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

[ProfessorCirno]

Shilsen, I think when you kept saying "evolutionary biology" in your recent post, you really meant "evolutionary psychology." Is that right? I suppose that technically the latter is a subset of the former, at least to my thinking, but I wouldn't think it would be to yours. Not sure.

I am so very much not going to touch the arguments in this thread now (I said my peace like ten trillion pages back, when the world was young, dinosaurs roamed the earth, and this thread was started) but there is a very sizable difference between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and yes, Shilsen is very much talking about the latter, not the former. The former, you see, is an excepted and welcomed branch of science, while the latter...well, let's just say they have quite a few people who very sharply disagree with them and their claim to scientific analysis. It is contentious, to say the least.

 

[S'mon]

As rational & evolved human beings with an advanced culture, we can override, to some extent, these primal drives.

We can override them in the short term. The problem is, groups & populations which override them may well* have lower fertility rates than those which do not. With more or less free movement of populations, this leads to the replacement over time of the less fertile populations by more fertile populations.

*The evidence from national fertility rates seems to indicate that the fully Shilsenised populations of eg Scandinavia (where there is a high degree of sex equality, state childcare provision, and males are trained to be less masculine) actually have somewhat higher fertility rates than populations of semi-Shilsenised countries like Greece, Italy, Japan and Russia, where women take on traditional male roles but are also expected to continue in traditional female roles, and the men remain 'macho'. Both groups have sub-replacement female fertility rates though, the Shilsenised nations around 1.6 and the semi-Shilsenised around 1.3. Nations with above-replacement fertility tend to enforce traditional sex roles (which vary a lot, from those which sequester women to the female-farming societies which in many ways are run by women). The US is a rather unusual case as it looks more like a semi-Shilsenised society culturally but its overall fertility rate is at replacement level; influenced by high minority rates, but even the white female fertility rate is unusually high at around 1.8. France looks a bit like the US. This may be influenced by relatively low population density in both nations that keeps family formation more affordable, and in the US case high religiosity may be an influence.

 

[S'mon]

I see body dimorphism mentioned (as well as the other factors you mentioned) as a factor for sexism, and I really don't see it. Not only should body dimorphism only matter in a very limited way in modern society, but there have been (and continue to be) a number of societies where the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general.

And one could just as arguably say that it makes sense for men to only have sex rarely and with one woman, since that heavily increases the chances of getting her pregnant and diminishes the chances of him getting his ass kicked by the relatives/lovers of the multiple women he's sleeping with

On the latter point, yes, and indeed that is a very common reproductive strategy in many cultures, one I myself follow. It's particularly common in those where the environment encourages high parental investment, and where the man can be fairly sure any children from that women will be his - ie female fathfulness complements male faithfulness.

On the former point, can you give me an example of a society where "the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general"? I can think of societies which do not have a traditional-European-style patriarchal structure, but none without role differentiation by sex. There have been occasional attempts to claim the existence of non-sexist traditional societies (eg M Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa), but these don't seem to have withstood critical scrutiny. The modern Scandinavian societies seem closest to me, at least nominally and ideologically.

 

[Tallifer]

Hrm... I play roleplaying games to escape politics, finances, sexual politics and other stressful topics.

(So I will not burden you all with my endorsement of a 6000 year old weltanshauung.)

 

[Mallus]

Hrm... I play roleplaying games to escape politics, finances, sexual politics and other stressful topics.

Heh, I think I play roleplaying games to ridicule them. This explains quite a bit of my old 3e homebrew.

 

[shilsen]

Shilsen, I think when you kept saying "evolutionary biology" in your recent post, you really meant "evolutionary psychology." Is that right? I suppose that technically the latter is a subset of the former, at least to my thinking, but I wouldn't think it would be to yours. Not sure.

Ah, crap! Thanks for the catch. I did mean "evolutionary psychology" every time. I'll edit my post. And no, I don't consider evolutionary psychology a subset of the former.

I am so very much not going to touch the arguments in this thread now (I said my peace like ten trillion pages back, when the world was young, dinosaurs roamed the earth, and this thread was started) but there is a very sizable difference between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and yes, Shilsen is very much talking about the latter, not the former. The former, you see, is an excepted and welcomed branch of science, while the latter...well, let's just say they have quite a few people who very sharply disagree with them and their claim to scientific analysis. It is contentious, to say the least.

What he said. When I have more time, I'll post something focusing back on gaming - which we have taken another of our scheduled detours from

 

[Mallus]

As rational & evolved human beings with an advanced culture, we can override, to some extent, these primal drives. But despite our achievements, we're still primates. Those basic animal drives- complete with ancient victory conditions- still exist as the underpinnings of our civilized minds.

I don't think anyone is arguing that not still primates . But we're primates express who our biological imperatives in quite a few different ways, which change over time, which makes it hard to say anything cogent about the the deterministic effects of our biology. Yes, we like to mate. Look at all the different ways we do, and the every-shifting framework of social acceptability that surrounds those acts...

edit: maybe we should swing this back around to gaming...

Shil, so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men? (I'm refraining from mentioning a Chris Rock comment about Woody Allen movies for fear of being a distraction)

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Shil, so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men?

I know you directed this at Shilsen, but I figured I'd share my answer.

No, it doesn't matter. The same way it doesn't matter if my story mainly features stories about right-handed people. That's not the focus of the campaign. It's perfectly fine to have stories that don't make a point to include left-handed people. It's no slight against the left-handed that my campaign doesn't take time out to specifically plan for left-handed people to be in positions of power.

If anyone asks, it's enough to say that right-handed and left-handed people appear in the same proportions in the game as in real life. Just like, if anyone asks, it's appropriate to say that women and men appear in the same proportions in the game as in real life.

Caving in to pressure to play in a certain politically correct style is a defeat that can only hurt the game, just as it hurt D&D with 2nd edition when demons and devils were removed. The game, as an art form, should have what Keats called "negative capability." It should be art, without regard to political correctness.

In other words, it should be about dungeons and dragons. Don't sweat it if you're not taking time out to bean count the number of men and women in the spotlights of your stories! (And if you don't trust my opinion on the matter, I again refer you to the philosophers, more eloquent than I am, that I listed above. They'll tell you the same thing only better!)

 

[Ycore Rixle]

What he said. When I have more time, I'll post something focusing back on gaming - which we have taken another of our scheduled detours from

This is what I mean by the topic changing. Not that I don't welcome the return to a gaming topic!

But I would really like to hear an answer to what I said earlier about your statement: "it's funny how biological arguments about behavior often fail to consider that people's actions are usually based on protecting their individual selves, not their species."

Repeating myself here: that's not what biological arguments do.

You seem to have made a massive mischaracterization of the opposite side of the argument, betraying profound ignorance of the theory you are arguing against.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think anyone is arguing that not still primates . But we're primates express who our biological imperatives in quite a few different ways, which change over time, which makes it hard to say anything cogent about the the deterministic effects of our biology.

To close my commentary on biology (absent being asked to explain myself further): I think the deterministic effects of our biology are fairly slight at any given point in time, but that over a given extended amount of time, they will be expressed. You can't repress nature forever. Reshape it? Redirect it? Sure. Repress? Not so much.

Or to use the previously proffered example, the young lady who wasn't going to pee "right now" will do so eventually.

And the realities of biology have shaped legal systems in all kinds of ways- important ways- in which one sex or the other is given a particular legal advantage. For example, California law has a presumption that the man named the father on a birth certificate is liable for support of that child...even if a subsequent paternity test proves he is not the father. (There are ways to overcome this presumption, but they are time consuming and expensive...and from what I understand, you're still liable for any support & penalties you were ordered to pay. No refunds from the mother or state, either- he'd have to sue the actual father for recompense- meaning more legal fees.)

And now...back to gaming!

so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men?

I'd go so far as saying that even if the campaign world is hostile to women, as long as the GM has no bias against a given gender in PC generation.

By that I mean that it is perfectly acceptable to have a campaign in which the bulk of the adventures occur in a misogynistic land...as long as whatever females in the party are not penalized in char.gen for being female. Otherwise, one could not have a campaign plotline in which the party is seeking to overthrow such a distasteful regime.