roleplaying across the gender line

[ConcreteBuddha]

Thanks CB. At least you don't pretend not to know what I mean.

Trying to see both sides of the coin, ya know? Common ground and all that.

Only a total idiot would even say that they equal gender.

To post such a disclaimer as this is an insult to everybody's intelligence.

Right.

Actually, I'm trying to gauge the common ground of the audience. Not everyone speaks the same language (even if it happens to be the same language), nor do they have similiar experiences from which to draw on. I did not mean to insult you or anyone else on this board.

The only toes one will ever step on are the toes looking to be stepped on.

I disagree. People tend to step on each other's toes when they are using the same words to describe different concepts.
.
.
.
Example:

You are using the words "balls", "masculine" and "violent". To you, (from what I gather) each of these words all describe a tendency towards "competition, expansion, violence, aggression propagation, rationality, and domination."

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
.
.
.
To other people, these terms can mean different things. The word "balls," is inherently linked to the male gender. In fact, the only people on this planet with physical balls are male. Therefore, if you use the term "balls," some people are going to misinterpret what you really mean.

The word "masculine" can also mean "one who possesses male traits." Again, the word can be misinterpreted.

The word "violent" can specifically apply to actually physically hurting another being. Using that definition, a person who plays DnD but does not have a "violent" character, nor plays in a campaign with significant amounts of violence, would not know what you were talking about.

You see the irony in that comment?

She gave up in disgust because the terms people were throwing around are emotionally charged. Case in point:

Drawmack---

When a man remembers an indicent, he remembers the details. When a woman remember an indicent she remembers the emotions. This tells us the base difference to work from, emotion vs. logic.

I understood what Drawmack was attempting to say, however, it could also be misconstrued as being a sexist comment. Notice how emotionally charged the statement is.

"When a man..."

This is ambiguous. Does it mean all men or just most men? When I read this sentence, I am unaware as to the intent of the speaker. I'm going to alter the statement to have more of a measure of truth:


When a T remembers an incident, the T remembers the details. When an F remembers an incident, the F remembers the emotions. This tells us the base difference to work from, F vs. T.
.
.
.
.
.
The point of all of this?

First rule of acting: Know thy audience.
.
.
.
.
Honestly, I think that everyone here is on the same page. I think that we are suffering more from miscommunication than anything else.

 

[Agback]

Figures considering your use of the ignore-ninety-percent-of-a-post-because-it-invalidates-your-argument-in-favour-of-the-little-that-you-might-be-able-to-argue-against trick.

I'll disagree with what I want to disagree with. Don't count on me to swallow crap because you wrap it in butter.

Ok. The old argue-the-definition-of-one-irrelevant-word trick.

<snip>

It's considered extremely poor form here to not concede a point.

Okay. State your point without irrelevant words and without concealing essentials in vague metaphor and we'll see whether it's worth conceding.


Regards,


Agback

 

[Snoweel]

You are using the words "balls", "masculine" and "violent". To you, (from what I gather) each of these words all describe a tendency towards "competition, expansion, violence, aggression propagation, rationality, and domination."

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Not at all. Except for "rationality", you've got me pegged.

To other people, these terms can mean different things. The word "balls," is inherently linked to the male gender. In fact, the only people on this planet with physical balls are male. Therefore, if you use the term "balls," some people are going to misinterpret what you really mean.

The word "masculine" can also mean "one who possesses male traits." Again, the word can be misinterpreted.

The word "violent" can specifically apply to actually physically hurting another being. Using that definition, a person who plays DnD but does not have a "violent" character, nor plays in a campaign with significant amounts of violence, would not know what you were talking about.

Agreed, but if you and I can understand the different contexts in which words can be interpreted, what's stopping other more sensitive persons? As I see it, they're looking for a reason to be offended.

This is ambiguous. Does it mean all men or just most men? When I read this sentence, I am unaware as to the intent of the speaker. I'm going to alter the statement to have more of a measure of truth:


When a T remembers an incident, the T remembers the details. When an F remembers an incident, the F remembers the emotions. This tells us the base difference to work from, F vs. T.

It's commendable that you're making an effort not to offend anybody while still presenting the facts. I guess the world needs more people like you.

Of course not everyone is in possession of such terms as F and T. I'll admit this is the first I've ever heard of them, though as you can see I had a basic grasp of the concepts.

Honestly, I think that everyone here is on the same page. I think that we are suffering more from miscommunication than anything else.

Isn't that the beauty of arguing on the intraweb?

Agback wrote:
Okay. State your point without irrelevant words and without concealing essentials in vague metaphor and we'll see whether it's worth conceding.

I expected better from an Aussie, Ag. Even one from Canberra.

If your intent was to offend me, you've succeeded. Do you have any idea of the time I put into building an argument against you? If I had've known I was beneath your contempt, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

[Gez]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

Anc won't mind - you should see his spelling.

Of course, his mothertongue is French, so...

Mine too, and that don't prevent me from spelling better than lots of native English speakers. (Of course, that's primarily thanks to the Internet and the "chat spelling" some people acquire here).

This brings an interesting twist on the topic. Roleplaying across the language line.

 

[Bagpuss]

My argument is that if a male's going to play a female adventurer, he may as well play her as he would a man, since amongst individuals, there is enough psychological overlap between the genders that any particular woman could conceivably think and behave exactly as a man would.

Of course, I can't see why a man would want to play a woman, since if the campaign has any semblance of gender roles, and its cultures any basis in historical research, then that character will experience either crippling social restrictions, or unfair advantages.

And isn't that the whole point? When I roleplay a female character its those social restrictions and advantages that you have to deal with or exploit that make it a different experience than playing a male character, even with a similiar psychological profile.

The whole situation changes. For example, in one campaign I played a teenage female cleric, half the fun of the game was trying to prove to the older experienced party leader (a chivalrous older male fighter) that she could stand up for herself in a fight.

Having fought together and earned each others respect and affection, how would she reacted when he found love with a female cleric of another diety (an NPC). A rivalry built up between my character and the NPC for the attention of this character.

Game attributes wise the character would have been no different than if I had played it as a male character. Even psychologically the character would have been very similiar, head-strong, determined, but lacking experience. The difference was the sex and that effected everything about the character and how the world and (particularly the other PC's) acted towards her and how she acted towards the world.

As a male cleric she would have been excepted as a frontline fighter almost straight away and no rivalry would have occured when the female NPC was introduced. There were a load of other things that would have been totally different had the sex of the character been male instead of female.

Roleplaying games are usually about the party facing challenges and overcoming them or finding a way round them. Aren't the way different genders are treated another set of challenges? Why wouldn't a player want to face new and interesting challenges, isn't that part of what the games about?

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Not at all. Except for "rationality", you've got me pegged.

Off topic, but how do you define the word "rationality?"

Agreed, but if you and I can understand the different contexts in which words can be interpreted, what's stopping other more sensitive persons?

One word: Emotions.

A person cannot step into another person's shoes and see the world from a different point of view when they are upset. They are too busy dealing with their own internal struggles to see the world from your more thick-skinned POV.

Since one of the two things that separates us from other lifeforms is our complexity of language, it makes sense that people would have strong emotions concerning it. It is, afterall, our most prized possession. (Besides tool use.)

It's commendable that you're making an effort not to offend anybody while still presenting the facts. I guess the world needs more people like you.

Thank you for the compliment.

Of course not everyone is in possession of such terms as F and T. I'll admit this is the first I've ever heard of them, though as you can see I had a basic grasp of the concepts.

I wish basic temperment theory and human relations were taught in elementary school. It is far more useful than most subjects. (Since we all deal with other people on a constant basis, and we rarely need algebra.)

I'd like it if everyone read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" as required reading material. (But make the substitution of T and F.)

In addition, I'd like the Myers-Briggs and Kiersey books to be studied, as well.

Isn't that the beauty of arguing on the intraweb?

Bah. I don't have the time to waste arguing. I'd rather communicate with somebody from halfway across the world, and compare experiences and ideas. Arguing just ends up hurting people. Sharing ideas expands the collective human intellect. Now that is worthwhile.

Just IMHO, of course...

 

[Al]

Snoweel:

Let me get this straight. You don't allow non-humans. You don't allow cross-genders. You don't allow spellcasters.

Presumably, you don't allow barbarians or monks (because these have a totally different ethos and mindset to 21st century players).

That leaves us with human male fighters, rogues, or fighter/rogues.

Does that not kill the variety somewhat?

 

[mythago]

As I see it, the issue of not allowing cross-gender roleplaying isn't about roleplaying ability - it's about motivation.

The character's, or the player's?

If your take is a GM that players have to match their real "selves" as closely as possible--Jim the IT guy has to play a human male wizard because he wouldn't know the pointy end of a sword from a hilt IRL--go for it. What I'm not getting is the attitude of those GMs who allow people to deviate far from RL in anything except gender--apparently on the theory that it's easier for a human to play a decent half-orc than a man to play a woman, I suppose.]

Ditto all the silliness about men and women being from different parts of the solar system, or "maternal instinct" (we all know that most child abusers are women, right?) and the like.

Take a look on the internet - gamers are so fawningly protective of women, it borders on disrespect.

Did you read all of what I wrote? It doesn't sound that way.

Take a look at real life, instead of grumping about how easy the girls have it on the chat boards, and see why women have the perception, even if it's not accurate , that they are more likely than not to encounter either hostility or heavy drooling.

Fercryinoutloud, it's a common enough perception that it's a stock joke on game-related comics like PvP and Dork Tower.

And yes, you're entirely right that fawning is disrespectful. Especially when you realize it's less fawning than "oo, maybe she'll like me," and turns rather nasty when the expected feminine interest isn't forthcoming.

 

[Agback]

I expected better from an Aussie, Ag. Even one from Canberra.

If your intent was to offend me, you've succeeded. Do you have any idea of the time I put into building an argument against you? If I had've known I was beneath your contempt, I wouldn't have bothered.

Nice try, but it was you who chose to use the word 'lifestyle' and you who chose to describe it as irrelevant.

As for where you stand with resepect to my contempt: I've never met you and don't know who you are. The only thing I have any opinion of is the argument you put up. If you wanted that to get more respect less of it ought to have consisted of ill-considered interjections of "bor-ing".

Regards,


Agback

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Ditto all the silliness about men and women being from different parts of the solar system,

I'm assuming that this is targeted at me, since I brought up this book in my previous posts. Is this correct?
.
.
.
If the above quote is about me, then of course the above idea is silly. Men and women are not from different parts of the solar system. That would be an inane stereotype.

"MAFM, WAFV" is just a dumb title for an an otherwise good book. It uses real-world examples to describe the difference between T and F (or masculine/feminine or romantic/classical or logic/emotions or rationality/irrationality or whatever you would like to call it in your neck of the woods.)

These are traits that all humans possess in some degree or another, and all of these terms are really just the same concept.
.
.
.
I look at it like right/left handedness:

I call myself "right-handed." This means I tend to use my right hand most of the time. This does not mean that I do not possess a left hand, it just means that I prefer, or that my temperment, is to use my right hand over my left in most situations.

T and F can be seen in the same light. If I say, "I am a T." What I am really saying is that I tend to prefer using the T function in most situations. This doesn't mean I don't possess an F.
.
.
.
So, no, I do not believe that women and men come from different planets...


...but I sure as heck believe T's and F's do.