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

[S'mon]

Then I might add:
Evolution doesn't have a natural end goal.
Just because something worked (repeatedly) in the past and was a trait for survival doesn't mean it will stay one.

I suspect that reproduction will remain a trait for survival.

Of course you can overdo it, overpopulation leading to a resource dearth and population crash. But a population reproducing at at least replacement level seems likely to remain a survival trait when compared to not reproducing.

Edit: And this is particularly the case when other populations are in competition for the same niche; territory ceded to the faster breeding population is much less likely to be regained than is uninhabited territory.

 

[shilsen]

A nice female characterization using stereotypes and rejecting them example might be Zoë Washburn from Firefly, I just notice.

She is a soldier and that foremost. If we'd use stereotypes, it's more that her husband, Wash, fulfills the "weaker partner" part.
But I remember there is a scence in the movie where they talk about having kids - She wants them, and Wash doesn't. Here, the stereotypes are more typical. Wash bascially has the usual stereotype male counterarguments ("not now, not the right time"). But she points out - in a manner I think that is not stereotypical for any specific gender at all, I think (paraphrasing): "I am not so afraid of losing something that I won't have it."

Overall, the stereotypes are kinda in use - but often subverted, but sometimes also used straight - and that basically makes the character a lot more nuanced and "real" - they are not just male or female. They are humans with their own personality, informed by the experiences of their life.

That's a good example of well-done gender characterization. The Firefly series and the movie Serenity both feature well-done female characters who, I think, provide another example of the positive influence of adequate representation on characterization. Zoë, River, Kaylee, Inara - all of them are stereotypical in certain/many ways. But they seem functionally less stereotypical because there are other female characters to provide variation and contrast. The same is true of the male characters, since Mal, Wash, Jayne, Simon, Shepherd, the Operative all fit some pretty standard sci-fi/fantasy stereotypes, but the variety of them helps in the characterization. Which is pretty standard for Whedon, just like in Buffy.

In regards to "nature vs nuture" - we might be able to rationalize or explain behavior based on arguments about nature or evolution, but that doesn't make the acceptable or good behavior. Evolution is a natural process, not a moral authority.

Yup.

Then I might add:
Evolution doesn't have a natural end goal.
Just because something worked (repeatedly) in the past and was a trait for survival doesn't mean it will stay one. The dinosaurs were a result of evolution, but changes in their environment made them unable to survive. Humans actively change their environment a lot, and it might turn out that traits that were good are no longer. We can't assume that behavior that might have been great for a cavemen or a hunter-gatherer is still good for us now. Maybe after another 1,000 years of evolution, we'll see that.

Yup yup.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then morality is anti-adaptive behaviour, morality will be selected against, and over time moral lines & populations will tend to die out and be replaced by less moral ones.

Of course morals are memes not genes, and like diseases, memes can jump from one population to another. Morality may be leading to population X dying off, but if population Y can be persuaded to accept the morality it may not replace X; and Y may eventually die off also.

Still, any morality that kills its hosts too quickly (eg Heaven's Gate cult) will indeed tend to die off.

I could ask you whether you think that, if morals are indeed not as conductive to the species survival, they should go away? But that's certainly a loaded question.

I tend to believe that moral behavior ultimately leads to good for the survival of the species. So any genetic traits that help us act moral or accept morals will survive for the future, and any that don't will be diminsihed, and the "meme" of morals itself will survive and change to make it better for us overall. But that's just a believe, I could be wrong.

Anyway, just because some our behavior can be explained by evolutionary concepts still doesn't guarantee it is good for us, and certainly isn't inherently a "moral" thing we need to keep around for that. Maybe gender stereotypes were a great thing for our survival when most of our daily activities involved physical heavy duty and was not so great for the survival of unborn, and there were lots of stuff to do to maintain a household (be it in a cave or a real house). It doesn't mean that it's great now, when we have dish-washers, microwaves, freezers, water pumps, textile factories, as well as pig farms, tractors, cars, planes or computers and generally a lot more free time than ever before.
So we have to evaluate the behaviors and traditions "evolved" in a different environment then our current ones, and adapt those that don't fit. In a way, we're doing natural selections work, based on capabilities we gained by natural selection in the first place.

Of course, that is not an argument against sexism within a setting. It's an argument against sexism today. An argument for sexism in fantasy is that
1) It has to find an audience today.
2) We can use a setting to explore the unknown - a different evolutionary path - just because we didn't take it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, particularly in a world of magic that can change around so many things...
3) When we do it, do it consciously, not just because your millenia old "reflexes" make you do it.

I suppose 2 and 3 are the same, in a way - use it because you want to use it for a reason.

 

[Dausuul]

As an addendum, I'll add something about how I think writing a character well can work, as done by BSG. Give the character motivation(s), strength(s), weakness(es), and don't worry about whether these are stereotypically masculine or feminine. And then consider a couple of places where the character's gender might affect things, and add it in.

That's an excellent approach. It might also help to avoid picking the character's sex until after deciding on those non-gender-specified motivations, strengths, and weaknesses.

(Obviously, this is not possible if you're planning the character as a love interest for an existing character whose sex and orientation are established; i.e., a love interest for a heterosexual male character pretty much has to be female. However, characters created specifically to serve as love interests are usually pretty flat.)

 

[shilsen]

That's an excellent approach. It might also help to avoid picking the character's sex until after deciding on those non-gender-specified motivations, strengths, and weaknesses.

Thanks. I guess I wasn't clear enough, but when I wrote "And then consider a couple of places where the character's gender might affect things, and add it in", I meant that one should pick the gender at that point, not at the beginning.

(Obviously, this is not possible if you're planning the character as a love interest for an existing character whose sex and orientation are established; i.e., a love interest for a heterosexual male character pretty much has to be female. However, characters created specifically to serve as love interests are usually pretty flat.)

Agreed.

 

[S'mon]

I could ask you whether you think that, if morals are indeed not as conductive to the species survival, they should go away? But that's certainly a loaded question.

Um, you seem to be using "morals" as an absolute. Obviously most moralities do not lead to species extinction, since they are evolved memes - the anti-survival ones die out, often along with their hosts.

I'm in favour of good morality, but that's a tautology.

Is there a morality I'm in favour of that is not conducive to species survival? I can't think of any. Being conducive to species survival is a good thing in my book. I suppose there are moralities that are not completely optimum for survival, but make people a lot happier, which I am in favour of. More importantly, there are highly-conducive moralities which I don't want for myself but I'm very glad certain other people have because they create a safe & pleasant environment. I'm not much for religion & owning guns, for instance, but I like it when certain people around me have both.

 

[RaidingPartyGames]

I think it worth mentioning in regards to male vs. female promiscuity:
One theory about the development of the primate penis is a prevalence of female selection of multiple mates. For those of you with handy access to a penis, be it yours or another's, look at the bottom of the glans. The bulbous shape there has been found to be ideal for pumping fluid out of a container; if it is in fact used in this fashion (as has been observed in primates), it indicates said development could be a response to females taking multiple mates.

Note that unless you believe in some form of intelligent design, even evolution itself being an ideal towards which life is striving, the idea of evolutionary traits being a response to something is bunk. The trait itself is a random characteristic that may or may not help.
I state this because I'm not saying that primates have a bulbous glans for that purpose, but it seems to have been selected for in the past, and that female promiscuity may be a reason for which it was selected.

The idea of female promiscuity being selected for ends up being borne out in sperm warfare, which would also not take place unless a female had more than one sexual partner.

 

[Rel]

wtf?

 

[Garthanos]

wtf?

Did you miss how certain things that are frequently frowned on from a moral perspective (promiscuity in general) are in fact biologically supported to enhance survival of the species relates to sexism - aka treating others significantly better or worse based on gender? I think I missed it too..

...fascinating discussion anyway.

 

[radferth]

Did RPG just win "Stump the Moderator"?