... okay, so I've prepared an adventure. All the NPCs of note are male. Is this being sexist?
Possibly, but it's hard to say without more context. For example, if all NPCs of note being male is common to the campaign world, then presumably that world (and/or the segment of it the PCs are involved with) is a patriarchal and sexist one. Conversely, if there's no in-game justification for it (and I think I've explained why I personally think explanations for in-game sexism aren't that great anyway) and you made the NPCs all male for no particular reason, and esp. if that's the norm in your adventures, then I think you're being a little sexist there.
But, as I noted, without more information it's hard to say.
I'm not privy to the PM you sent my Californian colleague, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Indian laws you say exist actually do.
The key question, of course, is how good is the enforcement of those laws?
True. Here's what I noted in the subsequent email I sent vegepygmy:
"Let me begin by clarifying that I said that India has some better laws against domestic abuse, not that they necessarily protect female victims of domestic violence better than in the US. The reason I'm making this caveat is because the existence of the law(s) doesn't mean that they'll be perfectly/effectively applied or that everyone will take recourse to them.
That said, the main laws I'm thinking of are section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (which deals with cruelty to a married woman) and, more importantly, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is focused on protection for women who are not only legally married but also those who are in live-in relationships, those who are sisters, mothers, widows, etc. An example of the way in which these laws vary from US ones, I believe, is that (according to the latter law) if a woman goes to a police station to lodge a complaint about domestic violence, the accused is immediately supposed to be arrested, placed in police custody and held there till the case comes to trial (usually in 1-2 weeks). The reason this element exists is so that a woman can immediately be placed out of harm's way (since the perpetrator(s) are behind bars) without being forced to flee their home, seek out a shelter, etc.
Now obviously this doesn't mean that domestic violence isn't as big an issue (and, I'd argue, bigger) in India than in the US. The number of people who avail of the above law is a tiny minority of the number being abused. There are also many allegations of the law being used in an abusive fashion, and it is gender-biased (since it's specifically geared to men abusing women). But its existence means that there IS a form of strong redress available for those willing/able to access it, and I've personally seen a lot of stories in the media where it has come into play. The position of women in India, in many ways is much worse than that of women in the US (especially among the poorer and less-educated members of society, of whom there are a LOT), but the point I was making in the thread is that there are certain specific areas where they (usually as individuals rather than groups) can be better off, a law like this being a case in point."
1. Human beings remember the exceptional. That is, incidents of poor conduct probably stick in the memory more than all the times it didn't happen.
2. People do inappropriate things all the time here. However, because it is somewhat socially sanctioned, people don't react as strongly. When you see someone do something disrespectful that is not culturally sanctioned, you are probably going to have a strong emotional reaction. In short, we are not as fair to people from outside our culture as to people within our culture when dishing out judgment.
3. It's a mistake to assume only the male is on his best behavior. In many male-dominated societies, it is common for women to be socially submissive, but to be more assertive in private. Specifically, from my admittedly limited experience, women in India have a lot of decision-making power when it comes to money and relationships, and although it may be the norm to defer to one's husband in public, heated discussions in private are not uncommon.
QFT.
Thanks for bringing those up - it's kind of hard to say there is "no sexism in gaming" in the face of it.
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but some of the comments on this thread and things I've heard/read elsewhere lead me to believe that some people would argue there's no sexism in gaming, whatever evidence one provides.
