there?!?!?! How ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, considering that DnD seems to take a certain joy in breaking the laws of physics... Something I consider far more "fixed" than human culture that developed on earth...

Cause see, fusangite? It's fantasy. It's not real. Stuff doesn't have to make any sense at all.

Exactly. It doesn't. Now, you're free to try to reshape it into whatever form you desire, and impose any logic you see fit, but none of that has to happen. You are not "right" for having done so any more than we are "wrong" for not having done so.

Cause it's fantasy. Hell, you could even have your campaign's equivalent of Julius Caesar (who is a seductive siren), using his huge charisma to seduce Cleopatra (who, btw, is the greatest general of her time, inspiring her troops to fanatical loyalty through her massive charisma). Cleo would be completely smitten by the feminine wiles of Caesar, falling completely under his control until her (all female) senate thrust knives into her body.

Sure. Sounds plausible enough, except for that whole bit about a guy having feminine wiles (We have other ways of doing it ). What would be wrong with that? It didn't happen on earth? Woops, wait, we aren't on earth. Heck, this sounds like a great political event to use as the basis for a drow plotline.

Throughout history, many cultures have considered other cultures to not even be human. Even as recently as the invasion and colonisation of my homeland, Australia.

So there's a wealth of research material for me on how one culture might react to the presence of another they consider unhuman - such as demihumans. J.R.R. Tolkien managed it. So did a lot of other fantasy writers.

This changes the original asseration (That the existance of demi-humans would change historical development in some ways)... how again?

As for magic - I went "low-magic" for the simple reason that I couldn't grasp exactly how massively influential the presence of quantifiable magic would be on the development of a society.

I figured that magic-users would basically dominate society at every level, leaving fighters and rogues an underpowered choice for PC classes. Which I don't like - It's easier to research feudal societies ruled by warrior aristocracies.

Even at a low magic level, I've surmised that unless a community (kingdom/empire/whatever) contained competing religions, it would inevitably end up a theocracy. Without competing Wizards' Guilds, a magocracy.

You're actualy pretty much spot on here, IMO... Magic users would tend to rise to the top of society. However, this actualy leads into my "main point", which I will get to in a second...

See mythago, you're wasting your time playing the "but it's fantasy" card when telling me how to run my game. I've defended my standpoint on these boards before and won. I've had a lot of practice and I've put more thought into this topic than anybody.

I can't be beaten. Not on this.

Nice logic there. "I assert that I know more about this than you, therefor you cannot win". Which, of course, since we can neither prove nor disprove, serves as a nice shield.

BTW, us not posting any more arguements at some unspecified point in the future does not constitute a "win". It constitutes letting the point rest.

Anyhow.

Both you and fus are working on the assumption that, despite the presense of magic, demihumans, dragons, alternate planes of existance, etc, DnD is just like mideval europe. And you are free to run you're game that way if you like, and if you remove most of the fantasy elements, it might be something like that.

The thing is, though, that's not the "default assumption" of DnD, as near as I can tell. DnD is actualy a fairly modern society, with mideval trappings. Magic takes the place of a lot of what technology handles for us... transportation, communication, medicine, etc. People may still ride horses to market and swing swords, but plauges that would kill off 1/3 of europe can be stopped by a few clerics working overtime for a month, etc. Thus, wizards and clerics being the leaders of society would actualy make sense... they are the technological "haves".

This also serves to make women a more potent force in society... Even if you wanted to give women massive strength penalties and stuff (like some games have done), women can still use magic just fine... and as you yourself have admited, magic in a DnD setting probably means more power than a sword.

Now, granted. If you are running as low-fantasy a game as you seem to indicate, this doesn't apply to you. I won't even try to claim otherwise. But, to use a word you are so fond of, it is illogical to assume that, with all the massive changes in the fundamental reality of the setting, that human culture would have evolved in the same fashion it did on Earth.