PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Libertad
2013-10-18, 12:27 PM
The Mod Wonder: Please remember Lewis's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Lewis_(journalist)#Lewis.27_law): The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism. Please attempt to prove the exception to this law.


Sexism in Tabletop Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It



I've been thinking about this a lot, one I've seen emerge several times within the hobby, from message boards to published sourcebooks. Although not quite common, but still too common, a similar trend emerges: a poster starts up a thread about about Strength caps for women, women who know how to fight in historical settings (and even fictional ones!), DMs and players who act creepy, et cetera.

Many cases bear striking similarity; an uncomfortable attitude towards women gamers in various forms and degrees.

I believe that discussion of gender issues in RPGs is important, not only because acknowledgement of trends and portrayals in fiction are a valid form of critique, but because in recent years there is an elephant in the room: portrayal of women and incidents of sexism within the tabletop fandom. And while many gamers are decent people, there is a not-so-insignificent segment among the tabletop community which propagates an atmosphere unwelcoming to women. And is being discussed in many areas, both among fans and game designers.

Now, I don't believe that I can cover the whole issue with but a single post, but I will go over the major things:



http://i.imgur.com/8RxSQRE.jpg?1

Oftentimes, especially in regards to historical RPGs, I've often heard the "women can't be fighters" said over and over. The reality is that women in many historical instances contributed to society beyond being baby-making machines. They were queens, business owners, scientists, philosophers, and even warriors. And not just the Joans of Arc and Annie Oaklies of the world. You know the mythical Amazons? The stories had more than a hint of truth: in ancient times the Sauromatians, mounted warriors, had about 20% of their military groups comprised of women. This has been observed through examination of over 40 burial mounds by archeologists. (http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=EEPII0168&DataType=Ancient&WinType=Free)

Among the Vikings, it was legal for women to avenge the death of family members as part of a blood feud. (http://www.lothene.org/others/womenvik.html)

The Colosseum of ancient Rome had some skilled female gladiators, and Roman soldiers writing of their experiences in the war with Gaul told of women who fought just as eagerly as the men. (http://www.lothene.org/others/womenrom.html)

During the Mexican Revolution, women were a significant contribution to Emiliano Zapata's army, as writers, politicians, and soldiers and officers. (http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/thehistoryofmexico/a/mexicanrevo_3.htm)

This is historical accuracy. (http://www.sfwa.org/2013/05/guest-post-we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative/)

Make no mistake, tabletop gaming is primarily a male-dominated hobby. But there are many women gamers out there, from Vampire to Shadowrun. Most gamers are nice, decent people, but you know what they say about the squeakiest wheel getting the grease.


Examples of problematic behavior:


[1]CthulhuTech had not one, but 3 adventures dealing with graphic, onscreen rape, which the PCs cannot avert.
[2]Exalted 2nd Edition, Vampire the Masquerade, and even Call of Cthulhu included rape scenes (and even an illustrated picture!) in fiction or setting detail.
[3]James Desborough published several blatantly sexist RPG books laughing at women instead of with them. He excessively talked about rape, both as jokes and its inclusion in games. He even went so far as to write an essay entitled "In Defense of Rape" to attract controversy by making his point in the worst way possible.
[4]Maid the RPG's earlier printings did not omit incidents of pedophilia played for laughs as the result of poor editing.
[5]A booth in 2013 Gen Con was selling t-shirts and slogans making light of sexual harassment and date rape (http://gmskarka.com/2013/08/20/when-nazis-get-rapey/) in easy view, and in violations of Gen Con's own rules. The material was reported by several people, but the booth continued selling the merchandise, even though staff said that they'd ask the merchandise to be removed. (http://www.gamingaswomen.com/posts/2013/08/why-one-paragraph-isnt-enough-reporting-harassment-at-gen-con/)

Rape is a minefield in the realm of fiction. The problem is not the inclusion of rape itself so much as how it's handled. Tabletop gaming sessions are very risky, as a lot of people connect with their created characters, and the environment can get personal ("you attack the orc," "you find a hidden gem," you, you, you).

Rape is a common threat for many girls and women, in some areas as many as 1 in 4 women will suffer a sexual assault in their lifetime. Even worse, many societies worldwide (including the Western world) do not treat it with the severity it deserves, blaming women for their style of dress, asking why she didn't fight back harder, or even covering it up in the case of religious orders! And men have it bad, too: female teachers who rape male students are viewed as sex symbols and the boys as "lucky," while male prisoners who get raped are laughed about or said to "deserve it for being a criminal."

Rape is a major issue that our culture has not come around to fully recognizing as a horrible act (only if its a violent, stranger rape), and many people can suffer post-traumatic flashbacks when it's handled poorly in media, and feel isolated if they see people treat its portrayal as no different than any other sex act.

Which brings me to a common fallacy I hear, notably one of the CthulhuTech developers: "Why do we treat sexual violence even worse than non-sexual violence? Such a repressed culture!" (http://cthulhutech.fr.yuku.com/sreply/52056/Cthulhutech-developers#.UmVuWfmUR50) Well no, rape is often worse than most forms of violence. It's something which cannot be brushed off so easily as something like killing a bandit in self-defense, or as justifiable as other forms of murder. Dismissing the feelings of those who get upset about it as "being unable to handle mature games," "repressed prudes," et cetera, sends a message (even unintentionally) that women gamers should stop complaining about a very common and very personal fear. Jim Sterling, a video game critic, discusses the issue far better than I ever can. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5972-Rape-vs-Murder)

Just because a game element is sexist, insensitive, ethnically problematic, et cetera does not automatically mean that you as a fan condone it. The thing about tabletop RPGs is that there are many games and many books written by different authors. And its decades-long history has progressed along with society. When Gygax and friends started playing the first D&D sessions, 2nd wave feminism was still progressing. In the 90s White Wolf was doing its best to be inclusive of all races and cultures in their games, but lack of research and exposure to said cultures resulted in flat stereotypes.

I love Dungeons & Dragons. I love Vampire. I love Shadowrun, Deadlands, and even Call of Cthulhu. But they all have content which if examined closely, is very troubling. Magical Native Americans in Werewolf, Neo-Confederate apologia in Deadlands, and even a creation myth for the Drow in Complete Book of Elves which is no different than the real-world Curse of Ham (evil people are marked by their dark skin).

These examples are problematic, but in many cases they might not be dominant in the campaign and can be ignored. Or changed and altered with little consequence. If I ever ran a 1st Edition AD&D game, I'd remove the Strength cap limit for women. Unless the RPG is saturated with problematic content (FATAL), it can be saved.

On a related note, quite a few of these things are buried deep in setting lore, not always caught upon on casual reading. Players of D&D were attracted by a world of fantasy and magic; I got into Deadlands because the idea of playing monster hunters and mad scientists in the Wild West sounded awesome. The other stuff was found later.

An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes. White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized and the original writers don't work anymore. I have no problem continuing buying from them. Gary Gygax later on said that the female strength cap was a mistake to include. Ewen Cluney forgot to excise problematic content from Maid RPG, but when it was brought to his attention he listened to the critics and removed it. Since then I haven't noticed any creepy sex stuff in his works. And I'm sure that in my years of writing stuff and homebrew, I probably erred somewhere.

Barring the irredeemable (FATAL), game designers aren't going to be forced out of the industry or lose their buyers if they make some honest mistakes. What's more important is how they react to criticism. A writer who doubles down on his stereotypical "noble savage" African nation while ranting about the PC Police is digging himself into a deeper hole.

Is World of Darkness: Gypsies racist? Yes. Is it sexist to impose an artificial limitation on female PCs in D&D? Yes.

But that doesn't make all WoD and D&D players racist and sexist. We can acknowledge problematic content, change it and discard it, when it impacts other peoples' enjoyment by reinforcing systemic stereotypes and imposes arbitrary limits on common fantasy archetypes. Xena, Warrior Princess, should totally be a valid D&D concept, and women and members of real-world ethnic groups do not need to be reminded in their gaming sessions of what bigots think about them if it makes them uncomfortable.

Particularly in regards to "realism." It's almost never about realism. An 18 in any ability score represents an individual who is highly gifted, the cream of the crop. Even in real life, there are many incidents of women performing acts of incredible strength when under stress, such as lifting a car off to save someone's life. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/lauren-kornacki-lifts-bmw_n_1728396.html)

And it's not just one incident. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190759/Mighty-mothers-superhuman-strength-lift-1-400kg-car-run-schoolboy.html)

By 3rd Edition RAW, a heavy load for 18 Strength is 201-300 lbs. With this score, you lift 300 lbs. over your head, and push and drag 1,500 lbs. For world records of women weightlifters, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weightlifting#Wom en_.281988.E2.80.931992.29) all of them lifted at least 180 kilograms (396 lbs) with a snatch clean and jerk technique. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ku5v_hSVMw)

Quoting Awaken_DM Golem on another board in regards to 1st Edition:


1E used a nearly linear STR scale of 10*# = weight you can lift over your head.
So an 18 STR can lift 180 pounds over his(her!) head.
And who did the ancient Greeks call Amazons anyway.
I go google just a little.

2013 Junior Pan Am (hey tough guy it's "Juniors")
Ellen Kercher put 68kg on the more difficult lift, and 81kg on the 2 step move.
81kg * 2.2convert = 178.2 pounds
Now her performing class weight is available to google too, but hey look at her
... she's tiny, like smaller than that tough guy DM.

http://www.liftbetterliftbigger.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/249010_506624882725674_1895631980_n-300x199.jpg

And who said that 18 Str women are unrealistic?

I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: DMs who create this rule usually stop there. It requires little effort to make a blanket statement about "all women in my game are..." but it takes a lot of effort to make a plausible economic system or a health/damage track just like real-world wounds. It takes commonly-held assumptions about women and enshrines it in unbendable game stats. It never takes in the other side of the equation, like giving a Constitution cap for men for stereotypes of lower pain thresholds ("you'd never be able to handle childbirth!") and shorter life spans. This is due to the perception of male as the norm, which extends beyond games and into our culture: women characters in the media comprise around 5-20% of show casts, but are 50% of the world's population.

"It's just a game! How's it different than game mechanics for different fantasy races?"

It's different in the sense that elves, orcs, and dragons do not exist. Women exist, and comprise a significant portion of our population. We can afford some liberties with fantasy creatures because they're wholly fictional: if dwarves are strong due to divine blessings of Moradin, we can accept that as part of the setting.

When one crosses into reality is when things get problematic. When you deal with real people, inaccuracies are less tolerable. Particularly when we reinforce stereotypes.

We also play games to escape from the real world, where we can bust in the face of the evil lich with a spiked gauntlet as the conclusion to a satisfying adventure, where we can be real Heroes capable of feats impossible in our world. Wizards traveling the planes for hidden knowledge, Dragonriders leaping off their mount to soar through the air onto an enemy wyrm, and monks who can dance on the head of a needle are but a few things not only possible in D&D, but encouraged.

It's not escapism when a women who, after dealing with some sexist customers at her retail job, visits the FLGS at game night and is blatantly told by the DM that her Lady in Shining Armor character concept is invalid. Particularly after rolling that 18, a 9.34% chance with a 4d6 drop the lowest roll six times! You'd feel cheated, too, if the DM discarded your amazing success!

A women clad in full plate, pulling a dragon by the tail for a closer kill, or absorbing the blow of an ogre with her mighty shield might sound implausible to many, but it sure is cool and empowering, the kind of things PCs should be able to do.

"Feminism is ruining gaming!" and "I don't mind feminists, it's the radical feminists I can't stand." When radical is not used in the proper terminology.

It's a common thing I see on the Internet, a regrettable one at that. There are feminists out there who are very rude and lack tact, but that doesn't make their ideological viewpoints extreme. The feminists I've read in gaming-related threads, and on several online blogs and prominent websites here actually have viewpoints in line with mainstream 3rd Wave Feminism and do not fit the typical man-hating stereotype.

Implying that hostility from feminists is "radical or hyper" implies that this is feminism's logical conclusion, that the jerks are the "most feminist" and that to be polite is to be politically moderate.

Going to radical feminism, its terminology is contradictory. Among feminists themselves, it used to mean feminist with anti-capitalist leanings, or feminists who focus on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Nowadays, the term is mostly adopted by anti-transgender hate groups, much to the chagrin of what few pro-transgender radical feminists still remain.

Outside feminism, it's most often used as an insult to refer to feminists who get worked up and angry about gender issues, regardless of their actual viewpoints. Also as a snarl word to imply that most feminists hate men.

Feminist groups overall do a lot of good work. They support battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, LGBT rights, access to birth control and abortion for women and girls, among many other things. The portrayal of them all as man-haters, and who shame fellow women for wearing make-up and dresses is inaccurate and harmful. While such types do exist, it really depends on what part of the Internet you hang out on. There are feminists who don't want the help of men, but there are many more who are all too happy to let male allies join their cause (including bell hooks, radical feminist in the anti-capitalist sense). There are feminists who put on make-up and dresses, such as Wendy Davis. When feminists criticize and challenge traditional and conventional gender norms, they mostly do it in the sense of systems which coerce and shame women into adopting restrictive roles.


So, What Can We Do About It?

As this is more than just a series of isolated incidents, you might feel worried that the problem feels too big to fight. Do not despair; as far as systemic issues go, the tabletop community is not as large, or as pervasive, as sexism within the video game industry and larger nerd communities. In part due to smaller size, in part due to the relatively easy ability for indie tabletop games to break into things, and in part due to the popularity of LARPs and White Wolf games which (anecdotal evidence) attract a significant portion of women gamers. If anything, their non-negligible number should give many all the more reason to confront the issue.


Confronting problematic behavior at the table



http://i.imgur.com/05HekgA.jpg?1

Gamers who are good friends know each other's comfort zones. They know their hobbies, what sets them off, and what they most enjoy in their games. People who are a nightmare to game with tend not to keep players for long. Confronting sexist and alienating actions in this instance is best done the way friends handle things: namely that certain things make you uncomfortable, and that you'd appreciate it if they were mindful of this. The comfort zones of players are very important to a conductive session. Communicating your feelings on the matter, and why they make you uncomfortable, is very important.

Gaming with strangers is an entirely different matter. I really don't do this, so I can't give any advice or tips on it at the time.

But whether with close groups or with strangers at the table, you should stick up for yourself when facing bad behavior which is making gamers feel unwelcome: you shouldn't let other players and DMs be horrible to you or your friends.


Confronting problematic behavior among game designers

I have less trouble with naming names when it comes to books and designers because they're the "face" of tabletop gaming and the closest thing we have to public figures in the industry. Giving examples in books and fiction only helps, not hurt, the cause of exactly what needs to be fixed.

Now, an important thing to keep in mind is the difference between one-time incidents and pervasive themes, both among the work itself and a line of products. The 3rd Edition Eberron Campaign Setting never made mention of sexual violence apart from a small part paragraph of a bandit gang in the Mournlands. Not even about the issue of half-orcs, as orcs and humans have far better relations in the setting and live among each other relatively peacefully in the Shadow Marches (where most orcs and half-orcs live). Monte Cook's Numenera is a very good book, and the Nibovian Wife monster (who only lives to be impregnated, and gives birth to a demon baby driven by the need to kill its father) is the only real sexually problematic thing in it from what I've heard.

CthulhuTech, on the other hand, is dripping with squicky content, which only become more prevalent as the series went on. 3 adventures with unavoidable rape (2 of which are performed upon the PCs); most people lose their virginity by age 12 "due to liberal and open-minded sexual mores;" and a chair-like device built by the Nazis which sexually violates people. And the authors themselves are incapable of handling criticism and see no difference between portrayal of sexual violence and sex in general ("Europeans wouldn't be complaining about this! They have topless women in commercials!"). No surprise, then, that the very people who go out of their way to defend these aspects of the setting are folks who think that gamers who can't handle rape are just "immature," and like putting that kind of stuff in their gaming sessions to make players uncomfortable.

CthulhuTech is far more worthy of scorn, both for its content and the author's handling of criticism, than the former two. The setting, and authorial statements on the matter, helped to generate a certain sort of fanbase over time, driving off a lot of people put off by the themes.

Treating problematic content differently is not hypocritical if it's based off of frequency, the magnitude of individual situations, and how sensitively the authors handle the matter. Not everything is equally worthy of the same kind of scorn, in that there is hope for some lines and not others.


Message Boards

The anonymity of the Internet is an entirely different beast. It can make the fringe seem mainstream, turn 50 voices into 5,000, and embolden bigots and misanthropes to say things they'd never do to another's face.

It's advisable and healthy to dismiss individual trolls. Especially when they're new posters on a message board just looking for trouble. But it's another thing entirely when you discover that a significant amount of fellow posters (or a respected few) sound off on sexist statements in an all-too-sincere manner. In this case it's not an obvious troll, but fellow forumites. And if it becomes more than a one-time thing and transforms into a repetitive theme, it contributes to an exclusionary environment.

Individual Incidents vs. Popular Views: This goes without saying, but just one guy made a sexist post doesn't make it the majority view. And a guy who said something 6 or more years ago, but has changed or doesn't say that kind of stuff anymore, should be treated differently than if he continues saying it (barring truly vile comments, like advocating rape/genocide/etc).

A good indicator of the tolerance of such statements is to check the site rules, and moderator action towards such statements. If you feel that the rules aren't being enforced, or that behavior is going unnoticed, report said posts and explain the matter. If the mods themselves don't care, you're not going to get as much progress. Most websites have rules against sexist statements, although it mostly covers genuine hate speech as opposed to 'old-fashioned' yet sexist comments ("call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that women should enlist in the military").


Show Support

It's not enough to call out bad behavior. Acknowledge when designers, artists, and figures in the fandom take positive steps. Not only does this show that you're not just fishing for outrage, but gives clues for people on what they can do right. Advertise RPGs which do things right, and if you can afford it and willing to play, buy some of the products in the line.

On that note, I'll practice what I preach and list some RPG I think have done well (or are at least making an effort to take these things into consideration).

The One Ring RPG have non-stripperific armor as the default design for women warriors in their artwork. This is progressive because many other RPGs (both tabletop and video games) design women's armor to be titillating.

The designers of Pathfinder RPG are making attempts to be racially and LGBT inclusive. And possibly one of the first RPG systems to have a transgender iconic (I don't know which one, though). Unfortunately it has stumbled in some regards (stereotypical gypsies and Darkest Africa pulps), but the designers took criticism into account and considered it valid.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was the first Edition to alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns. Half of the PC class iconics were women (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard). The Monk and Wizard outfits definitely veered towards the 'showing a lot of skin' end, but the other 3's adventuring garb are more sensible.

Legend is a 3rd Edition retroclone by Rule of Cool Games. It too alternates between male/female pronouns, and 3 of its iconics (Barbarian, Paladin, and Rogue) look cool without being cheesecake.


In conclusion, gender issues matter a lot, and not just for women gamers. Our community, both message boards and the wider tabletop fandom as a whole, is a great one. Our gaming sessions, RPG settings, homebrews, fanfiction, and Cons created countless decades of fun, camaraderie, and hundreds of thousands of new friendships. But just like every other community, it is not perfect, and it has problems which make our fellow gamers feel unwelcome and marginalized. Addressing these issues and confronting problematic behavior helps lift us up as a whole, and encourages newcomers into our hobby and keeps the existing ones who might otherwise leave from the negativity.

Let's ensure that our female friends and gamers feel a welcome part of the community!

navar100
2013-10-18, 12:41 PM
If we're going to feel offended for the sake of being offended . . .

I'm offended pronouns are almost always female.

I'm offended in 3E D&D there exists a plethora of female-only prestige classes but the one male-only prestige class is the Eunuch.

I'm offended whenever there's a matriarchal society in some DM's game it's always She-Woman Man Hater. I acknowledge Rashemen of Forgotten Realms isn't so bad.

I'm offended fluff text will discuss "sisterhoods" alone but never "brotherhoods" alone. It's always "brotherhood and sisterhood" or "brothers and sisters".

Studoku
2013-10-18, 12:42 PM
If we're going to feel offended for the sake of being offended . . .

I'm offended pronouns are almost always female.

I'm offended in 3E D&D there exists a plethora of female-only prestige classes but the one male-only prestige class is the Eunuch.

I'm offended whenever there's a matriarchal society in some DM's game it's always She-Woman Man Hater. I acknowledge Rashemen of Forgotten Realms isn't so bad.

I'm offended fluff text will discuss "sisterhoods" alone but never "brotherhoods" alone. It's always "brotherhood and sisterhood" or "brothers and sisters".
Double standards- twice as good as regular standards!

The Oni
2013-10-18, 01:18 PM
See, the thing about tabletop games (as opposed to video games) is that they're so *modular.* Unless you're running a game right out of the box and haven't read over the content, a tabletop game is only as sexist as you want it to be.

With the notable exception of Strength caps. Which I guess make sense in Victorian England but not any fantasy setting ever.

How do you guys feel about the Lashunta in Pathfinder, then?

Ylorch
2013-10-18, 01:24 PM
I'd avoid trying to discuss feminism on these forums, to stay on the safe side of the rules. Aside from that you do make some good points Libertad. It seems weird that with most of the top selling RPG's being as combat centric as they are, more hasn't been done to play with the idea of male disposability. When's the last time a module had a primarily female force of antagonists for you to defeat (that wasn't some absurd warrior society stereotype) and a vulnerable male prisoner to rescue?

Now that I think about it the Drow probably fit the bill with females taking on both gender roles, even if males are still fairly traditional in terms of gender role.

Rhynn
2013-10-18, 01:24 PM
I know it's pretty basic, but this is a subject where most people do not, in fact, have a working knowledge of the basics (although I find that a surprisingly large amount of feminists online think that everyone else does, or should have, even though it's something that's pretty hard to acquire unless you make a point of reading up on feminism).

As such, it might be useful to touch on basics like privilege (which is pretty essential, IMO, to explaining what the problem is with including rape in entertainment, e.g. the privilege of not taking it so seriously).


See, the thing about tabletop games (as opposed to video games) is that they're so *modular.* Unless you're running a game right out of the box and haven't read over the content, a tabletop game is only as sexist as you want it to be.

I think you're mixing definitions. A roleplaying game can mean the books containing the rules and settings, or the activity at the table. Both can feature sexist content, and you can't make the former less sexist without re-writing it. (And it's not the existence of a sexist book that's the problem, anyway; no single instance of problematic material is the issue, ever, it's the trends in media and culture.)

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 01:30 PM
Took me a while to grok what the Lewis Law was about, and then I laughed. Yes, it is remarkable how vitriolic opposition can get on the net. But it's not a problem particular to just women's rights. Internet is a cesspit, and any topic that can suffer from polarization will suffer from it.

A word about realism vs. sexism, though. There is a whole spectrum and stark difference between "women are at a disadvantage for strength-based tasks" and "women are invalid as warriors".

For example, in 1st Ed AD&D, it is very rare for *any* character to have a strength score of 18/50. A female character with such score, or 17, or even 16, is still is stronger than majority of male warriors.

More to the point, Dexterity, Constitution, attack tables and equipment are not penalized. A female character with non-ideal strength score can be an efficient knight in shining armor just by virtue of belonging to right character class.

The last debate on the subject took on comical shades because it simultaneosly acknowledged and ignored this fact. Some critics of such rules were quick to point out how "strength isn't that important anyway" and women in real life can be great fighters despite of observable, verifiable differences in physiology. But none of them really considered or examined whether this could hold true in context of games.

I think it is possible to give realistic or even exaggarated disincentive for female characters to become physical laborers, without simultaneously preventing female characters from assuming and being effective in such roles. Adhering to reality should not be held as negative, even when reality falls short of our fantasies. A game can include a horrifyingly sexist society, while still allowing for progressive, strong and positive female characters to be played in it.

Flat-out disallowing some roles because "women should stay in the kitchen, lol" is a far cry from "you can play this role effectively, just not maximally effective".

Likewise, singular rules should not be taken as strong indicators of anything. Noitahovi, a recent Finnish RPG, has the rule that men start with 1 point higher strength. But the whole setting revolves around women, and most notable characters (warriors included) are also women, because all major societies in the game are matriarchies.

It is fallacious to cry wolf because "my character idea is being invalidated!", if the idea actually is valid.

The Oni
2013-10-18, 01:50 PM
I think you're mixing definitions. A roleplaying game can mean the books containing the rules and settings, or the activity at the table. Both can feature sexist content, and you can't make the former less sexist without re-writing it. (And it's not the existence of a sexist book that's the problem, anyway; no single instance of problematic material is the issue, ever, it's the trends in media and culture.)

Well, I know, but one of the biggest draws of roleplaying is how customizable it is, y'know? So I feel like sexism in tabletop gaming is not so big a deal as sexism in video gaming.

If you think it's lousy that there are no female guards in, say, Magnimar (I don't know a thing about Magnimar I just know it's from Pathfinder) then all you have to do is say "GM Magic! Oh, look, now half the guards are female." Or all female, for that matter, if it strikes your fancy. Put on a husky warrior-lady voice and the problem is totally solved.

If you think it's lousy that there are no female marines in the early Halo games (I think they may have added some in the later games) then all you have to do is...uh...spend eight to ten months learning coding and modeling. Er...yeah.

Psyren
2013-10-18, 02:02 PM
A very well-written and well-sourced OP. The one thing I would like to add is the depiction of women in gaming art of any kind, from fantasy to sci-fi, and the "standard female pose" as discussed in detail by MovieBob. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4719-Gender-Games)

Bob's video deals more with video games but is applicable to any visual medium - and naturally, tabletop gaming has become in recent years a very visual medium, because high-quality art sells books.


And I'll end with this little gem:


What if the Male Avengers posed like Black Widow?

http://i.imgur.com/16yGO.jpg

Themrys
2013-10-18, 02:05 PM
Well, I know, but one of the biggest draws of roleplaying is how customizable it is, y'know? So I feel like sexism in tabletop gaming is not so big a deal as sexism in video gaming.

If you think it's lousy that there are no female guards in, say, Magnimar (I don't know a thing about Magnimar I just know it's from Pathfinder) then all you have to do is say "GM Magic! Oh, look, now half the guards are female." Or all female, for that matter, if it strikes your fancy. Put on a husky warrior-lady voice and the problem is totally solved.

If you think it's lousy that there are no female marines in the early Halo games (I think they may have added some in the later games) then all you have to do is...uh...spend eight to ten months learning coding and modeling. Er...yeah.


You're right ... but.
Most GMs are not that creative. They will use what they're given. A setting that is not sexist will give female players leverage to demand that there be no sexism, and take away any excuse to have sexism in the game because "It's part of the setting!"

Also, I do not want to buy sexist books. I just do not want to spend money on books with pictures of chainmail-bikini-clad damsels.
RGPs with sexist settings just do not appeal to me.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-10-18, 02:08 PM
Let's be clear about the problems of modern feminism:

1) "There are feminists out there who are very rude and lack tact", as you said. That's a personal issue, it isn't related to the validity of the ideology itself.

2) The kind of feminism that wishes to deconstruct gender. It's philosophically flawed, bad to politics and social movements because it's wasted energy in an (almost) irrelevant topic, and ultimately bad because while any kind of hard normativity can be uncomfortable or even downright oppresive, the problem isn't the gender binary and actually, the gender binary is positive for humankind. That's how gender feminism, as an ideology and as a political effort, is a problem.

Of course, I agree our society is still sexist, that there is sexism in our hobby and that feminist activists (from all ideological paths) do some really important and admirable work.

But somehow you just creditted all criticism to feminism to lack of common sense or sexism. Feminism is a political movement, acted by real people and it's unrealistic to imagine it wouldn't have it's own flaws and contradictions. But unfortunately, in modern feminism being defensive, paranoid and hostile when criticized isn't considered a bad conduct, but actually the best and most coherent way to go.

-----------------------------

I have not much to comment on the rest of OP because I agree with most of it.

There's much in the hobby that can make women uncomfortable. Most those things just shouldn't be there. For example, references to rape. Pew-pewing monsters is something we all do since we are kids, and it's not always related, in our symbolical comprehension, as violence, but as conquering challenges. But there's no way a player can see rape in such a distant, symbolical and ludical way. There's a reason it does not exist in fairy tales - it just kills the fantasy. And if a player is a survivor, a lot of inner distress will ensue if it is unsensitively mentioned.

Same goes with strenght. In average men are stronger, but PCs aren't the average.

However, there are some things can make a women uncomfortable during a session that I don't know how to easily fix. If I'm going for a more historical or pseudo-historical setting, there will be male dominance of such intensity that most female PCs would be restricted in one way or the other. Many homebuilders decided to leave it like that. What do you think of it?

oudeis
2013-10-18, 02:09 PM
Wasn't this very topic raised on ENWorld two days ago, using the exact same wording?

Why, Yes it was. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?346842-Sexism-in-Table-Top-Gaming-My-Thoughts-On-It-and-What-We-Can-Do-About-It)

Psyren
2013-10-18, 02:12 PM
Wasn't this very topic raised on ENWorld two days ago, using the exact same wording?

Why, Yes it was. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?346842-Sexism-in-Table-Top-Gaming-My-Thoughts-On-It-and-What-We-Can-Do-About-It)

By the same individual - it's a cross-post, nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of folks here who don't post on ENWorld (myself included.)

123456789blaaa
2013-10-18, 02:12 PM
Wasn't this very topic raised on ENWorld two days ago, using the exact same wording?

Why, Yes it was. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?346842-Sexism-in-Table-Top-Gaming-My-Thoughts-On-It-and-What-We-Can-Do-About-It)

Libertad has been going around and posting this topic on a bunch of different RPG forums. More exposure you know?

EDIT: Stupid psionic ninja's :smallyuk:.

Halna LeGavilk
2013-10-18, 02:13 PM
I'm sorry, but how is this any 'better' than discussing religion or politics? If we are allowed to discuss Feminism, why not Marxism? They aren't necessarily equivalent, but the premise behind the rule should still apply to Feminism.

Don't get me wrong, sexism in gaming is wrong. Sexism is bad, period, stop, end of story. If elements of your game are sexist, you should probably remove them. It's pretty simple. At the table? Simply DBAD: Don't Be A D(jerk).

But, seriously. In this forum, with the rules it has? This shouldn't be a topic. It is nominally about preventing sexism in tabletop RPGs, and that is good, but this thread will degenerate, and quickly.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-10-18, 02:16 PM
I'm sorry, but how is this any 'better' than discussing religion or politics? If we are allowed to discuss Feminism, why not Marxism? They aren't necessarily equivalent, but the premise behind the rule should still apply to Feminism.

Mods already have spoken: "go on, but please remember to agree with OP's ideology".

Segev
2013-10-18, 02:16 PM
And the thread has already veered a bit towards my favorite game: recast, without changing more than the barest bones necessary (e.g. names, a bit of how people dress, and if it comes up who's pregnant), an entire setting with inverted genders. Keep the dialog as identical as possible ("he" still becomes "she," and anything that would literally be nonsense coming out of a gender-swapped character's mouth needs to be altered fittingly), keep the events the same, and most importantly keep inter-character reactions the same.

The results are often interesting.

Most of Harriet Potter's stories remain similar to Harry's in tone as well as content. "The Girl Who Lived" is not really more jarring than "The Boy" or anything. The now-Mr. Weasely is a little odd, being a "matronly" overweight house-husband while the now-Mrs. Weasely is a bit of a head-in-the-clouds enthusiast for muggle artifacts who works at a stuffy little day job. Female!Hagrid is unusual, but workable.

The Veelas, on the other hand, bring some very interesting things with them. Beautiful men who (almost?) magically cause women who look at them to be befuddled and smitten, while their irritated boyfriends look on and take various actions to snap them out of it.

Some plots are not really workable with the swap. Queen Roberta Baratheon would hardly be able to have her beautiful blond Lannister husband pawn off the spawn of his incestuous relations with his sister Janie the Queenslayer as Roberta's children. Likewise, there wouldn't be bastards as easily sown about Roberta's kingdom that Royal Consort Ceril would want snuffed out to avoid threatening his own children's claims. But outside of such plots, the inversions often are quite doable and yet yield interesting results.

Heck, Teela Lannister, the ugly dwarf-girl hated by her mother and whose only protector is her older sister Janie, buying a (male) whore who calls her "his Giant of Lannister" is an entirely odd circumstance by our standards.

If you want to examine, for your own self, the "sexism" content of a game, you might try this on the setting as you plan to run it. See if anything that happens seems somehow less okay to you. Or if it seems MORE okay to you with the genders inverted.

Psyren
2013-10-18, 02:18 PM
EDIT: Stupid psionic ninja's :smallyuk:.

u got lurk'd m8 :smalltongue:


I'm sorry, but how is this any 'better' than discussing religion or politics? If we are allowed to discuss Feminism, why not Marxism? They aren't necessarily equivalent

You answered your own question.

(And specifically, the OP is debating sexism, not Feminism - the former is not a political movement or religion.)

SethoMarkus
2013-10-18, 02:18 PM
I just do not want to spend money on books with pictures of chainmail-bikini-clad damsels.

I would be completely fine with buying such an RPG book! Though, it better also include pictures of young adult male Greco-Roman wrestlers shirtless and oiled. It better include chainmail-speedos for the men as well as appropriate and realistically functional armor for both sexes. It better be a comedic and campy setting/system that is meant to poke fun at all stereotypes and tropes equally. That actually sounds like a lot of fun to me.

But no, simply put, I agree. Just because the individual DM has the authority to make changes to the setting does not give the game designers a free pass to put prejudiced/biased material in the setting in the first place.

Psyren
2013-10-18, 02:24 PM
I would be completely fine with buying such an RPG book! Though, it better also include pictures of young adult male Greco-Roman wrestlers shirtless and oiled. It better include chainmail-speedos for the men as well as appropriate and realistically functional armor for both sexes.

I'm okay with cheesecake too - but the problem is not the outfits, it's how the different genders are typically made to wear them/pose in them.

For example, compare this scantily-clad fantasy individual:

http://thefightingconnection.com/sites/default/files/styles/150x320/public/pictures/hong-yun-seong-soul-calibur-iv-picture.jpg

With this one:


http://cdn.staticneo.com/w/soulcalibur/thumb/c/cb/Ivy.jpg/250px-Ivy.jpg

The difference being that the former is posed to show youthful aggression or determination, while the latter is simply checking herself out in an invisible mirror off-frame and the pose tells us nothing about her character.

Halna LeGavilk
2013-10-18, 02:26 PM
You answered your own question.

(And specifically, the OP is debating sexism, not Feminism - the former is not a political movement or religion.)

You misunderstand my point. Feminism should be no more discussed than Marxism should because it invokes the same feelings and debate 'styles'. THAT is why Feminist discussions should not be allowed on this forum. And this is a Feminist discussion, as already confirmed by the mods.

And my point was less that the initial post was about feminism, but that it would start a discussion about and relating to Feminism. And the OP knew that, considering what happened on ENWorld.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 02:31 PM
I'm okay with cheesecake too - but the problem is not the outfits, it's how the different genders are typically made to wear them/pose in them.

For example, compare this scantily-clad fantasy individual:

http://thefightingconnection.com/sites/default/files/styles/150x320/public/pictures/hong-yun-seong-soul-calibur-iv-picture.jpg

With this one:


http://cdn.staticneo.com/w/soulcalibur/thumb/c/cb/Ivy.jpg/250px-Ivy.jpg

The difference being that the former is posed to show youthful aggression or determination, while the latter is simply checking herself out in an invisible mirror off-frame and the pose tells us nothing about her character.


Yup.

The books of my favorite rpg have, among others, a half-naked barbarian (female) in a natural pose, and a priest of the goddess of love (male) who is obviously shirtless to show off his beauty ... but still in a natural pose. They wouldn't look bad or strange with sexes reversed. Unless you think shirtless women are strange, that is.
(The older books are not as good, or so I have heard, but at the moment, that rpg really does welcome female buyers and players. Which is a wise decision ... I've always wondered why so many publishers don't want my money.)

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 02:41 PM
I bought Lamentations of the Flame Princess because of the cover art. Does that make me an awful person?:smallamused:

Also, Themrys, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts of my analysis of Legend of Zelda. You can find it under Media discussions. Feel free to give it a pass if the games are not familiar to you.

Agrippa
2013-10-18, 02:41 PM
Yup.

The books of my favorite rpg have, among others, a half-naked barbarian (female) in a natural pose, and a priest of the goddess of love (male) who is obviously shirtless to show off his beauty ... but still in a natural pose. They wouldn't look bad or strange with sexes reversed. Unless you think shirtless women are strange, that is.
(The older books are not as good, or so I have heard, but at the moment, that rpg really does welcome female buyers and players. Which is a wise decision ... I've always wondered why so many publishers don't want my money.)

Which RPG is this? I'm just curious.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 02:43 PM
Which RPG is this? I'm just curious.

"Das Schwarze Auge", translated into English as "The Dark Eye", although I heard the translation is incomplete and has not been continued.

Black Jester
2013-10-18, 02:43 PM
First of all, this is a very good post and comments on many things I consider to be relevant in a thoughtful and civilized manner. While I disagree in some points, I think that this post deserves nothing as much as respect and celebration. Therefore, you get one beagle of celebration.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4715/ml9k.png

That said, I have one point points where I mildly disagree:

The fact that rape is very often handled badly in fiction doesn't mean that it can't be handled appropriately and with all the respect it deserves. This is true for any medium and pretty much any genre. While I personally don't think that sexualized violence is something I could handle appropriately in a game (and that is pretty much my position on the issue) I think it is not valid to draw the conclusion of a total taboo out of it. That doesn't change that is much, much better to avoid the issue than to handle it badly.

Besides, it is a bit shortsighted to reduce sexual violence to something that happens to women; rape isn't any better if the victim happens to be a man, but that aspect is almost never mentioned at all or is seriously downplayed or worse, treated as a laughing matter. I am not trying to start a competition in victimization Olympics here; the point is, a very careful and, for the lack of a better word, reluctant approach to the depiction of rape in any medium, including RPGs, is not solely a matter of feminism, but of humanism in general.

The Oni
2013-10-18, 02:51 PM
while the latter is simply checking herself out in an invisible mirror off-frame and the pose tells us nothing about her character.

Not true. Her pose, much like her weapon, is sinuous and draws parallels to the serpent. The claws on her left hand gauntlet there are even posed in such a way that they serve as the fangs. This makes sense given her morally ambiguous (but not truly villainous) nature and the fact that she is "poisoned" by Soul Edge's evil energies running through her veins.

You might also be surprised to know, if you don't follow the Soul Series, that Ms. Fanservice there is voluntarily celibate, as she's terrified any child she might bear would have the same taint of Soul Edge - and it's implied that some her dominatrix tendencies when fighting, and her outfit, are a direct result of that frustration.

That said, that does NOT explain the completely ridiculous fighting poses/getups of some of the OTHER Soul Calibur cast (friggin' Sophitia) but Ivy's a lot deeper than people give her credit for.

GolemsVoice
2013-10-18, 02:51 PM
My first rule when it comes to gaming is, as other said, don't be a jerk. No matter your gender or sexual orientation, if you can roll the dice and communicate, and behave like a normal person, I'll include you in my game. I'll also make sure that content which makes you feel uncomfortable either does not come up, or is removed if we discover it during gaming. However, some elements might be so important to the game that it might be better if the offended person doesn't enter the game at all. I'm not talking about rape or sexism, of course, but rather violence, for example.

In settings, I'd discriminate between setting-internal sexism, and setting-external sexism. A game that is set in the Victorian time period or around the time WILL treat women differently than men. This is part of the time period and will mean that, likely, most of the important figures, and especially most of the fighting folk will be men. If you chose to play a woman despite knowing the disadvantages that might bring ingame, you have been warned. I'm surely not going to harass you every 10 minutes, but keep in mind that your character is the odd-woman-out. However, if it really makes you feel uncomfortable, I think I'd ignore that element of the setting, while maybe not generally changing it, I just won't mention it with your character.

The other is setting-external sexism. All important figures are men despite proclaimed equality between genders? Bikini armor? Yeah, that surely has no place in the setting and can be changed or removed anytime. When it comes to stats, yeah, genders sure are different, but in D&D, for example, +2 makes the difference between whole RACES, so I'm not going to slap a +/-1 on somebody just for playing another gender with a difference that is hard to squeeze into the few stats that most games have. As somebody else said, PCs are already extraordinary, and I'm surely not going to start with some doubtful realism where it's least needed.

EDIT: in the end, however, we're all playing a game, to have fun. If you feel the need to use the game as a personal vehicle for your chosen ideology (ANY ideology) and it ruins the fun for other players, I'll ask you to stop. We're playing D&D, not Ideology: The Listening.

AMFV
2013-10-18, 02:55 PM
First of all, this is a very good post and comments on many things I consider to be relevant in a thoughtful and civilized manner. While I disagree in some points, I think that this post deserves nothing as much as respect and celebration. Therefore, you get one beagle of celebration.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4715/ml9k.png

That said, I have one point points where I mildly disagree:

The fact that rape is very often handled badly in fiction doesn't mean that it can't be handled appropriately and with all the respect it deserves. This is true for any medium and pretty much any genre. While I personally don't think that sexualized violence is something I could handle appropriately in a game (and that is pretty much my position on the issue) I think it is not valid to draw the conclusion of a total taboo out of it. That doesn't change that is much, much better to avoid the issue than to handle it badly.

Besides, it is a bit shortsighted to reduce sexual violence to something that happens to women; rape isn't any better if the victim happens to be a man, but that aspect is almost never mentioned at all or is seriously downplayed or worse, treated as a laughing matter. I am not trying to start a competition in victimization Olympics here; the point is, a very careful and, for the lack of a better word, reluctant approach to the depiction of rape in any medium, including RPGs, is not solely a matter of feminism, but of humanism in general.

I concur, my viewpoint is that very few groups are mature enough to handle rape as a topic of conversation. I think that various groups can handle various levels of maturity. For example you could have a group that could view violence as something that's amusing, in that case sexual violence should never be discussed, because it is a potential landmine issue. A more mature group could deal with villains being involved in sexual violence or rape. And a group of the highest maturity could potentially deal with it being something that happens to or is caused by a player character. I think that could be a really fascinating role-playing challenge, although it would need to be handled carefully, I personally have never had a group where I would want to touch that topic.

AMFV
2013-10-18, 02:56 PM
My first rule when it comes to gaming is, as other said, don't be a jerk. No matter your gender or sexual orientation, if you can roll the dice and communicate, and behave like a normal person, I'll include you in my game. I'll also make sure that content which makes you feel uncomfortable either does not come up, or is removed if we discover it during gaming. However, some elements might be so important to the game that it might be better if the offended person doesn't enter the game at all. I'm not talking about rape or sexism, of course, but rather violence, for example.

In settings, I'd discriminate between setting-internal sexism, and setting-external sexism. A game that is set in the Victorian time period or around the time WILL treat women differently than men. This is part of the time period and will mean that, likely, most of the important figures, and especially most of the fighting folk will be men. If you chose to play a woman despite knowing the disadvantages that might bring ingame, you have been warned. I'm surely not going to harass you every 10 minutes, but keep in mind that your character is the odd-woman-out. However, if it really makes you feel uncomfortable, I think I'd ignore that element of the setting, while maybe not generally changing it, I just won't mention it with your character.

The other is setting-external sexism. All important figures are men despite proclaimed equality between genders? Bikini armor? Yeah, that surely has no place in the setting and can be changed or removed anytime. When it comes to stats, yeah, genders sure are different, but in D&D, for example, +2 makes the difference between whole RACES, so I'm not going to slap a +/-1 on somebody just for playing another gender with a difference that is hard to squeeze into the few stats that most games have. As somebody else said, PCs are already extraordinary, and I'm surely not going to start with some doubtful realism where it's least needed.

EDIT: in the end, however, we're all playing a game, to have fun. If you feel the need to use the game as a personal vehicle for your chosen ideology (ANY ideology) and it ruins the fun for other players, I'll ask you to stop. We're playing D&D, not Ideology: The Listening.


Ideology: The Listening sounds like a pretty awesome WoD type game though, that should definitely be something that's homebrewed at some point.

Psyren
2013-10-18, 02:58 PM
You misunderstand my point. Feminism should be no more discussed than Marxism should because it invokes the same feelings and debate 'styles'.

Which is probably why the voice of Mod chimed in to tell us "hey, these debates tend veer off topic and go down a certain road, so let's try to discuss the topic at hand and not do that." It may be difficult to confine the discussion to sexism without getting political, but I for one feel this is an important enough issue that it's worth trying. And if you don't believe you can do so, the simplest expedient is to hold your peace.



The fact that rape is very often handled badly in fiction doesn't mean that it can't be handled appropriately and with all the respect it deserves. This is true for any medium and pretty much any genre. While I personally don't think that sexualized violence is something I could handle appropriately in a game (and that is pretty much my position on the issue) I think it is not valid to draw the conclusion of a total taboo out of it. That doesn't change that is much, much better to avoid the issue than to handle it badly.

I absolutely agree that any subject can be handled in any medium. Games however have the additional hurdle of being interactive in a subject matter that already has a host of hurdles preventing it from being executed on properly; given how hard it is to cover/respect properly in non-interactive media, the best advice for most games may indeed be "avoid it."

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 03:08 PM
What about gallows humour? There are whole genres of comedy that are based on being contrary, intentionally disrespectfull of social norms and horrifying. Do we just throw the infant away with washing water, or add some cave-at or litmus test that comedy has to pass to be acceptable?

LibraryOgre
2013-10-18, 03:08 PM
Mods already have spoken: "go on, but please remember to agree with OP's ideology".


You misunderstand my point. Feminism should be no more discussed than Marxism should because it invokes the same feelings and debate 'styles'. THAT is why Feminist discussions should not be allowed on this forum. And this is a Feminist discussion, as already confirmed by the mods.

And my point was less that the initial post was about feminism, but that it would start a discussion about and relating to Feminism. And the OP knew that, considering what happened on ENWorld.

The Mod Wonder: Got a problem with it? Take it up with Roland. We (the Mods) have had this discussion, and we agree that addressing sexism in gaming is important and can be done appropriately and within the rules. If you don't want to discuss it, go elsewhere; if you want to argue it respectfully, whether you agree or not, stick around.

Short version (and out of mod voice): Marxism is an explicitly political and economic policy. While it might be applicable to specific games, it's generally best to avoid it. Sexism, however, is an endemic feature of gaming culture as a whole, and so can be appropriate for discussion if done respectfully. However, as Lewis's law points out, chance are, once you post something on sexism or feminism, you're going to get a wave of **** directed at you. Rape threats. Death threats. "This isn't important, why are we talking about this!" "You're trying to change us! If you don't like it go away!"

These are continuous and well documented; a suggestion "Maybe we should have a woman who wasn't queen on some part of the money" got the person advocating it hundreds of threats, some specific enough to warrant police action.

Why do I talk about sexism? Because I listened to someone talking about sexism and realized I was being a ****ing creep. And if I realized it from hearing good arguments, then maybe someone else will learn about it through good arguments. If gaming isn't packed with sexist jerks, there will be more people to play with, because people who hate sexist jerks will stop avoiding the hobby. If people don't get creepy comments (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/whats-the-creepiest-thing-someones-said-to-you-while-cosplay) when they cosplay, there will be more cosplayers because they feel comfortable.

Cutting out sexist bull**** aids everyone, including the vast majority of the people who currently engage in sexist bull****.


What about gallows humour? There are whole genres of comedy that are based on being contrary, intentionally disrespectfull of social norms and horrifying. Do we just throw the infant away with washing water, or add some cave-at or litmus test that comedy has to pass to be acceptable?

Good humor punches up. Rape jokes and sexist jokes are about punching down... taking a person who has no power and making fun of them. They are about reinforcing cultural norms, not about breaking taboos.

Psyren
2013-10-18, 03:12 PM
What about gallows humour? There are whole genres of comedy that are based on being contrary, intentionally disrespectfull of social norms and horrifying. Do we just throw the infant away with washing water, or add some cave-at or litmus test that comedy has to pass to be acceptable?

Well - the subjectivity of humor aside - games have the unique quality of being interactive that no other medium currently shares. So joking about rape "ironically" can be done, but again, it's much, much harder to pull it off in a participatory sense than in merely a demonstrative/broadcast sense.

AMFV
2013-10-18, 03:12 PM
What about gallows humour? There are whole genres of comedy that are based on being contrary, intentionally disrespectfull of social norms and horrifying. Do we just throw the infant away with washing water, or add some cave-at or litmus test that comedy has to pass to be acceptable?

You have to be really careful with black humor, I tend to be heavy with that in my groups, particularly because I developed a lot of humor things as a coping mechanism in Iraq. As such I don't always have the best filter. My rule of thumb is to stop if it bothers somebody, even if it's what I would consider a legitimate avenue of humor.

While I don't agree that "ideas shape thoughts", or the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis, I can understand that some people do, and continuing to get my enjoyment out of telling jokes that make them uncomfortable is enjoying somebody else's suffering and that's being a ****, at least in my book, and I try to avoid that.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 03:23 PM
@Mark Hall: Anita Sarkesiaan's video series on female unfriendly tropes in videogame plots is perhaps best example, especially since it's topical. D&D and videogames have a very strong connections, and since D&D is granddaddy and archetype of RPGs, there is a lot that is relevant for both types of games.

I found her arguments of misogyny somewhat dubious, but her commenters filled any holes in her logic with completely absurd and unashamed anger directed towards her.

Though I feel the causal link between game content and such misogyny is somewhat underexamined. A lot of things are claimed to be misogynist, and sure enough, if you look over your shoulder, there be the misogynists. But how does one lead to another?

navar100
2013-10-18, 03:26 PM
While obviously there are female players and DMs, it is not some crime against society that RPGs are a male-dominated genre. It's just something men and boys like to do more than women and girls.

The RPG session is our "poker night". "Male-bonding" is a thing. Men do behave differently with each other than they do when women are around. The reason is, contrary to feminist belief, men really do love and respect women. Men are on guard, so to speak, in their behavior with women around. However, they don't want to be on guard all the time.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 03:32 PM
While obviously there are female players and DMs, it is not some crime against society that RPGs are a male-dominated genre. It's just something men and boys like to do more than women and girls.


This is nonsense, and you know it.

If D&D is played by less women than men, then that's because the setting is sexist.

I have met as many women as men while looking for rpg groups. But I, as already mentioned, do not play D&D.


Your other sentence is nonsensical, too, but I won't comment on it, as I would have to cite real world politics to prove that you are completely, absolutely, ridiculously wrong.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-18, 03:32 PM
Sexism will be where ever you look. When you go looking for it, you will find it.

Instead of talking about it. Why doesn't anyone do anything about it?

I am of the mind, if you see it everywhere, your probably suffering from it. Like Homophobia. If you see sexist things in games, life and everything else. You should instead turn your inspections inwards, and instead ask yourself if you are the sexist. If you are the ones having problems with the gaming industry, then do something about it. Or to quote a mod, go somewhere else.

The Oni
2013-10-18, 03:34 PM
Anita Sarkesiaan's video series on female unfriendly tropes in videogame plots is perhaps best example, especially since it's topical. D&D and videogames have a very strong connections, and since D&D is granddaddy and archetype of RPGs, there is a lot that is relevant for both types of games.

I found her arguments of misogyny somewhat dubious, but her commenters filled any holes in her logic with completely absurd and unashamed anger directed towards her.

This, a thousand times this.

I watched Saarkesian's vids and she brings up some excellent points, while glossing over a lot of perfectly good justification for it and also bringing up a lot of unquestionable feminist gospel in place of actual arguments. But as usual, the Internet has no interest in critical analysis, so Saarkesian comes across as Lawful Whiny and her detractors Chaotic Stupid.

Yora
2013-10-18, 03:37 PM
The only thing that really bothers me is "female armor". I don't take objection to Sword & Sorcery slave girls, because those are cases in which the characters are supposed to be bigotted bastards. But heroines in chainmail bikinis are something we're supposed to cheer at, which I really don't feel good about.
I blame Larry Elmore. Even if he didn't invent the chainmail bikini, he certainly takes most of the blame for making it so common. Thankfully it seems to have almost disappeared in all RPG books I've seen in recent years.

That said, the image that got by far the most notes on D&D Demotivators (http://ddemotivators.tumblr.com/) is this one:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/3a77b7fad963305b013a57d0510442f5/tumblr_mf6ahoYLPJ1rv231do1_1280.jpg
There is still hope. :smallamused:

Themrys
2013-10-18, 03:39 PM
Cutting out sexist bull**** aids everyone, including the vast majority of the people who currently engage in sexist bull****.


I'm not so sure.

Already, some men here have made it clear that they don't actually want women to play rpgs. They want us to go somewhere else. They want their "poker night" to be free from girl-cooties.


Which is no reason to not fight sexist bull****, of course.

LibraryOgre
2013-10-18, 03:40 PM
Though I feel the causal link between game content and such misogyny is somewhat underexamined. A lot of things are claimed to be misogynist, and sure enough, if you look over your shoulder, there be the misogynists. But how does one lead to another?

I think it's reinforcing. Games tend to be sexist because culture tends to be sexist. Sexist games, however, reinforce the sexist element of game culture. When it's prevalent instead of heavily niche, it drives away non-sexists, reinforcing the sexist aspect of the culture.

I think one of the best antidotes to it is to create more work that is not sexist, and to call out sexism. That's already part of the rules here; slurs based on sex and gender identity get classified as hate speech; "You're a stupid jerk" gets a year-long flaming warning or infraction; "You're gay (and therefore bad)" can get you a permanent Hate Speech note on your account.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-18, 03:42 PM
No, Anita herself doesn't allow for any critical analysis. A lot of people have tried to debate with her, but she has disabled comments and, as far as I know, hasn't responded to anyone who genuinely wants to converse. Unless they agree with her Ideas.

Saying "If D&D is played by less women than men, then that's because the setting is sexist." That is a sexist attitude. There could be any number of reasons that D&D is played by women. Not just because the setting is Sexist. That's like saying, "If Hockey is played by less by Black people, then that's because the game is racist."

AMFV
2013-10-18, 03:43 PM
This is nonsense, and you know it.

If D&D is played by less women than men, then that's because the setting is sexist.

I have met as many women as men while looking for rpg groups. But I, as already mentioned, do not play D&D.


Your other sentence is nonsensical, too, but I won't comment on it, as I would have to cite real world politics to prove that you are completely, absolutely, ridiculously wrong.

That's not necessarily true, I've played in several games that were open to women, and generally there are fewer interested ladies. If this is because of societal pressures or preconceptions of gamers I don't know. Currently I'm DMing a game in college that was open to everybody out of 7 players there are two women, which is not bad, but it is worth noting that I doubt it's a sexist setting, it's more likely that out only 2/7 D&D players are ladies, which is okay, certain hobbies tend to attract certain folks, and societal backing and preconceptions insure that will happen.

There I've countered your anecdote with my own anecdote, so that makes us even as far as spreading unsourced and unvalidated material.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 03:43 PM
@Themrys: yes and no. Part of RPGs being male dominated is certainly due to hostile attitudes. But I don't think it's all. Traditional tabletop games are heavy on math, and despite systematic effort here in Finland to encourage girls to study it, majority of women still dislike it, and dislike it more than men.

In sharp contrast, Finnish live action roleplaying community has done away with numerical rules, and has problems attracting male players, with live action players being predominantly women.

The Oni
2013-10-18, 03:47 PM
I think it's reinforcing. Games tend to be sexist because culture tends to be sexist. Sexist games, however, reinforce the sexist element of game culture. When it's prevalent instead of heavily niche, it drives away non-sexists, reinforcing the sexist aspect of the culture.


This can be a problem in the fighting game community especially, where people tend to rage pretty hard when they're going head-to-head.

I remember distinctly a case where a fighting tournament led to spectator cries of, and I quote, "Rape that b*tch!" which led to a female competitor dropping with no notice and walking out the door. And really, there's a good chance that's a player who's never attending a major gaming tournament again.

In context it referred to the character on the screen, not the girl with the controller, and that's the defense one of the male players gave - but even out of context, something should tell you that there might be a problem with your game group's atmosphere? Even if no females are present, that is terrible sportsmanship.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 03:52 PM
@Themrys: yes and no. Part of RPGs being male dominated is certainly due to hostile attitudes. But I don't think it's all. Traditional tabletop games are heavy on math, and despite systematic effort here in Finland to encourage girls to study it, majority of women still dislike it, and dislike it more than men.

In sharp contrast, Finnish live action roleplaying community has done away with numerical rules, and has problems attracting male players, with live action players being predominantly women.


I am not convinced. The game I play is very, very heavy on math. It still attracts lots of female players. I admit that I happily ignore some of the more complicated rules, but there are male players who don't understand them, so that's not gender-related.
(There are male players who studied maths and still can't make sense of the rules for certain details. It's that complicated. However, you can play the game just fine if you're capable of multiplication and division, which is basic maths.)

German live action roleplaying, too, has largely done away with numerical rules, in favour of "you can do what you can do, or convince others you can do" and there are enough men. There are enough women, too. I'm not sure what happens in Finland ... but I don't think its due to a lack of maths.
(I don't know any rules for live action roleplaying that were more complicated than adding up figures, though. Maybe some multiplication is involved, somewhere, but that's it.)

AMFV
2013-10-18, 03:55 PM
I am not convinced. The game I play is very, very heavy on math. It still attracts lots of female players. I admit that I happily ignore some of the more complicated rules, but there are male players who don't understand them, so that's not gender-related.
(There are male players who studied maths and still can't make sense of the rules for certain details. It's that complicated.)

German live action roleplaying, too, has largely done away with numerical rules, in favour of "you can do what you can do, or convince others you can do" and there are enough men. There are enough women, too. I'm not sure what happens in Finland ... but I don't think its due to a lack of maths.

I don't think the statement was so much "Women are worse at math", rather it was "statistically women enjoy doing complicated math less". Which is true, several PhDs at my school in the Math Department are women, but they are far outnumbered by men, now this isn't a statement about capability but rather interest, and there is quite an interest in studying this sort of phenomenon in gender studies right now, as the cause of it isn't exactly known.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-18, 03:59 PM
I really don't see what all this talk about sexism and the female games. Most gamers I know, want women to play. When they play they don't belittle them or make fun of them, quite the contrary. The woman in question usually comments about how geeky she is for playing. When they make female characters, no one forces them to wear "bikini" Chainmail. No one describes them in any sexualized manner, again, it's usually the woman that give their characters Hyper sexualized characteristics. If anything, my players tend to go over the armor list and try to put as much armor on them as possible, it's usually the female that wants to wear armor that looks sexy. -_o

Arcane_Snowman
2013-10-18, 03:59 PM
I think it's also got a lot to do with exposure, TTRPing has still got attached to it a lot of the social stigma that it garnered earlier in it's early inception. Even more so than computer games I think. The stereotype that is evoked when you say "I play tabletop roleplaying games" (if people even get what that means, more than often I've had to say "I play D&D" even though I don't, it's in some cases become synonymous with the hobby) is profoundly negative and male-centric. This negative sterotype makes it difficult for anyone to both take the mode of play seriously, or get any kind of interest. Perhaps even more so for women.

Emmerask
2013-10-18, 04:01 PM
I am not convinced. The game I play is very, very heavy on math. It still attracts lots of female players.

But this also renders you argument that females dont play d&d because the settings are sexist rather moot...

The Dark Eye setting features such places as Andergast which is gender inequality^10.
The whole southern part of the continent is also pretty sexist tbh.
Yes it does have gender equality in the middle realm but I am sure d&d settings also have such realms (I am not an expert on Faerun etc^^)

In the end it completely depends on the dm not the system.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 04:01 PM
I don't think the statement was so much "Women are worse at math", rather it was "statistically women enjoy doing complicated math less". Which is true, several PhDs at my school in the Math Department are women, but they are far outnumbered by men, now this isn't a statement about capability but rather interest, and there is quite an interest in studying this sort of phenomenon in gender studies right now, as the cause of it isn't exactly known.

I have not yet encountered any rpg rules system where something more complicated than primary school maths was required.

Still, as I said, the system I play is very heavy on maths, and whether women enjoy that aspect or not, we do play the game. Which is why I strongly suspect that the lack of female players in other game systems is due to something else than maths, complicated or not complicated.

@Emmerask: I will reply to your post only because other players might want to know.

Andergast is a little country that is known to be backwards. The main place where adventures take place, namely the Europe-equivalent, it gender-equal. In the South, only the Novadi are strongly misogynist.
The Amazons, on the other hand, are a women-only tribe and are, as opposed to Drow, portrayed as good, if not nice.

And, as I said, while parts of the setting are misogynist, the game, as such, is not. The game mechanics are not, and the more recent books are not. This may not have been the case when the game system was invented, but it is the case now, and it is one of the reasons why I haven't bothered to look for a new rpg system, as I might otherwise have done.

The Oni
2013-10-18, 04:01 PM
For what it's worth, the most active female player at the game shop I attend plays Pathfinder @ PFS but prefers Nobilis, where there are no dice and it's very roleplay heavy. Again, saying "women don't enjoy math" is definitely a generalization but that does not mean that it is not in general true; the fact that there are women with degrees in advanced mathematics does not change the preference of the general population.

Segev
2013-10-18, 04:02 PM
Girls - as a general rule - and boys - as a general rule - do have distinct differences in their likes and dislikes. It is not purely cultural. That doesn't mean there aren't girls who love Nascar and Transformers and boys who would happily have a tea party with Barbie dolls, but it is not "just sexist culture" that makes that unusual. Boys and girls, like men and women, are different.

Failure to acknowledge that is only going to cause misery and disappointment.

Note: I make no statement as to one being "better" than the other. I don't judge any who have preferences that are more in line with the other gender's stereotypes. But I do take exception to the claim that anything that attracts men more than it attracts women is "sexist." If your definition of "sexist" extends so far that it's a by-definition thing, then your definition of "sexist" is baselessly derrogatory. "Sexism" is generally considered (and, when defined properly, rightfully so) an ugly thing, something to be remedied.

Therefore, if "G.I. Joe" is sexist just because more boys like it than do girls, that declaration implies it must be altered so it attracts both equally. This is a huge disservice to boys, because again, boys and girls are different. Similarly, if Project Runway is sexist just because more women than men enjoy it, that declaration implies it must be changed to be more appealing to men. That would be a huge disservice to its fans.

Attempts to make everything "appeal equally" grotesquely diminish our culture. Worse, the trend seems to be that G.I. Joe would be called out as needing to change, while men need to be encouraged/coerced/told they're evil sexists until they watch Project Runway as much as do women.

That is: the current trends of "remedying sexism" tend to not only take the notion that all things must appeal equally to men and to women, but to always paint the male half of that equation as the one at fault. If men like it disproportionately, then it must be changed because it's sexist towards women. If women like it disproportionately, then men themselves need to be changed because the fact they don't like it means they're evil sexists.

I think, too, this is why you get such vehement "proof that feminism is needed" when the topic comes up. Most people on the internet will simply react with extreme vitriol when they see something they disagree with. It's true of all positions. Since - usually - feminism either does or appears to attack men as if the whole sex were "always chaotic evil" unless a given member begs forgiveness by agreeing on all fronts, there are plenty who are insulted by it and thus react in ways that "prove" the feminist's point.

That I can do much the same - bring up anti-feminism (not anti-womanhood) - and get a bunch of militant feminists rabidly attacking me as a horrible sexist monster just proves the Mod's opening point is true in both directions: my claim that the feminist movement engenders monstrous anti-male behavior would be "proven" by the misogynistic responses I'd get.

There is a lot of good that comes from being more aware of sexist attitudes and trying to avoid them. But it cuts both ways, and the idea that it's only the male half of the species that is sexist is, itself, sexist. And it leads to a rather revolting manifestation of misandry, since it means that no matter what a guy does, he's the bad guy, unless he stops acting in any way like a guy.

Which is toxic to a male's psyche every bit as much as insisting a woman start acting like a man is to a woman's.

Because, to wrap this up: Men and women are, in fact, different.

Emmerask
2013-10-18, 04:10 PM
And, as I said, while parts of the setting are misogynist, the game, as such, is not. The game mechanics are not, and the more recent books are not.

But d&d as a whole is also gender equal (except for some prestige classes), at least I do not know about any race that gets different stats based on gender?

To me it seems unlikely that its because of the settings that there are fewer female players... why there are fewer however I have no idea.

Spiryt
2013-10-18, 04:11 PM
Girls - as a general rule - and boys - as a general rule - do have distinct differences in their likes and dislikes. It is not purely cultural. That doesn't mean there aren't girls who love Nascar and Transformers and boys who would happily have a tea party with Barbie dolls, but it is not "just sexist culture" that makes that unusual. Boys and girls, like men and women, are different.

Failure to acknowledge that is only going to cause misery and disappointment.

Note: I make no statement as to one being "better" than the other. I don't judge any who have preferences that are more in line with the other gender's stereotypes. But I do take exception to the claim that anything that attracts men more than it attracts women is "sexist." If your definition of "sexist" extends so far that it's a by-definition thing, then your definition of "sexist" is baselessly derrogatory. "Sexism" is generally considered (and, when defined properly, rightfully so) an ugly thing, something to be remedied.

(cut)



There is a lot of good that comes from being more aware of sexist attitudes and trying to avoid them. But it cuts both ways, and the idea that it's only the male half of the species that is sexist is, itself, sexist. And it leads to a rather revolting manifestation of misogyny, since it means that no matter what a guy does, he's the bad guy, unless he stops acting in any way like a guy.

Which is toxic to a male's psyche every bit as much as insisting a woman start acting like a man is to a woman's.

Because, to wrap this up: Men and women are, in fact, different.

Pretty good post.

Obviously, forcing someone to like/do something 'equally' can be ever worse constrain than forbidding someone from doing it...

If sexist elements, atmosphere, players, general ideas at the table - are resulting in, say, 8/2 men/women ratio - then said sexist thins should obviously be eliminated if possible.

If there are no such things, and there's still are many more men - then there are some other reasons. Girls in that place are not interested in RPG, because they don't, and there's no much to do about it.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-18, 04:12 PM
I think somewhere, the Drow where divided by gender. I think it was some aspect of forgotten realms.

Oko and Qailee
2013-10-18, 04:22 PM
This is nonsense, and you know it.

If D&D is played by less women than men, then that's because the setting is sexist.


I don't think it's solely that. I have invited multiple female and male friends to join my first D&D campaign (all from the same pool of friends, all with VERY similar viewpoints on sexism (aka. It's wrong)), they know very well that I'm pretty open to equality for both sexes (not just women, not just men, but BOTH). Despite the fact that my campaign is very even in terms of Male/Female roles (There are both house dads and house moms, and independent women and independent men), only 1 female friend has expressed interest, and 3 male. All of these friends of mine have never been exposed to a source book or anything, so the only knowledge they had of D&D was "Hey <my name> is starting some role playing game where we pretend to be a bunch of characters and we use our imagination to do whatever we want ." All they knew about D&D was that it was sterotyped as nerdy.


It is more likely (from my experience) for female to see these kind of things as taboo.

Note, NONE of this justifies sexism in D&D AT ALL. I think boob plate, strength caps, etc are all stupid, pointless ideas, that do nothing productive or bring much actually enjoyable to a campaign. I'm merely pointing out that "sexism" isn't the only thing keeping women from tabletop games.

LibraryOgre
2013-10-18, 04:27 PM
I really don't see what all this talk about sexism and the female games. Most gamers I know, want women to play. When they play they don't belittle them or make fun of them, quite the contrary. The woman in question usually comments about how geeky she is for playing. When they make female characters, no one forces them to wear "bikini" Chainmail. No one describes them in any sexualized manner, again, it's usually the woman that give their characters Hyper sexualized characteristics. If anything, my players tend to go over the armor list and try to put as much armor on them as possible, it's usually the female that wants to wear armor that looks sexy. -_o

Yes, but then you have groups where women have reported far different attitudes, and their stories are also valid. You have books where the art turns distinctly cheesecakey.

Iconic fighter in Pathfinder, who presents male?
http://paizo.com/image/product/secondary/Pathfinder/Pathfinder1_Fighter.jpg

Not much protection at the elbows, but that's generally a good idea for what looks like light-medium armor.

Iconic barbarian, who presents female?
http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Amiri.jpg

This little number says "I enjoy long walks on the beach and being eviscerated." I see that and all I can think is:

http://tamrielfoundry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Skimpy-Armor-Regret-Decision.jpg

Iconic wizard?

http://www.cowell.org/~andy/export/250px-Ezren.jpg

"A place for everything and everything in its place."

Iconic Sorcerer?

http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pathfinder2_Sorceress03.jpg

"Help! I don't know how clothing works!"

This says nothing of the many cases (especially in video games) where male armor is reasonable, and women's armor has boob windows (or boobplate, for that matter).

Let's take a look at what I consider my favorite D&D image of all time, from the opening of the 2nd edition Player's Handbook:

http://larryelmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DRAGON_S.jpg

Now, take a look at that image. You've got 5 people; 3 men, 2 women. One woman is lightly dressed, in a short skirt, even, but we might assume, from the game context, that she may be a thief, mage/thief, fighter/thief, or fighter/mage (given her elf ears). The other woman? She's in a breastplate... no leg coverings but, then, no one has leg armor to speak of. Her breastplate armor has no boob-plate. It is a piece of steel designed to keep dragon claws away from her innards.

How we show people matters (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/). There's nothing wrong with sexy, unless sexy is the only thing shown.

These things contribute to a hostile environment. It contributes to showing women as ornamentation. And while your group may not engage in it, I have heard it plenty of times from other gamers... especially when the group starts all-male and becomes a "boys night" sort of thing.

Agincourt
2013-10-18, 04:28 PM
Segev, you have become one of my favorite posters.

I'd just like to add, I am not sure why there are fewer female players of table top RPGs. I'm open to the idea that most RPGs are sexist, but I'd need to see more evidence. The fact fewer women play is not sufficient proof of its sexism.

I do find the prevalence of bikini-mail to be off-putting for me as it detracts from submersion and verisimilitude. I can easily see how a woman would find it off-putting as well. Could that factor alone turn women off? Somehow I doubt it. I've offered to teach several past girlfriends about RPGs, they have all turned me down, and not one has cited bikini-mail as a reason. That's not something that the general public seems to know about.

Libertad
2013-10-18, 04:30 PM
If we're going to feel offended for the sake of being offended . . .

I'm offended pronouns are almost always female.

I'm offended in 3E D&D there exists a plethora of female-only prestige classes but the one male-only prestige class is the Eunuch.

I'm offended whenever there's a matriarchal society in some DM's game it's always She-Woman Man Hater. I acknowledge Rashemen of Forgotten Realms isn't so bad.

I'm offended fluff text will discuss "sisterhoods" alone but never "brotherhoods" alone. It's always "brotherhood and sisterhood" or "brothers and sisters".

In 3rd Edition D&D they alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns. In previous Editions they were almost always masculine.

Additionally, the fact that the most prominent matriarchal societies tends towards that stereotype is part of the problem.


A very well-written and well-sourced OP. The one thing I would like to add is the depiction of women in gaming art of any kind, from fantasy to sci-fi, and the "standard female pose" as discussed in detail by MovieBob. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4719-Gender-Games)

Bob's video deals more with video games but is applicable to any visual medium - and naturally, tabletop gaming has become in recent years a very visual medium, because high-quality art sells books.


And I'll end with this little gem:


What if the Male Avengers posed like Black Widow?

http://i.imgur.com/16yGO.jpg

I considered discussing stripperific armor, spine-bending poses, and the male gaze, but I felt that my essay was getting long enough and so I decided to focus on what I already wrote.


I bought Lamentations of the Flame Princess because of the cover art. Does that make me an awful person?:smallamused:

Nope, you can still enjoy material with problematic elements. The best course of action is not to belittle and deflect concerns of said elements when expressed by others.


First of all, this is a very good post and comments on many things I consider to be relevant in a thoughtful and civilized manner. While I disagree in some points, I think that this post deserves nothing as much as respect and celebration. Therefore, you get one beagle of celebration.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4715/ml9k.png

That said, I have one point points where I mildly disagree:

The fact that rape is very often handled badly in fiction doesn't mean that it can't be handled appropriately and with all the respect it deserves. This is true for any medium and pretty much any genre. While I personally don't think that sexualized violence is something I could handle appropriately in a game (and that is pretty much my position on the issue) I think it is not valid to draw the conclusion of a total taboo out of it. That doesn't change that is much, much better to avoid the issue than to handle it badly.

Besides, it is a bit shortsighted to reduce sexual violence to something that happens to women; rape isn't any better if the victim happens to be a man, but that aspect is almost never mentioned at all or is seriously downplayed or worse, treated as a laughing matter. I am not trying to start a competition in victimization Olympics here; the point is, a very careful and, for the lack of a better word, reluctant approach to the depiction of rape in any medium, including RPGs, is not solely a matter of feminism, but of humanism in general.

While rape is something which affects women on a much more frequent basis, I brought up that male rape victims suffer a lot, too. Even if the gaming table is all-male, there's a sizable chance that one of the players might have been directly or indirectly affected by rape.

In fact, 1 in 6 males have been sexually abused by age 18, so when it comes to gaming sessions you should err on the side of caution no matter the gender make-up of the group. (https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/)

Themrys
2013-10-18, 04:34 PM
I don't think it's solely that. I have invited multiple female and male friends to join my first D&D campaign (all from the same pool of friends, all with VERY similar viewpoints on sexism (aka. It's wrong)), they know very well that I'm pretty open to equality for both sexes (not just women, not just men, but BOTH). Despite the fact that my campaign is very even in terms of Male/Female roles (There are both house dads and house moms, and independent women and independent men), only 1 female friend has expressed interest, and 3 male. All of these friends of mine have never been exposed to a source book or anything, so the only knowledge they had of D&D was "Hey <my name> is starting some role playing game where we pretend to be a bunch of characters and we use our imagination to do whatever we want ." All they knew about D&D was that it was sterotyped as nerdy.


It is more likely (from my experience) for female to see these kind of things as taboo.

Note, NONE of this justifies sexism in D&D AT ALL. I think boob plate, strength caps, etc are all stupid, pointless ideas, that do nothing productive or bring much actually enjoyable to a campaign. I'm merely pointing out that "sexism" isn't the only thing keeping women from tabletop games.


Well, I do not know what your friends did know about D&D, but they might have seen some connection to computer games, which are even more sexist in their portrayal of women. (And due to internet advertising, there is no way anyone would not be aware of this)
People often make decisions based on steretypes they have internalized, but aren't even aware of.

The idea that playing D&D is too "boyish" might turn women off, too. That's not in-game-sexism, but still sexism. The typical nerd is male, after all ...

Of course, it could also depend on the country where you live how rpg is viewed ... I guess I could ask some people how many women play D&D in Germany.

Someone ought to make a proper scientific study of this. :smallwink:

GolemsVoice
2013-10-18, 04:46 PM
The idea that playing D&D is too "boyish" might turn women off, too. That's not in-game-sexism, but still sexism. The typical nerd is male, after all ...

But isn't that sexism against me? The idea that "boyish" is "bad"? I mean, yeah, the idea that women shouldn't do "male" things is a thing, too, and still very much present in our society, but I couldn't help but notice that.

It's also kind of a vicious cycle: a thing is seen as too boyish, therefore less women play it, therefore it is seen as too boyish...

Themrys
2013-10-18, 05:02 PM
But isn't that sexism against me? The idea that "boyish" is "bad"? I mean, yeah, the idea that women shouldn't do "male" things is a thing, too, and still very much present in our society, but I couldn't help but notice that.

It's also kind of a vicious cycle: a thing is seen as too boyish, therefore less women play it, therefore it is seen as too boyish...

Well, men do not usually suffer as much from negative stereotypes being applied to them as women do.

Here, it is explained how sitcom men are horrible, but still loved: http://www.shakesville.com/2013/10/on-telly.html

Women might fear that, if they're "too nerdy" or whatever other negative stereotype there is, no man will ever love them, while men are reassured by sitcoms and the like, that no matter how they behave, women will still love them.



The vicious cycle seems to be largely broken in Germany, as I already mentioned. The last time I met more men than women in a gaming community was at the meeting of an internet forum, and that was more than ten years ago. Things have probably changed in the meantime.

BRC
2013-10-18, 05:03 PM
Girls - as a general rule - and boys - as a general rule - do have distinct differences in their likes and dislikes. It is not purely cultural. That doesn't mean there aren't girls who love Nascar and Transformers and boys who would happily have a tea party with Barbie dolls, but it is not "just sexist culture" that makes that unusual. Boys and girls, like men and women, are different.

Failure to acknowledge that is only going to cause misery and disappointment.

Even if this is true, and I'm not sure it is (But I'm not going to argue that), I think it's better to assume it's NOT true.

Lets say that girls generally prefer to play with barbies and boys generally prefer to play with GI Joes.

However, people are individuals, NOT representations of a statistical likelyhood. If 10% of Girls prefer GI Joe over Barbie, then you don't dismiss the possibility that a girl may like GI Joe.

That said, I do not believe that the solution is to make everything equally appeal to both genders. If a girl like GI Joe, she likes that because it's GI Joe. If you make GI Joe more like Barbie, then you are eliminating the reasons both Girls and Boys like it.

The solution is to keep what makes the product good, but AVOID making it hostile to people of the other gender. This may mean increasing representation, but modifying the core of the product in the interests of appealing to both genders is sexist in of itself.

The goal shouldn't be to sell GI Joe to Boys, or to Girls, it should be to sell GI Joe to kids who like GI Joe regardless of gender. There is a big difference between somthing not being built to appeal to a group, and somthing that is actively HOSTILE to a group.
GI Joe is targeted towards Boys, but it is not activly hostile towards girls.

The real issue is hostility, wherein certain things DO make the experience actively hostile towards women. For example, if a DM says "No female characters in my game can have over 16 strength" he is making his game hostile towards women, he is punishing them for their gender and telling them that they are not welcome here.

That said there is one form of passive hostility: a lack of representation. This is a little bit of a gray area, but there is a point where a lack of representation can constitute hostility. There exists a line seperating "We happen to have an all-male cast" and "Every character is male, women are not welcome here", or "Women exist, but only to serve as sexual objects, hostages, or jokes". That line is hard to pin down, and can shift wildly, but it exists.



That is: the current trends of "remedying sexism" tend to not only take the notion that all things must appeal equally to men and to women, but to always paint the male half of that equation as the one at fault. If men like it disproportionately, then it must be changed because it's sexist towards women. If women like it disproportionately, then men themselves need to be changed because the fact they don't like it means they're evil sexists.

I have personally never seen this. I move in the same circles as a lot of internet feminists, but I have never once seen anybody accuse somthing of being sexist because it was not built to appeal to both genders.

What I HAVE seen is people railing against shaming people for consuming products not targeted at their gender. The idea that because MOST Call of Duty players are male, women should not play Call of Duty. The result being that anytime a woman tries to play Call of Duty she is met with scorn. Game Store Clerks insisting that she must be buying it for her boyfriend, gamers online harassing her or insisting that she must be bad at the game simply because of her gender. The problem is not that Call of Duty is delivering an experience that traditionally appeals to male gamers, the problem is people who take this to mean that it is ONLY for male gamers.

So no, failure to acknowledge the difference between boys and girls will not lead to failure and misery, because people are individuals, not manifestations of statistical likelyhoods. INSISTING that because most boys like X and most girls like Y ALL boys like X but not Y and ALL girls like Y buy not X WILL lead to failure and misery.

The solution is not to make things designed to "Appeal to All Genders", the solution is to make GOOD THINGS, and then accept everybody it appeals to.

Representation is important because so much of society is sexist. Having every sample hero in your RPG be male would not be a problem in a vaccum. However, we live in a society where many people think that tabletop games are a hobby that should be exclusivly male, and by making all your sample heroes male you are reinforcing that, even if you do not intend to. Including diversity is a game designers way of saying "Yes, you too can enjoy this thing". It is sad that it needs to be said, but in many cases it does.

Plus, the idea that having gender diversity, or a lack of sexism, in your game will make your product unpalatable to males is in itself sexist, since it assumes that men are inheriently sexist and will only purchase somthing that reinforces their sexism.

Poison_Fish
2013-10-18, 05:19 PM
Girls - as a general rule - and boys - as a general rule - do have distinct differences in their likes and dislikes. It is not purely cultural. That doesn't mean there aren't girls who love Nascar and Transformers and boys who would happily have a tea party with Barbie dolls, but it is not "just sexist culture" that makes that unusual. Boys and girls, like men and women, are different.

Failure to acknowledge that is only going to cause misery and disappointment.

You will likely find more variation in likes and dislikes of those from different professions, class, or other groupings. The 'difference' is insignificant. So, you can drop the theatrics.

GolemsVoice
2013-10-18, 05:25 PM
Well, men do not usually suffer as much from negative stereotypes being applied to them as women do.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist. They are negative stereotype, too. I mean, look at how often "nerd" is used as either the role of the loser or comedic relief or as something to overcome.


Women might fear that, if they're "too nerdy" or whatever other negative stereotype there is, no man will ever love them, while men are reassured by sitcoms and the like, that no matter how they behave, women will still love them.

I don't know, that seems a bit too easy. If women see something as bad because it involves men, it's society's (men's) fault.




The vicious cycle seems to be largely broken in Germany, as I already mentioned. The last time I met more men than women in a gaming community was at the meeting of an internet forum, and that was more than ten years ago. Things have probably changed in the meantime.

Anecdote against anecdote, I'm German too, and our groups are still mostly men. However, I'd be the first to welcome more girls roleplaying. The more roleplayers, the better, and I think if companies had to accept that women are just as much a target for their products as men, some things will change.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-18, 05:25 PM
No, the difference becomes more important. His argument becomes more valid. Instead of just two groups of people.. It becomes, potentially, infinitely more varied. So then why should everyone be held to the sexist ideal of feminism?

BRC
2013-10-18, 05:30 PM
No, the difference becomes more important. His argument becomes more valid. Instead of just two groups of people.. It becomes, potentially, infinitely more varied. So then why should everyone be held to the sexist ideal of feminism?

Feminism is the idea that people should be treated equally regardless of gender. The name is somewhat misleading in that regard, but society considers male the default, so the feminist movement has generally been about elevating women to equal status.
Of course there are as many definitions of feminism as there are feminists, but the idea that gender itself must be erased is very rare.
It is only a sexist ideal if you assume that one gender must be oppressed in orde for them to be equal.

Poison_Fish
2013-10-18, 05:31 PM
No, the difference becomes more important. His argument becomes more valid. Instead of just two groups of people.. It becomes, potentially, infinitely more varied. So then why should everyone be held to the sexist ideal of feminism?

If you want to go down the biotruther path and attempt to explain why preferences are not culturally created, but must have 'something else' (subtext: biology), you are welcome to. But you'll be mocked and have no grounding.

Also, this Feminism you speak of sounds suspiciously like the straw feminism mentioned in Libertad's first post.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-18, 05:35 PM
I am saying, that there are hundreds of reasons why things are the way they are. Sexist people try to reduce everything to a Male > Female standpoint.

Studoku
2013-10-18, 05:54 PM
I think somewhere, the Drow where divided by gender. I think it was some aspect of forgotten realms.
The Forgotten Realms drow are pretty much the baseline for drow in all D&D settings, mostly thanks to R.A. Salvatore.

I've played in underdark games where the drow keep showing up and it's interesting to see sexism taken to such an extreme. I've never been on the receiving end of it as a player but I would not object to a chance to play in a drow campaign. Nor would I object to a DM choosing to run one; though if a guy felt uncomfortable playing such a game that's his decision.

I did find myself a little uncomfortable during the Underdark segment of Baldur's Gate II where
If the protagonist is male, they are essentially raped by Phaere.
Am I the only one?

Black Jester
2013-10-18, 06:00 PM
I am not convinced that it is a good idea to mixing up ingame sexism and sexism as a part of the metagame, or player attitude for instance artwork or the attitude towards female gamers. These are two different issues, with the latter being an actual problem as it concerns real people, and the former being primarily a part of a fictional world which only affects fictional characters. On its own, any ingame genre convention is basically neutral; it changes its role with the attitude of the depiction. The relevant issue is, what you make of it; sometimes opposition to conquer is a god way to handle this.

tomandtish
2013-10-18, 06:08 PM
I'm okay with cheesecake too - but the problem is not the outfits, it's how the different genders are typically made to wear them/pose in them.

For example, compare this scantily-clad fantasy individual:

http://thefightingconnection.com/sites/default/files/styles/150x320/public/pictures/hong-yun-seong-soul-calibur-iv-picture.jpg

With this one:


http://cdn.staticneo.com/w/soulcalibur/thumb/c/cb/Ivy.jpg/250px-Ivy.jpg

The difference being that the former is posed to show youthful aggression or determination, while the latter is simply checking herself out in an invisible mirror off-frame and the pose tells us nothing about her character.

Let’s assume no magic is involved in either character’s outfit.

Our male character shown above is wearing a reasonably sensible pair of pants. His legs are reasonably protected from scratches from underbrush, etc. The boots look reasonable. Throw a shirt on and he’s ready to go.

Our female character is a different story. Proportionately much more exposed skin, so scratches will be an issue. No under support so rapid movement will be an issue (actually, between the boots and the top I see no way to run in that outfit without risking significant injury, and combat would be a definite no no). The various straps actually make grappling easier, not harder. Except for her armor on her arm, none of it is practical, but would actually seem to hinder her.

So we have one character who wears clothes that (while incomplete) are reasonably sensible, and another who wears clothes that seem primarily designed to allow opponents a +10 circumstance bonus to the maneuver Grapple: Wedgie.

Yeah, there’s a problem with the garb as normally presented and it’s not just how they pose them (although that certainly doesn’t help).

navar100
2013-10-18, 06:12 PM
{{scrubbed}}

BRC
2013-10-18, 06:15 PM
I am saying, that there are hundreds of reasons why things are the way they are. Sexist people try to reduce everything to a Male > Female standpoint.
Are you saying that Sexists (in this case misogynists) reduce the incredibly complex history of gender and society with its countless factors to "Male > Female", or are you saying that Feminists are the ones reducing that complex history?
I'm something of a history nerd, and let me say, screw history. What made sense in 1413 may very well be irrelevant in 2013. Back then the best soldier was the one best able to swing a sword, now its whoever is best able to shoot a gun.


The Forgotten Realms drow are pretty much the baseline for drow in all D&D settings, mostly thanks to R.A. Salvatore.

I've played in underdark games where the drow keep showing up and it's interesting to see sexism taken to such an extreme. I've never been on the receiving end of it as a player but I would not object to a chance to play in a drow campaign. Nor would I object to a DM choosing to run one; though if a guy felt uncomfortable playing such a game that's his decision.

I did find myself a little uncomfortable during the Underdark segment of Baldur's Gate II where
If the protagonist is male, they are essentially raped by Phaere.
Am I the only one?
As you should feel uncomfortable.

That said, In-universe Sexism is not necessarily Sexist. I know that sounds contradictory, but hear me out.
In-Universe Sexism is problematic only if the work itself accepts that sexism as a universal truth, rather than a construct of the fictional society. Westeros is a very sexist society, but I would argue that ASoIAF is not a sexist work (At least not for that reason). Westerosi society may believe women to be inferior to men, but ASoIAF features a large number of women demonstrating a wide variety of talents, and wielding many forms of power.

The vast majority of Knights are men, with the noted exception of Brienne of Tarth. The fact that Brienne exists demonstrates that, while Westeros says that only Men should be knights, that is a SOCIAL idea, not a physical rule.

I'm not super familiar with Forgotten Realms drow, but let me imagine an example.
The Following rule is sexist.

Female Drow are more skilled at magic than their male counterparts, and receive a +2 bonus on caster level checks.
The following rule reflects a sexist society, but is not sexist.

The Drow consider females to be more skilled at magic than their male counterparts. Female Drow spellcasters are given superior training, granting them a +2 bonus on caster level checks.
The second example makes it clear, the caster level bonus comes not from a gender-based proficiency with magic, but from the superior training offered them by a society that sees them as natural spellcasters. It also opens up the not-unreasonable idea of a female drow who was self-taught, or otherwise did not receive said training, and therefore lacks the bonusk, or a male drow who, perhaps because of noble birth, DID receive the superior training usually reserved for females.


It's not sexist to have your knights be men. It's sexist to remove the possibility for a Brienne.

Equinox
2013-10-18, 06:21 PM
I did find myself a little uncomfortable during the Underdark segment of Baldur's Gate II where
If the protagonist is male, they are essentially raped by Phaere.
Am I the only one?Yes, you are.
Everyone knows that if
you have the Ring of Human Influence, you can bluff your way past this little incident. The Ring is obtainable in the Circus quest, which should be pretty much the first quest you do
Also, contrary to what the designers wanted you to think, it's possible to just refuse Phaere and fight her. It does not make you auto-lose the game; I tried that too, and it's a very difficult fight, since basically the entire drow city turns against you, but doable.

Studoku
2013-10-18, 06:33 PM
Yes, you are.
Everyone knows that if
you have the Ring of Human Influence, you can bluff your way past this little incident. The Ring is obtainable in the Circus quest, which should be pretty much the first quest you do
I need feminism because I shouldn't need 18 charisma to be safe from rape.

Seriously though, I know it's avoidable (and I wouldn't call fighting Phaere avoiding it since this is the natural result of the threat she makes and it does stop the "good" ending of the Ust Natha debacle). I'm genuinely wondering if anyone wants to discuss it here since I'm damn sure there'd be torches and pitchforks if the genders were reversed.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 07:15 PM
I'm damn sure there'd be torches and pitchforks if the genders were reversed.

And rightly so.

If men choose to not have torches and pitchforks about the rape of men by women, it is their decision. It can not be blamed on feminism.
I do hope you are aware of that.

(By the way, I strongly suspect that this game and this plot was created by a man)

Felyndiira
2013-10-18, 07:30 PM
If men choose to not have torches and pitchforks about the rape of men by women, it is their decision. It can not be blamed on feminism.
I do hope you are aware of that.

(By the way, I strongly suspect that this game and this plot was created by a man)

This post, to be honest, sounds extremely sexist to me. You might want to reconsider this argument.

Studoku
2013-10-18, 07:38 PM
And rightly so.

If men choose to not have torches and pitchforks about the rape of men by women, it is their decision. It can not be blamed on feminism.
I do hope you are aware of that.
Can you quote the bit where I blamed feminism? I can't seem to find it.

I was just mentioning a situation where sexism occurred in a roleplaying game. Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent- sorry.

At least it seems to have gotten back on track since we're now contemplating the idea that something which a man has a problem with is less of an issue because they're raised to complain less.

BRC
2013-10-18, 07:45 PM
I need feminism because I shouldn't need 18 charisma to be safe from rape.

Seriously though, I know it's avoidable (and I wouldn't call fighting Phaere avoiding it since this is the natural result of the threat she makes and it does stop the "good" ending of the Ust Natha debacle). I'm genuinely wondering if anyone wants to discuss it here since I'm damn sure there'd be torches and pitchforks if the genders were reversed.

it's a tricky, an sensitive, issue to talk about. Including rape in a story is not necessarily a sexist act, the sexism is not the rape itself, and more frequently how it is handled.
The worst, and most common, offense is where the story itself does not acknowledge that a rape occurred. The events fit the definition of a Rape, but the story does not treat it as such. Other offenses are the sexualization of violence against women, or the use of rape is to turn a female character into nothing but a victim. The absolute worst offense is the use of rape as comedy.

Now, male rape is equally poorly handled, but usually in different ways. Once again, having a man be raped in your story is not in of itself sexist, provided you treat it as what it is: a terrible crime.
The most sexist/common use of male rape is the whole "Men cannot be raped" idea. Usually in this case the rapist in question is an attractive woman, and even though the man is resistant the story excuses the rape by assuming that no man would ACTUALLY refuse to consent to sex with such a woman. This plays into many very sexist ideas, the primary one being the idea that Men are totally controlled by their libidos, and are therefore incapable of genuinely refusing sex regardless of what they actually say or do.

I'm not sure how Baldur's Gate handles it, but in the context of gaming putting the player character in a situation where they are raped, or are likely to be raped, is a very, very problematic idea. So problematic that I would say game designers/developers of all sorts should just avoid it. I could theoretically imagine it being done well, but I don't think anybody should even try.

That said, the inclusion of rape, in of itself, is not necessarily sexist, it is insensitive and a very, very bad idea. How the rape is handled by the story can very easily BE sexist. The fact that the game developers felt it was acceptable to include a male rape, when a female rape would be unacceptable is sexist.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 07:56 PM
Can you quote the bit where I blamed feminism? I can't seem to find it.

I was just mentioning a situation where sexism occurred in a roleplaying game. Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent- sorry.

At least it seems to have gotten back on track since we're now contemplating the idea that something which a man has a problem with is less of an issue because they're raised to complain less.

Sorry, I did not read all the spoilers. I might have misunderstood your intention.

As BRC wrote, the idea that "men cannot be raped" is sexist, and is supported by sexism, and by the very same sexism that hurts women.

Sadly, very often, men will try to make a discussion of sexism all about the poor, poor men, and imply that feminism is to blame.

The Oni
2013-10-18, 08:03 PM
Sorry, I did not read all the spoilers. I might have misunderstood your intention.

As BRC wrote, the idea that "men cannot be raped" is sexist, and is supported by sexism, and by the very same sexism that hurts women.

Sadly, very often, men will try to make a discussion of sexism all about the poor, poor men, and imply that feminism is to blame.

You are not positively advancing discourse in any way with an attitude like that. If you show up to a peace conference toting guns, you should not expect much to be said about peace.

Reducing sexism is a two-way street. The same attitudes that perpetrate, and if you'll excuse me for dropping the Tumblrism, "rape culture" are the attitudes that say a man cannot be raped. It posits the idea, as BRC has already mentioned, of man as base animal, with no hold on his libido. We must dispel the myths that harm men and women at the same time.

Felyndiira
2013-10-18, 08:09 PM
The worst, and most common, offense is where the story itself does not acknowledge that a rape occurred. The events fit the definition of a Rape, but the story does not treat it as such. Other offenses are the sexualization of violence against women, or the use of rape is to turn a female character into nothing but a victim. The absolute worst offense is the use of rape as comedy.

Regardless of what the subject matter is, I have a lot of issues with censorship of any kind in creative works.

Yes, I think anyone would acknowledge that rape is a serious issue. However, there are a number of other crimes that are in no way better to experience - torture, murder, having your family killed in front of you, and many more. Of these, one is commonly used to demonstrate evil within fiction, another is about as common as daylight, and the third is practically a backstory trope to justify the protagonist being dark and brooding.

Sure, there are people that will be offended at rape. People are offended at other things, too - how many times have groups harped against Harry Potter or D&D as, well, you know what? Saying that rape - and only rape - is in no way acceptable to fiction because it would be inconsiderate to victims is saying that it's okay to censor creativity just because some people would be legitimately offended at it. That, or it's saying that only certain groups of people are worthy of consideration when it comes to censorship.

Libertad
2013-10-18, 08:10 PM
Reducing sexism is a two-way street. The same attitudes that perpetrate, and if you'll excuse me for dropping the Tumblrism, "rape culture" are the attitudes that say a man cannot be raped. It posits the idea, as BRC has already mentioned, of man as base animal, with no hold on his libido. We must dispel the myths that harm men and women at the same time.

Well, there is a problem in that some groups (including Men's Rights Redditors) insist that people should stop talking about women's issues in an attempt to derail the conversation. They portray it as an attempt to be "fair," but the reality is that a lot of them just want to "shut up the uppity feminists." This is harmful in it immediately assumes conversations geared towards women's issues are inherently exclusionary.

Many 3rd Wave feminists (such as the Shakesville blog) are in agreement with fighting negative attitudes about rape victims, male and female. Traditional gender norms hurt everyone.


Regardless of what the subject matter is, I have a lot of issues with censorship of any kind in creative works.

Yes, I think anyone would acknowledge that rape is a serious issue. However, there are a number of other crimes that are in no way better to experience - torture, murder, having your family killed in front of you, and many more. Of these, one is commonly used to demonstrate evil within fiction, another is about as common as daylight, and the third is practically a backstory trope to justify the protagonist being dark and brooding.

Sure, there are people that will be offended at rape. People are offended at other things, too - how many times have groups harped against Harry Potter or D&D as, well, you know what? Saying that rape - and only rape - is in no way acceptable to fiction because it would be inconsiderate to victims is saying that it's okay to censor creativity just because some people would be legitimately offended at it. That, or it's saying that only certain groups of people are worthy of consideration when it comes to censorship.

But the video game example given did not treat the rape as rape. It danced around the issue by making the victim a man "so it won't be THAT bad."

And then there are other examples in media where a guy continually harasses a woman until she says "yes" and it's portrayed as romantic as opposed to creepy and domineering.

And the other examples in BRC's post are cliches which are disproportionately inflicted upon women characters for cheap effect.

It's not censoring creativity to point out tired, worn out follies in fiction.

Themrys
2013-10-18, 08:15 PM
Reducing sexism is a two-way street. The same attitudes that perpetrate, and if you'll excuse me for dropping the Tumblrism, "rape culture" are the attitudes that say a man cannot be raped. It posits the idea, as BRC has already mentioned, of man as base animal, with no hold on his libido. We must dispel the myths that harm men and women at the same time.

I am aware of this. I consider it insulting that you imply I am not aware of this.


Your "peace conference" metaphor does not work. Or maybe, if you consider the possibility that your peace conference is full of terrorists in hiding.

There are sexists everywhere, and I have no way of knowing who is one. It can be difficult to see who is pointing out where rape culture hurts men because they sincerely care about it, and who does it in order to distract from the discussion about sexism.

tasw
2013-10-18, 08:19 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Halna LeGavilk
2013-10-18, 08:26 PM
Well, there is a problem in that some groups (including Men's Rights Redditors) insist that people should stop talking about women's issues in an attempt to derail the conversation. They portray it as an attempt to be "fair," but the reality is that a lot of them just want to "shut up the uppity feminists." This is harmful in it immediately assumes conversations geared towards women's issues are inherently exclusionary.

Many 3rd Wave feminists (such as the Shakesville blog) are in agreement with fighting negative attitudes about rape victims, male and female. Traditional gender norms hurt everyone.


Almost every time I get into this discussion (I used to be part of the MRM, hi, thanks for heads up! I quit to distance myself from the extremists, but a lot of the good points stuck with me.) feminists have told me "Yeah, I mean, I GUESS mean have it bad, sometimes, not really, but we have to put those issues aside and focus only on women!" That is hyperbole, of course, but I have been literally told that men should suck it up and take it while "women's issues were fixed."

Men are disposable, and Feminism is doing nothing (and most likely won't ever do anything) to solve that.


I am aware of this. I consider it insulting that you imply I am not aware of this.

Your "peace conference" metaphor does not work. Or maybe, if you consider the possibility that your peace conference is full of terrorists in hiding.

There are sexists everywhere, and I have no way of knowing who is one. It can be difficult to see who is pointing out where rape culture hurts men because they sincerely care about it, and who does it in order to distract from the discussion about sexism.

This is the exact reason so many women are attempting to distance themselves from Feminism, and so many men don't want to even attempt to solve the problem.



You forgot that its always the fault of some evil man somewhere with nothing better to do then plot how to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen though.

Cant have feminism on line without that part.

And herein lies the rub. As facetious as you are being, this is kind of the problem. Feminists, particularly female Feminists, believe that men 'help out' men, or that there is some kind of secret Boy's Club. In my experience, this is... not true. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Men don't care about other men at all. Men see other men as allies/friends or prey. In a professional, or social sense anyway. Men don't care about helping women because men don't care about helping anyone but themselves. A man's allies are generally either based on a favor system, or 'allies' refers to those who get out of the way.

Is this some trait biologically inherent to men? No idea. Biology and culture are inextricable from each other. But from my experience, this is just how it is.

Manly Man
2013-10-18, 08:26 PM
Not true. Her pose, much like her weapon, is sinuous and draws parallels to the serpent. The claws on her left hand gauntlet there are even posed in such a way that they serve as the fangs. This makes sense given her morally ambiguous (but not truly villainous) nature and the fact that she is "poisoned" by Soul Edge's evil energies running through her veins.

You might also be surprised to know, if you don't follow the Soul Series, that Ms. Fanservice there is voluntarily celibate, as she's terrified any child she might bear would have the same taint of Soul Edge - and it's implied that some her dominatrix tendencies when fighting, and her outfit, are a direct result of that frustration.

That said, that does NOT explain the completely ridiculous fighting poses/getups of some of the OTHER Soul Calibur cast (friggin' Sophitia) but Ivy's a lot deeper than people give her credit for.

Just saying, I'm totally with you here. Miss Valentine probably has the greatest amount of willpower in the entire series if she can fight such feelings for what I imagine is somewhere between thirty-five to forty-five years, now. However, I've never been a fan of the bikinis, and think she actually looks all the more domineering, imposing, and altogether powerful when she's wearing (http://images.wikia.com/soulcalibur/images/4/44/IVYWITHSIEGFRIED.jpg) a suit (http://images.wikia.com/soulcalibur/images/6/66/C_ivy_2p.jpg).

Hnngh. DAT CLASS.

...And that's all I have to say about that. :smallredface:

tasw
2013-10-18, 08:38 PM
{{scrubbed}}

shaken_bacon
2013-10-18, 08:39 PM
No, Anita herself doesn't allow for any critical analysis. A lot of people have tried to debate with her, but she has disabled comments and, as far as I know, hasn't responded to anyone who genuinely wants to converse. Unless they agree with her Ideas.

Saying "If D&D is played by less women than men, then that's because the setting is sexist." That is a sexist attitude. There could be any number of reasons that D&D is played by women. Not just because the setting is Sexist. That's like saying, "If Hockey is played by less by Black people, then that's because the game is racist."

Yep perfect analogy. Of course, you could even stick with the sex example in sports. Less girls play baseball in my town. Everyone that runs baseball is sexist! That just doesn't make sense. "Why aren't there as many guys in ballad?" Darn, sexist women!

Mr Beer
2013-10-18, 08:44 PM
Yep perfect analogy. Of course, you could even stick with the sex example in sports. Less girls play baseball in my town. Everyone that runs baseball is sexist! That just doesn't make sense. "Why aren't there as many guys in ballad?" Darn, sexist women!

Yeah, but women are worse at baseball than men, whereas they're not worse at tabletop RPGs (possibly the reverse if anything).

That said, tabletop is deeply nerdy for want of a better word, which tends to make it more appealing to men. Whether that's down to environment or not is difficult to say.

BRC
2013-10-18, 08:44 PM
The issue is complicated by the fact that frequently when Male Rape is brought up in these sorts of discussions is that its often used, not as a point of discussion, but as a sort of antifeminist weapon. "If you guys care so much about preventing sexual assault, then why are you not talking about male rape?", or "You know, men get raped too". As if the fact that rape happens to both men and women means that sexism is not a root cause or a problem. I know plenty of feminists who acknowledge that male rape happens and is a serious issue. It's often used not as a part of the discussion, but as a counterargument or attack.

I'm not saying that's what is happening here. Studoku brought up a legitimate point that is relevant to the discussion and so far has been handled well.


Regardless of what the subject matter is, I have a lot of issues with censorship of any kind in creative works.

Yes, I think anyone would acknowledge that rape is a serious issue. However, there are a number of other crimes that are in no way better to experience - torture, murder, having your family killed in front of you, and many more. Of these, one is commonly used to demonstrate evil within fiction, another is about as common as daylight, and the third is practically a backstory trope to justify the protagonist being dark and brooding.

Sure, there are people that will be offended at rape. People are offended at other things, too - how many times have groups harped against Harry Potter or D&D as, well, you know what? Saying that rape - and only rape - is in no way acceptable to fiction because it would be inconsiderate to victims is saying that it's okay to censor creativity just because some people would be legitimately offended at it. That, or it's saying that only certain groups of people are worthy of consideration when it comes to censorship.
First of all, I'm less saying "Censorship", and more saying "I don't trust game developers to handle the situation of having a player character (often seen as an extension of the player themselves) be raped".

Also, there are several major differences.

First of all, Writers have generally gotten very good at dealing with stuff like murder. We have a very violent culture, people have been writing about murder and violence for millennia, and they have gotten very, very good at it.

Second, the mechanics of murder can be used in many ways. Alice shoots Bob with a gun, killing him. Was that murder? Maybe Alice was stealing Bob's car. Maybe Alice and Bob are soldiers on opposite sides of a war. Maybe Alice was shooting Bob in self defense. Maybe Bob killed Alice's family all those years ago. For every murder in popular culture there are hundreds of killings that may be identical except for circumstance. The mechanics of rape have no such ambiguity.

Third: Somewhat paradoxically, considering the last example, Murder is very far from everybody's lives. And as a society we are pretty clear where we stand on the subject of Real life Murder (as opposed to fictional murder which, as I said, varies greatly). If I say "Alice walked up to Bob and shot him in the head. Did Alice commit a crime?" most people wouldn't need to think before they said "yes, she is a murderer". Now, if I said "Alice Forced Bob to have sex with her, did she commit a crime?", there is a segment of the population who would say no, or would seek other explanations to say that what Alice did was not "really" rape. When a murder case happens on the news, people say that we must bring the killer to justice. When a rape case comes up, you get people saying that the victim deserved it.

Fourth: Murder is the result, and can happen for a wide variety of means and motives. Lets say a family member was shot and killed for their money, that does not necessarily mean that you will think of that if you watch a movie where a jealous husband stabs his cheating wife. Rape is Method, Motive, and Crime all in one. There are variants sure, but any rape you portray in your fiction is a lot more likely to be similar to something your audience actually experienced than a murder you portray, hence it is important to handle it with sensitivity.

{{scrubbed}}

Felyndiira
2013-10-18, 08:49 PM
It's not censoring creativity to point out tired, worn out follies in fiction.
I have no issue with pointing out follies in fiction; what I do have issue with is the following phrase in BRC's post:

So problematic that I would say game designers/developers of all sorts should just avoid it. I could theoretically imagine it being done well, but I don't think anybody should even try.
First of all, different people (of both genders) are very different. There are, after all, people who actually have rape fantasies. People that enjoy having pain inflicted on them. There are even guys that enjoy putting on rubber costumes and corsets, getting chained up, and delivering drinks to their girlfriends. And all of that is totally okay. The statement above clearly states "video game designers SHOULD NOT do something," which implies that something should be made taboo just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. If enough thinks that video game designers should not do something, it gets signed into law.

For your own examples, there are also girls who think playing hard to get and having a guy constantly vy for their affection is actually romantic. That is even worse as an example - why is it that just because a behavior is creepy to some people, it should be regarded as "folly" and "completely taboo" in creative fiction?

I would recommend look into fanfiction for an example of this diversity.

EDIT:


First of all, I'm less saying "Censorship", and more saying "I don't trust game developers to handle the situation of having a player character (often seen as an extension of the player themselves) be raped".

This, I agree with more; nonetheless, I still do not think that lack of experience in a topic is merit to thinking that it should be discontinued.

Certainly, murder is commonplace in fiction nowadays, but there was a period in time when a book like Les Miserables sparked huge controversies that rocked the European literary world. There was a time when The Awakening basically floored everyone and made people grab pitchforks and torches. Times change - would it be more fair to allow the video game industry (and books) to chug on, learn from its mistakes, and gain insight in using traumatic events to writing a better story, and broaden creative fiction as a genre? Or would it be better to discourage it as a taboo just because "it's hard to do well"?

On your more specific points, though:


First of all, Writers have generally gotten very good at dealing with stuff like murder. We have a very violent culture, people have been writing about murder and violence for millennia, and they have gotten very, very good at it.
There are tons of murder slapstick movies, or movies that are just plainly horrible at dealing with murder. Sturgeon's Law applies to everything; rape just gets more exposure because it has taboo status and makes more people feel uncomfortable, whereas murder tends to be very well accepted due to the media. I tend to believe it's a cultural thing more than objective, which means it's something that can shift with time.


Second, the mechanics of murder can be used in many ways. Alice shoots Bob with a gun, killing him. Was that murder? Maybe Alice was stealing Bob's car. Maybe Alice and Bob are soldiers on opposite sides of a war. Maybe Alice was shooting Bob in self defense. Maybe Bob killed Alice's family all those years ago. For every murder in popular culture there are hundreds of killings that may be identical except for circumstance. The mechanics of rape have no such ambiguity.
If you've seen the other side of that gun barrel pointed between your eyes and lived, what difference does motivation make when you see it again on the big screen? It doesn't take a recreation of the war with perfect battlefield conditions to set off some shell-shocked veterans.


Third: Somewhat paradoxically, considering the last example, Murder is very far from everybody's lives. And as a society we are pretty clear where we stand on the subject of Real life Murder (as opposed to fictional murder which, as I said, varies greatly). If I say "Alice walked up to Bob and shot him in the head. Did Alice commit a crime?" most people wouldn't need to think before they said "yes, she is a murderer". Now, if I said "Alice Forced Bob to have sex with her, did she commit a crime?", there is a segment of the population who would say no, or would seek other explanations to say that what Alice did was not "really" rape. When a murder case happens on the news, people say that we must bring the killer to justice. When a rape case comes up, you get people saying that the victim deserved it.
It sounds to me like there should be more literature about it, in that case, to bring the issue up squarely in everyone's faces so that five generations later, we can all read about it and clearly say "hey, that's not okay." As prohibition taught us, making something taboo only makes it more enticing, and decreases the opportunity that proper education on it will happen. The only reason that we all know murder is bad is because we are exposed to it so early, after all, or failing that - we are all taught to avoid it when we were still children.


Fourth: Murder is the result, and can happen for a wide variety of means and motives. Lets say a family member was shot and killed for their money, that does not necessarily mean that you will think of that if you watch a movie where a jealous husband stabs his cheating wife. Rape is Method, Motive, and Crime all in one. There are variants sure, but any rape you portray in your fiction is a lot more likely to be similar to something your audience actually experienced than a murder you portray, hence it is important to handle it with sensitivity.
This is addressed by number two, but I will ask a question: does that mean that you also agree that murders that are either close enough to real life crimes, or that are about wars, are not okay? Because there are definitely quite a few people that would be affected negatively by them.

Halna LeGavilk
2013-10-18, 09:00 PM
The issue is complicated by the fact that frequently when Male Rape is brought up in these sorts of discussions is that its often used, not as a point of discussion, but as a sort of antifeminist weapon. "If you guys care so much about preventing sexual assault, then why are you not talking about male rape?", or "You know, men get raped too". As if the fact that rape happens to both men and women means that sexism is not a root cause or a problem. I know plenty of feminists who acknowledge that male rape happens and is a serious issue. It's often used not as a part of the discussion, but as a counterargument or attack.

I'm not saying that's what is happening here. Studoku brought up a legitimate point that is relevant to the discussion and so far has been handled well.

And I've had the exact thing happen when we were specifically discussing the rape of males. "But it's so much worse for females!" as if that somehow means they don't have to discuss male rape. It's kind of that facet of "people can suck often."



First of all, I'm less saying "Censorship", and more saying "I don't trust game developers to handle the situation of having a player character (often seen as an extension of the player themselves) be raped".

That's fine, but that's really just another version of "know your audience." Are there some games and players that can have that kind of mature situation? Yeah. Are there some who can't? Yeah.



Ooh! Ooh! here's mine! (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/b/b/e/5/11970857951547845327johnny_automatic_straw_man.svg .hi.png)
Oh, sorry, I thought we were comparing Strawmen. Can we keep to the topic of sexism in games (specifically tabletop RPGs), there is a time and a place for a general discussion of feminism, but I don't think its here.

Nice! You draw that?

You aren't going to have one without the other. It's just not going to happen. The 'argument against sexism' in games (particularly re: things like the Male Gaze) happens in a Feminist framework. Your argument doesn't happen without Feminism.

BRC
2013-10-18, 09:10 PM
I have no issue with pointing out follies in fiction; what I do have issue with is the following phrase in BRC's post:

So problematic that I would say game designers/developers of all sorts should just avoid it. I could theoretically imagine it being done well, but I don't think anybody should even try.
First of all, different people (of both genders) are very different. There are, after all, people who actually have rape fantasies. People that enjoy having pain inflicted on them. There are even guys that enjoy putting on rubber costumes and corsets, getting chained up, and delivering drinks to their girlfriends. And all of that is totally okay. The statement above clearly states "video game designers SHOULD NOT do something," which implies that something should be made taboo just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. If enough thinks that video game designers should not do something, it gets signed into law.

I was specifically referring to the rape of Player Characters, which brings a whole new level of sensitivity to the issue for obvious reasons. I view it like I would view somebody juggling burning torches and sticks of dynamite. I don't object to it happening if it was done well, but it would be so easy to do WRONG that I don't think they should try.

If somebody was able to successfully juggle torches and dynamite, good for them. But if you stand there with flaming torches in one hand and sticks of dynamite in the other and express your intent to juggle, I'm going to say that's a bad idea.

Also, I never proposed Censorship, I said I didn't think they would try. I don't think my friend should run down the street shouting that the Canadians are going to invade if we don't nuke Quebec, but I wouldn't favor passing a law preventing him from doing so.


For your own examples, there are also girls who think playing hard to get and having a guy constantly vy for their affection is actually romantic. That is even worse as an example - why is it that just because a behavior is creepy to some people, it should be regarded as "folly" and "completely taboo" in creative fiction?

I would recommend look into fanfiction for an example of this diversity.

Such diversity exists, true, BUT must it be appealed to? Sure, there might be people who would enjoy such a work, but there would ALSO be people who would be made very uncomfortable by it, and worst of all, there would be people who would be INSPIRED by it.

If you have stories about Girls who WANT to play hard to get and have guys pursue them despite stated objections, then there will be guys who think that's how girls ACTUALLY WORK. Since there is no clear distinction between "Playing hard to get" and "Turning down your advances", and if given the choice between "She doesn't like you" and "She does, but is waiting for you to prove you like her by following her home", the second is a more appealing theory.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it needs to be handled very carefully. If I have to choose between disappointing people who like that sort of narrative and inspiring people to act that way in real life, i'll take the former.



That's fine, but that's really just another version of "know your audience." Are there some games and players that can have that kind of mature situation? Yeah. Are there some who can't? Yeah.
See my "Dynamite and Torches" metaphor above, plus raping a character is very different than raping a character the audience is supposed to view as a surrogate.



Nice! You draw that?

You aren't going to have one without the other. It's just not going to happen. The 'argument against sexism' in games (particularly re: things like the Male Gaze) happens in a Feminist framework. Your argument doesn't happen without Feminism.

No, I just googled it.

And I suppose, but there is a world of difference between "Your feminist argument is flawed in this situation" and "Well all feminists just hate and want to blame everything on men, so any feminist argument is inherently invalid".

The equivalent would be if I said "Well all non-feminists are just sexist pigs, so your non-feminist argument is invalid". We're hear to argue points, not slam ideologies.

Also such a discussion could easily derail the thread, spiraling into yet-another internet debate about Feminism in general. Lets keep things as on-topic as we can.

tasw
2013-10-18, 09:11 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Poison_Fish
2013-10-18, 09:19 PM
{{scrubbed}}

At first I wasn't sure if you were real. I thought to myself "Fish, there is no way that such a person can exist". But then I remembered that some people exist in toxic environments. Anyhow, I digress.

Empirical evidence indicates otherwise from your and Halna's incredibly ignorant statements about male to male interaction. This male relationship analogy of "ally or prey" indicates much more the toxic problems with traditional gender roles then "That's just the way we are". As long as we are talking about experiences here, it's nowhere common in my own. In fact, generally in my social groups, such people are considered jerks and don't last long. All I can really say is I am sorry you perceive the world in such a crappy way and that factors around you produced such a toxic existence. But you are making a stronger point of kyriarchy, even if that is not your intention.

BRC
2013-10-18, 09:24 PM
{{scrubbed}}
No, what we are having here is a discussion about sexism, which must therefore exist in the context of feminism, rather than a discussion about feminism itself.

If I say "This thing is Sexist", and you say "No it is not, and here is why", that is a valid and relevant avenue of discussion.

If I say "This thing is sexist", and you say "No it is not, Feminists just imagine sexism everywhere", then you are going off topic and attacking/discussing Feminism itself rather than addressing my point. It is entirely possible to debate against a specific point without attacking the mindset behind that point. Say why my Feminist interpretation of the situation is wrong. If I failed to present evidence of sexism, then call me out on that. If I do present evidence, then refute that evidence or present better evidence.

It's the difference between a defense lawyer showing ballistics data that indicates a bullet wound was self-inflicted, and a lawyer just saying "My client did not shoot the victim. Lots of people accidentally shoot themselves"

Scow2
2013-10-18, 09:30 PM
Yes, but then you have groups where women have reported far different attitudes, and their stories are also valid. You have books where the art turns distinctly cheesecakey.

Iconic fighter in Pathfinder, who presents male?
http://paizo.com/image/product/secondary/Pathfinder/Pathfinder1_Fighter.jpg

Not much protection at the elbows, but that's generally a good idea for what looks like light-medium armor.

Iconic barbarian, who presents female?
http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Amiri.jpg

This little number says "I enjoy long walks on the beach and being eviscerated." I see that and all I can think is:

http://tamrielfoundry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Skimpy-Armor-Regret-Decision.jpg

Iconic wizard?

http://www.cowell.org/~andy/export/250px-Ezren.jpg

"A place for everything and everything in its place."

Iconic Sorcerer?

http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pathfinder2_Sorceress03.jpg

"Help! I don't know how clothing works!"

This says nothing of the many cases (especially in video games) where male armor is reasonable, and women's armor has boob windows (or boobplate, for that matter).

Let's take a look at what I consider my favorite D&D image of all time, from the opening of the 2nd edition Player's Handbook:

http://larryelmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DRAGON_S.jpg

Now, take a look at that image. You've got 5 people; 3 men, 2 women. One woman is lightly dressed, in a short skirt, even, but we might assume, from the game context, that she may be a thief, mage/thief, fighter/thief, or fighter/mage (given her elf ears). The other woman? She's in a breastplate... no leg coverings but, then, no one has leg armor to speak of. Her breastplate armor has no boob-plate. It is a piece of steel designed to keep dragon claws away from her innards.

How we show people matters (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/). There's nothing wrong with sexy, unless sexy is the only thing shown.

These things contribute to a hostile environment. It contributes to showing women as ornamentation. And while your group may not engage in it, I have heard it plenty of times from other gamers... especially when the group starts all-male and becomes a "boys night" sort of thing.Well, the Pathfinder Iconic Barbarian is wearing MUCH more than the 3.5 Iconic Barbarian (And far less than the 3.5 Iconic Paladin and Iconic Rogue). The 3.5 Sorcerer also doesn't quite figure out how clothes work either... though he errs on the side of "Too many belts"... on the other hand, the 3.5 Iconic Barbarian and Sorcerer proudly flaunt their nipples.


At first I wasn't sure if you were real. I thought to myself "Fish, there is no way that such a person can exist". But then I remembered that some people exist in toxic environments. Anyhow, I digress.

Empirical evidence indicates otherwise from your and Halna's incredibly ignorant statements about male to male interaction. This male relationship analogy of "ally or prey" indicates much more the toxic problems with traditional gender roles then "That's just the way we are". As long as we are talking about experiences here, it's nowhere common in my own. In fact, generally in my social groups, such people are considered jerks and don't last long. All I can really say is I am sorry you perceive the world in such a crappy way and that factors around you produced such a toxic view.Eh... I've found Halna's statements to be an overstated version. Of course, males not really caring about other males might come from being already 'on top' of things... but I'm not sure that's true either. It's not quite as 'primitive' or blatant as he made it out to be... but males really are seen as expendable, and the "Suck it Up" reaction is extremely common.

And I'm not certain traditional gender roles and the attitudes expressed by them are actually bad, and on many points superior to the alternative presented by Social Justice Workers/Crusaders. Of course, I do believe that it's wrong to confine someone to traditional gender roles.

If we were all anthropomorphic cat-people, we wouldn't have these problems.

tasw
2013-10-18, 09:34 PM
{{scrubbed}}

tasw
2013-10-18, 09:40 PM
No, what we are having here is a discussion about sexism, which must therefore exist in the context of feminism, rather than a discussion about feminism itself.

If I say "This thing is Sexist", and you say "No it is not, and here is why", that is a valid and relevant avenue of discussion.

If I say "This thing is sexist", and you say "No it is not, Feminists just imagine sexism everywhere", then you are going off topic and attacking/discussing Feminism itself rather than addressing my point. It is entirely possible to debate against a specific point without attacking the mindset behind that point. Say why my Feminist interpretation of the situation is wrong. If I failed to present evidence of sexism, then call me out on that. If I do present evidence, then refute that evidence or present better evidence.

It's the difference between a defense lawyer showing ballistics data that indicates a bullet wound was self-inflicted, and a lawyer just saying "My client did not shoot the victim. Lots of people accidentally shoot themselves"

You havent presented any evidence to dispute in the way you want me to. Essentially your lawyer is saying "this work is bad because I say so and I am the decider, so bad it is and your guilty"

However.

All the "isms" are about the mindstate of the person, not the actions themselves which could happen for any number of reasons. In order for any of these things in gaming to actually be sexist they would have to have been written with a sexist intent in mind.

Since no one but the creator can know if they were or not we cannot blanket call anything in gaming any sort of "ism" including sexism.

Felyndiira
2013-10-18, 09:40 PM
Also, I never proposed Censorship, I said I didn't think they would try. I don't think my friend should run down the street shouting that the Canadians are going to invade if we don't nuke Quebec, but I wouldn't favor passing a law preventing him from doing so.
This is fair. I may have overread your statement, and I apologize.


Such diversity exists, true, BUT must it be appealed to? Sure, there might be people who would enjoy such a work, but there would ALSO be people who would be made very uncomfortable by it, and worst of all, there would be people who would be INSPIRED by it.
Things that people should not be inspired by exists in a considerable number of creative works. We pay very little attention to people that jump from their apartments because they think they can fly, try to imitate "awesome" criminals, or in other way nominate themselves for the Darwin awards. The main reason for this is because we expect a reasonable person would not do it, reasonable being mostly defined as "well-educated, well-civilized, and mentally stable".

If we want to cut down on people who would be inspired by it, then instead of encouraging people to avoid the topics in fiction, it would be better to encourage people to bring it to the attention of everyone. That way, the young boy that asks his mom about this behavior could learn about it at a young age and have it ingrained in him rather than being taught about it in some six-grade mandatory course that he probably is too bored to pay attention to, then finding out the hard way.

Taboos tend to encourage people more than they help circumvent the behavior they are supposed to be masking. Prohibition was a pretty significant lesson on that.


If you have stories about Girls who WANT to play hard to get and have guys pursue them despite stated objections, then there will be guys who think that's how girls ACTUALLY WORK. Since there is no clear distinction between "Playing hard to get" and "Turning down your advances", and if given the choice between "She doesn't like you" and "She does, but is waiting for you to prove you like her by following her home", the second is a more appealing theory.
If you don't have stories about it, there will be guys who meet a girl who wants to play hard to get, and ingrain that in them as a fact about all girls. I saw enough of this kind of prejudice (not sexism, but racism - still, the point holds) develop within my family to say with confidence that without proper education, people will form misinformed opinions based on anecdotal examples.

Besides, for every teenager that sees the story and believes in it, there's going to be another young teen that sees the story with his parents, asks about it, and learns about diversity. It's about as factual as saying "violent games are bad, since it makes people want to commit murders."

BRC
2013-10-18, 09:47 PM
And this relates to gaming sexism in this way.

No creepy circle of sexist conspirators are going out of their way to create sexist settings, art, etc.

Individual writers, artists, etc are simply writing for themselves and hoping enough people like it to for the product to be successful.

All the isms are about the mindstate of the person, not the actions themselves which could happen for any number of reasons. In order for any of these things in gaming to actually be sexist they would have to have been written with a sexist intent in mind.




However.

All the "isms" are about the mindstate of the person, not the actions themselves which could happen for any number of reasons. In order for any of these things in gaming to actually be sexist they would have to have been written with a sexist intent in mind.

Since no one but the creator can know if they were or not we cannot blanket call anything in gaming any sort of "ism" including sexism.

There does not need to be a conspiracy. Sexism is institutionalized, nobody thinks of themselves as a sexist. A writer who turns all his female characters into love interests isn't thinking to himself "Man, I sure hate women and think they only have value as sexual partners. I'm going to write that into my stories". That does not make the stories any less sexist. They're sexist because they don't see anything wrong with treating women as little more than potential sex partners and baby factories.

Nobody thinks of themselves as an "-ist". They think they are just viewing the world as it is. Racists don't think of themselves as irrationally judging people based on the color of their skin, they honestly think that "Everybody who looks like X acts like Y", and they behave according to that belief. That's the danger of institutionalized sexism, it affects women as well as men, and nobody thinks of themselves as a sexist. There is no conspiracy, just a problematic cultural norm that everybody accepts.



You havent presented any evidence to dispute in the way you want me to. Essentially your lawyer is saying "this work is bad because I say so and I am the decider, so bad it is and your guilty"
I personally have not called any specific thing sexist in this thread, merely discussed things. If I DO do so without evidence, CALL ME OUT ON IT.

If I say "The defendant shot the victim" with no further evidence, and you say "Prove it", and I cannot, I am in the wrong. If, however, you say "The defendant did not shoot the victim because sometimes people shoot themselves" then we are both wrong. A point presented with no evidence can be refuted with no evidence.

Scow2
2013-10-18, 10:01 PM
There does not need to be a conspiracy. Sexism is institutionalized, nobody thinks of themselves as a sexist. A writer who turns all his female characters into love interests isn't thinking to himself "Man, I sure hate women and think they only have value as sexual partners. I'm going to write that into my stories". That does not make the stories any less sexist. They're sexist because they don't see anything wrong with treating women as little more than potential sex partners and baby factories.

Nobody thinks of themselves as an "-ist". They think they are just viewing the world as it is. Racists don't think of themselves as irrationally judging people based on the color of their skin, they honestly think that "Everybody who looks like X acts like Y", and they behave according to that belief. That's the danger of institutionalized sexism, it affects women as well as men, and nobody thinks of themselves as a sexist. There is no conspiracy, just a problematic cultural norm that everybody accepts. If everybody accepts it, what makes it a problem?

That said... the world is not fair, and every attempt I have seen and studied to make it "Less Unfair" has had the opposite result, and tries to force people to conform to one Politically Correct mold, with anything outside of it being villified and forcibly removed. I remember reading a piece of Social Justice media ("The Racist Tree", I think?), which essentially summed up with "Social Progress is made through bullying and demonization, not education and mutual understanding"

Women being paid less for doing the same work as a man is problematic sexism. A guy drawing a woman in a chainmail bikini is not (Though I personally prefer inverting the bikini design and applying it to men too.)

BRC
2013-10-18, 10:14 PM
If everybody accepts it, what makes it a problem?

That said... the world is not fair, and every attempt I have seen and studied to make it "Less Unfair" has had the opposite result, and tries to force people to conform to one Politically Correct mold, with anything outside of it being villified and forcibly removed. I remember reading a piece of Social Justice media ("The Racist Tree", I think?), which essentially summed up with "Social Progress is made through bullying and demonization, not education and mutual understanding"

Women being paid less for doing the same work as a man is problematic sexism. A guy drawing a woman in a chainmail bikini is not (Though I personally prefer inverting the bikini design and applying it to men too.)
it is a problem because it is harmful.
There was a study where people at various research institutions were shown one of two resumes, identical except for the name. One resume was for a John Smith, one was for a Jane Smith. Reviewers of both sexes who read Jane Smith's resume indicated that they were less likely to hire her than the people who read John Smith's resume, because whether consciously or not, they felt that women are unsuited for work in scientific fields.
That means that potentially brilliant women are being turned away from scientific fields because of their gender, robbing us of potential innovators.

And the Chainmail Bikini IS in fact problematic.

The Male hero, well covered in chainmail and plate, sends the message "I am here to kick ass. I was designed to demonstrate to you that I am ready for a fight".
The female hero in her chainmail bikini, obviously not dressed for actual combat, sends the message "I am here to look sexy for you. I was designed to look sexy. This was so important that my designers prioritized sex appeal over the appearance of combat readiness."

If these heroes have actual characters (as opposed to just being random art somewhere) it gets even worse, since then the female hero is apparently CHOOSING to prioritize sex appeal over practicality. While the male hero comes across as a practical-minded hero who wants to succeed in battle, the female hero comes across as somebody who cares more about whether or not her armor shows off her figure than if it can prevent that figure from getting perforated with arrows.

Now imagine you see variations of this repeated over and over and over. Eventually you take away the lesson that Men care about getting the job done, and Women care about looking good for men.

navar100
2013-10-18, 10:23 PM
At first I wasn't sure if you were real. I thought to myself "Fish, there is no way that such a person can exist". But then I remembered that some people exist in toxic environments. Anyhow, I digress.

Empirical evidence indicates otherwise from your and Halna's incredibly ignorant statements about male to male interaction. This male relationship analogy of "ally or prey" indicates much more the toxic problems with traditional gender roles then "That's just the way we are". As long as we are talking about experiences here, it's nowhere common in my own. In fact, generally in my social groups, such people are considered jerks and don't last long. All I can really say is I am sorry you perceive the world in such a crappy way and that factors around you produced such a toxic existence. But you are making a stronger point of kyriarchy, even if that is not your intention.

"Ally or "prey" is another way of saying "competition". Men compete with each other. They like competing with each other. Why do you think men love sports so much? At the worst extreme you get violence: fisticuffs, weapons, and war. Where do you suppose the handshake came from as a sign of greeting and friendship? Offering the open hand shows you don't have a weapon in it. Similarly, the military salute evolved from armored soldiers lifting their helm visors to show a familiar face and are thus friends or allies. See Lando Calrissian in Return of the Jedi doing that in Jabba's palace to the audience. Competition encourages men to improve themselves. Women tend to prefer cooperation. Because of that, feminism, the new "F" word that must be censored how dare I defend men when women are being oppressed, delegitimatizes competition into the common culture and declares it a "toxic existence". There is nothing wrong with cooperation. Men do do it to achieve some goal they can't do by themselves, but their competitive nature gets stigmatized.

Scow2
2013-10-18, 10:31 PM
it is a problem because it is harmful.
There was a study where people at various research institutions were shown one of two resumes, identical except for the name. One resume was for a John Smith, one was for a Jane Smith. Reviewers of both sexes who read Jane Smith's resume indicated that they were less likely to hire her than the people who read John Smith's resume, because whether consciously or not, they felt that women are unsuited for work in scientific fields.
That means that potentially brilliant women are being turned away from scientific fields because of their gender, robbing us of potential innovators.This is a problem, yes, and one that needs to be fought. But I don't think the tabletop games and other recreations are the place for that battle, and doing so has demonstrably generated far more ill will toward economic and social equality than it suppresses.


And the Chainmail Bikini IS in fact problematic.

The Male hero, well covered in chainmail and plate, sends the message "I am here to kick ass. I was designed to demonstrate to you that I am ready for a fight".
The female hero in her chainmail bikini, obviously not dressed for actual combat, sends the message "I am here to look sexy for you. I was designed to look sexy. This was so important that my designers prioritized sex appeal over the appearance of combat readiness."

If these heroes have actual characters (as opposed to just being random art somewhere) it gets even worse, since then the female hero is apparently CHOOSING to prioritize sex appeal over practicality. While the male hero comes across as a practical-minded hero who wants to succeed in battle, the female hero comes across as somebody who cares more about whether or not her armor shows off her figure than if it can prevent that figure from getting perforated with arrows.

Now imagine you see variations of this repeated over and over and over. Eventually you take away the lesson that Men care about getting the job done, and Women care about looking good for men.Well, I'd like to strongly contest the notion that the armor males wear in fantasy comes within a spitting distance of "Practical". Have you SEEN those pauldrons and spikes and other stuff (Like belts)?! The message/lesson isn't that Men care about getting the job done - it's that they care about looking cool while they get bumped off in the most spectacular manner possible - and bumped off they do get, because men are treated as expendable and disposable in literature, fantasy, and other media. Men in Fantasy aren't dressed to kill - they're dressed to die.

Of course, most of the art of females I look at is drawn by a woman, and rarely includes men.

BRC
2013-10-18, 10:41 PM
Because of that, feminism, the new "F" word of this discussion, delegitimatizes competition into the common culture and declares it a "toxic existence". There is nothing wrong with cooperation. Men do do it to achieve some goal they can't do by themselves, but their competitive nature gets stigmatized.
I have never for the life of me seen any evidence of that, anywhere. I have never heard of any Feminists saying that men need to stop competing with each other.

I have seen women dismissively say that Men are always fighting and never work together, but I've never seen them say that doing so was sexist.

Come to think of it, the idea that all Men are competitive and all Women are cooperative is in itself pretty sexist. Well, it's judging people based on gender alone, which is kind of the definition of sexism.

Feminism is the opposition to Sexism, nothing more, nothing less. There are feminists who attack Masculinity, there are feminists who attack femininity, but neither is an integral part of feminism.



Well, I'd like to strongly contest the notion that the armor males wear in fantasy comes within a spitting distance of "Practical". Have you SEEN those pauldrons and spikes and other stuff (Like belts)?! The message/lesson isn't that Men care about getting the job done - it's that they care about looking cool while they get bumped off in the most spectacular manner possible - and bumped off they do get, because men are treated as expendable and disposable in literature, fantasy, and other media. Men in Fantasy aren't dressed to kill - they're dressed to die.

Of course, most of the art of females I look at is drawn by a woman, and rarely includes men.

Male Armor is also impractical, but it's still designed to make them look dangerous, not to make them look sexy. Giant Pauldrons are impractical, but to the casual glance they look MORE protective. With the exception of parody pieces, impractical male armor is still generally supposed to make the wearer look dangerous and well protected.
To the casual glance a chainmail bikini dosn't look practical, it looks sexy.

Male expend-ability is a result of the idea of "Man As Default", plus a good deal of "Women are weak". If you need a character to just exist, most writers assume Male. So when they need a bunch of faceless grunts to run in and die, they make them men. Every woman who shows up is usually a unique character, because they need to decide to make that person an actual character before the idea of making them a woman could even come up. Also, usually those "Expendable" characters are supposed to look like capable fighters, so once again they default male.

Men are expendable in fiction not because fiction writers hate men and want to kill them off in large numbers, but because they don't think of these expendable characters as people, just people-shaped things, and Male is the generic people-shape. That's also a manifestation of Sexism, it's just that in this case it works out worse for Men.

shaken_bacon
2013-10-18, 10:50 PM
{{scrubbed}}



Now I'll take your word that there are studies regarding this and show your point. I do have a few counter arguments to make however.

1. This has not been my life experience or most of my friends life experience as well. When I think about most people I know (in regards to males) many develop new friendship. For example, I play on various sports teams and because I met new people through sports I might invite them over to watch hockey, go to the bar, heck I've even done golf trips.

Now this in anecdotal, but regardless does not fit the stereotype or norm you've provided. Not all people are created equal. I know you're probably not saying all males are like this, but I'm just here to clarify we aren't.

2. It's quite possible that these studies show "males don't develop new social bonds like women." But at the same time correlation doesn't equal causation. For example there could be many factors at why this happens. Not just that "That's the way men are."

One could argue that men for quite awhile in most societies were the providers. Men would go to work and women would take care of the kids. Women may have made more social bonds because they were dealing with other mothers and it was a more personal connection.

This is just one of many arguments, but if you are making generalizations it's a valid one I think. (Though becoming less valid as this is less common now.)

Basically if there is a study that comes out tomorrow that shows in your town female students do worse in math on average than male students. You shouldn't just assume it's because females can't do math. There could be plenty of factors associated. (Maybe they make the males sit in front of the class for example.)

Of course you could argue it's just biology, but that's why it's important to see if their are trends from these studies as well. (Let's say 1950's to 2000's.)

Libertad
2013-10-18, 10:50 PM
First of all, different people (of both genders) are very different. There are, after all, people who actually have rape fantasies. People that enjoy having pain inflicted on them. There are even guys that enjoy putting on rubber costumes and corsets, getting chained up, and delivering drinks to their girlfriends. And all of that is totally okay. The statement above clearly states "video game designers SHOULD NOT do something," which implies that something should be made taboo just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. If enough thinks that video game designers should not do something, it gets signed into law.

My problem is not with fantasies themselves, only when they're inserted into products and gaming sessions where the participants/customers have no warning beforehand.

Fictional non-consensual-themed role-play between willing participants in a private setting? Fine.

Creating and advertising a silly cartoon maid RPG, but then inserting an "example play" scenario where a 10-14 year old girl gets molested and treated for laughs? Not fine, especially when it has been picked up by people not expecting that. In regards to tabletop RPGs, a lot of it is put into products with little to no warning beforehand.

A lot of the problematic treatment towards women in gaming comes unprovoked and in situations where the treatment is not wanted: sexual harassment, strangers coming up to cosplayers and making rape jokes and gropes, etc.


There are tons of murder slapstick movies, or movies that are just plainly horrible at dealing with murder. Sturgeon's Law applies to everything; rape just gets more exposure because it has taboo status and makes more people feel uncomfortable, whereas murder tends to be very well accepted due to the media. I tend to believe it's a cultural thing more than objective, which means it's something that can shift with time.

In my OP Jim Sterling (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5972-Rape-vs-Murder) discussed the difference between rape and murder. It is a cultural thing, but that's because murder is more easily justifiable than rape, and because it's something we have a better understanding of.

Ghost Nappa
2013-10-18, 10:59 PM
I still stand by an idea I tried to introduce earlier on the forums:

Don't EVER, EVER do caps. Creating a STR cap is stupid :in terms of any and all gender specific implications, fluff, and mechanics. Putting a cap on your players because of unrealistic expectations of biology (fun fact: an adrenaline driven individual of decent to superior strength can for several seconds lift a helicopter. Doing so absolutely destroys the muscles needed to do so and significant time must be spent recuperating, but it can be done) is not only unfun but demeaning. Fluff-wise, it's a silly restriction and the explanation for why that is the case is likely going to be preposterous and isolating to the players, and it also arbitrarily and unnecessarily creates violations of the suspension of disblief. We're talking about demigods and Olympic-level athletes running around and performing absurdly amazing physical feats (the other kind of feats, mind you) and you're going to arbitrarily limit that? Yeah, Okay. I'm not playing.

If you want to create gender-specific stat alterations, do BONUSES. For every race, pick one gender as the "Physical" gender and the other as the "social" gender.
An individual of the "social" gender receives a single permanent +1 bonus to a stat (per stat) if the value reaches the following values:
STR: 15
DEX: 13
CON: 15
INT: 13
WIS: 15
CHA: 13

An individual of the "physical" gender receives a single, permanent +1 bonus to a stat (per stat) if the value reaches the following values:
STR: 13
DEX: 15
CON: 13
INT: 15
WIS: 13
CHA: 15

An individual that does not clearly fit well into either (asexual, transexual, androgenous, etc.) uses the following instead:

STR: 14
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 14
WIS: 14
CHA: 14


Argument for the model:
1) Fairness to both genders by not picking a side.
Given how most races are predominantly mammalian, and mammals as a whole have males as the "physical" and females as the "social," there is an understandable association. However, I have deliberately chosen to associate the stat values with the roles over the actual genders, I am trying to hammer home that if you want to make a race or society or something that has women in the "physical" role and men in the "social" role, it is perfectly acceptable and requires almost no adjustment.

Meanwhile, it mechanically acknowledges the differences that exist between men and women without necessarily denying anyone anything. Each stat is eligible for a bonus only once and the values are meant to further emphasize a character's traits. It's not that one gender is really better than the other, it's just that one has an easier time doing something.

2) Appeal to the Munchkin in all of us.
This model encourages optimization. A Physical Character that raises a CON from 12 to 13 is EFFECTIVELY raising it to 14, improving the modifier by a whole point at the cost of a one attribute increase. It is not limiting but empowering (literally) by design. Furthermore, it is obviously an optional system and if it makes good stats better and doesn't touch bad stats.

Morithias
2013-10-18, 11:04 PM
In my OP Jim Sterling (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5972-Rape-vs-Murder) discussed the difference between rape and murder. It is a cultural thing, but that's because murder is more easily justifiable than rape, and because it's something we have a better understanding of.

I hope this isn't offensive, but I agree with that notion. I will never understand rape. I can't imagine it would be fun or easy trying to have sex with someone who's trying to punch you in the face.

shaken_bacon
2013-10-18, 11:12 PM
Just a quick fun little thing anyone can do.

Okay this is a first thought exercise. What do you picture when I say:





Apple




Okay, pictured an apple right? Remember don't think hard, first image that comes to mind. GO!










Barbarian












Sorcerer












Store Clerk















Lawyer



















Doctor















Scientist




















Okay that was fun. What do the results mean? I don't know, but it's a fun thing to do. For example when you hear Doctor did you think of a Male? Female? White? Black?

It's just a fun way to realize that everyone has preconceived ideas. That doesn't make you sexist if you pictured the professional jobs as males, but heck then again. :smallwink: For me... I always end up picturing TV show characters... Damn it!

Mr Beer
2013-10-18, 11:14 PM
I wouldn't use STR caps (or penalties) for female characters probably ever and certainly not in a D&D setting, where we're already ignoring the square-cube law, a fundamental mechanic in calculating relative strengths.

That said, I didn't think the article's observation that women can reach D&D ST: 18 was really relevant. That merely implies the female cap should be higher than 18.

Morithias
2013-10-18, 11:24 PM
Just a quick fun little thing anyone can do.

Okay this is a first thought exercise. What do you picture when I say:

Apple

Okay, pictured an apple right? Remember don't think hard, first image that comes to mind. GO!



Barbarian

Princess Sapphire. She may be refined but she has a lot of rage.

Sorcerer

Ruby from Rosario Vampire. A gothic witch with a taste of class, and refinement.

Store Clerk

Recette

Lawyer

Phoenix Wright

Doctor

Doctor Insano

Scientist

Doctor Insano.

(Okay those last two are kind of cheating. I was watching the spoony experiment prior to coming on here.)

Scow2
2013-10-18, 11:35 PM
Just a quick fun little thing anyone can do.

Okay this is a first thought exercise. What do you picture when I say:
Apple
Stupid Iphones
BarbarianCohen

Sorcerer
Female anthropomorphic cheetah wearing nothing but an incredible charisma score and residual particle effects of summoning and evocation magic! Favorite character I've ever played in a D&D campaign.

Store Clerk Old woman at the local k-mart. I can't remember her name.

Lawyer Phil and Rodriguez! If the boot doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Doctor Who?

Scientist Gordon Freeman who is John Freeman's Brother.


Okay that was fun. What do the results mean? I don't know, but it's a fun thing to do. For example when you hear Doctor did you think of a Male? Female? White? Black?

It's just a fun way to realize that everyone has preconceived ideas. That doesn't make you sexist if you pictured the professional jobs as males, but heck then again. :smallwink: For me... I always end up picturing TV show characters... Damn it!Well, it does emphasize the role of media in our perceptions.

Felyndiira
2013-10-18, 11:37 PM
My problem is not with fantasies themselves, only when they're inserted into products and gaming sessions where the participants/customers have no warning beforehand.

Fictional non-consensual-themed role-play between willing participants in a private setting? Fine.

Creating and advertising a silly cartoon maid RPG, but then inserting an "example play" scenario where a 10-14 year old girl gets molested and treated for laughs? Not fine, especially when it has been picked up by people not expecting that. In regards to tabletop RPGs, a lot of it is put into products with little to no warning beforehand.
There are a number of things that could be offensive to a number of different groups of people. You can watch any given episode of Dave Chapelle's humor, chance upon one of his "poking fun at his own race" episodes, and be very much offended. That, in no way, means that Dave Chapelle is obligated to put a giant "Warning! Contains racism!" on his comedy shows.

The point is, everything is inserted into a story for a reason. The scene from Baldur's Gate? It's intended to make you uncomfortable; to show you "hey, holy crap, this is what the drows are really like." The tentacle maid RPG example is probably a case of refuge in audacity, where the work goes so over the top with offensive material that the viewer stops associating it with reality.

Also, as you have agreed below, the taboo IS a cultural thing. Japan - which is probably the only country that could get away with the aforementioned example - has a significantly different culture than the United States (and, rather amusingly, also pioneered using metrosexuality in video games to sexualize guys). Judging their culture based on US taboos is a bit, well, not quite valid.


A lot of the problematic treatment towards women in gaming comes unprovoked and in situations where the treatment is not wanted: sexual harassment, strangers coming up to cosplayers and making rape jokes and gropes, etc.
Yes, that sucks and needs to stop. I remain unconvinced that maintaining a heavier taboo on rape in creative fiction has any correlation with people being ignorant misogynists.


In my OP Jim Sterling (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5972-Rape-vs-Murder) discussed the difference between rape and murder. It is a cultural thing, but that's because murder is more easily justifiable than rape, and because it's something we have a better understanding of.
I tried to get through that video. My brain kinda shut down at the following statements (based off memory, so wording may not be exact):

Murder is equal opportunity... [i]is a power fantasy anyone can have.
Rape, on the other hand... [i]something women can't just physically do.

I'll try to watch the video again once my brain recovers from this, but even his first and less foot-in-mouth statement - murder can be rationalized - doesn't apply to all or even most of creative fiction out there. Case in point, Grand Theft Auto. We accept those all the same, whether they are played for drama, for humor, or for refuge in audacity.

EDIT: Okay, I watched the entire video. I'm a bit more sympathetic to the video now (though keep in mind, according to British studies, the ratio of men vs. women who report rape is 3:5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender) without taking into account male under-representation, so his argument on rape being fully gender unequal is still heavily biased).

His argument about murder being final, so that murder victims can't be offended? Yes, that does apply - if all murders are action combat, kill ninja mooks kinds of things. There are, however, video games that create drama by having a loved one, a friend, or someone else a protagonist cares about getting killed in front of them. For a not insignificant number of people, this will strike a nerve. However, this is accepted in Western society all-the-less.

The remainder of his video is personal opinion, which - while I respect - is only an opinion without his three arguments, which I addressed above.

Halna LeGavilk
2013-10-18, 11:56 PM
Empirical evidence indicates otherwise from your and Halna's incredibly ignorant statements about male to male interaction. This male relationship analogy of "ally or prey" indicates much more the toxic problems with traditional gender roles then "That's just the way we are". As long as we are talking about experiences here, it's nowhere common in my own. In fact, generally in my social groups, such people are considered jerks and don't last long. All I can really say is I am sorry you perceive the world in such a crappy way and that factors around you produced such a toxic existence. But you are making a stronger point of kyriarchy, even if that is not your intention.

Ah, thank you for the wonderful compliments. You ever been on a football team? Or a wrestling team? Or in a show choir, or anything where competition is? That's more what I'm referring to, and I should have been more clear. In a social group (for example, among my friends) there isn't really much competition. We get along, we play board games and TTRPGs.

You know literally nothing about me except for one statement I made while I was admittedly kind of angry at this thread and forum. So, if you want it, I apologize. I don't retract my previous statement, but I will moderate it somewhat. As a suggestion, perhaps you should not judge other people's life before you know anything about them. Perhaps I love competition. Maybe that's where I get my jollies. You don't know. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's toxic.

I'm gonna show myself out. I can't imagine this thread is gonna get any better.

Libertad
2013-10-19, 12:07 AM
The point is, everything is inserted into a story for a reason. The scene from Baldur's Gate? It's intended to make you uncomfortable; to show you "hey, holy crap, this is what the drows are really like." The tentacle maid RPG example is probably a case of refuge in audacity, where the work goes so over the top with offensive material that the viewer stops associating it with reality.

This is not always the case. An rpg.net thread on the game had several gamers express extreme displeasure at it's inclusion, in part because some of them had to deal with sexual abuse in real life. And the RPG I was referring to was Maid, which to my knowledge does not include any tentacle porn.


Also, as you have agreed below, the taboo IS a cultural thing. Japan - which is probably the only country that could get away with the aforementioned example - has a significantly different culture than the United States (and, rather amusingly, also pioneered using metrosexuality in video games to sexualize guys). Judging their culture based on US taboos is a bit, well, not quite valid.

Not necessarily. Normalization of rape and demonization of its victims is present in many cultures. And Japan does have problems of train-groping of women and girls, underage prostitution (enjoy kosai, or compensated dating), and for some time used panties of middle and high school girls were sold in vending machines. So it's not invalid to say point out that Japan's (and other cultures') representation and treatment of women has a lot of problems.


Yes, that sucks and needs to stop. I remain unconvinced that maintaining a heavier taboo on rape in creative fiction has any correlation with people being ignorant misogynists.

It becomes misogynistic when we start victim-blaming or implying that the victims deserved it, that it must be included to threaten female characters with, or otherwise reinforces regressive attitudes.


I tried to get through that video. My brain kinda shut down at the following statements (based off memory, so wording may not be exact):

Murder is equal opportunity... [i]is a power fantasy anyone can have.
Rape, on the other hand... [i]something women can't just physically do.

I'll try to watch the video again once my brain recovers from this, but even his first and less foot-in-mouth statement - murder can be rationalized - doesn't apply to all or even most of creative fiction out there. Case in point, Grand Theft Auto. We accept those all the same, whether they are played for drama, for humor, or for refuge in audacity.

EDIT: Okay, I watched the entire video. I'm a bit more sympathetic to the video now (though keep in mind, according to British studies, the ratio of men vs. women who report rape is 3:5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender) without taking into account male under-representation, so his argument on rape being fully gender unequal is still heavily biased).

His argument about murder being final, so that murder victims can't be offended? Yes, that does apply - if all murders are action combat, kill ninja mooks kinds of things. There are, however, video games that create drama by having a loved one, a friend, or someone else a protagonist cares about getting killed in front of them. For a not insignificant number of people, this will strike a nerve. However, this is accepted in Western society all-the-less.

The remainder of his video is personal opinion, which - while I respect - is only an opinion without his three arguments, which I addressed above.

I'll admit that I disagree with Jim's comments on women being unable to rape, but the desire to kill someone you despise is a very common human emotion a lot of us can relate to.

Also, I'm looking at the Wikipedia article you linked and do not see the 3:5 ratio you mentioned. And rape is still very gender unequal because historically and systemically the majority of victims are women. By how much I do not know, but in the article it mentions that 91% of US Bureau of Justice convictions involved a man raping a woman.

Broken Twin
2013-10-19, 12:12 AM
I have to admit I find the Pathfinder iconic pictures post to be intellectually dishonest. Why compare the skin showing barbarian to the covered fighter without bringing in the also covered (female) paladin? Why bring up the skin showing sorcerer against the wizard without mentioning the open shirt magus? You can't examine a body of art for sexism without considering the body as a whole.

Yes, the sorcerer's outfit is designed for sex appeal. She's also likely the most attractive person in the party, by virtue of her charisma score. If I'm sexy as hell, I'm going to flaunt it. Especially since actual armour is useless to me, by din of it interfering with my spells. Her outfit is flashy and impractical because she's the only one with the ego and ability to do so. Characters with high charisma are more likely to dress in appealing ways. The fighter's a bore, so he just gets stuff he things is practical. The bard is picking up stuff thinking "Damn I'm gonna look good in this."

Sorcerers and barbarians (male OR female) traditionally are depicted wearing less then their compatriots, so I don't see why them being female for PF is sexist. When I see the PF barbarian, I'm not thinking "She's sexy", I'm thinking "She's badass, and makes me want to play a barbarian." As to the sorcerer... honestly, I'm not fond of the design, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a character who knows they're good looking and flaunting it.

Libertad
2013-10-19, 12:15 AM
I find the Pathfinder iconic pictures post intellectually dishonest. Why compare the skin showing barbarian to the covered fighter without bringing in the also covered (female) paladin? Why bring up the skin showing sorcerer against the wizard without mentioning the open shirt magus? You can't examine a body of art for sexism without considering the body as a whole.

Yes, the sorcerer's outfit is designed for sex appeal. She's also likely the most attractive person in the party, by virtue of her charisma score. If I'm sexy as hell, I'm going to flaunt it. Especially since actual armour is useless to me, by din of it interfering with my spells. Her outfit is flashy and impractical because she's the only one with the ego and ability to do so. Characters with high charisma are more likely to dress in appealing ways. The fighter's a bore, so he just gets stuff he things is practical. The bard is picking up stuff thinking "Damn I'm gonna look good in this."

Sorcerers and barbarians (male OR female) traditionally are depicted wearing less then their compatriots, so I don't see why them being female for PF is sexist. When I see the PF barbarian, I'm not thinking "She's sexy", I'm thinking "She's badass, and makes me want to play a barbarian." As to the sorcerer... honestly, I'm not fond of the design, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a character who knows they're good looking and flaunting it.

But the Sorcerer is portrayed wearing that outfit all the time, even in cold climates. And Charisma does not necessarily equate to physical attractiveness, and not all attractive people like to dress provocatively. In fact, a person can be portrayed as sexy without showing lots of skin.

But yes the female Paladin is a very good example of women warriors in practical garb. However, there are other elements in Pathfinder which veer between extremes, like a pendulum swinging between "stripperific" and "looks practical."

awa
2013-10-19, 12:27 AM
personally i also see the pathfinder iconics as not being a good example of sexism

the cleric and druid are also completely covered. so from a quick Google search the "practical" classes outweigh the sexy classes by quite a bit

yes the barbarian is probably a bit impractical and less well covered then is logical but let us compare her to the ultimate barbarian, Conan the barbarian compared to most depictions of Conan she is frankly over dressed

Libertad
2013-10-19, 12:45 AM
Comparing the iconic to Conan is problematic because, as was shown with a shirtless pirate and Ivy earlier on, men are more often idealized while women are sexualized.

Conan is not designed to be sexually appealing towards women. He can fight shirtless because he's powerful, his image is what men are intended to aspire to be.

Scantily clad warrior women, by contrast, are meant as eye candy for heterosexual men.

This is a good explanation of design in superhero comics. The men wear tight spandex, but it's rarely done to appeal to heterosexual women. The point of view more often zooms in and focuses on women's boobs and butts, while the inverse rarely happens for men. (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/02/21/she-has-no-head-no-its-not-equal/)

Felyndiira
2013-10-19, 12:54 AM
This is not always the case. An rpg.net thread on the game had several gamers express extreme displeasure at it's inclusion, in part because some of them had to deal with sexual abuse in real life. And the RPG I was referring to was Maid, which to my knowledge does not include any tentacle porn.
This is an anecdotal example. We all know that some people who have experienced sexual abuse will be displeased that rape is included in what amounts to an interactive novel. Similarly, people have been offended at a number of other things from all sorts of perspectives, whether it be something that grossly violates their religious beliefs to traumatic past experiences (with murder!) to something as simple as courtesy.

"Some people are offended" is absolutely not a reason to invoke taboo status on something. I would argue that instead, it would be best to revoke taboo status and make the issue - and not the fight to keep the taboo - more public so that we can properly educate the next generation about it.


Not necessarily. Normalization of rape and demonization of its victims is present in many cultures. And Japan does have problems of train-groping of women and girls, underage prostitution (enjoy kosai, or compensated dating), and for some time used panties of middle and high school girls were sold in vending machines. So it's not invalid to say point out that Japan's (and other cultures') representation and treatment of women has a lot of problems.
Japan also has a culture of using tentacles and other silly things as a substitution for, well, you know what. Pointing out that, yes, Japan has the same problems that US does does not change what is and is not accepted as "proper refuge in audacity".

Not that it matters to this argument, so I think we can leave this at "Japan is weird" and not mention it anymore. My apologies for replying to a purely illustrative example.


It becomes misogynistic when we start victim-blaming or implying that the victims deserved it, that it must be included to threaten female characters with, or otherwise reinforces regressive attitudes.
Yes, I agree with you. This still does not address, say, why including rape in Game of Thrones should be taboo or any similar topics. Unless if you can prove correlation between rape in fiction and victim blaming?


I'll admit that I disagree with Jim's comments on women being unable to rape, but the desire to kill someone you despise is a very common human emotion a lot of us can relate to.
Also, an emotion that we learn to restrain based on common sense. Just like our carnal desires.


Also, I'm looking at the Wikipedia article you linked and do not see the 3:5 ratio you mentioned. And rape is still very gender unequal because historically and systemically the majority of victims are women. By how much I do not know, but in the article it mentions that 91% of US Bureau of Justice convictions involved a man raping a woman.

"In a 2000 research article from the Home Office, in England and Wales, around 1 in 20 women (5%) said that they had been raped at some point in their life from the age of 16 beyond."

"Research from the UK suggests that almost 3% of men reported a non-consensual sexual experience as adults..."

I'm disregarding the US Center for Disease Control study because it is misquoted. The source article says domestic abuse, which is FAR more common than rape and occurs in many different forms.

US discrepancy for this is probably higher than the UK, but it's still far from his comments on gender comparisons (which sounds like male cases are once in a blue moon and female cases are 50%+ or something).

Broken Twin
2013-10-19, 01:11 AM
Just a side note, but this comparison always comes to mind when Conan is brought up:
Conan/Fabio (https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3274523904/hF149E059/)

...

Pose plays a pivotal role in how a character is perceived. In the case of the Iconic barbarian, none of the pictures of her that I know of offhand have her in standard 'sexy' poses. Fabio is more sexy then Conan because he poses in a sexy manner. Same with the Sorc/Barb. One is doing it to say "I can bash your face in without needing heavy armor", and the other is doing it to say "I'm sexy and I know it."

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with a woman (or man) that looks sexy. It only becomes a problem when it's the sole focus of a single gender in the work. Besides my dislike of the specific clothing design, I've got nothing against a sexy sorcerer, because she's balanced by the other female characters.

Also, the sorcerer running around in skimpy clothes in the middle of the snow? Endure Elements, lvl 1 spell. From a practical perspective, she doesn't have to dress for the weather unless she wants to. :smalltongue:

Libertad
2013-10-19, 01:17 AM
This is an anecdotal example. We all know that some people who have experienced sexual abuse will be displeased that rape is included in what amounts to an interactive novel. Similarly, people have been offended at a number of other things from all sorts of perspectives, whether it be something that grossly violates their religious beliefs to traumatic past experiences (with murder!) to something as simple as courtesy.

"Some people are offended" is absolutely not a reason to invoke taboo status on something. I would argue that instead, it would be best to revoke taboo status and make the issue - and not the fight to keep the taboo - more public so that we can properly educate the next generation about it.


I might have mentioned it earlier or on another forum, but many rape victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and can relive the incident when encountering rape in media. This is where the term "Trigger Warning" comes from in feminist and social justice circles, and not just regarding sexual assault. Trigger Warnings are in place to avoid "triggering" others. And Maid is not an "interactive novel" or hentai game, it's a table-top RPG sold in the United States and other Western countries.

The Maid publishers were being irresponsible in that they ran the very real risk of causing triggers in readers with no aforementioned warning. Approximately 1 in 3 (http://www.woar.org/resources/sexual-assault-statistics.php) to 1 in 5 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=1&) women in the United States have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 1 in 6 men have been sexually abused by age 18. (https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/) Given these huge numbers, avoiding "triggers" of this sort is reasonable for publishers, via providing warnings of some sorts or making it clear in advertising that these products will contain such material.

tasw
2013-10-19, 01:39 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Gettles
2013-10-19, 01:49 AM
I'm okay with cheesecake too - but the problem is not the outfits, it's how the different genders are typically made to wear them/pose in them.

For example, compare this scantily-clad fantasy individual:

http://thefightingconnection.com/sites/default/files/styles/150x320/public/pictures/hong-yun-seong-soul-calibur-iv-picture.jpg

With this one:


http://cdn.staticneo.com/w/soulcalibur/thumb/c/cb/Ivy.jpg/250px-Ivy.jpg

The difference being that the former is posed to show youthful aggression or determination, while the latter is simply checking herself out in an invisible mirror off-frame and the pose tells us nothing about her character.

Come on, that's not fair. Everyone knows that Ivy is on the FAR extreme end of Soul Calibur costumes and is only fairly compared to Voldo in terms of absurd outfits:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Voldo.png

tasw
2013-10-19, 01:54 AM
Now I'll take your word that there are studies regarding this and show your point. I do have a few counter arguments to make however.

1. This has not been my life experience or most of my friends life experience as well. When I think about most people I know (in regards to males) many develop new friendship. For example, I play on various sports teams and because I met new people through sports I might invite them over to watch hockey, go to the bar, heck I've even done golf trips.

Now this in anecdotal, but regardless does not fit the stereotype or norm you've provided. Not all people are created equal. I know you're probably not saying all males are like this, but I'm just here to clarify we aren't.

2. It's quite possible that these studies show "males don't develop new social bonds like women." But at the same time correlation doesn't equal causation. For example there could be many factors at why this happens. Not just that "That's the way men are."

One could argue that men for quite awhile in most societies were the providers. Men would go to work and women would take care of the kids. Women may have made more social bonds because they were dealing with other mothers and it was a more personal connection.

This is just one of many arguments, but if you are making generalizations it's a valid one I think. (Though becoming less valid as this is less common now.)

Basically if there is a study that comes out tomorrow that shows in your town female students do worse in math on average than male students. You shouldn't just assume it's because females can't do math. There could be plenty of factors associated. (Maybe they make the males sit in front of the class for example.)

Of course you could argue it's just biology, but that's why it's important to see if their are trends from these studies as well. (Let's say 1950's to 2000's.)

They are long term trends in research.

The other question relevant to your personal anecdote is how old are you? Wife and kids? Serious career or just a job?

These things all make a difference. Its a scale, its not like "hey i graduated highschool, no more friends for me." Its over the 60-70 years of adult life that come after that.

I mean just personally there are friends I made in the military that (obviously post adolescence) I still keep in regular contact with after 10 years out even though we live in parts of the country where we have never been in person once over that time.

But theres also 95% of the other men I served with that I frankly, might not even recognize on the street at this point. And I certainly dont remember their names. And these are people I went through extraordinary circumstances with. We put our lives on the line for each other over and over for 3 years and I wouldnt recognize most of them in the grocery store, much less keep in touch at this point.

And I am definitely not even close to alone in this.

JusticeZero
2013-10-19, 02:05 AM
Comparing the iconic to Conan is problematic because, as was shown with a shirtless pirate and Ivy earlier on, men are more often idealized while women are sexualized.
Okay, this always bugs me, because it's not saying what people think it is saying.
Women are often made into sex objects.
Men are often made into power objects.
Sex objects are characters who are distilled down so that all you see is sex sex sex.
Power objects are characters where all you see is power, power, power.

Take your basic Clint Eastwood gritty fighter type. Armed to the teeth. Muscular, Bristling in expensive gear. And all of it spiked, spiked spiked to make them look like a pure snarling badass machine of violence and destruction.

What you have here is pretty much the same class of thing as the lady next to him with breasts that have their own gravity well, postage stamps for clothes, and a ridiculous come hither posture. Both characters are being stripped down into a caricature of one single stereotypical aspect of themself that is tied to toxic gender roles.

Most women are never going to have the level of attractiveness depicted in that beefcake picture. Nor would most of them have a lot of use for it other than to be irritated at how hard it might be to control well. Plus, the fact that there is a heck of a lot to a given woman than how pretty she is.

Most men are never going to have anywhere remotely near as much power as those "powerful" beefcake characters have. Nor would they want to look that intimidating and powerful, it would be really awkward in most situations. Furthermore, that ultra-powerful male stereotype basically has had virtually their entire range of experience, emotion, and interests lobotomized out of it. Take that snarling and musclebound mass of spikes and blades and imagine them sitting down to compose some poetry, or to bake a cake, or some other thing that isn't eyebleedingly "Manly". These are things that men do, but those power objects just don't really work with it.

So really, you are arguing that you prefer one class of horribly stereotyped depiction over a different class of horribly stereotyped depiction, and asserting that one of the two is a POSITIVE image where the other is negative.

No. They are both bad images. Both of them are reinforcing bilaterally toxic imagery that reinforces roles that are harmful to both men and women. Female images that are objectified representations of distilled sex are bad; they reinforce bad attitudes in both men and women. Male images that are distilled and objectified representations of raw power and aggressive stoicism are also bad; they reinforce bad attitudes in both men and women.

We need more soft male characters alongside the powerful female characters too. Less spikes and raw bloodthirstiness. More practical armor, and can we throw in some more cleric guys tending the wounded?

Black Jester
2013-10-19, 02:44 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Seriously? No. Unintentionally giving offense is a thing. It happens all the time without any malicious intent because of unawareness or superficiality.
{{scrubbed}}

nyarlathotep
2013-10-19, 03:05 AM
There are a number of things that could be offensive to a number of different groups of people. You can watch any given episode of Dave Chapelle's humor, chance upon one of his "poking fun at his own race" episodes, and be very much offended. That, in no way, means that Dave Chapelle is obligated to put a giant "Warning! Contains racism!" on his comedy shows.


You do realize that Chapelle stopped his show specifically because those segments made him extremely uncomfortable and his gradual realization that a large portion of his audience were racists trying to justify their internal stereotypes?

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 03:11 AM
I have never for the life of me seen any evidence of that, anywhere. I have never heard of any Feminists saying that men need to stop competing with each other.

Okay, honest question: where on Earth do you live?

Because here, I've seen both "women should stop competing with each other" and "men should stop competing with each other" said over and over again in public discourse, mostly by proponents of egalitarian society. Not just in spirit, but using the exact phrase.


If I say "Alice walked up to Bob and shot him in the head. Did Alice commit a crime?" most people wouldn't need to think before they said "yes, she is a murderer". Now, if I said "Alice Forced Bob to have sex with her, did she commit a crime?" Some people would say no...

There's a reason to that. The first example shows has no ambiguity of method. The second example has no shown method. If you asked the question "Alice drugged Bob unconscious and the dragged him to a bathroom stall to have her way with him, did she commit a crime?", a lot more people would answer "yes".

Also, even in the first example jumping to the conclusion that Alice is a criminal, and more specifically murderer, is a logical fallacy. Like you yourself noted, Alice and Bob could be soldiers on opposing sides of a war. This could be a legal execution for deserting. So on and so forth.

"Crime" is a far more specific word than what people use it for. In many countries, there is no crime without a law defining an action as crime. "Right" and "wrong" & "good" and "bad" on the other hand are much more broader terms. It's possible to acknowledge something is not a crime, while still holding it as morally repulsive.

shaken_bacon
2013-10-19, 03:18 AM
Barbarian

Princess Sapphire. She may be refined but she has a lot of rage.

Sorcerer

Ruby from Rosario Vampire. A gothic witch with a taste of class, and refinement.

Store Clerk

Recette

Lawyer

Phoenix Wright

Doctor

Doctor Insano

Scientist

Doctor Insano.

(Okay those last two are kind of cheating. I was watching the spoony experiment prior to coming on here.)

Ha ha based on your answers and Scow. This might have been the wrong forum for it. Also, I thought of Recette too. Generally when you ask people in person they'll think of white male doctors and such. TV and Video Games kind of ruined that "experiment" ha ha.

Kyberwulf
2013-10-19, 03:33 AM
Alice walks up to Bob, gets him Drunk and has sex with him. Is that a crime?

GreenZ
2013-10-19, 03:39 AM
I really enjoyed the opening post (As well as much of the discussion that has sprung from it) and I think the most important aspect to any problem is understand and communication. Equally important is the conclusion as to how that conclusion came to be. In this regard, I often like to place small things in games while GMing simply to see how the players react and discuss the topic. :smallbiggrin:

As far as I have personally seen in roleplaying, some of the most important factors regarding sexism within games comes directly from players through their characters. (Or GM through their NPC's) In order to start discussion and to compare experiences, here are a bunch of things I have noticed from players:

Of all the players I have played with, both male and female, most roleplay primarily as their own gender. Players who roleplay their own gender are also more likely to specifically deem their character 'attractive' than those who roleplay the opposite gender.

Overall, from my experience, female characters, played by either male or female players, are more likely, in relation to the smaller number played, to be specifically called 'attractive' than male characters.

This is countered by the fact that the number of male roleplayers outweigh the female ones, leading to more male characters than female ones in most of my roleplaying groups.

Of the players who play a significant number of off-gender characters within games I have been a part of, most male players playing female characters seem to play more cautiously while female players playing male characters are less likely to do so: Said female characters will be less frequently defined by gender during play while said male characters tend to have their masculine features more obviously displayed or spoken of.

From what I have noticed, female players are just as likely as male players to start relationships (Of any kind) within games. (if any relationships appear within the game) But most PC relationships within written material often reference or hint at a female NPC and a male PC.

Only PC to PC relationships I have witnessed are from couples that are already in a relationship together out of character or 'post-game' relationships. (I am assuming this is due to the awkwardness of RPing relationships during play.)

Interestingly enough, sexual approaches from NPC's generally seem equally met when the NPC is opposite gender of the PC but seem to be more frequently accepted by female players when the NPC is the same gender as the PC (This might depend wildly on the select number of people I have done this to.) (I may enjoy poking my players a bit too much just to see how they react. :smallredface:)

From the handful of times I have had games deal with matriarchal NPC's and other such clear bias (mostly DMing drow) for any period of time, female players seemed to react and take control of the party more deliberately from that point onward and the players of both genders did not react to the bias very strongly (This is something that I would like to understand more clearly) On the other hand, obvious bias behavior from NPC's toward female PC's seems to be met with more open hostility by the PC's.

I would like to see what other people think of this.

Gavran
2013-10-19, 04:05 AM
I'm not going to get involved in this discussion this time around!

But I am going to say that the GitP mods are good mods. We've closed what... three? threads hitting these subjects recently. It's obvious these issues are important enough to people to keep coming up (and obvious that it often leads to unproductive discourse), and I think it's pretty cool that you folks are recognizing that and trying to keep the train on track instead of getting frustrated and throwing out bans until it stops.

The Oni
2013-10-19, 04:18 AM
Come on, that's not fair. Everyone knows that Ivy is on the FAR extreme end of Soul Calibur costumes and is only fairly compared to Voldo in terms of absurd outfits:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Voldo.png

...And this is another excellent point. Yun-seong's outfit is very practical for the life that he lives - which is a fairly normal one compared to Ivy and Voldo's, relatively speaking. The fact that he hasn't been directly affected by Soul Edge's influence probably helps.

But I think the most relevant-to-this-conversation question that can be drawn here is: does anyone here find Voldo attractive?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 04:51 AM
Can we skip step 1 (admitting RPGs have a problem) and step 1.5 (convincing others RPGs have a problem), and move onto step 2 (discussing how to fix the problem)?

Discussion: How to Make an RPG/Game/Setting/Whatever which is Non-Sexist: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16247197#post16247197

PersonMan
2013-10-19, 04:57 AM
It's just a fun way to realize that everyone has preconceived ideas. That doesn't make you sexist if you pictured the professional jobs as males, but heck then again. :smallwink: For me... I always end up picturing TV show characters... Damn it!

Well, it may be because of the tendency to self-default. I.e. I'm a white guy, so if I think of someone they will be a white guy until I get something that tells me otherwise.

It also helps that thinks like Sorcerer are gendered and, although the female versions don't see as much use, there are plenty of people who are aware of them. It's like if I say

Sorceress

Witch

Philosopheress

Nurse

All but one of those are clearly gendered, so I'm steering your thoughts towards that gender. Now, obviously you didn't have that many in your example, but it's something that crossed my mind when I read 'Sorcerer' in that list.


But the Sorcerer is portrayed wearing that outfit all the time, even in cold climates.

If you had the choice between snapping your fingers to instantly get warm (and stay so for 24 hours and be comfortable if you end up in an overly hot environment) and putting on bulky clothes that don't even work as well, which would you choose?

Expecting different attire for extreme environments falls apart after the early levels of a super-high-magic game where the party has someone who can say 'You know what? Unless we go to the coldest/hottest place in the world, we're going to be entirely comfortable!'.



And as far as the PF Barbarian is concerned, to me her look says 'I was made with the classic "Berserker rushing through the fight, ignoring wounds that would be fatal for lesser warriors" image in mind'. Again, the fact that PF is not a very realistic system is important.

If I'm playing GURPS and my female art is of unarmored 'warriors', unless they're mentioned to rely on dodging and parrying or blocking, then that's more of an issue than if I'm playing a game where, beyond early levels, Ms I Have No Armor can take a dozen arrows to the chest and not care.

Although, if there is ultra impractical armor, there should be a good reason for it, for each example. Something I do is just imagine the same image with a flipped gender and see if I'd accept it. Scantily clad Sorcerer vs scantily clad Sorceress? Sure. Barbarian with 'armor' which doesn't cover anything much? Sure. I really only expect armor, especially heavy armor, on a few archetypes. There are plenty (mage, duelist, sneak, diplomat, healer, etc.) who would look just as ridiculous in full plate as a front line knight would look in their outfit.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 06:29 AM
If you had the choice between snapping your fingers to instantly get warm (and stay so for 24 hours and be comfortable if you end up in an overly hot environment) and putting on bulky clothes that don't even work as well, which would you choose?

I would, obviously, wear comfortable clothes in that case. Comfortable clothes, that make me look respectable and powerful.

The problem with stupid fantasy female clothes is not (only) that you would freeze in them in a cold climate, it is that almost no one in a gender-equal society, where women's worth is not measured in sexyness, would wear them, and if at all, then probably only in the bedroom.

There may be exceptions, people who want to appear sexy on purpose, and want, for some reason, to do so in front of everyone. Magicians, however, are not that exception.

Mastikator
2013-10-19, 06:43 AM
Alice walks up to Bob, gets him Drunk and has sex with him. Is that a crime?

Depends on how drunk, it's potentially rape. Though no legal system would ever take it seriously.

Czin
2013-10-19, 06:58 AM
Honestly I've never had a problem with female gamers, and my online group is a little more than a half female (I did recruit replacements for my old group mainly from tumblr so there's that), but I find a lot of the penalties slapped onto female characters in the name of "realism" or complaining about some sort of invisible feminist conspiracy to cut your nads off through a tabletop game to be inherently ridiculous. There's no great conspiracy, there's only a realization that female gamers exist and that they're a demographic worth consorting.

Now we probably still have a while to go before businesses get the whole consorting thing down, but I think it's going to be a hurdle that will be overcome in due time.

On another pertinent topic, Ialso find a lot of "female armor" and indeed, fanservice armor as a whole to be inherently ridiculous when it's not used in a self aware manner, I.E they're only wearing it to get people's rocks off rather than pretending it's effective protection.

Seriously, this is not armor

http://i.imgur.com/48Xntme.jpg

Now this is armor

http://86bb71d19d3bcb79effc-d9e6924a0395cb1b5b9f03b7640d26eb.r91.cf1.rackcdn.c om/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/samus-phazon-suit-light-up-figurine-statue-collectible.jpg

deuterio12
2013-10-19, 06:58 AM
Conan is not designed to be sexually appealing towards women. He can fight shirtless because he's powerful, his image is what men are intended to aspire to be.

Scantily clad warrior women, by contrast, are meant as eye candy for heterosexual men.


Counterpoint: Sekirei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekirei) manga. Scantly clad warrior women everywhere, many able to tear down buildings with their bare hands, while pretty much every male character is portrayed as a good-for-nothing, except for their plot power to buff said female warriors to even greater heights. The author also happens to be a female artist renowed for yaoi and shotacon, so "heterosexual men" surely aren't her usual public target.


Basic point is, both men and women fantasize/aspire to being both good looking and strong/smart/superior. There's a reason why plastic chirurgy makes so much money.




This is a good explanation of design in superhero comics. The men wear tight spandex, but it's rarely done to appeal to heterosexual women. The point of view more often zooms in and focuses on women's boobs and butts, while the inverse rarely happens for men. (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/02/21/she-has-no-head-no-its-not-equal/)

Eerr, last time I checked, superman and Hulk and batman are always flexing their muscled biceps at the opposition. And if the tight spandex isn't for sexual appeal... Then why is it there oh gods?:smalleek:




There may be exceptions, people who want to appear sexy on purpose, and want, for some reason, to do so in front of everyone.

So tell me, if you're looking for a partner, and there's two persons that look equally smart/strong/sympathetic, but one is wearing tick dirty rags and has messed up hair, while the other has clean revealing clothes and a nice haircut, their looks won't impact your choice?

Even more ironic, it's precisely in more gender-equal socities that women will dress up more exotically. Precisely because they have the right to choose their partner and clothing instead of being forced into a forced marriage and/or dressing standards. But that also means they have to compete with other women (just like men have to compete with each other). So if they want to get a partner, they'll need to use every advantage they can to stand out from the competition.

Looks matter a lot in society, for both genders. Anything else is fooling yourself.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 07:32 AM
The problem with stupid fantasy female clothes is not (only) that you would freeze in them in a cold climate, it is that almost no one in a gender-equal society, where women's worth is not measured in sexyness, would wear them, and if at all, then probably only in the bedroom.

You make the mistake of assuming that in a "gender equal society" women wouldn't place any value on sexiness. Finland is, based on most metrics, among the most egalitarian societies on Earth... and women routinely wear stupid clothing in freezing weather.

And don't think it's to appeal to men. Men are among the first to put this practice into question. The impractical clothes are a symbol of status among other women.

And this neatly loops back to RPG artwork. You say those skimpy fashion models are there for heterosexual men, but there are plenty of magazines, especially on the field of fashion, that are chock full of similar imagery... except, they are made by gay men or older women, to younger women.

Seriously, the fashion world has not fallen under sphere of dominance of heterosexual men for few decades now, and the over-sexualization and impractical outfits continue to pop up there.

Maybe, just maybe the self-idealization of women happens to also be sexually desireable by standards of straight men? I've read studies about porn, suggesting heterosexual women like to look at lesbian and straight porn more, than gay porn. The hypothesis was that the women identify with the female lead, and that makes them feel desired.

The issue with RPG art is more that the self-idealization of straight men doesn't do much, sexually, to straight women. Why? Because sex sells. :smallamused: If we want to bring more women to the hobby, instead of doing away with sexism we just have to add the right kind. Come up with designs that make women go "ooh, I want a piece of that!", and suddenly influx of new female players!

Oh come one, why are you looking at me like that? It worked for Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey, right? Right?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 07:42 AM
C
So tell me, if you're looking for a partner, and there's two persons that look equally smart/strong/sympathetic, but one is wearing tick dirty rags and has messed up hair, while the other has clean revealing clothes and a nice haircut, their looks won't impact your choice?


I'll take the one with the clean, non-revealing, sensible clothes and the long, uncut but well-groomed hair who is standing beside them. I'll get to see the slender body beneath his mage's robe soon enough if I play my cards right. :smallcool:

Seriously, life is not all about attracting a partner, and someone who makes it all about that does not look very smart.

The Hulk is not what most women consider sexy. He is what men might want to be like.
Go look at some fanart that was, you know, actually created by women for women.


@FrozenFeet: Finland is not the mythical country of gender-equality. It may be better than the US, but I am quite sure there still is sexism.
However, I do not think anyone anywhere wears clothes like depicted on female characters in videogames. Those clothes don't work without magic.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 07:45 AM
Feet: To appeal to people who do what's fashionable, you make your product fashionable. Not sure if that will ever happen with RPGs.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 07:55 AM
Who says it can't happen? :smallamused: Like I noted, Finnish LARP culture is female-dominated, and I think large part of that owns to that crowd's connection to the national cosplay scene. All those pwetty clothes~!

Now, someone might want to bash me for my sexism here, but if we want to make tabletop roleplaying game culture more egalitarian, that requires bringing in a lot of new female players. Several studies suggest that the best way to dispell faulty stereotypes and break down artificial discrimination, is to make people of different groups mix and interact with regularity. Misogyny and male dominance in TRPG culture is a feedback loop: misogyny drives away women, meaning only men are left, meaning men are more likely to voice misogynist opinions without being called on it, meaning...

The only way to break the cycle is to somehow flood the scene with women. If that requires pwetty clothes, then so be it. I think we're focusing too much on removing elements women might find offensive, when we should be giving them a reason to participate. Aiming for total equality and eradication of sexism from the get-go is a fool's game, but if we can find an unrelated way to draw in new female players, the issue will start fixing itself.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 08:04 AM
The only way to break the cycle is to somehow flood the scene with women. If that requires pwetty clothes, then so be it. I think we're focusing too much on removing elements women might find offensive, when we should be giving them a reason to participate. Aiming for total equality and eradication of sexism from the get-go is a fool's game, but if we can find an unrelated way to draw in new female players, the issue will start fixing itself.

Pretty clothes as designed for female characters by male game designers, are obviously not a way to attract female players. Otherwise, video games would have a lot more more female players than they do.

However, pretty men with revealing clothes may work ... has that been tried yet? :smallamused:
(Pretty men. The Hulk is not pretty, nor are 90% of bodybuilder barbarians)

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 08:06 AM
Feet: It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it will work. Even with top-of-the-line character designers and artists, I'm not sure you could achieve that without massive backing.


Themrys: There are probably some examples of that not working. I've know women who are already uncomfortable with sexualization in games, who would find it worse if they further sexualized the men.

GolemsVoice
2013-10-19, 08:10 AM
I've actually asked several female gamers I played with in WoW, where the difference between the male and female look for the same armor used to be quite pronounced, if they found it offensive. To my surprise, all of the people I've asked said they LIKED the look.

Now, I've asked maybe four or so women, and that's in no way a real study, but stuff like that DOES happen.

Ettin
2013-10-19, 08:16 AM
That's not a bad idea, but how much do we involve fashion in D&D so girls will show up and fix sexism for us? Should I dress up when I DM? If so, which anime characters are acceptable?

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 08:18 AM
How does the anime fandom compare in gender ratios to tabletop?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 08:27 AM
I've actually asked several female gamers I played with in WoW, where the difference between the male and female look for the same armor used to be quite pronounced, if they found it offensive. To my surprise, all of the people I've asked said they LIKED the look.

Now, I've asked maybe four or so women, and that's in no way a real study, but stuff like that DOES happen.

You have some bias there - I, for example, quit playing WoW, among other things because of the blatant sexism, so you won't meet me there. I liked the rest of the game well enough, but the fact that a female night-elf fighter is more skinny than a male night-elf druid, and other stupidities, finally got too much.

Also - have you asked whether they like the chainmail-bikini-look or the fact that their female characters don't suddenly look like males when they put on armor?

@Mr. Mask: Well ... the sexualization is so over-the-top in many videogames that someone whose self-image does not include thinking about sex all the time will not want to play them.

However, I think it is important for male game designers and players to realize that the overtly muscular male bodies that are shown in superhero comics and the like, are not a female, but a male fantasy.

It is also important to acknowledge that male sexuality as displayed in media, can be perceived as threatening by women, and that this likely also plays into the opinions of female players about sexualization of male characters.

This is a portrayal of the most sexualized character class in the rpg DSA:

http://avisnocturna.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AB_154_RahjaGeweihter_web.jpg

Do you think that would turn the women you're talking about away from the game?

GolemsVoice
2013-10-19, 08:32 AM
Also - have you asked whether they like the chainmail-bikini-look or the fact that their female characters don't suddenly look like males when they put on armor?

I specifically asked for the chainmail bikini look.

I also continued playing WoW and am playing many videogames and I manage to not think about sex every 6 seconds. Still wanted to play them. But hey, those men... right?

Czin
2013-10-19, 08:35 AM
How does the anime fandom compare in gender ratios to tabletop?

That depends *immensely* on the anime in question. Some are sausage fests, some are almost entirely dominated by women (Hetalia comes to mind), but generally there's a male leaning.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 08:45 AM
I specifically asked for the chainmail bikini look.


Well, many women want to look sexy. If your sense of self-worth depends on sexyness, you might find it hard to play a character who is not sexy. Sadly, media encourage women to place a lot of importance on our appearance. I don't expect from other women to be completely free from the desire to be pretty.
And I can, of course, not imagine how a woman who is not pretty in real life might feel about playing a character who is also not pretty. (Me, I look somewhat like a female night elf, minus the ears and violet skin. The privilege of prettyness is invisible to me, much as the privilege of maleness is invisible to men)

Dimers
2013-10-19, 08:50 AM
I think it is important for male game designers and players to realize that the overtly muscular male bodies that are shown in superhero comics and the like, are not a female, but a male fantasy.

I've never understood the attraction, whether in terms of power or sexiness. 'Manly' physique doesn't make me want to be that character, or be like him, or be (ahem) with him. Really, they just look silly.

There's a rule-of-thumb for writing that goes something like "Show, don't tell" -- a writer should display character traits via their effects, not by simply saying that the character is such-and-such a way. And I think muscles-and-spandex is visually TELLING the reader that the character is strong instead of SHOWING it. The comics artist should emphasize the supernatural ability to throw a freaking car, rather than filling up the page with lumps of meat.

I'm not known for my amazing insight into understand other people's thinking, but my imagination can't come up with a reason a hetero woman would be attracted to the musclebound guy, either. It was always my assumption that that must be the reason they're drawn that way, since the portrayal of female characters seemed like an attempt to sell sex to hetero men. But I just don't see it.

I'm glad for the links/comments in this thread showing that, no, that's really not sexually attractive for typical women, and there's a more sensible reason for it. My universe makes a little more sense today than it did yesterday. :smallsmile:

GolemsVoice
2013-10-19, 09:02 AM
Well, many women want to look sexy. If your sense of self-worth depends on sexyness, you might find it hard to play a character who is not sexy. Sadly, media encourage women to place a lot of importance on our appearance. I don't expect from other women to be completely free from the desire to be pretty.
And I can, of course, not imagine how a woman who is not pretty in real life might feel about playing a character who is also not pretty.

Or they may just like the look? Do women have no desires that society isn't responsible for?

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 09:14 AM
How does the anime fandom compare in gender ratios to tabletop?

Overall in Finland? Dominated by teenage girls / young women and thirty-something males. It is quite a perplexing combination.

Of course, anime and RPG cultures are pretty heavily intertwined here, both being somewhat niche hobbies. Ropecon and Tracon, the biggest RPG themed events at these parts, always draw in a lot of anime folks too.

Ropecon is especially interesting case. Overall, it seems the gender ratio of participants is close to fifty-fifty. In traditional tabletop roleplaying games and wargames like Warhammer, male players are more common, but not overwhelmingly so. I'd say it's 60-40, or 70-30 at worst.

But when it comes to tabletop GMs, those who actually arrange the gaming program... women make up only like 10% of them at best. I was rather perplexed by this, as I've mostly played under female GMs in past conventions (I was a GM this year).


That's not a bad idea, but how much do we involve fashion in D&D so girls will show up and fix sexism for us? Should I dress up when I DM? If so, which anime characters are acceptable?

Dress as something from Yaoi. :smallamused: Link from Legend of Zelda is also a safe choice.


Pretty clothes as designed for female characters by male game designers, are obviously not a way to attract female players. Otherwise, video games would have a lot more more female players than they do.

Player gender ratios have been shown to be surprisingly close to even in case of videogames, actually. It's female game developers that are missing, causing dissatisfaction among women when their desires are not catered to. This topic is subject to frequent examination in Pelit-magazine here in Finland. (Interestingly, the chief editor of that magazine is a woman.)

The obvious solution would be to hire female fashion designers to work for the game industry. I can't recall if this has been done in regards to some game, or how succesfull it was.

(Also, the idea that women don't want to dress as those oversexed female characters from contemporary games? Empirically proven wrong in many, many conventions. Google "Ropecon 2013" or "Tracon 2013" and see for yourself. Those girls in costumes are not hired eyecandy; they are hobbyists and in those clothes out of their own will and desire.)

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 09:15 AM
Golems: Very difficult to say whether society caused them to like it.

Let's say we were in the Victorian era... stuff like that would probably scandalize them, and they would probably think it was insane. They might take a similar interest in some other fashion which was considered showy for the time.

If that theory seems reasonable, take from it what you will.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 09:17 AM
Or they may just like the look? Do women have no desires that society isn't responsible for?

I don't think women are biologically hardwired to prefer a sexy-looking game character over a realistically-looking game character, no.

I also don't think women are biologically hardwired to want to bare their midriffs while men are hardwired to want to cover their midriffs.

Considering the fact that the evolutionary sucess of a species depends more on the survival of women than on the survival of men, it would make more sense if men were genetically hardwired to wear insensible armor in order to attract a mate. :smallwink:

GolemsVoice
2013-10-19, 09:24 AM
And that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I don't think they're biologically hardwired to like those things, either. I also think that society isn't the only reason why women and girls like these things. What I'm saying is that I can imagine that women, sometimes, actually like those things because they find it aesthetically pleasing. Just like they might like a certain style of art, car, or architecture.


Sure, divorcing the influence of society from their own personal preferences is likely impossible to do completely, but I find it hard to accept that society is the only cause for that. In fact, if I were a woman, I'd find that belittling, actually, implying that I can't like something out of my own volition.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 09:30 AM
I don't think Themrys meant to say they don't have their own tastes. As with the example with the Victorian era, I think the point is more that tastes are influenced by society.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 09:31 AM
It becomes misogynistic when we start victim-blaming or implying that the victims deserved it, that it must be included to threaten female characters with, or otherwise reinforces regressive attitudes.And I have never seen this come up in the context of rape in fantasy.

I'll admit that I disagree with Jim's comments on women being unable to rape, but the desire to kill someone you despise is a very common human emotion a lot of us can relate to.And so are desire for power and authority over others, and overwhelming physical desire for another person. However, like Murder, we realize where those are wrong, and instead seek management positions or write silly love songs instead. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)

(And, out of offensive curiosity... If rape is about power, not sex... does that mean that if it is about sex it's not rape? Or what?)


Also, I'm looking at the Wikipedia article you linked and do not see the 3:5 ratio you mentioned. And rape is still very gender unequal because historically and systemically the majority of victims are women. By how much I do not know, but in the article it mentions that 91% of US Bureau of Justice convictions involved a man raping a woman.Do you know how impossible it is for a rape charge to stick against a man, or woman? THIS is a problem that needs rectifying.


But the Sorcerer is portrayed wearing that outfit all the time, even in cold climates. And Charisma does not necessarily equate to physical attractiveness, and not all attractive people like to dress provocatively. In fact, a person can be portrayed as sexy without showing lots of skin.

But yes the female Paladin is a very good example of women warriors in practical garb. However, there are other elements in Pathfinder which veer between extremes, like a pendulum swinging between "stripperific" and "looks practical."And tastes also swing between extremes. Removing the stripperific element turns away the men and women who do equate sexual and power fantasies.


Comparing the iconic to Conan is problematic because, as was shown with a shirtless pirate and Ivy earlier on, men are more often idealized while women are sexualized.

Conan is not designed to be sexually appealing towards women. He can fight shirtless because he's powerful, his image is what men are intended to aspire to be.

Scantily clad warrior women, by contrast, are meant as eye candy for heterosexual men.So, let me get this straight... EVERY case of a man dressing down is for Idealized Power fantasy and never for sexualization, and EVERY case of a woman dressing down is merely for Sexual Fantasy and never female Power Fantasy?
Why are guys the only ones allowed to be demonstrate power through near-nudity?

Of course... I think the cause of the discrepency is because Women are required to wear shirts, while guys are allowed to go bare-chested, and apparently the vast majority of people consider covered-but-emphasized breasts more appealing, teasing, and sexually enticing than a bare set.
This is a good explanation of design in superhero comics. The men wear tight spandex, but it's rarely done to appeal to heterosexual women. The point of view more often zooms in and focuses on women's boobs and butts, while the inverse rarely happens for men. (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/02/21/she-has-no-head-no-its-not-equal/)[/QUOTE]Comics are problematic in their portrayal... but the images of the Pathfinder Barbarian and sorcerer don't overemphasize the breasts or hips any more than they're naturally emphasized by virtue of people being hardwired to look at/for them.


I would, obviously, wear comfortable clothes in that case. Comfortable clothes, that make me look respectable and powerful.

The problem with stupid fantasy female clothes is not (only) that you would freeze in them in a cold climate, it is that almost no one in a gender-equal society, where women's worth is not measured in sexyness, would wear them, and if at all, then probably only in the bedroom.I personally know at least a dozen women who vehemently disagree with you, though a similar number who do agree. Don't force your sense of fashion on everyone else.


There may be exceptions, people who want to appear sexy on purpose, and want, for some reason, to do so in front of everyone. Magicians, however, are not that exception.Sorcerers do tend to be, though. It's about the interplay of sex and power. Male sorcerers tend to sexualize themselves just as much as the females do. And I think Mialee from 3.5 wore little to induce Nightmare Fuel into anyone looking on at her (Did ANYONE find her attractive in ANY images?)


Pretty clothes as designed for female characters by male game designers, are obviously not a way to attract female players. Otherwise, video games would have a lot more more female players than they do.

However, pretty men with revealing clothes may work ... has that been tried yet? :smallamused:
(Pretty men. The Hulk is not pretty, nor are 90% of bodybuilder barbarians)I've been working on it! But most of my men (And women alike) aren't entirely human, because pigskin is ugly.

Or they may just like the look? Do women have no desires that society isn't responsible for?No, no they don't. You should know this by now.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 09:33 AM
And that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I don't think they're biologically hardwired to like those things, either. I also think that society isn't the only reason why women and girls like these things. What I'm saying is that I can imagine that women, sometimes, actually like those things because they find it aesthetically pleasing. Just like they might like a certain style of art, car, or architecture.


Sure, divorcing the influence of society from their own personal preferences is likely impossible to do completely, but I find it hard to accept that society is the only cause for that. In fact, if I were a woman, I'd find that belittling, actually, implying that I can't like something out of my own volition.

You are free to feel belittled, as I think that the preference of men for overly muscular male characters in videogames is also due to the influence of society.

If people in general liked architecture because they "find it aesthetically pleasing", architecture would be a lot more diverse than it actually is. Tastes are strongly subject to fashions.


Without the influence of society, there would be some female players who want their female characters to wear chainmail bikinis, and there would be some male players who want their male characters to wear some chainmail bikini equivalent - big shoulder armor but bare chest, or the like.

But I strongly suspect that the majority of players female and male would prefer to have characters who wear armor that can be imagined to be effective with only little suspension of disbelief.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 09:44 AM
Anyone find it weird that we don't have any good source of statistics on opinions of these subjects? They've been around for a long time, so you'd think someone would have done a thorough survey of it. Heck, on a news site, I saw a thorough survey of the MLP fandom--which has only existed for a couple of years.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 09:45 AM
You are free to feel belittled, as I think that the preference of men for overly muscular male characters in videogames is also due to the influence of society.

If people in general liked architecture because they "find it aesthetically pleasing", architecture would be a lot more diverse than it actually is. Tastes are strongly subject to fashions.


Without the influence of society, there would be some female players who want their female characters to wear chainmail bikinis, and there would be some male players who want their male characters to wear some chainmail bikini equivalent - big shoulder armor but bare chest, or the like.

But I strongly suspect that the majority of players female and male would prefer to have characters who wear armor that can be imagined to be effective with only little suspension of disbelief.Without the influence of society, there would be no characters or people at all. Fashions are driven and chosen by people, designers and consumers alike. And I strongly suspect the majority of players would prefer to have characters that dress absolutely ridiculously no matter how you look at it.

Morithias
2013-10-19, 09:48 AM
Player gender ratios have been shown to be surprisingly close to even in case of videogames, actually. It's female game developers that are missing, causing dissatisfaction among women when their desires are not catered to. This topic is subject to frequent examination in Pelit-magazine here in Finland. (Interestingly, the chief editor of that magazine is a woman.)


Fun fact. Did you know that the main writer for the videogames Rance 2-7 is a woman?

obryn
2013-10-19, 09:49 AM
So, let me get this straight... EVERY case of a man dressing down is for Idealized Power fantasy and never for sexualization, and EVERY case of a woman dressing down is merely for Sexual Fantasy and never female Power Fantasy?
Why are guys the only ones allowed to be demonstrate power through near-nudity?
You are trying to divorce the art itself from the social context it's found in.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 09:49 AM
Considering the fact that the evolutionary sucess of a species depends more on the survival of women than on the survival of men, it would make more sense if men were genetically hardwired to wear insensible armor in order to attract a mate. :smallwink:

You are correct, and it is indeed a source of perplexion to biologists why the tables have turned in case of humans. Culturally, it has swinged to other directions occasionally. Don't forget, flamboyant dresses, high heels and elaborate ceremonial garbs were and are a thing for males in a lot of societies across place and time.

One theory is that once upon a time, we men were so keen on killing each other that there was always a surplus of women, so women started competing over men. Actually... if we consider rapidity of cultural evolution and the fact that humanity went through multiple global-scale wars in the past two centuries, that might be (part of) the reason. The 50s in America are somewhat held as some sort of "golden age" of sexism... and remember what came just before the 50s.

Or, I could be stretching the theory too far. You decide.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 09:54 AM
Anyone find it weird that we don't have any good source of statistics on opinions of these subjects? They've been around for a long time, so you'd think someone would have done a thorough survey of it. Heck, on a news site, I saw a thorough survey of the MLP fandom--which has only existed for a couple of years.

If I went digging through archives of Pelit-magazine and Tiede-magazine, I could probably track down a truckload of statistics on this. Problem: these materials are in Finnish and either not online or behind pay barriers. It's not really feasible for me to dig up the research for a relatively casual discussion like this - it would, essentially, require university-level research techniques.

Yeah, too much work. Someone else do it. :smalltongue:


Fun fact. Did you know that the main writer for the videogames Rance 2-7 is a woman?

I have no idea what Rance 2-7 even is, so no. :smalltongue:

Scow2
2013-10-19, 09:55 AM
You are trying to divorce the art itself from the social context it's found in.It's probably a problem in comics (Starfire, what the hell happened?!). But the context in roleplaying games (Particularly Pathfinder) is different.

obryn
2013-10-19, 10:00 AM
It's probably a problem in comics (Starfire, what the hell happened?!). But the context in roleplaying games (Particularly Pathfinder) is different.
Why? You can say "it's different" all you want, but we're looking at niche hobbies which predominantly have male fandoms. What makes it different?

In neither case can you separate out the subculture from the context of the larger social context.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 10:05 AM
If I went digging through archives of Pelit-magazine and Tiede-magazine, I could probably track down a truckload of statistics on this. Problem: these materials are in Finnish and either not online or behind pay barriers. It's not really feasible for me to dig up the research for a relatively casual discussion like this - it would, essentially, require university-level research techniques.

Yeah, too much work. Someone else do it. :smalltongue:



I have no idea what Rance 2-7 even is, so no. :smalltongue: That's reasonable. If someone was going to write up a major article that would circle the web, then it would be worth the effort. Still leaves me wondering why it is so difficult to find good data on this.

Rance (some may find the description disturbing) is an eroge game series known for its protagonist, who, "rapes," dozens upon dozens of female characters. I type, "rape," because unlike real rape, it's the bizarre idealized kind where every female character falls madly in love with the protagonist after the fact.

And yet, I still know of more disturbing romance novels.


Obryn: Take a look at the How to make an RPG/etc. which is Non-Sexist thread. I'm interested in your opinions.

obryn
2013-10-19, 10:14 AM
Obryn: Take a look at the How to make an RPG/etc. which is Non-Sexist thread. I'm interested in your opinions.
I'll read it, but my interest in participating in these sorts of threads is incredibly low right now, beyond pithy few-liners. It baffles me that we are having conversations like this, now, in 2013.

Felyndiira
2013-10-19, 10:16 AM
I might have mentioned it earlier or on another forum, but many rape victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and can relive the incident when encountering rape in media. This is where the term "Trigger Warning" comes from in feminist and social justice circles, and not just regarding sexual assault. Trigger Warnings are in place to avoid "triggering" others. And Maid is not an "interactive novel" or hentai game, it's a table-top RPG sold in the United States and other Western countries.

The Maid publishers were being irresponsible in that they ran the very real risk of causing triggers in readers with no aforementioned warning. Approximately 1 in 3 (http://www.woar.org/resources/sexual-assault-statistics.php) to 1 in 5 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=1&) women in the United States have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 1 in 6 men have been sexually abused by age 18. (https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/) Given these huge numbers, avoiding "triggers" of this sort is reasonable for publishers, via providing warnings of some sorts or making it clear in advertising that these products will contain such material.

I see. I'm now convinced that putting warnings on the ESRB ratings (or somewhere else) is a good idea. I'm not defending maid or anything; I just don't want to see a subject become taboo in creative fiction. Warnings seem like a fair compromise.

*

On the topic of fanservice, I think the best solution for the skimpy dresses issue is not entirely to force video game industries to stop catering fanservice to guys. Instead, I feel that they should adopt the "metrosexuality" standard that has been popular with some Japanese games, such as:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/5317/gsxl.png

This way, fanservice becomes an equal opportunity field instead of being one-sided like it is currently.

Dimers
2013-10-19, 10:17 AM
I strongly suspect that the majority of players female and male would prefer to have characters who wear armor that can be imagined to be effective with only little suspension of disbelief.

Some players prefer refluffing as long as the mechanics stay the same. If either the game system or the GM is willing to say "It looks like a bikini if you want it to look like a bikini, but it's still scale armor, it still weighs 45 pounds and costs 40 gp and gives +7 armor and reduces your speed, and it doesn't give you a bonus to social rolls" ... I think that's what more players want. They aren't interested in hearing how their armor has deflected a blow (which can get repetitive quickly for a warrior), they just want to hear "The ogre missed. Your turn."

Players who do have a lot of disbelief to suspend are not likely to take advantage of refluffing. Regardless, it's good for a system to support it, so that people don't feel constrained from playing the character they want using all the available mechanics.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 10:34 AM
You are correct, and it is indeed a source of perplexion to biologists why the tables have turned in case of humans. Culturally, it has swinged to other directions occasionally. Don't forget, flamboyant dresses, high heels and elaborate ceremonial garbs were and are a thing for males in a lot of societies across place and time.

One theory is that once upon a time, we men were so keen on killing each other that there was always a surplus of women, so women started competing over men. Actually... if we consider rapidity of cultural evolution and the fact that humanity went through multiple global-scale wars in the past two centuries, that might be (part of) the reason. The 50s in America are somewhat held as some sort of "golden age" of sexism... and remember what came just before the 50s.

Or, I could be stretching the theory too far. You decide.

I am not so sure. For all I know, there is a lack of women in China, and I didn't hear that Chinese men have taken to flamboyant dresses and high-heels in order to attract mates. (Or have they? Now that would be interesting)
Also, it is a relatively recent phenomenon that war kills more men than childbirth kills women. Or so I have read. Before the invention of hospitals, that might have been the other way round. (Bad hygiene in hospitals was a big problem before bacteria were discovered)

Rather, I think it might have to do with the fact that human is the only animal that has created the artificial situation that the female of the species needs a male mate for survival, or at the very least for social prestige.

The pea hen can survive just fine without the male of the species, and other hens won't look down on her if she raises her children alone because her peacock left her for a more colourful hen.

Dimers
2013-10-19, 10:36 AM
it is indeed a source of perplexion to biologists why the tables have turned in case of humans.

Genetically, it's good for human males to survive because they help take care of their kids -- a big job for any one person to try alone. Human infants need lots of caretaking for a much longer time than almost any other animal. It's been theorized that the system of the male helping to provide for the child is the basis for the pair-bonding we've started to lean toward as a species.

It's also the reason polygyny is much more common among humans than polyandry. A woman with plentiful resources doesn't need ANY male for help with her children, never mind a dozen -- there's no practical need for polyandry. But a man with plentiful resources can help take care of numerous kids, and so has more genetic success (the ultimate practical reason) the more women he attaches to.

EDIT: Please pardon the sexist assumption made here, that females will almost always try to take care of their children but not all males will. It might be useful to explore the situation where a woman chooses not to do caretaking but her mate does ...

Scow2
2013-10-19, 10:41 AM
The pea hen can survive just fine without the male of the species, and other hens won't look down on her if she raises her children alone because her peacock left her for a more colourful hen.And the peahen also has a brain the size of, well, a pea, and a lifespan of at most a handful of years. Humans have developed nuclear, tight-nit family units to allow offspring to be vulnerable for longer to develop larger and more complex brains.

Do you have any idea how harshly mainstream society looks on a deadbeat father? (Unless they're stupidly rich and famous - but all gender roles go out the window at that point)

If you have a body, thank your parents. If you have an intelligent brain, thank your grandparents.

Froggie
2013-10-19, 10:48 AM
Considering the fact that the evolutionary sucess of a species depends more on the survival of women than on the survival of men, it would make more sense if men were genetically hardwired to wear insensible armor in order to attract a mate. You are correct, and it is indeed a source of perplexion to biologists why the tables have turned in case of humans. Culturally, it has swinged to other directions occasionally. Don't forget, flamboyant dresses, high heels and elaborate ceremonial garbs were and are a thing for males in a lot of societies across place and time.

One theory is that once upon a time, we men were so keen on killing each other that there was always a surplus of women, so women started competing over men. Actually... if we consider rapidity of cultural evolution and the fact that humanity went through multiple global-scale wars in the past two centuries, that might be (part of) the reason. The 50s in America are somewhat held as some sort of "golden age" of sexism... and remember what came just before the 50s.

Or, I could be stretching the theory too far. You decide.

Without any formal education in biology I'd say that being self aware throws several wrenches in the machinery.
Peacocks are a great example on evolutionary principles, where the male is handicapped by his appearance and thus only the strongest survive to mate. The theory is applicable to peacocks and not to human men wearing armor because they are not the same thing at all, even though they seem to be at a glance.

Evolutionary theory is all well and good until you factor in that armor is a conscious choice to try to better ones chances of survival. The peacock male has no choice in how he looks, he's just been saddled with a very inconvenient appearance through factors out of his control. If the peacock suddenly became aware and capable of such action you could bet your behind that they would all find ways to make themselves better camouflage.

The human men makes the logical conclusion that wearing useless armor might signal a self confidence in your own fighting prowess so great that it makes the use of armor unnecessary, but if they die they will not only be unable to father any children at all (making them the definite evolutionary loser) they will also be very dead. The fear of death motivates most animals in one way or another, but it's even more extreme in humans as we have a concept of death other than simple pain-induced terror.

Another factor is that human war is different than two males of any species fighting for the right to mate. In the former the total extermination of the losing sides men is a very real possibility, if not a direct goal to strive towards, while in the latter the loser is not as likely to die. Despite instances of fighting to the death or males dying from their wounds it's not the imperative at all, and in most cases the loser is allowed to leave with a few scars because neither of the contestants wanted to risk everything so one of them backed down. It's not uncommon for males to not fight at all, since posturing and displays of strength is both safer and most likely enough for one to back down rather than risk serious injury.

In most human wars the option of leaving is not there. The loser is either enslaved or slaughtered on the spot.

As the rules are not the same the results will most likely not be the same.

Sorry if this was long-winded. I just dislike jumping into a thread without adding something, and I'm hopelessly lost in the swamps of marathon-posting.

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 10:50 AM
Rather, I think it might have to do with the fact that human is the only animal that has created the artificial situation that the female of the species needs a male mate for survival, or at the very least for social prestige.



It really depends on how you define those, because there are plenty of animals/mammals , including those very similar to human, where female indeed won't usually function well, at all, without males. Although it can be generally said about males as well, though solitary males generally occur more frequently.

And since human is about only animal that had created significant amount of 'artificial situations' it's pretty hard to compare with animals.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 10:56 AM
Rather, I think it might have to do with the fact that human is the only animal that has created the artificial situation that the female of the species needs a male mate for survival, or at the very least for social prestige.

The pea hen can survive just fine without the male of the species, and other hens won't look down on her if she raises her children alone because her peacock left her for a more colourful hen.

Survival and success are very different things, at least if we think of success outside natural selection and passing on your genes.

In most parts of history, it has been perfectly possible for a mother to survive without a husband, but they haven't exactly thrived. The current dominant countries of global culture all have or had nuclear family as important focus of personal life for long periods of time. They also have developed and pushed forth the concept of a well-fare state, where single mothers are collectively supported through the state.

At its barest, it boils down to the fact that different societies are different, and they are not equally nice places to live in.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 11:11 AM
In most human wars the option of leaving is not there. The loser is either enslaved or slaughtered on the spot.

Not really correct if you look at known history. Total warfare is a comparative rarity.

Do you know where the phrase "turncoat" originates from? Few centuries ago in Europe, warfare was heavily formalized. It was very common for a soldier to surrender, get captured, and switch sides to his captors. Because of this, some soldiers actually had national emblems of two different sovereigns or nations on different sides of their uniform. It was all a day in life and just another job.

The saying "all goes in love and warfare" is actually untrue, or rather, a pessimistic take on humanity. In practice, romance and warfare are two of the most ritualized aspects of human existence. See, for example, marriage or the Geneve convention.

In most cases, fighting between humans is actually just "clashing sabers", perfectly comparable to how, say, rams headbutt each other. A lot of noise and chests are drummed, but few people actually die. If people were as kill-happy about each other as you portray, there wouldn't be billions of us.

JusticeZero
2013-10-19, 11:27 AM
From the handful of times I have had games deal with matriarchal NPC's and other such clear bias (mostly DMing drow) for any period of time, female players seemed to react and take control of the party more deliberately from that point onward and the players of both genders did not react to the bias very strongly (This is something that I would like to understand more clearly) On the other hand, obvious bias behavior from NPC's toward female PC's seems to be met with more open hostility by the PC's.
Could you give some background here/rephrase? Looked interesting but I was not sure if I understood exactly what you were saying happened here.

Froggie
2013-10-19, 11:33 AM
Not really correct if you look at known history. Total warfare is a comparative rarity.

Do you know where the phrase "turncoat" originates from? Few centuries ago in Europe, warfare was heavily formalized. It was very common for a soldier to surrender, get captured, and switch sides to his captors. Because of this, some soldiers actually had national emblems of two different sovereigns or nations on different sides of their uniform. It was all a day in life and just another job.

The saying "all goes in love and warfare" is actually untrue, or rather, a pessimistic take on humanity. In practice, romance and warfare are two of the most ritualized aspects of human existence. See, for example, marriage or the Geneve convention.

In most cases, fighting between humans is actually just "clashing sabers", perfectly comparable to how, say, rams headbutt each other. A lot of noise and chests are drummed, but few people actually die. If people were as kill-happy about each other as you portray, there wouldn't be billions of us.

Total warfare is not necessary for war to be different than males "jousting" at mating season.

"Turncoat" is pretty much synonymous with traitor, and both are far from positive descriptions of military men. While viable, turning to the side of your captor was most likely not optional. If you said no when the issue was brought up you was probably not likely to survive long.
Also, you're taking what was most likely a subset of historical warfare and using it as the rule, which it was most likely not.

While notable as ritualistic, ritualism isn't proof that any rule is actually normal behavior. The rules are broken all the time, it's why they're there in the first place. The Geneva conventions, as an example, are guides to how we should behave, not how we actually do behave. If war actually worked like that already the Geneva conventions wouldn't exist, they'd just be the normal ways of combat.

While you do have fair points I also think that you've bought into the romantic idea of warfare that was pretty much the mainstream until the camera shattered the illusion; that it's a gentleman's game where opponents square of as equals and everyone respects one another and treat each other with honor.

There could be billions of us if the only ones that were slaughtered were expendable, i.e the men. If the women survived the next generation could grow without as much hindrance compared to if the deaths were equal across the board.

Ortesk
2013-10-19, 11:56 AM
Well im late to the party, but i'll chime in a bit. I have played groups which had rape scenarios (Naturally if any player had said it made him/her uncomfortable we would not have done it) and we did it off camera and we handled it like adults. We have handled sexism both ways, i have ran campaigns where men were the warriors and women were the thinkers and minds on the realm. I have had women in total dominance, and men in a following campaign. Each society is different, and i also use more sexist scenarios as a way to cause a plot hook. I am sorry, but no matter how much you hate sexism orcs are gonna be sexist. But i agree each and every topic which may bug someone be brought up and hashed out. As an example, i was a bused as a child. I can stomach it in game, but i warn every dm if i see it as my PC, my PC will kill the abuser. If it ruins your campaign, thats just the way i am

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 12:04 PM
To give something to discuss on, I've decided to take on Segev's challenge and genderflip my analysis on Legend of Zelda. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16209287#post16209287) So I present to you: Legend of Link. Which one do you think is more offensive?




The key gods of LoL are all male.
The key political figure of the series is male, obviously, being Link himself. But he is not the only one: the Zora Prince, the Zora King, Ganondorf and Zanth all apply.
The religious figures of the series are predominantly male by overwhelming margin. In Link to the Past, all 7 sages are men. In Ocarina of Time, 5 out 7 are. All oracles are male, obviously, due to being personifications of the gods.
The chief male virtue is Wisdom, as exemplified by Link.
Nabooru, during his reign as the Dark Queen, is legitimized by the Gerudo, an otherwise male-dominant culture. More importantly, when Ganondorf, the former leader of Gerudo, questioned Nabooru's legitimacy, it wasn't Nabooru herself who brainwashed her. It was the Twinrova, Nabooru's adoptive fathers, who wanted to see their daughter in power.
The chief female virtues are Power and Courage, as exemplified by Nabooru and Zelda, but they are both men-granted.
In Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass, even though Linebeck is physically smallest and weakest of the whole pirate crew, he is still the Captain, and none of the women question this even though he gets kidnapped.
While "save the boy" is Zelda's chief motivation throughout the series, she never explicitly becomes Queen. Even in most cases where she does get the man, it is implied to be some other man than Link.
Women, when shown in admirable light, are mostly merchants or guards. Ie., they belong to serving social classes, not the leading ones. This is most obvious when they are guarding the princes. These women often tend to fall bit a short of the traditional female ideal - most obvious case being Zelda herself, who is flat-chested, tomboyish and often socially clueless, especially in contrast to his arch-enemies.
Women, when shown in negative light, tend to be those who seek to dethrone the male monarch or otherwise do harm to men. They are also portrayed as much more traditionally feminine than Zelda, the most obvious case being Nabooru, who has bigger breasts, nicer hip-to-waist ratio, wears make-up etc.
The Master Sword, the chief weapon used to fight evil, has a male spirit, Girahim. More importantly in the symbolic sense, the blade of the sword maps to Girahim's legs and feet. Whenever doing its normal, peacetime duty, the Master Sword is portrayed as standing on its tip. The evil it seals is also usually portrayed as very, very feminine, which is very notable in the case of Hylia and Nabooru. Symbolically, when everything is fine, it is because a man stands on guard on top of a female threat. And when Nabooru is killed in Wind Waker due to Master Sword being rammed to her head, it is symbolically Girahim's boot to his face.
By contrast, Zelda grabs Master Sword by its handle, mapping to Girahim's head, symbolizing taking control over (the fate of) men. Interestingly, often when she does it, removing the sword worsens the immediate problem. So even when it acknowledged as necessary, women taking control over men is seen as problematic. More importantly, Zelda usually ends her quest by placing Master Sword back on a pedestal, symbolizing restoration of peace through restoration of the rule of men.
Girahimi's female counterpart, Fi, is seen as dangerous, irrational and possibly sexually perverse.
Zelda is primarily a wartime hero. During peace, she is almost always absent.
In Twilight Prince, Zelda is Zanth's loyal bitch. 'Nuff said.
Nabooru and her primary evil minions, the cuckoos, are portayed as hens. 'Nuff said.


Conclusions: formal power, both spiritual and political, are domains of men. In LoZ universe, men lead. That is their natural position. Women are only supposed to rule when necessary, and even then they need to be legitimized by men. This is most apparent in case of Zelda's quest to fetch the Triforce, a creation of the three gods: to win evil, she must win the favor of powerful men. Zelda is the hero, because she doesn't strive to rule, and instead surrenders power back to men once peace returns.

In contrast, those women who seek to forcefully acquire the Triforce, or kidnap or manipulate men, are seen as morally wrong. In fact, the very reason they focus on men is because it's men who hold all the power. They almost never focus primarily on Zelda, because without support of powerful men, Zelda is just a peon, nothing more.

The world of Legend of Zelda is deeply patriarchic. Unsurprisingly, it is a patriarchy that primarily adheres to gender roles and values we find familiar; after all, the series is deeply rooted in concept and practice of Chauvinism. It's just that the relative importance of those roles and values is different. Men represent peace and all that is light and good. Men don't need to be "strong", because they can (and have all the right to) boss strong women around. Meanwhile, while the chief virtues of women are Courage and Power, they too originate from men, and can only be used morally when legitimized by men. The natural place of women, is to serve and protect men. Those women who strive to use their power against the will of men are immoral, in fact, they are downright demonic. Femininity, when left unchecked by masculinity, is downright diabolic.

Some fans of the series have pushed forth the idea of a game where Link is the true protagonist of the game. I agree. But the way the idea was presented to me, was for Link to take on the role of Zelda in the game. That plain doesn't work in the deeper context of the series. For Link to take on Zelda's role would mean lowering himself to the level of peon, something that certainly doesn't befit an aristocrat! It would also be insulting to Zelda, because it would take from her the only role she can have in the series. In LoZ universe, it is the job of women to serve and protect men. If Link can do everything himself, Zelda is useless. She would have no place in the story, period.

So, if there was to be a Link game where you play primarily as Link, it would have to be very different from the norm of the series. 3D adventure with lots of actions and puzzles wouldn't do. Instead, it would have to be a strategy game, focusing on running the kingdom of Huryle. It would either have to focus on peacetime with Zelda absent, or if there was to be the sort of conflict traditional to the series, Zelda would be a gamepiece for Link to move around, much like Hero characters in Heroes of Might & Magic.

This won't make much sense if you aren't familiar with Zelda games, but eh. For extra context, this would be 3d action adventure where our plucky tomboy Zelda goes around slaying monsters, solving puzzles and generally being awesome while the titular prince mostly stays in the background. Oh yeah, and every positively portrayed man swoons over her.

For extra kicks, I'll invert my analysis on Gerudo as well:



Undoubtedly [The Matriarchy] worked well... for the Gerudo. Who are, throughout OoT, implied to be a villainous raiding culture in minds of Hylian commoner. By time of Twilight Princess, they've been exiled from the world.

Gerudo are chiefly characterized as thieves, and while they hold Gerudo women in high regard, foreign women are... well, property.

As it is implied Gerudo are one of Demise's chosen people, I have a theory on gender roles and notions of property among Gerudo. To them, the chief virtue is power. If you are cunning enough to take it and strong enough to keep it, it's yours. This would make sense for a desert raiding/thief culture.

Hylian men find Gerudo men distasteful, because they steal their girlfriends. I can see Gerudo men scoffing at this, and saying Hylian men were simply "too weak" to hold onto their girlfriends. Not that the women have any more say in this; if they aren't strong enough to own the man, the man owns them. I think to Gerudo, romantic relationships are one big odd game of capture the flag.

But I think the notion that women are more powerful than men still exists among Gerudo. And I think that's why they hold Gerudo women in such high regard. Gerudo men, as chosen people of Din, are hugely powerful (as demonstrated by their ability to capture and hold onto Zelda... several times, if the player is a goof), so obviously a Gerudo woman must be powerful enough to own the whole world! This raises a question, though: Ganondorf, the patriarch of Gerudo society, rejected Nabooru for some reason. Why, is not made clear, but I think it's because Twinrova were her adoptive, not biological, fathers.

Because non-Gerudo women obviously must prove themselves to be treated with any sort of respect. And it's not easy task either. Zelda has to escape from the Gerudo, avoid detection and best their greatest warrior multiple times before they think to do anything else with her than jail her. (Multiple times being very very many times if the player is a goof.) The Gerudo reactions to her after this show of power are rather hilarious. They essentially go "Wow, almost as hot as the Dark Queen!". If Zelda is sweating under that tunic of hers, it's not just because of the hot desert climate. :smallamused:

In any case, no matter how you look at it, the Gerudo are a very interesting culture. They are theoretical matriarchy and practical patriarchy at the same time, enforced by rarity of female Gerudo. This also reflects interestingly on Zelda's role in the Gerudo arc. Like always, she is trying to restore legitimate patriarch to a position of power, defending that man's views, but this time she is achieving it by firstly physically conquering that man's culture, and then by defeating an evil, illegitimate set of patriarchs whose motivation is to establish their own (adoptive) daughter as the ruling matriarch of the world. It almost reads like a chivalrous girlfriend defending her boy against an abusive fatherfigure. Of course, the analogy is ruined because Ganondorf never becomes Zelda's boyfirend.

Gerudo are also interesting mirror to Gorons, a race who also appears to be Demise's chosen people. Like Gerudo, Gorons place great emphasis on physical power, are mostly of singular sex (or possibly sexually unimorphic), are treated as somewhat alien to Hylians, so on and so forth. They are a very feminine species, evoking image and tradition of mountain nymphs. Hilariously, I once saw a post that argued Darunia was actually a man. I don't remember what the logic was, but I guess it had to do with patrilineality of the sages.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-19, 12:04 PM
So, I actually can't view a lot of the stuff between the first page and this one, which means I'll have to get into my more general opinions here:

On "Women can't fight": To be totally honest, I agree that any assertion of combat-capable women's impossibility is kind of stupid. But I've frankly never seen that assertion brought in any game I've played, and I've only even heard of one or two DMs taking that approach. So I tend to think the problem there is exaggerated. (On a totally snide note, I could also point out that in Medieval Europe, or Athens, or possibly even China they'd be about as common as the CG drow people hate so much, but I have no real problem with those sorts. So!)


On sexual violence in games: I feel like we should be careful when discussing this issue not to confuse "it makes some people uncomfortable" with either "it's bad to have in games" or "it's something people should find uncomfortable." There's a lot of messed up ****e that happens in games, and plenty of it could be discomfort-inducing. But that's more a problem to be solved by sidebars and individual tables, not game lines.

On fanservice: It's not as bad as people act like it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone acts like it is. I've seen exactly one argument I think is interesting about it being problematic, and it's not the one most people even use. In the interest of fairness though, I will include some explanation of it:

It's basically that fanservice supports the Halo Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Role_of_attractiveness) by raising people's expectations of what's considered attractive--because, well, you can do a lot more with fictional characters in that regard than a person can do in real life. There are theoretically studies supporting that as well, but I've never been able to look at the methodology or exact results, so I'm holding out on wanting to restrict creative liberties because of that, and in any event I think you can still incorporate a lot of fanservice while also having more achievable body types shown as also being awesome. (Song of Ice and Fire for the win!)

On Evil Matriarchies, Submissive Females and the like: There's really nothing inherently wrong with a given matriarchy being evil or a given female not being combat-capable or whatever else, because people can be traditional damsel-types and female, and nations can be both evil and matriarchal. Some of those will naturally combine into that. Therefore, supporting and developing cool story ideas that run counter to that is just fundamentally a better method of solving the problem than shooting down possibly interesting characters or nations or whatever. Because they themselves aren't a problem.

Broken Twin
2013-10-19, 12:14 PM
I would, obviously, wear comfortable clothes in that case. Comfortable clothes, that make me look respectable and powerful.

The problem with stupid fantasy female clothes is not (only) that you would freeze in them in a cold climate, it is that almost no one in a gender-equal society, where women's worth is not measured in sexyness, would wear them, and if at all, then probably only in the bedroom.

There may be exceptions, people who want to appear sexy on purpose, and want, for some reason, to do so in front of everyone. Magicians, however, are not that exception.

Okay, so in that situation, you would wear a certain style of clothes. And I would probably wear a different style. The Sorcerer has her own style. She's the only Iconic with that sense of style. Why is her wearing sexy clothes a bad thing? Why can't this one magician dress sexy because she wants to?

And for the record, almost everyone I know cares about how they look, male or female. Most people want to look good. Whether it's for themselves, their peers, or their potential mates. It's just that humans as a whole have generally decided that men are attractive by looking powerful and women are attractive by looking sexy. Women are to be treasured, men are to be expended. Personally I'm not really fond of either of these straitjackets, but they're so tightly related that you can't discuss one without the other inevitably being brought up.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-19, 12:19 PM
And for the record, almost everyone I know cares about how they look, male or female. Most people want to look good. Whether it's for themselves, their peers, or their potential mates. It's just that humans as a whole have generally decided that men are attractive by looking powerful and women are attractive by looking sexy. Women are to be treasured, men are to be expended. Personally I'm not really fond of either of these straitjackets, but they're so tightly related that you can't discuss one without the other inevitably being brought up.

I should also bring up, to add to your point, that powerful-looking men just so happen to tend to have traits that would be found attractive by many as well. And a lot of powerful women are the same way (see: Wonder Woman, Black Widow in Iron Man II for examples).

And, to address Themrys' point that women in a truly gender equal society would never wear such clothing: There are a lot of men I know who will literally look for excuses to take off their shirts.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 12:26 PM
I should also bring up, to add to your point, that powerful-looking men just so happen to tend to have traits that would be found attractive by many as well. But, are they successful because they have those attractive traits... or are they attractive because they're successful?

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 12:37 PM
While you do have fair points I also think that you've bought into the romantic idea of warfare that was pretty much the mainstream until the camera shattered the illusion; that it's a gentleman's game where opponents square of as equals and everyone respects one another and treat each other with honor.

Yes and no. The culture of warfare has changed with the rest of the world. War and militaries are always steeped in tradition and rituals, but what those rituals are varies.

While I know chivalry wasn't as gentlemanly as portrayed in romantic literature, neither was it as bad as total war. By the time cameras arrived on stage, several other groundbreaking innovations had already changed the nature of war.

Rules of war are often obeyed with surprising fidelity, due to fear of reprisal. You see, the sort of merciless slaughter you described usually happens only after someone breaks the rules. After that, the gloves come off. For an interesting study, consider chemical warfare in WW1, and its lack in WW2. Pretty much every nation had chemical weapons in store for WW2, but because people had decided they were too horrifying, no-one dared to use them on the battlefield out of fear of being subjected to them themselves. Also consider nuclear weapons and MAD.

There are many studies on how few soldiers actually shot to kill in World Wars. I doubt it was much different in past ages. Most soldiers were happy to just clash sabres and surrender, or flee, rather than fight to death. Even in contemporary military jargon, an unit is "defeated" after losing just 20% of its manpower; and destroyed after losing 50%. Majority of defeated forces have usually survived, and when they've been executed in the aftermath, it's been usually considered a warcrime.

One way to look at it is that while violence and subsequent death and crippling due to injuries, disease etc. were more common, actual deaths at battlefield were less so.

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 12:46 PM
While that it's all true, as far as sheer 'combat' go, we have to remember that from ancient times, most of actual 'exclusions' from gene pool would happen in 'other' aspects of war.

From antiquity to WW2 - slavery, slaughters, rapes, burning their womans and taking their houses etc.

"Enemy" that was somehow to completely defenseless or docile would generally meet worse fate than the one that actually requires 'clashing sabers' against.

Or headbutting.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 12:54 PM
Kinda have to shrug and agree, as that's in essence logical follow-up to my "violence was more common, death at battles less so".

Or you could say that on the battlefield where there is real fear of reprisal, honour codes and rules are naturally emergent. But when you remove chance of reprisal from picture... yeah. "Opportunity makes a thief" and all that jazz.

Deophaun
2013-10-19, 12:56 PM
Humans have developed nuclear, tight-nit family units to allow offspring to be vulnerable for longer to develop larger and more complex brains.
Tangential: The nuclear family is a modern invention to cope with increased geographical mobility and supported by high economic output. Previously, child rearing would fall to the extended family, particularly with much greater involvement from grandparents, as parents were out working (whether that work took place in forest, field, or factory). As such, it's been around for too short a period to have any influence on our biological development.

More broadly, there's research that indicates it was the development of binocular vision that forced us into tight-nit groups (because we lost the ability to see predators all around us, so it helps if you have many people around you looking in a bunch of different directions). Increased mental capacity was a happy side-effect of the arrangement. An in-artful construction in your post makes it seem as if there was an intelligence at work that figured out familial groups could support longer development times (and hey, who knows, it's possible, just saying there's just no evidence for it).

Otherwise, your point stands.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 01:07 PM
As such, it's been around for too short a period to have any influence on our biological development.

Has it? Newer research suggests natural selection can cause alterations in many-celled organisms much faster than previously thought. Bullfrogs taken to Australia have started growing longer legs and tolerance to certain poisons in just a few centuries. Lactose tolerance in humans has developed independently in several subpopulations during the last 10,000 years. A dramatic change in environment often also causes dramatic changes in selective pressures, which can lead to enrichment of mutations in small populations in very short periods. And change in culture is a radical change in environment. Monarchies have fallen during known history due to problems caused by inbreeding.

Also, even if we admit the concept of nuclear family has been around for too little time to influence our biological development, it certainly has been around for long enough to change our societal development. Though the concept of cultural evolution is not as well-researched as of yet, so the causal links are less known than those of biological evolution.

deuterio12
2013-10-19, 01:29 PM
One constant rule over history is that even a human whitout hands can do some work, but a dead corpse is nothing but trouble.

Plenty of people are willing to kill other people, but if the target of their hatred is willing to move away/provide a service/pay tribute/threatens with retaliation, then no killing is actually done.


I'll take the one with the clean, non-revealing, sensible clothes and the long, uncut but well-groomed hair who is standing beside them. I'll get to see the slender body beneath his mage's robe soon enough if I play my cards right.

So you just admited that looks do matter.:smallwink:



Seriously, life is not all about attracting a partner, and someone who makes it all about that does not look very smart.

Perhaps not very smart, but if you don't generate descendancy, your life will end with you.

Anyway, I've already met more than my fair share of cosplaying girls that invest a significant amount of time, effort and money into making fancy dresses in diferent degrees of "skin shown", and they're doing it because they honestly enjoy it. Basically like figurine building/painting, except you do it in your own body.



Rather, I think it might have to do with the fact that human is the only animal that has created the artificial situation that the female of the species needs a male mate for survival, or at the very least for social prestige.

The pea hen can survive just fine without the male of the species, and other hens won't look down on her if she raises her children alone because her peacock left her for a more colourful hen.


Peackocks and hens maybe.

But in most of other, smaller, bird species, the female needs a male to help rise the chicks, in particular if they aren't able to leave the nest for the first weeks of their life. The mother alone simply cannot bring in enough food, so she needs a partner to help. And the only partner that will be interested in helping will be the father.

Penguins in particular need one of the parent to keep the chick warm while the other goes grab food. One penguin alone cannot raise a chick, because soon after they leave the egg/infant will freeze to death.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 01:34 PM
I don't think the idea that caring about looks being bad has entered the discussion. There has been the idea that certain portrayals are disrespectful to women.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 01:38 PM
Of course we have admitted looks matter! How else could we get upset of how bad RPG art looks? :smalltongue:

Libertad
2013-10-19, 01:40 PM
Counterpoint: Sekirei manga. Scantly clad warrior women everywhere, many able to tear down buildings with their bare hands, while pretty much every male character is portrayed as a good-for-nothing, except for their plot power to buff said female warriors to even greater heights. The author also happens to be a female artist renowed for yaoi and shotacon, so "heterosexual men" surely aren't her usual public target.


Basic point is, both men and women fantasize/aspire to being both good looking and strong/smart/superior. There's a reason why plastic chirurgy makes so much money.

The portrayal of the men in the manga, and the author's other works, do not make the design of women in Sekirei any less eye-candy.


Eerr, last time I checked, superman and Hulk and batman are always flexing their muscled biceps at the opposition. And if the tight spandex isn't for sexual appeal... Then why is it there oh gods?

Flexing biceps isn't always a display of sexuality. The Hulk in his green monster form is not a heart throb.

In regards to manga mentioned earlier, this article is written by a gay man about male superhero "beefcake," where the portrayal and design of most comic book superheroes are what straight male writers think women want to see. He discusses how Becky Cloonan's rendition of Conan, held a younger, less hyper-masculine and less bulky Conan as handsome and likable. (http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/2486/wheres-thebeef--the-myth-of-male-objectification-in-superhero-comics/)


Peackocks and hens maybe.

But in most of other, smaller, bird species, the female needs a male to help rise the chicks, in particular if they aren't able to leave the nest for the first weeks of their life. The mother alone simply cannot bring in enough food, so she needs a partner to help. And the only partner that will be interested in helping will be the father.

Penguins in particular need one of the parent to keep the chick warm while the other goes grab food. One penguin alone cannot raise a chick, because soon after they leave the egg/infant will freeze to death.

But we're not birds, and having children is not a prerequisite for survival so much as passing on one's genes. Women are fully capable of providing for themselves without a male benefactor, but strong cultural traditions create scenarios where women are pressured to marry men and have children. But this is changing in over time.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 01:47 PM
But we're not birds, and having children is not a prerequisite for survival so much as passing on one's genes. Women are fully capable of providing for themselves without a male benefactor, but strong cultural traditions create scenarios where women are pressured to marry men and have children. But this is changing in over time.The bigger pressure for having children is the 'ticking biological clock' - a number of businesses have seen a trend of previously-productive female employees suddenly drop out of the workforce to turn around and try to start a family as middle-age approached, despite pressure from their peers to stick around and keep working. Of course, not all women have this happen, but saying that women only want to raise families because society is pressuring them to do so is not supported by the evidence, and a great disservice and insult to those women who do choose to marry and raise children on their own.

tasw
2013-10-19, 01:50 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Libertad
2013-10-19, 01:54 PM
The bigger pressure for having children is the 'ticking biological clock' - a number of businesses have seen a trend of previously-productive female employees suddenly drop out of the workforce to turn around and try to start a family as middle-age approached, despite pressure from their peers to stick around and keep working. Of course, not all women have this happen, but saying that women only want to raise families because society is pressuring them to do so is not supported by the evidence, and a great disservice and insult to those women who do choose to marry and raise children on their own.

It's not insulting to women who choose it of their own free will to mention that there are others who do not match their experience. I never said that pressure to marry applies to every women. But there is evidence of significant cultural pressures of many women who feel forced to adopt traditional roles. Look at conservative religions in the real world who say that being a wife and mother is God's expectation of women. Look at parents who repeatedly tell their children "I want grandkids someday!" Centuries of social constructs on women being homemakers don't just disappear immediately.

Froggie
2013-10-19, 01:55 PM
My main point was mostly how the camera changed the civilian perception or the "image" of war, as now they could at least see glimpses of it in action. Before that point the mainstream civilian knowledge of armies clashing was what was told by returning soldiers or by propaganda, which left an idealized view that lives to this day.
Once again, it doesn't need to be total war to be much worse than just sparring.

Chemical weaponry left an horrifying aftermath that was visible to the general population, which might have added to the abolishment of those kinds of weapons. However, as far as I have been told the real reason why it's not widely used today is because such weaponry is pretty difficult to use. Gas has a tendency to do its own thing, and as such the ramifications of using it (that is, breaking the rules and all that entails) far exceeds the possible advantage of using it. That is, it's mostly that the cons outweighs the pros.

It could be the cynic in me talking though, but seeing as how warcrimes happen today I don't see why chemical weaponry would be a special category.

As for executing the conquered, such things happened and continue to happen to this day. As long as you don't get caught it's very difficult to prove that you didn't kill them in combat, as opposed to killing prisoners of war.


There are many studies on how few soldiers actually shot to kill in World Wars. I doubt it was much different in past ages. Most soldiers were happy to just clash sabres and surrender, or flee, rather than fight to death. Even in contemporary military jargon, an unit is "defeated" after losing just 20% of its manpower; and destroyed after losing 50%. Majority of defeated forces have usually survived, and when they've been executed in the aftermath, it's been usually considered a warcrime.

As I don't know your background I can only speak from my own experience. I've been taught the same thing; that a very small percentage of soldiers in the two world wars actually shot to kill. That is, when they lie in their shelter and have a clear shot of someone else, someone that is not aware of them, most soldiers tend to try not to kill the other person.
This is heavily dependent on the position of power. In this case one person holds all the power over the life of the other. The potential victim is not an immediate threat to the shooter.

This scenario goes out the window the second the two are aware of the other and are in a position to harm one another, as each one is aware that they are fighting for their lives. The other one could kill them at any second after all.

It's the difference between killing someone in cold blood on the street and killing someone as an effect of defending yourself from a credible threat. One of these is a major crime in most societies, but the other is most likely not as looked down upon. The threat doesn't even need to be real, if the person doing the killing is ruled to have genuinely feared for its life the verdict will most likely be that this person was acting on instinct of self defense, and should not be considered a murderer.

This escalates the closer the combatants are to each other. To measure the psychology of a battle done with swords the same way as one fought with long range projectile weaponry is just faulty, because the threat of violence is so much more present in melee combat. The result is a much more brutal way of fighting, where holding back results in major or fatal injury very quickly.

As I've actually been subject to training in both I can say that it's not the same, not even close to the same. The moment your opponent takes a swing at you with a sword, all kinds of things happen to you, both mentally and physically. Keep in mind that these things happened in a controlled environment where actual threat of death was not present, but where the psychological effects still took place.

Long story short, the closer you bring the opponent, the more personal the battle becomes. When you fight someone with a saber you're fighting for your own survival, not that of your country or even your group.

While "decimation" is a real thing you shouldn't confuse that for people not trying to kill each other. Decimation is the point where a group of fighters have lost a tenth of their personnel, and it's considered the breaking point where the rest will become too overwhelmed by the opposing force because of shortage of manpower as well as battle fatigue. If I recall correctly the advice given is to withdraw them and replace them with fresh troops, so that they can catch their breaths and not be mowed down or be demoralized enough to break rank and flee, at which point the enemy could cut them down even more easily.

Exceptions to this rule exist of course, various cultures have had elite warriors that never surrendered and fought to the last man, but they are the exception.


But as interesting as this is, it's getting lost from the point which I was making, and even more so the original topic.

My point: Men of the military actively choose to wear armor to survive, peacocks don't choose wear anything because they can't choose anything.

It's also of note that courage, confidence and visual strength, virtues that men are expected to have and are considered attractive for having, are necessities to their role as warriors, and pretty much the equivalent of the peacocks feathers. Muscle shows how good they are as warriors and courage and confidence are a sign of knowing that you can take on the opposition. It shows favorable traits just like the peacock shows favorable traits, it's just less overt.


On the original topic, I think that the sexism in table top games is a reflection of a sexist culture in general, it didn't spring from a vacuum.

The demographic that was in majority in tabletop games were teenage males, but that has changed and continue to change with time. This does not mean that the ways of the old times live on though.

What I notice at a glance is that the stereotypical tabletop gamer was someone who had reason to fantasize about being powerful. The cliché is of the scrawny nerd who is far from the ideal of masculine power, and to me it seems a natural move to create an environment where you can play out such fantasies. Society influence them, even if they don't live up to the ideal.

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 01:56 PM
In regards to manga mentioned earlier, this article is written by a gay man about male superhero "beefcake," where the portrayal and design of most comic book superheroes are what straight male writers think women want to see. He discusses how Becky Cloonan's rendition of Conan, held a younger, less hyper-masculine and less bulky Conan as handsome and likable. (http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/2486/wheres-thebeef--the-myth-of-male-objectification-in-superhero-comics/)
.

So she instead gave Conan.... Unrealistically en-longed chin and jaw and general. :smallconfused:

Pretty obviously masculine trait...

I found all those argument really lacking, to be honest, and always based, on 'but some xxx likes his/her men thinner'...

And gives gymnast or acrobat examples as opposition to 'muscle man', which doesn't make sense at all either.

Sheer strength and explosion that is helpful in those sport results in very broad and powerful silhouettes, compared to the average people.


http://i.pinger.pl/pgr269/0b43b1f4000b46774cb6d15f/yuri_van_gelder_1.jpg


And yeah, Hulk is not particularly 'sexy' but he's big green... thing mostly, not exactly standard 'humanlike' character.



Look at parents who repeatedly tell their children "I want grandkids someday!"

People want to have their genes passed further.... In form of cute little grandchildren.

It's completely natural and normal, and if it's going to disappear, then said population would disappear as well.

And it's being pushed on men just as well.

It may be irritating for many (like me, personally) but many things are. Doesn't mean they should 'disappear'.

Poison_Fish
2013-10-19, 02:02 PM
{{scrubbed}}

The preponderance of evidence (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+social+interaction+models&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5) disagrees with you. At best, you have a simplistic model of human interaction in your head that is deeply informed by patriarchal/kyrichal notions. No "Truth" of humanity there, especially since human interaction is far more complex then you've laid it out. Much like wolf packs and "Alpha males" (http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629), it's not accurate. That we can also identify areas of culture that are a factor in individual development of masculinity that can lead to toxic outcomes (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Toxic+masculinity&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=) should say far more.


{{scrubbed}}

I'm certainly not part of this we. According to what you have said so far "meaningful relationships" can only happen with my friends from when I was younger, and that any friends I make now only exist because I happened to be in close proximity to them due to circumstances. If I dropped my current job, I would never interact with them again.

Not to mention what you've said about a significant other really just speaks more about you personally then anything deep about men.


{{scrubbed}}

No one here ever said there was a conspiracy. Just as no one here has demanded censorship.


{{scrubbed}}

Ah, you are coming from the intent is magic (http://www.shakesville.com/2011/12/harmful-communication-part-one-intent.html) camp.


{{scrubbed}}

"We know how dudes interact, because I think science says it is this way, despite the actual difficulty in creating accurate interaction models and amount of evidence that indicates alternatives. But we can't call out anything in gaming, because the creator can only TRULY know!"


"Ally or "prey" is another way of saying "competition". Men compete with each other. They like competing with each other. Why do you think men love sports so much? At the worst extreme you get violence: fisticuffs, weapons, and war. Where do you suppose the handshake came from as a sign of greeting and friendship? Offering the open hand shows you don't have a weapon in it. Similarly, the military salute evolved from armored soldiers lifting their helm visors to show a familiar face and are thus friends or allies. See Lando Calrissian in Return of the Jedi doing that in Jabba's palace to the audience. Competition encourages men to improve themselves. Women tend to prefer cooperation. Because of that, feminism, the new "F" word that must be censored how dare I defend men when women are being oppressed, delegitimatizes competition into the common culture and declares it a "toxic existence". There is nothing wrong with cooperation. Men do do it to achieve some goal they can't do by themselves, but their competitive nature gets stigmatized.

Competition is not inherently toxic. I have not seen many if any feminists specifically try to de-legitimize competition. That certain toxic aspects can come out of competition and often do does not mean that all competition is being minimized. I can toss it up for lack of clarity in some messaging. Though you've just openly declared that your only understanding of feminism remains entirely of straw, so.. good luck with that.


Ah, thank you for the wonderful compliments. You ever been on a football team? Or a wrestling team? Or in a show choir, or anything where competition is? That's more what I'm referring to, and I should have been more clear. In a social group (for example, among my friends) there isn't really much competition. We get along, we play board games and TTRPGs.

You know literally nothing about me except for one statement I made while I was admittedly kind of angry at this thread and forum. So, if you want it, I apologize. I don't retract my previous statement, but I will moderate it somewhat. As a suggestion, perhaps you should not judge other people's life before you know anything about them. Perhaps I love competition. Maybe that's where I get my jollies. You don't know. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's toxic.

I'm gonna show myself out. I can't imagine this thread is gonna get any better.

Next time don't generalize all male interaction with obviously bad ideas. It's one thing to have a friendly competitive relationship. It's another to interpret others as prey. Also, nice attempt at a dig against my masculinity, bro-cookie.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 02:18 PM
My point: Men of the military actively choose to wear armor to survive, peacocks don't choose wear anything because they can't choose anything.


Peacocks aside, while you are right on armor you are also missing my original point somewhat.

When I'm talking of men putting up flashy clothes, I'm not referring bullet-proof vests or platemail. I'm talking about heradlry, uniforms, cloaks, fancy hats, powdered wigs, ceremonial armor, high heels, golden bling, facepaint, make-up, all kinds of impractical status symbols men have worn across the years.

The tie is a good example. It started as simple piece of cloth mercenaries used to wipe blood off their faces after battle, but turned into male fashion. These days, ties come in every color of the rainbow and are tied in absurdly complicated knots that would only serve to choke a man in real battle.

Another example: Confucean scholars let one nail grow impractically long, to show they were academics and wealthy enough to nod need to do manual labor. Third example: togas worn by greek and roman men in public forums.

Heck, the common black suit is an example. I know from experience people regard me with greater respect when I'm out in all-blacks. Women seem to like it too. :smallamused:

As a sidenote, I've also trained in ranged and close combat as well, so I know the adrenaline rush you speak off. But it's not enough to make most people cross the line to actual killing. There is this thing, let's call it "killer's instinct", that is very repressed or absent from most. Part of modern military training is geared specifically towards awakening that dormant instinct, or at least taking down the mental barriers that keep it in check. But that's another topic entirely.

tasw
2013-10-19, 02:24 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Poison_Fish
2013-10-19, 02:28 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Onus of proof remains on you. My position is that your argument is not based on actual evidence (edit: Or at best, tainted simplified models), and that human interaction is more complex then you say it is. Considering you keep talking about "Science", fail to provide any, and don't seem to understand that I linked a huge swath of interaction models to show complexity speaks plenty.


{{scrubbed}}

You have a real huge problem in being unable to see things in a spectrum. Extinction is the only outcome? May I suggest reading How many people can the Earth Support (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TDe9Vp0dNUgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=how+many+people+can+the+earth+support&ots=e7DFajm6YQ&sig=_jshXKdEskTckAjZArDiRCQBaa8#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20people%20can%20the%20earth%20suppor t&f=false). It has multiple population models across history in it and discusses it in detail, including more modern growth in highly industrialized nations.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 02:32 PM
@Poison_Fish: Just throwing a Google Scholar page at your opponents based on quick search doesn't work. Specify an article, please.

Also, your use of terms like "biotruthing" makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously. Can you guess why?

Poison_Fish
2013-10-19, 02:35 PM
{{scrubbed}}

JusticeZero
2013-10-19, 02:36 PM
{{scrubbed}}
Given the realities of increasing resource demand and ballooning generational population density due to increasing lifespan, this is a good thing at a global level which is well on its way to avoiding the need for a series of megawars or famines from resource depletion. The birth rate effects of current neoliberalized nature of childcare (which strongly disincentivizes childbearing) plus the modern measures to educate and empower women to be able to make such relevant family decisions is the reason why there is no need to put up with people making generally racist and horrifying suggestions to manually decimate the global population. Future generations can sort out a way to bring their population rates back to replacement after the demographic bubble.

tasw
2013-10-19, 02:39 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 02:40 PM
Given the realities of increasing resource demand and ballooning generational population density due to increasing lifespan, this is a good thing at a global level which is well on its way to avoiding the need for a series of megawars or famines from resource depletion. The birth rate effects of current neoliberalized nature of childcare (which strongly disincentivizes childbearing) plus the modern measures to educate and empower women to be able to make such relevant family decisions is the reason why there is no need to put up with people making generally racist and horrifying suggestions to manually decimate the global population. Future generations can sort out a way to bring their population rates back to replacement after the demographic bubble.

The problem is that said ballooning is happening in completely different places where no one really had heard about 'modern measures' and empowerment. Populace will increase whether somebody decides to 'disincentive' it or not.

Actually 'strongly dissenting childbearing' is suicidal tactics, and I actually didn't think that it's occurrence was being really suggested outside conspiracy theories....

Poison_Fish
2013-10-19, 02:43 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Tengu_temp
2013-10-19, 02:44 PM
{{scrubbed}}


Wow. Oh wow. You are pretty much literally saying, or at least heavily implying, that women should stop pursuing careers and get to making babies. I have no words.

Terraoblivion
2013-10-19, 02:46 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Given that the Earth has massive amounts of young people, that doesn't really seem like a problem of amount, but simply of distribution. Not just that, much research on Europe's aging population has been made and the conclusion is that even without immigration it can easily be sustained with barely any decrease in living standards, it's once again just a matter of distribution, in this case of wealth rather than of people. The scholarship I can most clearly recall is the work of Jørgen Goul Andersen on the specific case of Denmark.

tasw
2013-10-19, 02:48 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Scow2
2013-10-19, 02:58 PM
So... let's explore D&D's sphinx's, and their 'culture'!

It's a strongly dimorphic, and VERY screwed up species: Being magical beasts, they have unusual and distinct mental traits forced on them.

Females are all one sub-species, while males come in three subspecies. The type of male produced is dependent not on who the father is, but how it is conceived.

Androsphinxes are inherently benevolent, and resemble the female most closely. Ironically, they tend to not be interested in raising the children. They are the most attractive to the Gynosphinxes in both mind and body - but they also seem to have no sex drive, and nothing but contempt for those who do. They are conceived by mutual, loving relationships.

Gynosphinxes are the females. They're neutral, and most diverse in mentalities, but also all highly intelligent. They are most strongly attracted to Androsphinxes, despite their lack of a reciprocating libido - they find the minds and forms of Criosphinxes to be too simple and base for them, and the presence of a Heiracopshinx is a well-justified cause of terror and hatred. They are also only produced from couplings founded on genuine mutual respect and love, driving them to be pickier with who they mate with.

The Criosphinxes lack the mental and physical "beauty" of an Andropshinx, having ram heads and 'average' intellect. They share the nigh-immortality of Andro and Gynosphinxes, though. They're also neutral, and are largely motivated by selfish means - though they are smart and wise enough to make deals with others. They have strong libidos, and have enough respect for the Gynosphinx that, instead of trying to force her to give in to him, work themselves to win her respect and consent. They are conceived when the act is motivated entirely by lust (But without violence or force)

The most tragic and monstrous of the lot are the Heiracosphinx - They lack the immortality and intelligence of the other sphinx types - only twenty years or so. They don't have the time to engage in the courtship that Criosphinx favor - and even if they did, the result would be at least a Criosphinx. The only thing they have that gives them a chance at mating is being physically strong enough to get the jump on and pin the gynosphinx long enough to satisfy itself... and if the Gynosphinx has had any previous experience with a Heiracosphinx, the Heiracosphinx doesn't even have the option to try a diplomatic solution - Gynosphinx react with a Kill-on-Sight policy to the Heiracosphinx. And, of course, this rape results in more Heiracosphinx... which the Gynosphinx cannot bring herself to kill at birth, is so revulsed by that they leave them to fend for themselves.

Compared to Sphinx sex relations, humans have it easy.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 02:59 PM
{{scrubbed}}

tasw
2013-10-19, 03:00 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Broken Twin
2013-10-19, 03:03 PM
While the discussion of real world age densities is fascinating conversation, could we get back on subject before the thread is locked?

Morithias
2013-10-19, 03:06 PM
{{scrubbed}}

It won't work. Again I point to Rance 2-7. Primary writer is a woman. Is probably considered a work basically every feminist would hate.

Poison_Fish
2013-10-19, 03:07 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Deophaun
2013-10-19, 03:07 PM
Has it? Newer research suggests natural selection can cause alterations in many-celled organisms much faster than previously thought. Bullfrogs taken to Australia have started growing longer legs and tolerance to certain poisons in just a few centuries. Lactose tolerance in humans has developed independently in several subpopulations during the last 10,000 years. A dramatic change in environment often also causes dramatic changes in selective pressures, which can lead to enrichment of mutations in small populations in very short periods.
We're talking decades, not centuries. Additionally, in the case of your bullfrogs, you're looking at the development of a local, relatively isolated population. The instances where the nuclear family developed are not isolated. Quite the opposite, in fact. Continuous injection of new competing DNA means that it's unlikely a new, nuclear-family-inspired mutation will come to dominance in any human time-frame. Especially given the low birth-rates of such societies.


Also, even if we admit the concept of nuclear family has been around for too little time to influence our biological development, it certainly has been around for long enough to change our societal development.
Which is not at issue in what I posted, as it was explicitly constrained to biology, not sociology.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 03:08 PM
Tasw, just because your opposition uses ad hominem arguments, doesn't mean you should. (Yes, this is extremely hypocritical from me. The irony makes me giddy inside. :smalltongue:)

Terraoblivion
2013-10-19, 03:12 PM
[QUOTE=tasw;16249279Long term? Say over 40-60 years? No such a drastically aging population will not be supportable.[/QUOTE]

In 60 years the smallest generation yet will be deeply into retirement, you know. The hump is over the next twenty or so years.

Spiryt
2013-10-19, 03:16 PM
It won't work. Again I point to Rance 2-7. Primary writer is a woman. Is probably considered a work basically every feminist would hate.

I don't really get it, TBH.

Why should anybody make their own work based on what 'every feminist' would hate or not?

Said woman had apparently written something that looks like somehow... well, original erotic fantasy. Maybe hers, maybe someone others. It may be rather creepy for most people, but some people have them like that.

If someone is creeped out by it, he shouldn't buy it, not much to do about it.

Don't know enough about it to say more.


Assuming that every woman in games industry would produce something similar is weird.

Obviously, women will generally be just as sexist as men, when this happen, so I indeed don't agree that 'hiring more ladies' would be magical cure.

Mr. Mask
2013-10-19, 03:16 PM
Terra, would you be interested in offering your opinions to this thread?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309738

Scow2
2013-10-19, 03:19 PM
Dangit... I take a few minutes to try bringing up something with fascinating implications for sexism in fantasy, and tasw breaks out his shovel and starts digging :smallfrown:

Libertad
2013-10-19, 03:20 PM
Assuming that every woman in games industry would produce something similar is weird.

Obviously, women will generally be just as sexist as men, when this happen, so I indeed don't agree that 'hiring more ladies' would be magical cure.


Sexism can just as easily be reinforced by women as well as men. That's part of why it's so entrenched in society: gender stereotypes ("women are less rational and more emotional, men have no self-control when it comes to sex") are widely believed by both men and women.

In regards to hiring more women as writers and designers, it can be a help in that they can provide an alternate view which many men take for granted. A lot people who are part of the dominant social paradigm have privilege in the sense that they don't have to deal with prejudice and double-standards which negatively affect them on a regular basis.

However, what's most important is to have writers and designers (both old and new) be aware of sexist elements in media and games, and how it can even slip into their own work. This can be progress all its own.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 03:21 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Can we just stop talking to the misandrist?

I have a father and brother and male friends whom I like very much, and the implication that they are biologically unable to be true friends is very offensive. :smallfrown:

I really don't think we should feed such trolls.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-19, 03:23 PM
But, are they successful because they have those attractive traits... or are they attractive because they're successful?

In the case of women, attractive because successful is actually pretty common. At least in media.

Coidzor
2013-10-19, 03:31 PM
Ahh models, the old fall back of fools and chicken littles the world over.

Also, scientists, hobby enthusiasts, fashion designers... Hell, as I recall, mathematicians use models sometimes too. :smallwink:


I could swear we solved this "problem" on the last page already. If gaming is sexist hire more women designers and they will produce more things women like.

Laying aside for a moment that it's a completely dismissive, simplistic answer to a complex problem, how would you propose doing that?

Mr Beer
2013-10-19, 03:52 PM
You have some bias there - I, for example, quit playing WoW, among other things because of the blatant sexism, so you won't meet me there. I liked the rest of the game well enough, but the fact that a female night-elf fighter is more skinny than a male night-elf druid, and other stupidities, finally got too much.

You found the depiction of women as being less bulky than men impossibly offensive?

Scow2
2013-10-19, 04:05 PM
You found the depiction of women as being less bulky than men impossibly offensive?No. There are far bigger issues, like how armor changes between males and females.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-19, 04:11 PM
No. There are far bigger issues, like how armor changes between males and females.

Frankly, given that the amount of attention paid to the actual character (rather than the player) in an MMO is nil, I'd say neither thing is an issue.

I mean, even without that factor, I'd be perfectly happy as a male to play a half-naked man, and would happily accept an addition of that mod were it to come around, so the skimpy armor's not an issue anyway. But still.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 04:11 PM
Dangit... I take a few minutes to try bringing up something with fascinating implications for sexism in fantasy, and tasw breaks out his shovel and starts digging :smallfrown:

I feel your pain, I would've liked to hear someone's thoughts on the gender-flipped Zelda verse.

Anyway, Sphinxes. Their behaviour is interesting compared to humans, because the three male sphinxes embody three stereotypes of human behaviour.

Androsphinxes are the "man with too much substance". This is the extreme positive stereotype of men taken to its sad yet logical conclusion. The man is so much higher than the woman, that the woman no longer has anything to offer to him. He is the perfect man every woman wishes and pines for, but no woman is good enough for him. He stands on a pedestal, the top of a mountain and looks down on the world. I'm reminded of behaviour of various classical Greek philosophers, who also considered women to be somewhat below their attention.

Criosphinxes are "manly men", the traditional model which Tasw seems to espouse in this thread, for example. They are Yang to Yin of Gynosphinxes. They are the doers, the competitors, simple in their goals but determined in pursuing them. He is the consolation prize a woman has to settle for when she can't find the man of her dreams. He is the overachiever who is always trying to reach the heights of the male ideal, as embodied by the Androsphinx, but always falls short because ultimately he doesn't "get" either women or his own sex.

Heiracosphinxes are "pigs". They are the extreme negative stereotype of men; They are men as aliens, as abusers, as the Enemy and something inherently inimical to femininity. But they are also tragic figures, in that they're born out of abuse and are forced to perpetuate it to create more of their kind - and in process, pass along a huge karmic burden, only adding their own negative actions to the load. They are pretty close to being ultimate losers. They lost the race before it even began.

Gynosphinxes are classical Yin to Yang of Criosphinxes, "the womanly woman", placed on a pedestal and high enough to think she can write the rules of the game and pick and choose of men she wants, only to find out the men she'd want isn't playing by the same rules at all, the men who'd want her are unable to play along. I feel Gynosphinxes embody the tragedy of a good person - she has done everything by the rules and always done good, only to find out goodness has no reward, and best she can get are hollow, meaningless replacements.

Libertad
2013-10-19, 04:27 PM
Speaking of sphinxes, this brings me to another thing: single-gender monsters in D&D.

There are far more women-only monsters than men, in both tabletop RPGs and mythology.

Dryads, nymphs, harpies, the succubi in many forms of fiction, to name a few. Women-only monsters are much likelier to have a "seductive" theme or sex as a trap or reward.

I'd post more, but I need to head somewhere soon. Food for thought.

Morithias
2013-10-19, 04:30 PM
I don't really get it, TBH.

Why should anybody make their own work based on what 'every feminist' would hate or not?

Said woman had apparently written something that looks like somehow... well, original erotic fantasy. Maybe hers, maybe someone others. It may be rather creepy for most people, but some people have them like that.

If someone is creeped out by it, he shouldn't buy it, not much to do about it.

Don't know enough about it to say more.


Assuming that every woman in games industry would produce something similar is weird.

Obviously, women will generally be just as sexist as men, when this happen, so I indeed don't agree that 'hiring more ladies' would be magical cure.

Here's the thing.

What games are made, isn't based on who makes them a lot of the time.

No what games are made, is based on WHAT IS GOING TO SELL.

It doesn't matter if every person on the team is female, if the executives have veto power.

Blackjackg
2013-10-19, 04:38 PM
I feel your pain, I would've liked to hear someone's thoughts on the gender-flipped Zelda verse.

Anyway, Sphinxes. <snip>.

Your take on sphinx's personalities is really interesting and I think for a homebrew setting it could work well, but it's not supported by the 1e and 2e monster manuals, which as far as I know are the only sources to give much tangible information about the behaviors and interrelationships of sphinxes in D&D.

They state pretty clearly that Gynosphinxes are the counterparts of Androsphinxes, and that they are wily and capricious compared to their dumb-but-powerful opposites. Gynosphinxes prefer Androsphinx mates and might reward characters for giving them the location of an Androsphinx to seduce. They don't like Heiracosphinxes, so -in canon- the Heiracos have to gang r*pe them in order to reproduce.

These sources are a little outdated (I've got them at 1978 and 1993) but the more recent ones I've seen don't seem to say much about the sphinxes at all, let alone anything that contradicts the ugly stereotypes of older editions.

EDIT: Double-checking, it seems Criosphinxes are in the same boat with the Heiracosphinxes-- that is, it is canon that the only way they get to reproduce is through r*pe. And the Criosphinxes aren't even evil. I get the sense that this is intended as a nod to certain potentially flawed perceptions of how mating works in the "animal kingdom," but of course the creatures are described as having human-or-greater intelligence, so it's highly sketchy.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 04:43 PM
Your take on sphinx's personalities is really interesting and I think for a homebrew setting it could work well, but it's not supported by the 1e and 2e monster manuals, which as far as I know are the only sources to give much tangible information about the behaviors and interrelationships of sphinxes in D&D.

They state pretty clearly that Gynosphinxes are the counterparts of Androsphinxes, and that they are wily and capricious compared to their dumb-but-powerful opposites. Gynosphinxes prefer Androsphinx mates and might reward characters for giving them the location of an Androsphinx to seduce. They don't like Heiracosphinxes, so -in canon- the Heiracos have to gang r*pe them in order to reproduce.

These sources are a little outdated (I've got them at 1978 and 1993) but the more recent ones I've seen don't seem to say much about the sphinxes at all, let alone anything that contradicts the ugly stereotypes of older editions.http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/sphinx

Blackjackg
2013-10-19, 04:50 PM
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/sphinx

Well, that certainly proves me wrong on the "no newer sources" thing, but unfortunately doesn't seem to have changed very much on the "sphinxes are an ugly example of sexist ideas" part.

Themrys
2013-10-19, 04:51 PM
Speaking of sphinxes, this brings me to another thing: single-gender monsters in D&D.

There are far more women-only monsters than men, in both tabletop RPGs and mythology.

Dryads, nymphs, harpies, the succubi in many forms of fiction, to name a few. Women-only monsters are much likelier to have a "seductive" theme or sex as a trap or reward.

I'd post more, but I need to head somewhere soon. Food for thought.

Well, tabletop RPGs and mythology are mainly made by men. What do you expect?
Heterosexual men are not likely to see other men as seductive.

Funnily enough, all examples of seductive men/male monsters I can think of are from Celtic mythology.

Mr Beer
2013-10-19, 04:51 PM
No. There are far bigger issues, like how armor changes between males and females.

Oh OK. I just assumed the only stated issue was the big issues for Themrys or at least one of them, because it would be strange to say "I left because of problems like x" but in reality it was because of the far bigger issues a, b and c.