Sexism in Table-Top Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It

[Libertad]

OP writes blatantly sexist and offensive post under guise of taking moral high ground.

No doubt he/she/whatever it doesn't matter also wishes to say how sexist I am for thinking so.

1.) Look, I've gamed with many women over the years. They aren't a bunch of shrinking violets whose delicate sensibilities need to be protected. The only incident of attempted rape between PC's in my entire history of being a DM was acted out by two female gamers.

2.) In a prior thread we had a female police officer gamer defend strength caps because she said it was realistic that female warriors would use other resources to win fights. Not all women have the same beliefs and attitudes. You can't sit here defining all women the same and in your image and not expect that I'm going to find that small minded and sexist.

You want me to advocate speaking out against sexism wherever I find it? Well ok then.

Your whole cavalier chivalry attitude as guise for squelching any content you find objectionable just needs to go.

3.) PS: That whole 'women bear pain better than men because well duh childbirth' thing is myth. No scientific study has ever shown that, and in fact all studies have shown the opposite. The myth's origin is again, in stereotyping women and mystifying them - not in anything real. There is an argument that women on average live longer than men because they don't bear pain as well and so actually take care of themselves rather than trying to tough their way through it, but so much gender research right now is tainted by 'you can present any result you want so long as you frame it as women are better than men', that I'm pretty much treating all of it is suspect and tainted by bias until we get over as a society all this 'woe is me you are oppressing women' double standard thing.

Being sensitive towards issues in gaming which disproportionately affect women in a respectful way is not sexist, at least not in the way most people consider it.

1.) Approximately 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted within their lifetimes. 1 in 6 men have been sexually abused by age 18: https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/

In the US, about 10% of rape victims are male: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault

Acting out rape scenarios in gaming sessions can go wrong real fast, even if the person performing it is a woman player. Other players may be bothered due to personal trauma of themselves or a friend, but they might be afraid to speak up. Especially if they've been shouted down or degraded for it in the past.

2.) The strength caps are unrealistic because there are women in the real world who would be 18+ Strength under the 1st and 3rd Edition D&D rules (the most common editions I've seen people apply the cap). In these cases the DM applying the house rule is not being "realistic," and he rarely applies the realism consistently.

3.) I've never said that the "women can bear pain better" thing was true. Gender stereotypes affect both men and women. My point was that these aforementioned DMs are all too willing to inflict stereotypes which negatively affect women, but ignore the ones which can negatively affect men.

 

[Morrus]

No, it didn't. But we weren't talking about being approving of actual rapes either, but games where such a crime could occur fictionally.

This has gone for a weird logical loop. The hypothetical pornography is the publication, just like the Cthulhutech example (which, I reiterate, I haven't seen and have no opinion on) is. One publication is illegal, the other is legal. My point was that the concept of offensive material is enshrined in law. Society agrees that material can do harm.

It was in response to your position a while back - yeah, it's taken time to get here - that what you read in private harms nobody. It's an example that some types of material do, even if we're delving into hypotheticals now.

 

[Crothian]

2.) The strength caps are unrealistic because there are women in the real world who would be 18+ Strength under the 1st and 3rd Edition D&D rules (the most common editions I've seen people apply the cap). In these cases the DM applying the house rule is not being "realistic," and he rarely applies the realism consistently.

You need to work on this argument. 1e has strength caps for men an women. The game is based around 15th century Europe so using modern people with advanced training methods, superior nutrition, access to steroids an HGH, and many other modern advantages to prove it as unrealistic doesn't hold water. 3e has no such limits and what house rules people put in their own games is impossible to judge without knowing their game. Plus 1e is nearly 40 years old so you want to stick to more current example. Don't just use D&D because it is the most popular RPG.

 

[mythago]

Look, I've gamed with many women over the years. They aren't a bunch of shrinking violets whose delicate sensibilities need to be protected.

It might help to keep in mind that some of the folks participating on this board, and indeed in this very thread, are women who are gamers.

 

[Celebrim]

2.) The strength caps are unrealistic because there are women in the real world who would be 18+ Strength under the 1st and 3rd Edition D&D rules (the most common editions I've seen people apply the cap).

I'm only familiar with the strength cap from the 1st edition rules. Based on the language you are using with regard to it, you aren't really familiar with the rule, which would have allowed human females to have up to 18/50 strength which I don't even know what equates to since after 18 the scale in 1e gets all wonky and non-linear. Suffice to say that 18/50 is a very strong person, and I've never seen a 1e character with more strength than that except by cheating.

Now, I'm not going to try to defend the realism of 1e AD&D. I got frustrated by the lack of realism of 1e AD&D and left it for GURPS in the mid 90's. But the general notion that the maximum strength of women is lower than men is not a sexist notion. It's just reality. Whether it is a reality we need to capture in gaming is a matter of opinion, but it's not a stereotype and if 18/50 is an unrealistic maximum cap on women then its possible that 18/00 is an unrealistic maximum cap on men. I don't know. I invite you to investigate the world and American records in dead lifting, the bench press, and the clean and jerk and figure out what the realistic maximum cap for genders is. I don't really care that much one way or the other, nor do I really see why anyone else cares. Surely most women know that they aren't quite as strong as most men their size, and surely they are ok with that because really, valuing yourself based on the idea that the only thing that counts is your martial virtue is falling prey to an inherently sexist view of the world. In any event, I find no need to place a strength cap on men or women in my 3e inspired game because 18 is well below the maximum strength possible for men or women realistically, which it is my sense might be as high as 23 for women and 27 for men. Any character that gets in those rarified heights in 3e is a superhero anyway, so I suppose that could be cause for complaint - "Real women have a 23 strength and they aren't 20th level super heroes. You're being sexist for not letting my character start with 23 strength."

But in any event, it's not a given that anyone - male or female - is jerking a dragon around by the tail. I invite you to drop in on my thread about gnomes as throwing weapons to see the sort of granularity I pride myself on in my play.

It occurs to me that I've never created a female character with the Brute NPC class. I'm not sure I actually feel guilty about that.

But let's not sit here and pretend this is about realism or sensitivity to peoples feelings. You've got a whole laundry list of things you are complaining about and insisting that gamers conform to even to the extent that you seem to be saying that they can't be portrayed in a negative way, and that single 'incidents' while not as worthy of scorn are still at least a little worthy of scorn. You've managed to get more Puritanical than a guy whose been accused of being a prude. And by dodging around saying this is about being respectful and sensitive, you completely avoid the main thrust of my complaint which is that there is nothing at all nuanced, sensitive or respectful in the way you are viewing women or men.

In any event, while for various reasons neither sex nor rape are major themes in my gaming, for the very reasons that its reasonably common (the exact numbers being a matter of controversy but certainly we agree 'too often') in the real world and is a very serious subject its also going to exist in at least the background of my world. I don't really intend to limit my campaign to your review or censure.

In these cases the DM applying the house rule is not being "realistic," and he rarely applies the realism consistently.

What constitutes consistent realism is very much a matter of opinion. I find the whole 'what is the real history of women' subject to be a frustrating one as a amateur historian, because it seems that the only writers that really care are typically prone to shoddy scholarship and gleeful acceptance of anything that backs their beliefs. Chasing your links and your links' links leads to either to things that aren't what you say they are, or else a bunch of increasingly less than credible claims by persons who are clearly biased to accept anything that backs their desired conclusions. Casually chasing a handful debunked many of them with minutes. So I can't tell with certainty what is true or not, but I do know that on the basis of those links I wouldn't be nearly as dramatic and confrontational about the evidence as you are: it seems pretty weak, and if I really was undecided on this point and not you know married to a woman with PhD that can out run me, I'd be 'point to the chauvinists' after browsing your links. Again, the basis of equality of the genders is not equality on the field of battle or any other field of endeavor. Though for reasons I'll mention later it hardly matters in the context of a FRPG whether or not its realistic to have female warriors.

When someone with clear political intentionality provides me with a quote purported to be by some founding father or the other, I hold all those claims as inherently suspect. I've learned to not repeat any such quote without spending a few hours validating it. The last time I got in that debate about what the founding fathers really believed, it turned out both sides were basing their argument on fraudulent history and made up quotations. I suspect if I jumped in between a bunch of feminists and chauvinists, I'd find the same thing.

For no other reason than I have a thing for unusual forms of government I have a prominent nation that is ruled by strict matrimonial succession (a Queendom), and another that is governed by the female heirs of a female leper that was instrumental in liberating the nation from 1000 years of bondage by an oppressor. Is either realistic? I don't really care. It's a fantasy setting. It's not the real world. If I want to have female warriors in the setting I will, and certainly nothing bars an effective female fighter in my rules. If I want armies of women in the setting, I'll have those too.

But if I had feminists in my fantasy world, they'd probably not be presented in a particularly favorable light. And if someone said, "I don't want armies of women in my setting", my first inclination wouldn't be to castigate him.

 

[Celebrim]

It might help to keep in mind that some of the folks participating on this board, and indeed in this very thread, are women who are gamers.

I'm sure some of them are. I've never felt the need to investigate which are which. I'm equal opportunity affirming and offensive, and no respecter of rank.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Deleted. S'mon is right. Not sure what possessed me to post in a political thread.

 

[billd91]

I'm only familiar with the strength cap from the 1st edition rules. Based on the language you are using with regard to it, you aren't really familiar with the rule, which would have allowed human females to have up to 18/50 strength which I don't even know what equates to since after 18 the scale in 1e gets all wonky and non-linear. Suffice to say that 18/50 is a very strong person, and I've never seen a 1e character with more strength than that except by cheating.

Now, I'm not going to try to defend the realism of 1e AD&D. I got frustrated by the lack of realism of 1e AD&D and left it for GURPS in the mid 90's. But the general notion that the maximum strength of women is lower than men is not a sexist notion. It's just reality. Whether it is a reality we need to capture in gaming is a matter of opinion, but it's not a stereotype and if 18/50 is an unrealistic maximum cap on women then its possible that 18/00 is an unrealistic maximum cap on men. I don't know. I invite you to investigate the world and American records in dead lifting, the bench press, and the clean and jerk and figure out what the realistic maximum cap for genders is. I don't really care that much one way or the other, nor do I really see why anyone else cares. Surely most women know that they aren't quite as strong as most men their size, and surely they are ok with that because really, valuing yourself based on the idea that the only thing that counts is your martial virtue is falling prey to an inherently sexist view of the world. In any event, I find no need to place a strength cap on men or women in my 3e inspired game because 18 is well below the maximum strength possible for men or women realistically, which it is my sense might be as high as 23 for women and 27 for men. Any character that gets in those rarified heights in 3e is a superhero anyway, so I suppose that could be cause for complaint - "Real women have a 23 strength and they aren't 20th level super heroes. You're being sexist for not letting my character start with 23 strength."

Now that you've condescended to explain it to us maybe it's time to recognize the central issue. Any limitation imposed on female characters in the name of realism basically tells female players that their characters cannot achieve the same success as the characters of male players on the same terms... at least not without playing male characters themselves. The sex they most identify with is deficient within the game mechanics. Frankly, I doubt any limitation of that nature would add more value to the game than it loses in unnecessarily alienating players and I'm glad that restriction didn't even make it as far as 2e before it was scrapped.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure when enw became rpgnet, but this is a reminder why I don't come here much anymore.

 

[Janx]

I'm not sure when enw became rpgnet, but this is a reminder why I don't come here much anymore.

Bummer. It's not a good thing if ENW's culture has changed to scare away level headed people.

I'm just happy that five pages in, I haven't said anything stupid. And that's probably because I've finally wised up to not contributing to this kind of thread.