Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Bumbles, I'm sorry if I offended you. I find all of this hysterical for a variety of reasons, and it probably makes me a tad insensitive.

I'll stay away from further commentary on that specific issue.

However, I can't really let this go by from your other post:

There's a bit here:

Half Sigma: Biological basis for sex differences in math ability

I'm sure there's lots of other studies you can find.

Prenatal environment and hormonal effects was actually my field for a few years, and I can tell you that's a pretty impressive load of tripe. I'm trying to track down the primary sources on it and keep coming up with nothing but contradictions.

For one thing, testosterone doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier as testosterone. It is converted into estrogen at crossing, so you literally can't have opposite effects on brain structures with prenatal testosterone that is fetus-sourced. Any (highly debatable) male-female brain differences have to be secondary to other changes. Furthermore, their study has no data on mother-sourced hormones for the children they tested, so it's one inference piled on top of another, plus those inferences are about step 1 and step 7 with no information on steps 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Additionally, effects of this type even when they do work out usually account for something like 1-2% of the variance, which is effectively zilch. That's less than the change in test scores that results from having a mild stomach upset the day of the test.

I would take that with at least a grain of salt. Maybe even a big ol' salt lick.

 

[Proserpine]

The how and the why, or even the why not should be decided by the needs of the work, rather than just saying nuh-uh because it doesn't fit some particular social agenda.

See, I don't feel treating 51% of the population like equals is "fitting" a particular social agenda. Regarding the rest of what you posted, my previous response (to RefinedBean) more or less covers my position.

This approach has been brought up time and time again on these forums. That there is a "proper" inspirational source for D&D, and that source is traditional fantasy. Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc.

But, look at traditional fantasy. Can you possibly get more sexist? Name three female protagonists from fantasy written before 1970.

...

While I know the purpose of that attitude is not to exclude women, that is one of the effects. If you insist that the only sources we draw on are works written by dead authors, then the game can't not be incredibly sexist in its base.

Agreed agreed agreed. While this isn't the only issue, it certainly is one of them.

I disagree with a lot of your assumptions. For one, I don't think the vast majority of campaign settings (published or otherwise) have any real integrity to them. Especially faux-medieval ones, which look incredibly incoherent to me since they attempt to retain the trappings of medievalism while not incorporating elements which were essential to the creation of medieval Europe (since such settings are invariably European in nature) and failing to account for how D&D elements such as multiple intelligent races and the presence of magic would change them. And you're assuming that I am a proponent of all campaign worlds having perfect egalitarianism. I'm not. But a world can be drastically non-egalitarian without being sexist in a way which maps the real world. But invariably, these worlds do repeat real world sexism. I've never seen a campaign setting which is sexist and matriarchal, for example. You can have settings which have integrity and creativity and are not sterilized without revisiting the same old tired tropes of real world sexism. Eberron is a case in point.


See my comment above about egalitarianism. A world where the sexes are treated equally can still treat characters differently based on race, species, nationality, age, whether they use magic, etc. There are a million different ways to have conflict and differentiation between individuals without having to reuse real-world sexism. And many of those would be much more creative and smarter, in my estimation, than trying to recreate (intentionally or otherwise) real-world sexism in a world which is patently not the real world.

Scary. Or fitting. I wrote some similar stuff in my previous post!

Careful, it seems like you're saying racism and other discrimination is ok in games, but not if it's gender-based. I really hope you didn't intend to open up that particular quagmire.

He's stated several times in the thread that racism, sexism, and other discrimination which maps directly onto the real world is not necessarily okay.

And damn. Shilsen can defend himself, but the following comments are neither constructive nor productive when it comes to the discussion. "You should be hit with a wet trout"? Really? (And in that part of your response, you're focusing specifically on the analogy rather than the point he made, dictating how the content should be articulated. Commendable.)

There's a bit here:

Half Sigma: Biological basis for sex differences in math ability

I'm sure there's lots of other studies you can find.

Dude. There are studies saying you can "catch fatness" like a common cold. There are also many stupid studies that support sexist ideas. The blog you linked to says: "That there is some biological basis behind the observation that men are better at math than women is plain old common sense, because there have never been any sociological explanations that made sense." Hmm. I am not sensing a bias!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Gender roles to have a fundamental starting point in the basics of biology. This seed of difference is what leads to sexism.

As a biologist..... um... no, not really all that much. There's some very primitive and ill supported notions about primate social structure that fall apart pretty badly when you mess with sexual dimorphism (which is all over the map in humans). Compare Bonobos to Chimpanzees, for example. Sexual dimorphism certainly seems to be the primary determinant of gender roles in non-human primates, but humans have a variety of gender roles regardless of the degree of dimorphism.

Sexism appears very cultural. I would provide an anthropological example, but I've already been insensitive once this evening and I don't think I can touch that topic safely.

Others would say that's the ultimate example of nonprejudice: You forget or ignore that people even HAVE differences, unless you make a special effort. To be color-blind or gender-blind is largely encouraged in the "progressive" nations today.

Ye gods, I hope not. "Color-blindness" tends to alienate minorities and make the majorities edgy and weird in social interactions (well, edgier and weirder than we already are, anyway). Multiculturalism is typically more workable and pleasant for everyone involved.

 

[resistor]

Let me put it this way. If you are black, you do not get to choose if your ethnic heritage is considered important by other people.

I don't get to choose if my place of birth (the deep south) is considered important by other people; people come in with pre-judgments about me all the time, from the moment I open my mouth.

 

[Ariosto]

double post

 

[Ariosto]

bowdlerize to expurgate (a play, novel, etc.) by removing or modifying passages prudishly considered immodest.

To expurgate or remove is to "exclude".

You are stating that any fiction which does not follow traditional fantasy lines is a bowdlerization.

I have made no such statement.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Let's just say you have a very different idea of how people's surrounding culture(s) mediate their choices than I do.

I didn't say mediate. I said force. If Spanky wants to play He-Man Woman-Hater D&D, that doesn't force Alfalfa to do the same thing.

Let's say that 99% of the people play RPGs in a badwrongfun way. Does that affect the available groups for the remaining 1%? Sure. Does it affect what minis will be available? Sure. But does it force the 1% to play badwrongfun too? No, not at all. No one is entitled to expect other groups to play how they wish they would play.

Testosterone makes you better at math and spatial ability? That's the first time I've heard that claim!

As I'm sure others will point out before I finish this, there is a well established trend that men have better spatial reasoning ability than women. That says nothing about any individual. But the trend is well known and well supported by research (for example, Simon Baron-Cohen has an article on the front page of edge.org, or at least he did a day ago, talking about boys vs. girls and brain development, and iirc, it touches on spatial reasoning).

Actually, I think we may be seeing an important point coming out of this thread. Namely, the world is sexist. Human nature makes male brains and female brains different (on average, saying nothing about an individual). RPGs should leverage that. How can they best do it? I don't know, but I believe that selling them, in a free market of money and ideas, is the best way to arrive at the best product. So vive la difference!

 

[Bumbles]

I'll stay away from further commentary on that specific issue.

Fair enough, no real reason to argue over it.

However, I can't really let this go by from your other post:

I can, as I was merely linking to the first convenient content I could find, and not taking any particular position on the subject, pro or con.

In fact, I thought about adding a line indicating that to my post, and it seems I should have done so.

 

[Hussar]

Bumbles - Let's be honest though. While, I'm sure somewhere in the thirty year and thousands of published pages history of D&D, there have been good matriarchies, the one that stands out and iconic and most D&D, is Drow.

Really, I don't think there's any argument that there was never an element in sexism in D&D. It was there. It was pretty blatantly there. Strength limitations, art, etc. etc. There was sexism pretty heavily ingraned in the game. And, in my mind, and sorry for dragging it back to this, but, it was because of the source material.

You didn't have a large number of female role models from the genre to work with after all. In fantasy, women were beautiful, buxom and, by and large, helplessly waiting for the male protagonist to come and save them. While there are exceptions, they are pretty few and far between.

The genre was pretty heavily male dominated in the early days. The ovewhelming majority of the writers were male as well, with writers like Andre Norton and Mary Stewart being the very notable exceptions, not the rule. So, it's not surprising that early D&D, based as it was on a lot of the fantasy at the time, is going to be a smidgeon on the misogynistic side.

Again, not because EGG and co hated women. Of course not. That's totally not what I think. It's just a sign of the times. Fantasy back then mean big burly guys with swords and loincloths saving the (snicker) maiden from the evil cultists, only to be rewarded with a big gem and a right royal rogering.

Not a huge surprise that women may not have had much of a presence in those heady days.

But fantasy has changed a LOT since then. There are a huge number of female fantasy writers (although, to my disappointment, not a similar number of SF writers) who are very popular. Had D&D been based on Mercedes Lackey or Anne McCaffery, instead of Howard or Lieber, it would have been a VERY different game.

Fast forwarding to present day, I think Shilsen is very right. The game itself has become more or less gender neutral. Or at least a fair bit more balanced. But, the hobby? I think that could use a bit more work.

One last thought. There is another matriarchy that is iconic to D&D. Githyanki. Oh look, yet another evil society led by a woman (well lich, but she was female at one time). Kuo-Toa only have a goddess and are matriarchal as well are they not?

There are quite a few evil matriarchies in D&D IIRC.

 

[resistor]

As I'm sure others will point out before I finish this, there is a well established trend that men have better spatial reasoning ability than women. That says nothing about any individual. But the trend is well known and well supported by research (for example, Simon Baron-Cohen has an article on the front page of edge.org, or at least he did a day ago, talking about boys vs. girls and brain development, and iirc, it touches on spatial reasoning).

Actually, stuff like this is really, REALLY hard to test impartially.

One of my best friends from college is now a doctoral candidate in psychology, and he's done a lot of work on "stereotype threat" (if I remember the term correctly) in male vs. female testing like this.

The basic observation is that, if you're measuring how well females do at a stereotypically male-dominated subject (as, mathematics), they will score measurably worse if they take the test in a room mixed with male subjects, or with a male proctor.

Like I said, really REALLY hard to measure.