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

[shilsen]

Sigh. This thread is back again? I haven't been around for a while, but when I came back, I really wasn't hoping to see this thread.

Does it matter if people are discussing something in a thread which you aren't being forced to read or comment on?

1. Biology, including sexual biology, influences human thought, on average. That says nothing about any given individual.

2. There are centuries of evidence to support Point 1. Shilsen and others dismiss this evidence for any number of spurious reasons.

To clarify, I don't argue that biology doesn't influence human thought. I'm simply arguing that the degree of its influence is highly debatable, and also that people can individually and as groups mediate the influence substantially.

3. Sexism should be defined as making judgments based on sex, which isn't always a bad thing. Most of us are 100% sexist with regard to bathrooms, sports, dating, and clothing, for examples. That is not a bad thing, and no one should feel guilty for being sexist in this way.

Again, for what it's worth, that's not the definition of sexism I'm using, as I noted at the end of my first post on the thread. To quote:

"When I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do not mean differences between the sexes or gender roles. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm."

I spent over an hour writing a post, but then I decided it was a waste of time.

As long as the other party believes that humans are the special little snow flakes of the animal kingdom and that we operate on completely different rules then every other animal there's no chance of any progress.

To be more precise, I'd argue that human beings, like every species in the animal kingdom, operate by their own set of rules, some of which overlap with some rules followed by some other animals. And one of those rules is that they have a far greater ability to mediate the effects of their biology on their individual lives and society than most animals.

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...

What Mallus said.

I dare say that while prostitution and promiscuity have never been more demonized than in countries steeped in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions (in any era), the number of societies in which prostitution (either sex) and female promiscuity are considered normative, natural or otherwise respectable are exceedingly rare.

True. But their existence, I'd argue, indicates that there is nothing natural/intrinsic about traditional views of prostitution and promiscuity.

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.

Interesting point. Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet.

*The evidence from national fertility rates seems to indicate that the fully Shilsenised populations...

I am so going to have to steal that phraseology

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.

I think you're using sexism differently to me here (I mentioned my definition above). I think all societies have some role differentiation by sex (if nothing else, because women get pregnant and men don't), but patriarchy is another matter. If I recall correctly, societies like the Mosuo, Tuareg or Minangkabau are non-patriarchal.

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)

I'd say it doesn't matter, as long as it's a case of "mainly" as opposed to "(almost) exclusively". And especially so if the campaign doesn't (implicitly or explicitly) treat females as second-class citizens. Also, personally, I'd prefer it if there were actually in-game reasons why the stories are mainly about men. I'd say the same if the stories were mainly about elves or paladins too, but since women make up a slightly higher percentage of real-world societies and gamers than elves & paladins, I notice and emphasize the role of women a bit more.

More broadly, I just prefer it if campaigns and groups don't tend to treat women as if they exist outside the club, in and out of game, since that tends to lead to keeping gaming a boy's club (or slowing down a movement away from that state, which I agree has been occurring gradually). Also, I'd ideally like to see gender, when used in a D&D game, used in a more self-aware and intelligent fashion than simply replicating real-world gender norms (it's a fantasy world after all, so there are all sorts of options for creative usage).

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.

Surprisingly, I'd agree about a lot of that, except to add that the game isn't real life, and it's worth keeping that in mind too.

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.

Speaking as someone who actually thinks quite highly of the (potential) creativity in gaming, I am a little leery of overemphasizing D&D as an art form. It can be, but the vast majority of the time it isn't. But it always is a game. And when that game gets sexist or starts to exclude people I don't think I'd buy someone arguing that being less exclusionary corrupts the integrity of their art form.

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

This is a 26 page discussion about a fairly contentious and broad subject on a gaming forum, not a dissertation. I think it would be surprising if the topic didn't change. People discuss what interests them at a given point, and that's about it.

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.

Don't they? I only have a layman's knowledge of the subject, so I could very easily be wrong, but from what little I know a lot of the arguments seem to be focused on the future of the species. For example, the idea mentioned by Dannyalcatraz above about how primate males & females "win" is all about the species and their genetics winning and has barely anything to do with the individual primate.

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.

Maybe. If so, I stand corrected.

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.

To use your terms, I'm all for the reshaping and redirecting, then.

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.

I'll agree with the caveat that a GM running a world where gender matters that much should definitely check that their players are all fine with it. But then you should always check with your players about the campaign anyway. I'll also add that a campaign world that is hostile to women might be a pain for female PCs (which doesn't necessarily mean female players, of course) in the long run, even if it may have seemed a good idea in the beginning. Personally, if one is going that route, I'd prefer a campaign world hostile to men, since that would require a little more creativity to create and run than a patriarchal and misogynistic world.

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.

See caveats above.

 

[shilsen]

And in the interests of keeping this focused on gaming, here's a question for everyone. Since the core D&D world includes a whole lot of intelligent races with huge (mechanical and flavor) variations, I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies. I'd prefer it if you would consider the racial rules as applying not just to PCs but to all members of the society. So, for example, there is no statistical difference in strength or dexterity (or any other ability score) between males and females, all elves do not sleep and have a lifespan of multiple centuries, all dwarves are able to carry large loads, etc.

What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

And in the interests of keeping this focused on gaming, here's a question for everyone. Since the core D&D world includes a whole lot of intelligent races with huge (mechanical and flavor) variations, I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies. I'd prefer it if you would consider the racial rules as applying not just to PCs but to all members of the society. So, for example, there is no statistical difference in strength or dexterity (or any other ability score) between males and females, all elves do not sleep and have a lifespan of multiple centuries, all dwarves are able to carry large loads, etc.

What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.

My favorite one to do is make lizardkin where the females are large, muscular, and have dull colored scales, while the men are smaller and have very garish and brightly colored scales - why, the better to attract mates with, of course ;p.

I find it amusing that the set assumption for pretty much all races is that the women try to attract the men, so reversing that tends to lead to some rather interesting changes, since that's one of the more subtle details that people tend not to think about.

 

[Ariosto]

Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet.

It's not a question of whether there's less reproduction in total, but more in proportion of which populations of phenomena. Culture tends to get passed on to a significant extent from the same source as genes.

Of course, ideas also get passed around among cultures, and sometimes one brings others in its wake. Both ideas and people are in movement around the globe.

For example, the idea mentioned by Dannyalcatraz above about how primate males & females "win" is all about the species and their genetics winning and has barely anything to do with the individual primate.

The individual primate is an ephemeral thing.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert…. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

What benefits a single grain of sand?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Since the core D&D world includes a whole lot of intelligent races with huge (mechanical and flavor) variations, I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies.
<snip>
What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.

Even though RPGs generally eliminate sexual dimorphism, by and large, I still model my societies either to mimic or counter known human cultures.

Sometimes I have a little fun with it, like I did when helping rogueboy in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/plots-places/256063-what-would-society-look-like.html
Now, it wasn't my campaign, but I could see making the women the preferred Moa-riders for certain roles- like long-range scout, where their lesser mass means the mount has either less to carry or the rider could pack on more resources.

Or I'll apply modern tropes to certain societies. In a culture where the most common ranged weapon is a X-Bow (reducing the need for upper-body strength), women with their steadier hands (ask the Israeli military & Dr. Ruth) may predominate the role of snipers/hunters.

My favorite one to do is make lizardkin where the females are large, muscular, and have dull colored scales, while the men are smaller and have very garish and brightly colored scales

Like your lizardkin, the Tyraxids (my homebrewed draconic descendants in one campaign) had larger, stronger females who embodied all of the physical archetypes of their draconic forebears...while the smaller males concentrated more on magic.

OTOH, males in my as yet un-named anthro-Alligator Snapping Turtle race are just slightly larger...just like their RW counterparts.

And another common homebrew thing I do is have asexual Dwarves- either because they're native quasi-elementals carved from stone (like scaled-down Stonechildren) or the Inheritors: pseudo-Cybermen who are a fusion of Warforged bodies with transplanted Dwarven brains that retain Dwarf culture.

What benefits a single grain of sand?

Getting between an oyster or other mollusk and its shell, to be transformed into a pearl.

 

[S'mon]

Interesting point. Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet.

Fertility rates are declining in most parts of the planet, with sub-Saharan Africa a partial exception. However modern medicine, increased food production, and the free movement of peoples militate against this (indeed emigrant populations often have much higher fertility than in the country they emigrated from*). Without isolating populations, groups who reduce their fertility get replaced by groups which don't - evolution by natural selection, the higher-fertility populations are 'fitter'. With restricted movement, you can reduce fertility without population replacement, leading to absolute population decline, as is happening in Japan.

*Historically this occurred with eg English emigrants to America and Australia. It's happening now with eg Mexican emigrants to America and Tunisian emigrants to France.

Edit: Differential fertility has been a theme in traditional Tolkienesque fantasy, with low-fertility elves and dwarves vs high-fertility orcs and goblins - not applicable to Peter Jackson's vat-grown orcs, though! - and humans in-between.

 

[Ariosto]

Getting between an oyster or other mollusk and its shell, to be transformed into a pearl.

In itself, that selects for pearls rather than for grains of sand. (My attempt being to suggest to Shilsen the factors under consideration in the earlier analysis with which he took issue.)

 

[Ariosto]

On biology and trends in promiscuity:

It is a plain physical fact that a woman's reproductive capacity is more sharply limited than a man's; a population's baby-making potential directly correlates to number of females but not to number of males. Indeed, most men are strictly speaking superfluous to that sexual requirement; and women more or less treat them so.

The "more" is more practically relevant at the age in which people of both sexes tend to be half-mad with hormones. Reliable contraception tends if anything to increase the commerce among a small demographic of "alpha" males and the female population at large, because the means is more immediately attractive than the end in furtherance of which it evolved. Desire outlives necessity, just as some hungers for food, other goods, or simply the token of money drive some people to consume far beyond actual need or even to the detriment of health.

Even in "less" mode, the distinction in instinct for quality or quantity is not terribly obscure. Simple female-ness exerts a strong attraction generally on the heterosexual male libido, relative to the more qualified and discriminating female appraisal of males. A guy seems to become "cuter" when he is before the eyes of many gals thanks to mass media that also send a lot of wealth and social status his way. If Pin-up Boy really is just the no-account boy next door, then he probably needs the sort of physical assets that would have been of more practical significance in the Stone Age.

Someone who does not directly reproduce can still contribute to the "fitness" of a heritage shared with siblings and cousins. For obvious reasons, that is fairly often the sphere of homosexuals. If they lack offspring of their own, they may by so much add to the resources per capita devoted to their nieces and nephews. Likewise, the "expendable" male may give exceptional service in deeds demanding an unusual measure of altruism, such as those often occasioned by war or natural disaster.

 

[S'mon]

a population's baby-making potential directly correlates to number of females but not to number of males. Indeed, most men are strictly speaking superfluous to that sexual requirement; and women more or less treat them so.

Although monogamous pair-bonding may increase the survival chances of offspring, especially in high latitudes where male & female must work together to gather enough food for the winter. Nature affects nurture.

Edit: It's a bit ironic that the Welfare systems of Shilsenised societies, which allow for greater sex equality, reduce the incentives for monogamous pair-bonding and thus incentivise the promiscuous male. If the State will be father for his many offspring, he doesn't need to.

 

[Ariosto]

S'mon, the greater sex equality can make more effective use of the most productive capital of all -- the mind -- and thus increase wealth so that such arrangements are competitive. The problem always present is that of loving well, and politico-economic "magic bullets" put the cart before the horse.