Let the gender in games be moved here PLZ

[rafet]

For those arguing in 978 comic forum, could you move it to here, so we can discuss the comic over there?

[Corneel]

Heh.

Let's have a go at it...

When gender differences and their impact on character scores are discussed, the one thing that always comes up is the strength difference between men and women. Now I'm not going to deny that such a difference exist (on average) but there are significant gender differences that exist that are barely brought up in such conversations:

- on average, women have a better life expectancy (even while slightly discriminated against), this is not reflected in the age tables.
- men (and especially young men) are prone to reckless behavior and a disregard for the consequences of their actions as can be proven by the high car insurance premiums that insurance companies charge them (in jurisdictions where gender discrimination is allowed in these cases), their enormous over-representation among the incarcerated population and crime statistics (especially violent crimes) and other studies that prove that males are prone to reckless behavior (http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep062942.pdf). This lack of common sense should be translated by an penalty of at least -1 on wisdom, if not -2
- Men have higher death rates from cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20110712/men-have-higher-cancer-death-rates-than-women), women also tend to cope better with deprivation (with men dying first when cities are besieged and food supply is cut off), this apart from the fact that women are capable of surviving childbirth (the equivalent for males would be pissing out a golfball through your penis), that should warrant a constitution bonus for women.

[Gusion]

For those arguing in 978 comic forum, could you move it to here, so we can discuss the comic over there?

If you want to talk about the comic "over there" then I would suggest just talking about it. If people find what you have to say interesting, they will respond and the topic will change.

After a particular strip has been up for an extended length of time, people pretty much always go "off topic" in that thread. Sometimes they go so far off topic it ends back up on topic. Part of the social dynamics. This is what it is. You can blame me personally since I started it this time, although my comment was specifically tied to the comic.

[Liliet]

Heh.

Let's have a go at it...

When gender differences and their impact on character scores are discussed, the one thing that always comes up is the strength difference between men and women. Now I'm not going to deny that such a difference exist (on average) but there are significant gender differences that exist that are barely brought up in such conversations:

- on average, women have a better life expectancy (even while slightly discriminated against), this is not reflected in the age tables.
- men (and especially young men) are prone to reckless behavior and a disregard for the consequences of their actions as can be proven by the high car insurance premiums that insurance companies charge them (in jurisdictions where gender discrimination is allowed in these cases), their enormous over-representation among the incarcerated population and crime statistics (especially violent crimes) and other studies that prove that males are prone to reckless behavior (http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep062942.pdf). This lack of common sense should be translated by an penalty of at least -1 on wisdom, if not -2
- Men have higher death rates from cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20110712/men-have-higher-cancer-death-rates-than-women), women also tend to cope better with deprivation (with men dying first when cities are besieged and food supply is cut off), this apart from the fact that women are capable of surviving childbirth (the equivalent for males would be pissing out a golfball through your penis), that should warrant a constitution bonus for women.

And given that constitution is the one attribute that should NOT be dumped, unlike Str which can be supplanted by Dex even for melee classes and is basically entirely irrelevant for mages, an argument can be made that the majority of adventurers - you know, STILL ALIVE adventurers - should be women :P

(to be clear, I am a proponent of not assigning scores to genders, especially considering stuff like intersex ppl and trans ppl etc)
(just pointing out how every single sexist argument can be turned on its head with application of another subset of actual facts)

[Murk]

EDIT: Hm. I think the OoTS-forum might not be the best place for this?

[happycrow]

Long as it stays a civil and informative discussion, I don't see why not, since it's a direct outgrowth of previous discussion, unless The Giant says "please don't." In which case, you know, it's his forum. :)

I don't see an ounce of reason why adventuresses couldn't match adventurers in the Stickverse or other DnD worlds, and I don't think we need artificial egalitarianism to get there, either. DnD is especially friendly to this.

Women also tend to avoid dangerous occupations like the plague, and show a marked preference for a less lucrative job which provides much better work/life balance, than a lucrative gig that involves lots and lots of heavy hours. (part of why even when women go into medicine, you see a lot more of them as pediatricians and general practitioners, rather than specialists/surgeons). HOWEVER, I think we can discount the latter, and indeed entirely discount this line of reasoning. Simply because "Adventurer." These are by definition highly unusual, and strongly risk-tolerant people who aggressively run the ragged edge of risk/reward. I know *lots* of women who fit this category. I know very few of them who have children, otoh, and male risk-taking behavior tends to plummet sharply once family life starts to happen. Let's also assume that fantasy birth control regulates out the huge hormonal mood swings which affect some women the same way contemporary medicine does, so we can discount all of that thanks to Carl Sagan. Among adventurers, I'd call WIS even. Among general population, women should either get a WIS bonus, or else a WIS floor which is higher (may amount to same thing given your preference in stat-building).

So let's posit some situation where "family people" tend to orient to that, and among those who don't, adventurers of both sexes are quite common and possibly 50/50. It's back of envelope, but hey. In the premodern world even *without* birth control, roughly one in five combatants were female. In fantasy world it's also entirely possible to have larger families without the underlying health issues given a sufficiently sympathetic village cleric. Lesser Restoration cures a lot of ills modern medicine still can't handle easily, Heal all of them by definition.

Now, ability scores.
Constitution is a mixed bag. Using the 2e variant ability scores into two variants, one could use overall health versus durability. Men have reinforced bone structure and a generally heavier skeleton (and have since prehistoric days since we evolved the ability to strike with fists). Men also have roughly 40% greater skeletal muscle, which makes a huge difference in carry capacity. An unconditioned male can easily engage in manual labor that will rapidly-exhaust most well-conditioned women (part of which is that too many women condition with aerobics rather than strength training, but the differences are there -- women tend to just as good aerobic fitness, but also tend to fall apart and "gas out" much quicker when engaged in "aerobics under load" unless specifically trained for it. c.f. "rucking" vs "hiking"). (This also means that women are much more tolerant to privation: less muscle means lower caloric demands). Women are also great on assembly lines, having a truly great capacity for long-duration low-impact drudge labor, which men have a hard time matching.

This would show up regularly adventuring. I don't hit students full-power anyway without notable padding, but I must be much, much more careful not to break my female fighters than my male ones. An impact that would rock one of my male fighters and have him wincing for a couple of days will flat drop most of my female fighters, even when they're better conditioned. Women are also better shots, period - it's not even close. The "sluggers vs shooters" dichotomy is not "patriarchal" reasoning, but a very apt description of latent capacity. Rutten would crush Rousey. Annie Oakley would hand Doc Holliday his butt in a can, and then shoot the bottom out in mid-air.

On the other hand, males are "socially disposable." When men die in accidents, people shrug and nobody except friends and kin care. When women die in accidents, it makes the news. Women frequently receive much more sympathy and much lighter sentences for similar crimes.

If we were to use stats directly (note that in the main thread, I didn't), I'd give:

Male. Bonus to Str and Con, bonus to carrying capacity.
Female. Bonus to Dex and Cha, bonus to aimed weapons and will saves.

(Note that I"m not dealing with penalties, because we're dealing with highly unusual people and genetically gifted people -- "average stat" adventurers don't tend to survive in this shark-tank.)

In the presence of edged weapons, strength counts. But it counts less than you'd think, and technique counts a lot more. High-level fighting is also hugely psychological (for a great current-day title on this, google "The Liar, the Cheat, and the Thief.") Men will (tend to) have an advantage as heavy-foot and while grappling, because mass matters. Men will tend to draw the most powerful of the warbows, and men will be much more likely to survive when load-bearing-and-exhausted. Make combat mounted and that evens out rapidly - skill with the horse outweighs all these considerations. Women have a huge advantage with crossbows and lighter bows, and can skirmish every bit as well with spear or other bodyweight-in-motion weapons (I consider normal spear a finesse weapon for that reason).

These differences are all basically fungible with a given amount of magic. So in my book this comes down to "does the culture produce enough food that there is plenty of surplus labor and lots of gals who are highly risk-tolerant and oriented to things other than family?" If so, I'd expect to see a 50/50 ratio or close to it -- any culture where "shield maidens" (in whatever form) are a thing, will have lots of them. DnD is easy this way because its assumptions are generally high-magic and famously healing-friendly. Other rpgs, Pendragon especially, make this very rough, since establishing your family line is a fundamental part of the process, and the unmodded game also assumes an actual low-magic world with, well, medieval medicine.

[Rakoa]

EDIT: Hm. I think the OoTS-forum might not be the best place for this?

The OotS forum is not the best place for a discussion about gender in OotS? :smallconfused:

[Murk]

The OotS forum is not the best place for a discussion about gender in OotS? :smallconfused:

I think we've moved away from gender in OoTS to gender in RPG. I had an elaborate response written about why I enjoy roleplaying differences with a numerical aspect, and why I'd enjoy stat differences between whatever as much as possible. Then I realised that had nothing to do with OoTS at all, so I removed it.
Not to say you can't continue, or that it isn't an interesting discussion. I'm just not a part of it. Sorry ;)

[brian 333]

...lots of good stuff, see above for full text...

I agree with this post.

Cultural conditioning and training can make a world of difference in the numbers of women who might pursue a combat-oriented career. If this is an aspect of the world it should be demonstrated in the story so that the reader understands. It need not be an overt statement, but it should be demonstrated in some way.

Example:
As they passed the courtyard the ring of steel on steel brought back familiar images of their own time in the training yard.
"You are faster, he is stronger!" shouted the weaponsmaster. "If you want to survive, use your speed and do not attempt to match him blow-for-blow!"
The helmed figure nodded. Her slender form bulked up by training leathers was still a third smaller than her opponent, but her determined stance as she brought her weapon into line gave her a formidable appearance. She, like the other girls in the courtyard, displayed no fear of her male opponent as practice swords struck armor and glanced off of other swords.

But there is the concept of 'protection of females' which has been glossed over. Most of what we see as gender bias stems from cultural attempts to protect women from things that will kill them. Are they fair? No. But then fairness has nothing to do with survival; the lion doesn't care if it eats a male or a female. Women might have to share husbands, but it is always better to send the expendable male to kill the lion rather than the much more valuable female.

This is also the basis of the woman as a sexual object. In a society which has difficulty maintaining its population, not to mention growing it, women must spend the greatest portion of their adult lives in child-bearing and child rearing. This is not male-chauvinism, but a reflection of the very real fact that from menarche to menopause each woman must attempt to produce as many children as she can so that her society can be maintained.

And this is where I have a fundamental disagreement with the majority of 'equal representation' arguments. Women who seek a career in dangerous occupations certainly exist, but they are outnumbered by males in those occupations. When a culture has grown to the point that women are easily as expendable as males, (such as some may argue our society has done,) then I think we'll see more females in dangerous professions. Until women are as expendable as men they will be protected and culturally conditioned to believe their proper role is to work to sustain their societies. But there will be a lag between expendability and cultural recognition of it.

[ahdok]

One of the many purposes of a fictional fantasy universe is to give us a place to tell stories and play games that differs from our own world. The DnD universe in particular has stated for over 20 years that the physical differences between males and females that have informed our real world societal expectations do not exist in that world.

You can, if you like, choose to impose sociological and historical information from our real world on your fictional fantasy world in order to justify the exclusion of women from your stories and games, but if you do so, you are deliberately choosing to exclude women from your stories and games. You can elect to label it as "realism" if you want to, but the idea that you might want "realism" to exist in parallel with wanting dragons and magic mystifies me.

At the end of the day, DnD is designed to be set up to allow you to have equal participation of women if you want to, and it's designed to allow you to exclude women if you want to. It's also designed to allow you to have a matriarchal society that mistreats men... if you want to. It's open-ended and you can do what you want with it.

If you argue that your games and stories should exclude women from it, that's because it's what you want from your games and stories. I feel that in such instances you should ask yourself why you want that and reassess your priorities, but I can't force you to and I'm tired of trying to explain it. The information is out there, it's quite easy to figure out.

[johnbragg]

One of the many purposes of a fictional fantasy universe is to give us a place to tell stories and play games that differs from our own world. The DnD universe in particular has stated for over 20 years that the physical differences between males and females that have informed our real world societal expectations do not exist in that world.

You can, if you like, choose to impose sociological and historical information from our real world on your fictional fantasy world in order to justify the exclusion of women from your stories and games, but if you do so, you are deliberately choosing to exclude women from your stories and games. You can elect to label it as "realism" if you want to, but the idea that you might want "realism" to exist in parallel with wanting dragons and magic mystifies me.

At the end of the day, DnD is designed to be set up to allow you to have equal participation of women if you want to, and it's designed to allow you to exclude women if you want to. It's also designed to allow you to have a matriarchal society that mistreats men... if you want to. It's open-ended and you can do what you want with it.

If you argue that your games and stories should exclude women from it, that's because it's what you want from your games and stories. I feel that in such instances you should ask yourself why you want that and reassess your priorities, but I can't force you to and I'm tired of trying to explain it. The information is out there, it's quite easy to figure out.

In other words, even if, "realistically", there would be a lot fewer (base human) women than men with the STR and CON scores to be adventuring-quality fighters, that's really not important in a game where I get to play a gnome who flies around zapping people with lightning. So if my wife wants to play an 18 STR Barbarian, the only thing stopping her is the lousy Will save.

[ahdok]

In other words, even if, "realistically", there would be a lot fewer (base human) women than men with the STR and CON scores to be adventuring-quality fighters, that's really not important in a game where I get to play a gnome who flies around zapping people with lightning. So if my wife wants to play an 18 STR Barbarian, the only thing stopping her is the lousy Will save.

Yes. My first and foremost argument is that when making fiction, you can do whatever you want. The arguments you make to support your decisions are simply crutches that prop them up, nothing more.

---
---

My second and somewhat less relevant argument is that the sociological trends of our real-world society are deeply rooted in a history based largely upon physiological differences that DnD as a game explicitly writes out from the outset. Extrapolating an entire sociological framework devoid of that influence leaves you with a broad open canvas that allows you to build and design any end-result as you desire. You can invent reasons for pretty much any cultural identity you want as cultural development is often influenced heavily by specific events and individuals. It's extremely flawed to argue that any particular societal trend would be the only logical result. Yes absolutely a society with our approximate real-world social structures is a viable outcome, but so it pretty much any other set of social structures you can conceive. They're all "realistic"

{scrubbed}

Anthropology and sociology isn't exactly my area of scientific expertise, but the point remains that you can't logically say "oh well, the fact that the PHB says that men and women have the same mechanical scores doesn't matter, society would still place men into these roles" - it's baloney, any societal structure is viable.

To take it even further... even if in the DnD universe men and women were mechanically different, it's still baloney to argue that a society has to develop with the same values as our own. People here are arguing "oh society in a DnD world has to protect the women, because they're the magical baby-factories, so obviously men go out and do the fighting." Baloney. Let's say we have a society where men are stronger than women and there's monsters everywhere. I argue that the development of society is that men and women live together until the age of 30, and make children in that time. Then once we hit the age of 30 and have some kids around, the men stay at home and raise the kids, while the women go out and kill monsters. That makes perfect sense, the survival of your society depends first and foremost upon defending your children, and secondly upon cutting down the monster population. Men are "stronger" so are more likely to be able to fend off monsters without going out to level up, and they thusly do the more important task of child-protection. Women who are a little weaker and thus "more expendible" now go out and do the more dangerous "monster fighting" part. Sure a lot of them die, but your society ends up surviving better that way around. All of a sudden we have a viable realistic logical society where all the adventurers are women.

---
---

My third argument is that all of us have been raised in a heavily patriarchal society where our media and entertainment outlets have had a storied several thousand year history of being very much written by men for men. The most often classic cited example I see (And I know it's done to death) is that male characters in fantasy videogames tend to be built like fridges, and wear heavy plate armour that covers them from head to toe in inch-thick steel, whereas female characters in fantasy videogames have a metal bikini and some wristbands. It's undeniable that these aesthetic choices exist largely for male viewing pleasure.

Stop right this second and analyse your thought process. If you're sighing and shaking your head and thinking "not this again" I want you to very carefully think about whether or not you've been arguing that having lots of female adventurers is "unrealistic". If you're doing both, then it's a clear double-standard. the most realistic and logical design of plate armour for women is actually the same as it is for men - historical women who joined armies and fought in battles in those time periods wore the same sets of armour as men, not only because it's easier for a blacksmith to make all their armour the same way, but also because it offers the best protection.

However, I brought it up because irrespective of what you think about it, it's a fairly clear-cut proof that these entertainments are designed for a largely-male audience.

Now, as a manly-heterosexual-male-man myself, I have to admit, having all this lovely eye candy around is rather nice for me. Having an endless supply of male-power-fantasy stories available to satisfy my every whim is all rather nice... for me, and it's also rather nice for everyone else it caters to. And, it's a somewhat ingrained part of our society that we're all (male or female) very used to this being the case. Every facet of our society is like this... male news presenters can be "young and dynamic" or "old and wise" but our television outlets tend to move female news-anchors on once they age a bit and stop being pretty to look at. Lillet produced some examples in the other thread of some very famous studies about people's perceptions of male and female involvement in discussions which show that people perceive that women are taking "about half" of the time in any discussion when they're involved in somewhere between 17% and 35% of the discussion. Women get paid less than men for the same work. Everywhere.

Again this is all very nice for me, because I have privilege. I'm the guy who benefits from our society being like this... but given this situation there are two different ways I can choose to look at it and react to it.

1) I can decide "this is all very nice for me" and do nothing about it, or even do what I can to support the perpetuation of this. I can look at an argument about female representation in stories and say "hell yeah, 1 out of 6 characters being female is 'realistic' and here's a big list of phoney-baloney irrelevant reasons to support my claim." I can ignore the fact that It's a completely fictional world that can have any sociological, historical or logical structures that I want and argue that no, it can't because the only thing that "makes sense" is for it to conform to the societal structures that cater towards my needs and desires at the expense of others. I can even delude myself into thinking that I'm being logical and rational about this, because I'm so rooted in the systems that brought me up and ingrained into me from a very early age that it's "normal" and "logical" for everything in the world, even down to the fictions that we write to be designed for my convenience and please at the expense of people who aren't in my group of privilege. It's really really easy to do, because when these systems are designed to make your life nicer, they're invisible to you.

Or...

2) I can decide "well, this isn't really fair" and do something about it. I can accept the idea that women might be equal partners in my fictional story roles. I can tell myself it's logical and rational because I can conceive of histories and events that would lead to such a society. It's really easy to do for DnD, because the very rulebook for the world in which I'm setting my stories tells me that men and women are physically equal, and I can infer from this that they're societally equal too, if that's what I want. There isn't even a physical reason impairing me from doing that. As a writer, I can write stories and comics and games where women have an equal or a dominant role, and at least do a little bit to redress the ridiculous lack of balance there is in what we have and who it's written for. And best of all, I can feel good about it, because it's fairer and better that way. And you know what, when I do this, it's even more fun... because our society so is sick and fat with male power fantasies that it actually feels a little "fresh" and "different" to have stories that ignore that trap. And hell, as a writer it'll even benefit my bottom line, because more than 50% of the population is female, and less than 5% of our media is 'daring' enough to accept that they have value.

A lot of people go with (1) because they can't see it or they can't be bothered to take the effort to actually look at the way we're conditioned to accept it and think about whether or not it's there. Not just men, a lot of women go with (1) too, because that's just the way we've been conditioned from birth to think. A lot of men go with (1) because even though they can see it, the idea of women having equal value and participation in our society and stories is inherently threatening to them... surely if women get equal treatment, then that means there's less ice-cream for the men. Yes, that's true, but it's awfully selfish. But increasingly our media is starting to realise that (2) is an option. Independent creators are starting to write stories and games where women feel valued because it's actually more fun and interesting, or because they think it's a more moral approach to content creation. Larger companies are starting to realise that writing stories where women have a greater participation actually improves their bank balance, because women have money to spend, and will spend a greater proportion of their money on things they find interesting. And there are a lot of men who aren't threatened by (2) because they can see just how much stuff there is for their entertainment already.

---
---
---

When making fiction, you can do whatever you want. If you can't accept or believe that there might exist a fictional world where women and men are equal partners in adventuring, I say you're delusional. I can offer you some words to try to convince you otherwise, but I can't make you accept them and I don't want to.

I'm fine with that. Enjoy your games... But I'll be over here with my lesbian-cat-monk PC (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/509bm.jpg) and I'm going to get my DM-girlfriend to define how much buttermilk I can eat before I have to start making constitution checks.

[Keltest]

I'm fine with that enjoy your games... But I'll be over here with my lesbian-cat-monk PC (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/509bm.jpg) and I'm going to get my DM-girlfriend to define how much buttermilk I can eat before I have to start making constitution checks.

I see your cat-monk and raise you a half-elf-half-gnome illusionist with a natural 3 charisma.

Legitimately rolled character even. That was a weird session.

[ahdok]

I see your cat-monk and raise you a half-elf-half-gnome illusionist with a natural 3 charisma.

Legitimately rolled character even. That was a weird session.

He's not very likable, I'm afraid. :p

[Keltest]

She's not very likable, I'm afraid. :p

He devoted a lot of time to making sure his disguise didn't slip. Taking off the mask in combat was our Godzilla threshold.

[ahdok]

He devoted a lot of time to making sure his disguise didn't slip. Taking off the mask in combat was our Godzilla threshold.

That's pretty funny. I can totally see a fight going badly, and his mask falling off, at which point the bandits just surrender out of surprise, horror or losing their lunch...

In our 5e campaign, my girlfriend has a Paladin with rolled stats (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/468-roll-with-it/), who has INT 3 and WIS 6...
When she casts "find steed" her celestial horse has higher stats than her in 5 out of the 6 attributes.
Her battlecry is "DIE HERETICS, IN THE NAME OF- hey boss... what god do I worship again?"

[woweedd]

Yes. My first and foremost argument is that when making fiction, you can do whatever you want. The arguments you make to support your decisions are simply crutches that prop them up, nothing more.

---
---

My second and somewhat less relevant argument is that the sociological trends of our real-world society are deeply rooted in a history based largely upon physiological differences that DnD as a game explicitly writes out from the outset. Extrapolating an entire sociological framework devoid of that influence leaves you with a broad open canvas that allows you to build and design any end-result as you desire. You can invent reasons for pretty much any cultural identity you want as cultural development is often influenced heavily by specific events and individuals. It's extremely flawed to argue that any particular societal trend would be the only logical result. Yes absolutely a society with our approximate real-world social structures is a viable outcome, but so it pretty much any other set of social structures you can conceive. They're all "realistic"

{scrubbed}

Anthropology and sociology isn't exactly my area of scientific expertise, but the point remains that you can't logically say "oh well, the fact that the PHB says that men and women have the same mechanical scores doesn't matter, society would still place men into these roles" - it's baloney, any societal structure is viable.

To take it even further... even if in the DnD universe men and women were mechanically different, it's still baloney to argue that a society has to develop with the same values as our own. People here are arguing "oh society in a DnD world has to protect the women, because they're the magical baby-factories, so obviously men go out and do the fighting." Baloney. Let's say we have a society where men are stronger than women and there's monsters everywhere. I argue that the development of society is that men and women live together until the age of 30, and make children in that time. Then once we hit the age of 30 and have some kids around, the men stay at home and raise the kids, while the women go out and kill monsters. That makes perfect sense, the survival of your society depends first and foremost upon defending your children, and secondly upon cutting down the monster population. Men are "stronger" so are more likely to be able to fend off monsters without going out to level up, and they thusly do the more important task of child-protection. Women who are a little weaker and thus "more expendible" now go out and do the more dangerous "monster fighting" part. Sure a lot of them die, but your society ends up surviving better that way around. All of a sudden we have a viable realistic logical society where all the adventurers are women.

---
---

My third argument is that all of us have been raised in a heavily patriarchal society where our media and entertainment outlets have had a storied several thousand year history of being very much written by men for men. The most often classic cited example I see (And I know it's done to death) is that male characters in fantasy videogames tend to be built like fridges, and wear heavy plate armour that covers them from head to toe in inch-thick steel, whereas female characters in fantasy videogames have a metal bikini and some wristbands. It's undeniable that these aesthetic choices exist largely for male viewing pleasure.

Stop right this second and analyse your thought process. If you're sighing and shaking your head and thinking "not this again" I want you to very carefully think about whether or not you've been arguing that having lots of female adventurers is "unrealistic". If you're doing both, then it's a clear double-standard. the most realistic and logical design of plate armour for women is actually the same as it is for men - historical women who joined armies and fought in battles in those time periods wore the same sets of armour as men, not only because it's easier for a blacksmith to make all their armour the same way, but also because it offers the best protection.

However, I brought it up because irrespective of what you think about it, it's a fairly clear-cut proof that these entertainments are designed for a largely-male audience.

Now, as a manly-heterosexual-male-man myself, I have to admit, having all this lovely eye candy around is rather nice for me. Having an endless supply of male-power-fantasy stories available to satisfy my every whim is all rather nice... for me, and it's also rather nice for everyone else it caters to. And, it's a somewhat ingrained part of our society that we're all (male or female) very used to this being the case. Every facet of our society is like this... male news presenters can be "young and dynamic" or "old and wise" but our television outlets tend to move female news-anchors on once they age a bit and stop being pretty to look at. Lillet produced some examples in the other thread of some very famous studies about people's perceptions of male and female involvement in discussions which show that people perceive that women are taking "about half" of the time in any discussion when they're involved in somewhere between 17% and 35% of the discussion. Women get paid less than men for the same work. Everywhere.

Again this is all very nice for me, because I have privilege. I'm the guy who benefits from our society being like this... but given this situation there are two different ways I can choose to look at it and react to it.

1) I can decide "this is all very nice for me" and do nothing about it, or even do what I can to support the perpetuation of this. I can look at an argument about female representation in stories and say "hell yeah, 1 out of 6 characters being female is 'realistic' and here's a big list of phoney-baloney irrelevant reasons to support my claim." I can ignore the fact that It's a completely fictional world that can have any sociological, historical or logical structures that I want and argue that no, it can't because the only thing that "makes sense" is for it to conform to the societal structures that cater towards my needs and desires at the expense of others. I can even delude myself into thinking that I'm being logical and rational about this, because I'm so rooted in the systems that brought me up and ingrained into me from a very early age that it's "normal" and "logical" for everything in the world, even down to the fictions that we write to be designed for my convenience and please at the expense of people who aren't in my group of privilege. It's really really easy to do, because when these systems are designed to make your life nicer, they're invisible to you.

Or...

2) I can decide "well, this isn't really fair" and do something about it. I can accept the idea that women might be equal partners in my fictional story roles. I can tell myself it's logical and rational because I can conceive of histories and events that would lead to such a society. It's really easy to do for DnD, because the very rulebook for the world in which I'm setting my stories tells me that men and women are physically equal, and I can infer from this that they're societally equal too, if that's what I want. There isn't even a physical reason impairing me from doing that. As a writer, I can write stories and comics and games where women have an equal or a dominant role, and at least do a little bit to redress the ridiculous lack of balance there is in what we have and who it's written for. And best of all, I can feel good about it, because it's fairer and better that way. And you know what, when I do this, it's even more fun... because our society so is sick and fat with male power fantasies that it actually feels a little "fresh" and "different" to have stories that ignore that trap. And hell, as a writer it'll even benefit my bottom line, because more than 50% of the population is female, and less than 5% of our media is 'daring' enough to accept that they have value.

A lot of people go with (1) because they can't see it or they can't be bothered to take the effort to actually look at the way we're conditioned to accept it and think about whether or not it's there. Not just men, a lot of women go with (1) too, because that's just the way we've been conditioned from birth to think. A lot of men go with (1) because even though they can see it, the idea of women having equal value and participation in our society and stories is inherently threatening to them... surely if women get equal treatment, then that means there's less ice-cream for the men. Yes, that's true, but it's awfully selfish. But increasingly our media is starting to realise that (2) is an option. Independent creators are starting to write stories and games where women feel valued because it's actually more fun and interesting, or because they think it's a more moral approach to content creation. Larger companies are starting to realise that writing stories where women have a greater participation actually improves their bank balance, because women have money to spend, and will spend a greater proportion of their money on things they find interesting. And there are a lot of men who aren't threatened by (2) because they can see just how much stuff there is for their entertainment already.

---
---
---

When making fiction, you can do whatever you want. If you can't accept or believe that there might exist a fictional world where women and men are equal partners in adventuring, I say you're delusional. I can offer you some words to try to convince you otherwise, but I can't make you accept them and I don't want to.

I'm fine with that. Enjoy your games... But I'll be over here with my lesbian-cat-monk PC (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/509bm.jpg) and I'm going to get my DM-girlfriend to define how much buttermilk I can eat before I have to start making constitution checks.
I have never agreed more.

[happycrow]

Historically, the reason women had to spend so much effort in childbirth was because infant mortality was so insanely high. Even in the 19th century, tromp around a cemetery...most of the headstones are little ones, and they all tend to die in bunches corresponding to sickness. Just like today's developing world.

Fantasy world? Utter non-issue.

[Reddish Mage]

If you want to talk about the comic "over there" then I would suggest just talking about it. If people find what you have to say interesting, they will respond and the topic will change.

After a particular strip has been up for an extended length of time, people pretty much always go "off topic" in that thread. Sometimes they go so far off topic it ends back up on topic. Part of the social dynamics. This is what it is. You can blame me personally since I started it this time, although my comment was specifically tied to the comic.

I'm not sure anyone has actually even addressed the topic!

The topic appears to be (I have to guess since no one actually addressed it): Should gender affect state totals in D&D?

What I see people actually addressing is whether women and men are different in real life, what those differences are, what the causes of the differences are (specifically nature or nurture and from this conversation it apparently has to be entirely one or the other), and how those alleged differences between women and men can best be reflected by adjusting rolls and tables.

None of those address the question of why a fantasy game where the players more often than not play fantasy races should reflect any differences in the real world between human men and women.

It is not important for this fantasy system to accurately reflect real human mortality, actual weapons advantages and weaknesses, the actual range and firing rate of bows and crossbows, or anything resembling the laws of physics.

However, apparently, gender differences should be accurately represented in this fantasy game by biasing die rolls...it seems everyone is accepting that, regardless of what they think about men and women, that should their differences be real and inborn or something, that these differences should be present in a fantasy!

[brian 333]

Once again I remind you that I am not opposed to more females, or any other classification of persons, in fiction. This is, for me, wholly a matter of the intent of the author. My original point was to demonstrate that The Giant has been from the very start inclusive of females and of persons of various sexual orientations. When you say, "Not inclusive enough," I have to ask, "As compared to what?" If the only thing you have to support your claim is your desire for fifty:fifty representation, then I must ask. "Why is this so in your fiction?" It certainly does not reflect anything I understand as 'normal', although admittedly what I perceive as normal may not be so.

But where you say 'realism' I say 'verisimilitude'. I don't want my fantasy to be realistic; that would be an oxymoron. However, when you mention water in your fantasy I expect it to have similar properties to water in my world. When you mention magic I have no real world corollary, and thus I have no expectations for magic. I do have gender expectations, and even expectations for those who exist outside my gender expectations.

If you create a society that differs enough from mine that I cannot readily identify with it, then I ask you to explain it to me. You don't need to spend half the novel doing so: I'm not as dense as you may think. However, so far the only reason given is, "Because D&D says so." Well and good. For the sake of verisimilitude, I would ask you to explain in a bit more depth than a simple resort to authority.

[The Giant]

If you create a society that differs enough from mine that I cannot readily identify with it, then I ask you to explain it to me. You don't need to spend half the novel doing so: I'm not as dense as you may think. However, so far the only reason given is, "Because D&D says so." Well and good. For the sake of verisimilitude, I would ask you to explain in a bit more depth than a simple resort to authority.

Allow me to explain it in sufficient depth:

It's a comic strip.

No other explanation is necessary, because unless you have some weird mental disorder that prevents you from understanding the concept of fiction, you already know the "explanation" for any aspect of any story that differs from reality: Because the author wrote it that way. Because you are a real person in the real world reading a made-up story in a made-up world, and the real person who made up the made-up story decided to make it up that way for a variety of real world reasons.

Do you need an explanation for why there are dragons when the real world doesn't have dragons? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why those dragons can fly when logically a creature of that size shouldn't be able to do so? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why a human wiggling their fingers and saying certain words causes lightning to shoot out of them and fry that dragon to a crisp? Because it's a story. Do you need a reason for why that finger-wiggling human is a gay woman and not a straight man? No, you don't, because it's the least absurd thing in this paragraph and you accept all of the others without question. But if you do, then it's because it's a story.

Grant Morrison once said in an interview with Rolling Stone:

"Kids understand that real crabs don't sing like the ones in The Little Mermaid. But you give an adult fiction, and the adult starts asking really ****ing dumb questions like 'How does Superman fly? How do those eyebeams work? Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?' It's a ****ing made-up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!"

"Verisimilitude" is a highly overrated concept. If it is not a requirement for the many things that don't exist in the real world and could never exist (dragons, wizards, zombies, time travel), then it certainly has no power to prevent things that do exist in the real world from making an appearance.

What's even worse is this idea of statistical verisimilitude that I keep seeing—where the numerical percentage of characters with certain traits must match the "likely" percentages in the real world, based on whatever filter the proponent chooses to determine what is likely. This argument is utter unadulterated garbage. It's garbage because stories are about protagonists and protagonists are usually unusual. There are only like 4 Force-wielders in a galaxy of trillions at the start of Star Wars, yet by the end of second movie they've all appeared as part of the narrative. Is anyone complaining that Star Wars breaks verisimilitude because such a small minority group is so over-represented? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group. Likewise, if a story has a percentage of LGBTQ+ characters that is higher than the statistical occurrence of LGBTQ+ people in the real world, does that break verisimilitude? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group.

The inherent garbageness of the statistical verisimilitude argument cuts both ways, incidentally. It's not really valid to say, "Half of all the people in the real world are women, therefore half of the characters in your story must be women or it breaks verisimilitude." Not true; it might happen to be a story about people who are male—say, a love story between two gay men. A much, much better argument is, "Half of all the people in the real world are women, and those women buy comic books, too, so you better get your thumb out of your ass and draw some women."

An all-male (or predominantly male) story might be a valid artistic choice but doing so opens one up to an assortment of social and economic pressures in the real world. The artist then needs to decide how much he or she cares about those reactions and what it says about them and their work. It's totally valid to then say, "Screw it, my story doesn't have any women in it, deal with it." However, if one does that, one needs to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision, which may include low sales, poor critical response, being labeled a sexist (or worse), etc. If one believes in one's artistic vision enough to weather that storm, then hey, have at it.

Me? Not only do I not want to sail into that particular tempest, I wasn't even aware I was on that course until it was pointed out to me. And it's tough to turn a ship as big as OOTS around, especially at this late date in the narrative's journey where there are so few characters left to enter the story, but I'm still trying. It would have been totally valid, artistically, for me to plant my flag and say, "No, OOTS needs to be predominantly male for Reasons," and then it would have been equally valid for people to say, "OK, well, that's not really my cup of tea so I'll go throw my money at some other more diverse comic strip." I have no reason to die on that particular hill, however, as I happen to agree with the general notions of representation that have been raised and am somewhat embarrassed that I didn't notice the problems involved sooner.

When you say (earlier in your post) that you have expectations about gender, what you're really saying is, "I expect a story to cater to my existing worldview," or, to put it another way, you're saying that you want it to be your cup of tea. So if I have some readers whose cup of tea is more diversity and some readers whose cup of tea is less diversity, then how do I decide which type of tea to brew? Easy. I brew my cup of tea and let the chips fall where they may, and that happens to be a narrative with plenty of diversity. If I got the tea recipe wrong before, I guess I'll just have to put a new pot on now.

[The Giant]

Also, I see some references to events that involve real world political aspects. Stay away from those, please.

Oh, and in the future: Please don't tell other posters on which thread to discuss a particular topic. If you want to talk about the strip in the Discussion thread, then just go ahead and do so. Don't tell other people to stop talking about other topics. If you think other posters are dangerously far off topic and would like them to stop, issue a report to the moderating staff and someone will come take a look.

[SaintRidley]

Rich, I heartily agree with you (and with ahdok). I would like to add to the point about wanting a story that reinforces one's worldview. Wanting a story that only reinforce's your worldview is like always taking your coffee exactly the same way, with exactly the same bean from exactly the same place, every time. Or like always having a McDonald's quarter-pounder with cheese if you want a hamburger.

The consistency can be nice. In fact that's probably exactly what you like about it - you're getting the exact same thing every time, with no variation.

A story that challenges your worldview, however, does a lot of things for you. It can force you to question what it is you hold dear about that view, consider whether it's a good view, consider if there's a better view, deepen your understanding of your existing worldview. You might, for instance, like Folger's Columbian dark roast, black. But maybe you try a real dark roast coffee, really from Columbia - or Puerto Rico, or Peru. You're not sure about it. It's a bit different from what you're used to. Or maybe your friend makes that Puerto Rican dark roast and adds a cube of sugar - real, pure sugar grown in Puerto Rico - to the cup. Now, the coffee might not be to your liking. Or it could be the best damned cup of coffee you've ever had.

Or maybe you like your quarter-pounders. But maybe there's this place that sells bison burgers. There's a different flavor to them, but they're delightfully lean. You might not even want to try them, just have a visceral reaction against the idea of it - it just doesn't sit well with you. You won't even try it. Or even listen to someone talk about eating bison.

But you'll never know until you try. And you'll never deepen your worldview, vis a vis hamburgers, or coffee, or anything else, unless you at least give consideration to the idea of bison et cetera. Your worldview cannot be deepened unless you are at least exposed to the possibility of something different and able to give it due consideration. And that's one of the primary reasons for stories at all. Giving us something new to chew over.

[woweedd]

When you say (earlier in your post) that you have expectations about gender, what you're really saying is, "I expect a story to cater to my existing worldview," or, to put it another way, you're saying that you want it to be your cup of tea. So if I have some readers whose cup of tea is more diversity and some readers whose cup of tea is less diversity, then how do I decide which type of tea to brew? Easy. I brew my cup of tea and let the chips fall where they may, and that happens to be a narrative with plenty of diversity. If I got the tea recipe wrong before, I guess I'll just have to put a new pot on now.
That is the most amazing metaphor ever written.

[ahdok]

My next attempt at this whole messy business was going to be to point out that this comic strip contained a fine example of a character with a very restrictive and narrow view of the way the world works, and how it should work, who was completely unable to accept that the views of other people might be valid, even in the face of patient calm reasoning... and she was called Miko.

My plan was to ask people: When confronted with that kind of character and both perspectives, as a neutral outside party, how does the inflexible person come across to you?

However...


Allow me to explain it in sufficient depth:

It's a comic strip.

No other explanation is necessary.

(Plus the entire rest of this post.)

Rich has managed to say everything I was trying to say for the last three days in less than a third as many words, and in a fashion simple enough to make sense, but poignant enough to be memorable. This is an uncommon talent, and I feel incredibly humbled and grateful that such a talent would choose to give me a story and entertainment, for free.


That is the most amazing metaphor ever written.

It's also some of the most common advice I see given to aspiring writers... "Don't try to cater to everyone, write what you want to write, and your audience will grow around it if it's good enough. If you start altering your work to cater to the whims and demands of your audience, it starts to feel less genuine, because it's not your natural style.

It's good advice.

[Reddish Mage]

Do I understand the discussion right? I thought we were talking about something having to do with D&D and its portrayal of genders of all the normally playable races as basically having the same stats...

Now The Giant comes in and everyone is talking about OOTS.

Regardless of whether or not D&D should do anything specific about gender...what does that have to do with the writing of OOTS...which is equal parts parody and pastiche of D&D as it is (or was, we're still in 3.5 right?) not D&D as someone wants it to be.

I can't even comprehend what the proposed change to OOTS would be and why someone would suggest it should be made.

[The Giant]

As far as I could tell, the conversation was sparked by issues of Haley and whether or not she could win in melee, and digressed into general conversation about gender representation. I talked about OOTS more because that's what I can really speak to, but everything I said still applies to any other fictional creation. If anything, the because-it's-a-story answer applies even more to D&D products than comic strips, because they need their published books to be open to all possible player-generated stories. Players who want to add gender-specific adjustments back in are free to do so, but it would be foolish of WOTC to include them in the rulebook in the current social climate. And that's the only reason required for why there are not those adjustments in the worlds of D&D.

[Sith_Happens]

If we were to use stats directly (note that in the main thread, I didn't), I'd give:

Male. Bonus to Str and Con, bonus to carrying capacity.
Female. Bonus to Dex and Cha, bonus to aimed weapons and will saves.

I don't see myself ever doing this, but if I did I'd definitely have all the bonuses be +1* so that it's a lesser effect than race choice. Since I'm pretty sure the difference between being a male or female human should be less than the difference between being a human or an elf.

* Except of course the carrying capacity one since it's not a d20 modifier. Maybe x1.1?


rolled stats (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/468-roll-with-it/)

Anyone want to run the numbers on what the average array is using this method?


As far as I could tell, the conversation was sparked by issues of Haley and whether or not she could win in melee

Against a golem? There are so many actual reasons why the answer to that is no, how the heck did sex sneak its way into the conversation?:smallconfused:

[Keltest]

Against a golem? There are so many actual reasons why the answer to that is no, how the heck did sex sneak its way into the conversation?:smallconfused:

People were afraid that she would become a "damsel in distress" if she were every to rely on one of her more martially inclined teammates to get her out of a fight.

[Rodin]

People were afraid that she would become a "damsel in distress" if she were every to rely on one of her more martially inclined teammates to get her out of a fight.

I can understand the fear, because supposedly strong women becoming helpless for no good reason is pretty much endemic in the media even today. It's the number one cause of me yelling at my TV.

Still, it ignores two major points.

1) As everyone has pointed out, it's a D&D party and so full teamwork has to be expected. If anything, OOTS is a shining example of "going solo gets you killed".

2) The Giant is a better writer than that. As eloquently shown by the follow-up comic we actually got. My first thought on reading the comic was "Well, that settles THAT little argument..."

[Keltest]

I can understand the fear, because supposedly strong women becoming helpless for no good reason is pretty much endemic in the media even today. It's the number one cause of me yelling at my TV.

Still, it ignores two major points.

1) As everyone has pointed out, it's a D&D party and so full teamwork has to be expected. If anything, OOTS is a shining example of "going solo gets you killed".

2) The Giant is a better writer than that. As eloquently shown by the follow-up comic we actually got. My first thought on reading the comic was "Well, that settles THAT little argument..."

Three major points actually. In addition to the two you brought up, there is a very good reason, in story, for Haley to not be kicking butt. She's a rogue. They go out of their way to avoid situations like that. No surprise shes in a lot of trouble when she's forced into a confrontation she isn't equipped to handle.

[snowblizz]

Three major points actually. In addition to the two you brought up, there is a very good reason, in story, for Haley to not be kicking butt. She's a rogue. They go out of their way to avoid situations like that. No surprise shes in a lot of trouble when she's forced into a confrontation she isn't equipped to handle.

Yea I don't get that. It is Haley's class and not gender that is the problem. The male character present even got whooped even faster. One solution would have been to find the character classes capable of dealing with the (combat) situation, the fighter and wizard, which in this story happens to be male and...umm... I've always thought male. Anyway.

That Haley manages to solve the problem the rogue way is a great way out. Another resolution would not necessarily have been inferior. But this way the character solved the character's problems in the character's way.

[ahdok]

rolled stats (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/468-roll-with-it/)

Anyone want to run the numbers on what the average array is using this method?


Chard ran a bunch of simulations with a Python scrips when tweaking (for example the exact numbers of dice you roll, and the number of dice you drop off each end.) - you can modify the overall "strength" of characters quite easily by tweaking these three numbers, but you can't get away from "provides a spread of numbers" without significantly altering the structure of what you're doing (but as it's intended to give a spread, that's just robustness, not a problem.)

Anyway, I asked him to just run the script again to answer your question. "Average" is a word with quite a few meanings (for example, it could mean the modal output of the method...) - but probably the most understandable would be to take the mean of each of the six stats and build an array from them.


mean: 5.81 stddev: 1.56
mean: 7.98 stddev: 1.72
mean: 10.14 stddev: 1.78
mean: 12.30 stddev: 1.75
mean: 14.45 stddev: 1.60 (median is 15)
mean: 16.66 stddev: 1.33
P(primary 18+): 0.37
P(primary 17+): 0.58
P(primary 16+): 0.78
P(secondary 16+): 0.19
P(secondary 15+): 0.59
P(secondary 14+): 0.74
P(worst 5-): 0.36
P(worst 4-): 0.20
P(worst 3-): 0.09


So... approximately, 6,8,10,12,(14-15),17...

He also added a design note:
"The key stats I tracked in balancing were P(primary 18) and P(secondary 16+)... Which were about 35% and 20% respectively."


Players who want to add gender-specific adjustments back in are free to do so, but it would be foolish of WOTC to include them in the rulebook in the current social climate. And that's the only reason required for why there are not those adjustments in the worlds of D&D.

It would be difficult to include such suggestions without coming off as colossal-template-dire-bunkweasels...

But actually you raise an interesting but somewhat-unrelated point. WotC in the PHB for 3.5 (and 4e and 5e) have done quite a good job of giving us rules and a framework for our fun and awesome games, but they're still doing a pretty terrible job of really conveying the essence of what roleplaying is about with their books. It's great if you've been playing for a few decades and know what makes your games fun, you don't need that help... but the DnD books in the last few decades have been awful at really helping a complete outsider understand what the point is, or how to go about making a fun game.

One of my co-players in our 5th campaign informed us last week that he was skipping a week to visit some friends at work, because they'd bought the starter set, and tried to play the game with their kids. They'd spent all of their time failing to understand how to apply the set of rules they'd be given to a series of actions they could take to make a game happen... like, they were saying they didn't really know how to start playing because the rules didn't give any starting positions for the models, or really explain what order to run the encounters in... He's visiting their house to DM a session or two.

DnD has traditionally, and still uses the "older cousin" method to teach its players what roleplaying actually is, and even then there are a lot of groups that think DnD is entirely about playing a combat-simulator using the rules in the book... like the wargames that it was originally derived from. The 5e book has a section called "roleplaying" that gives some guidance, but it's preceded by a longer series of paragraphs explaining the rules for how to pull a lever...

And yes, you can have a hell of a lot of fun just playing tactical combat games with the DnD rules, and I'm not in any means arguing that it's "the wrong way to play"... but the idea that the rules provide you a loose framework to tell collaborative stories, and that you can have a lot of fun in just seeing how your characters interact with the world they face is lost on many groups...

Even on these boards, in the last few strips, (where my usual expectation is that most posters have been playing DnD for a while) I've seen numerous arguments about things where people have been arguing that certain interpretations of the OotS comics must be correct, because 'that's what the rules say happens'. I imagine this happens a hell of a lot with OotS. "Crystal can't be hasted by that lightning because the rules for flesh golems don't say it hastes them" being the most recent I remember... but these arguments first and foremost ignore that OotS is a comic story that can work any way the creator wants, and secondly that the rules of the universe in the story are loosely based on a game that's designed to give the game's host the authority and mandate to alter and remix those rules however they see fit - again to tell a story that can work any way the creators collectively want. A number of us were arguing "the rules of the book don't say men and women are different" and I think some of us were arguing "so therefore it must not be that way." whereas others were arguing "so therefore nothing is even trying to force you to do this". The distinction is often lost, but important.

What I'm mostly saying is, if in some hypothetical parallel universe to ours, lots of people really wanted mechanical rules for gender into their game, and the social environment wasn't progressive enough to call WotC out were they to do it, it'd still be a non-optimal approach for them to actually write those rules... what they really should do (in both that universe and our own) is more clearly present and communicate the understanding that DnD isn't a game about rules, it's a game about stories. Do whatever you want. Go nuts.

[Reddish Mage]

As far as I could tell, the conversation was sparked by issues of Haley and whether or not she could win in melee, and digressed into general conversation about gender representation.

That is...quite a bit of a reach isn't it?


If anything, the because-it's-a-story answer applies even more to D&D products than comic strips, because they need their published books to be open to all possible player-generated stories. Players who want to add gender-specific adjustments back in are free to do so, but it would be foolish of WOTC to include them in the rulebook in the current social climate. And that's the only reason required for why there are not those adjustments in the worlds of D&D.

Gender-specific adjustments back...its been so long, I forgot that they were there originally. Did they even have them in 2e? I seem to recall females were disallowed exceptional strength or something.


Chard ran a bunch of simulations with a Python scrips when tweaking (for example the exact numbers of dice you roll, and the number of dice you drop off each end.) - you can modify the overall "strength" of characters quite easily by tweaking these three numbers, but you can't get away from "provides a spread of numbers" without significantly altering the structure of what you're doing (but as it's intended to give a spread, that's just robustness, not a problem.)

Anyway, I asked him to just run the script again to answer your question. "Average" is a word with quite a few meanings (for example, it could mean the modal output of the method...) - but probably the most understandable would be to take the mean of each of the six stats and build an array from them.


mean: 5.81 stddev: 1.56
mean: 7.98 stddev: 1.72
mean: 10.14 stddev: 1.78
mean: 12.30 stddev: 1.75
mean: 14.45 stddev: 1.60 (median is 15)
mean: 16.66 stddev: 1.33
P(primary 18+): 0.37
P(primary 17+): 0.58
P(primary 16+): 0.78
P(secondary 16+): 0.19
P(secondary 15+): 0.59
P(secondary 14+): 0.74
P(worst 5-): 0.36
P(worst 4-): 0.20
P(worst 3-): 0.09


So... approximately, 6,8,10,12,(14-15),17...

He also added a design note:
"The key stats I tracked in balancing were P(primary 18) and P(secondary 16+)... Which were about 35% and 20% respectively."

ahdok wins the golden nerd award for that one.

Responding to the gender adjustment proponents with...math.





It would be difficult to include such suggestions without coming off as colossal-template-dire-bunkweasels...

Except, as demonstrated here...it does happen.

Why our proponents choose to forsake all social norms around gender related discussion for the sake of introducing an alleged slice of gender-related reality is beyond me...

I personally know female kickboxers, champion kickboxers. They may not be as strong as the champion male kickboxers but they certainly quite powerful, which brings me to another point...


People were afraid that she would become a "damsel in distress" if she were every to rely on one of her more martially inclined teammates to get her out of a fight.

You know...when it comes to ways fantasy does not represent reality...female characters of every strength level and capability being put in positions where they are completely disempowered and forced to rely on a male to save them...is perhaps the single most enduring theme...in history!




But actually you raise an interesting but somewhat-unrelated point. WotC in the PHB for 3.5 (and 4e and 5e) have done quite a good job of giving us rules and a framework for our fun and awesome games, but they're still doing a pretty terrible job of really conveying the essence of what roleplaying is about with their books. It's great if you've been playing for a few decades and know what makes your games fun, you don't need that help... but the DnD books in the last few decades have been awful at really helping a complete outsider understand what the point is, or how to go about making a fun game.

That is beside the point. However, I think the problem is that 1. its a lot harder to teach great storytelling than it is to write a playable ruleset and 2. I don't think they are even really trying.

Also, from what I see comes out as official D&D stories, I'm not sure how great a lot of the writers are at making them. They are...uneven...at best.

[ahdok]

Just to answer a specific query (I hate leaving loose ends lying around) - in 2e, a strength score of 18 (and only 18, not, say, 19) came with a percentile result as well, which affected carrying capacity and very little else. (Sometimes you'd use it to settle a contest of pure strength with no other factors, like arm-wrestling.)

Males were limited to 18/00 and females were limited to 18/50.

So that's the last instance of it in the DnD core rules... at least as far as I know.

[wobner]

Allow me to explain it in sufficient depth:

It's a comic strip.

No other explanation is necessary, because unless you have some weird mental disorder that prevents you from understanding the concept of fiction, you already know the "explanation" for any aspect of any story that differs from reality: Because the author wrote it that way. Because you are a real person in the real world reading a made-up story in a made-up world, and the real person who made up the made-up story decided to make it up that way for a variety of real world reasons.

Do you need an explanation for why there are dragons when the real world doesn't have dragons? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why those dragons can fly when logically a creature of that size shouldn't be able to do so? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why a human wiggling their fingers and saying certain words causes lightning to shoot out of them and fry that dragon to a crisp? Because it's a story. Do you need a reason for why that finger-wiggling human is a gay woman and not a straight man? No, you don't, because it's the least absurd thing in this paragraph and you accept all of the others without question. But if you do, then it's because it's a story.

Grant Morrison once said in an interview with Rolling Stone:


"Kids understand that real crabs don't sing like the ones in The Little Mermaid. But you give an adult fiction, and the adult starts asking really ****ing dumb questions like 'How does Superman fly? How do those eyebeams work? Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?' It's a ****ing made-up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!"
*snip*


wow, just wow.
This is ubsurd and quite frankly insulting. Lets forget for a moment, that when you quote someone who is addressing a similiar topic, who refers to those bringing it up as "idiots" and calling their questions "f***ing dumb", that people often tend to assume you are basically voicing the same oppinion. which is a really great way to deal with people
It is completely meaningless and totally ridiculous. Who cares what a child is willing to accept, what appeals to them. most of us have grown up and require a little more depth. Ursala was the bad guy in the little mermaid because thats the way the story was written. Ariel was the good guy cause thats the way the story was written, and she was in love with that idiot because its the way the story was written. Is this all we, as readers are to expect, just because its all a child needs.

Is this how you want your story to veiwed? will all your attempts at inclusion and depth of story telling this arguement of yours is completely baffling. certainly one wonders why you tried to explain haleys trust issues, varsuvius power lust, or anything else when you could have hand waved it away. If on the other hand, your goals are to have your story taken a little more seriously then perhaps you might want to address such complaints with a little more respect.

People gear off of different parts of a story, some take social interactions, some history, some take political rivalries. I understand Mr. martin can spend 20 pages discussing a meal... a meal. And you want to know who explained where dragons came from, his name was tolkien. The detailed history of his stories is part of the reason alot of people loved his work. That this is not an aspect of the story you want to tell is fine, thats it not one you appreciate, but you do yourself a severe disservice by completely dismissing a legitimate complaint in so condescending a fashion. call it a straw man if you like, but the reality of the setting is, for some, just as important as factors like personal motivations of the characters.

you also seem to be forgetting that i don't need an explanation as to where dragons come from, or where magic comes from because the good folks of DnD whose work you use for the telling of this story have already provided a multitude. They've done half your work for you. just like i don't need an explanation of what many shot is, or what a cleric is. So using those as your arguements is ludicrous. where they haven't provided explainations would be another matter.



*snip*
When you say (earlier in your post) that you have expectations about gender, what you're really saying is, "I expect a story to cater to my existing worldview," or, to put it another way, you're saying that you want it to be your cup of tea. So if I have some readers whose cup of tea is more diversity and some readers whose cup of tea is less diversity, then how do I decide which type of tea to brew? Easy. I brew my cup of tea and let the chips fall where they may, and that happens to be a narrative with plenty of diversity. If I got the tea recipe wrong before, I guess I'll just have to put a new pot on now.

Thats not, in my oppinion, anywhere close to whats being said. If you offer me a cup of tea, and it doesn't taste like any tea i've ever had, but instead tastes like mountain dew, maybe a little context is needed.



If you create a society that differs enough from mine that I cannot readily identify with it, then I ask you to explain it to me. You don't need to spend half the novel doing so: I'm not as dense as you may think. However, so far the only reason given is, "Because D&D says so." Well and good. For the sake of verisimilitude, I would ask you to explain in a bit more depth than a simple resort to authority.


See that, to me, doesn't read, "it must conform to me or else", that reads, "if it doesn't conform to my world veiw, could you expand on how it came to be, that i can more readily identify with it.". as a writer hoping to reach a wide audience and voice a world view, i would think that is something you would want to do, and as someone who freely admits to being oblivious to how uninclusive they were for several hundred pages of this story, i would think it would be something you could identify with. I certainly wouldn't think you would want to completely alienate those who might voice that oppinion by quoting some jerk and generally belittling the complainers.

I appreciate the inclusion of various sexualities, and i personally don't need any explaination as to why they are present. What i have a problem with is your reply on the subject. This is not your finest hour.

[Sith_Happens]

I can understand the fear, because supposedly strong women becoming helpless for no good reason is pretty much endemic in the media even today. It's the number one cause of me yelling at my TV.

Still, it ignores two major points.

1) As everyone has pointed out, it's a D&D party and so full teamwork has to be expected. If anything, OOTS is a shining example of "going solo gets you killed".

2) The Giant is a better writer than that. As eloquently shown by the follow-up comic we actually got. My first thought on reading the comic was "Well, that settles THAT little argument..."


Three major points actually. In addition to the two you brought up, there is a very good reason, in story, for Haley to not be kicking butt. She's a rogue. They go out of their way to avoid situations like that. No surprise shes in a lot of trouble when she's forced into a confrontation she isn't equipped to handle.

Make that four major points:

4) This comic has long moved past the point where Haley being saved from Crystal via timely intervention by another member of the Order could ever end up looking anything remotely like a damsel in distress situation. It would purely be a big damn heroes moment, one-liners and "Are you okay"-s would be exchanged, Haley would insist on staying in the fight (likely aided by the presence of Durkula as one of the reinforcements), the tide would turn on Crystal who would promptly escape with her last hit point (even if by accident), and the hunt for Bozzok would begin.

[brian 333]

Allow me to explain it in sufficient depth:

It's a comic strip.

No other explanation is necessary, because unless you have some weird mental disorder that prevents you from understanding the concept of fiction, you already know the "explanation" for any aspect of any story that differs from reality: Because the author wrote it that way. Because you are a real person in the real world reading a made-up story in a made-up world, and the real person who made up the made-up story decided to make it up that way for a variety of real world reasons.

And yet you continue to write consistent characterizations with which I can identify. You inject verisimilitude into your characters personalities, actions, and motivations. I submit that this is such an integral part of a good writer's approach to his craft that he seldom, if ever, thinks about it.

You may certainly write what you want in your comics, for any reason you want. However, if you fail to create anything with which I can identify then I, and most readers, will reject your work. I will cite the example of your black dragon mother. I have certainly never seen any dragon of any sort, (alligators don't count,) and thus I have no way of knowing what a 'real' dragon would be like. Yet your characterization of a mother bent on revenge for the murder of her son rings true to me. I can identify and empathize with the character because you made her personality something I could recognize based on my real world experience with mothers and grief.


"Verisimilitude" is a highly overrated concept. If it is not a requirement for the many things that don't exist in the real world and could never exist (dragons, wizards, zombies, time travel), then it certainly has no power to prevent things that do exist in the real world from making an appearance.

Things with which I have no experience do not generate expectations which I can then see unfulfilled. I was not disappointed by Sean Connery's Draco in Dragonheart, because I had no expectations of him. I certainly did have expectations of Smaug in The Hobbit. This is the difference.

If, in your world, water flows uphill, then it does not conform to my expectations and therefore I ask that you explain why, or at least explain that this is an aspect of your world somehow. I don't need molecular details or scientific theories, but just an acknowledgement that this happens. Thereafter, when water flows uphill in your story I will have an understanding of the issue and not run headlong into challenges to my 'suspension of disbelief.'


What's even worse is this idea of statistical verisimilitude that I keep seeing—where the numerical percentage of characters with certain traits must match the "likely" percentages in the real world, based on whatever filter the proponent chooses to determine what is likely. This argument is utter unadulterated garbage. It's garbage because stories are about protagonists and protagonists are usually unusual. There are only like 4 Force-wielders in a galaxy of trillions at the start of Star Wars, yet by the end of second movie they've all appeared as part of the narrative. Is anyone complaining that Star Wars breaks verisimilitude because such a small minority group is so over-represented? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group. Likewise, if a story has a percentage of LGBTQ+ characters that is higher than the statistical occurrence of LGBTQ+ people in the real world, does that break verisimilitude? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group.

With this I wholly agree. I mentioned percentages as a counter to those who made the claim that the percentages were too low. Too low as compared to what? The only thing with which I have to make any such comparison is the real world. Admittedly the data available on such issues is skewed both by society and the bias of the pollsters, but from the very start there have been females and LGBTQ+ characters in your comic. You have not been non-inclusive, and your current trend to be more inclusive in no way offends me. I have no dog in this hunt, other than to point out that you have always included such characters.

If you want to include more such characters you have no more need to 'justify' it to me than any LGBTQ+ person in the real world has to 'justify' who they are to me. Such people exist, and to me they are people, for whom sexual identity is but one aspect of their character. Are they honest people? Are they kind? Are they hard working? There is a lot more to a person than their sexual proclivities, as you have ably demonstrated with Bandana.


When you say (earlier in your post) that you have expectations about gender, what you're really saying is, "I expect a story to cater to my existing worldview," or, to put it another way, you're saying that you want it to be your cup of tea. So if I have some readers whose cup of tea is more diversity and some readers whose cup of tea is less diversity, then how do I decide which type of tea to brew? Easy. I brew my cup of tea and let the chips fall where they may, and that happens to be a narrative with plenty of diversity. If I got the tea recipe wrong before, I guess I'll just have to put a new pot on now.

What I am saying is what I said: if something is outside my expectations, then I may need some help to understand it. For example, I don't know why your dragons can fly. Certainly the aerodynamics of my world would demonstrate that the power-to-weight ratio required would make such creatures implausible. But a dragon has wings, and wings imply the ability to fly. V can fly with a fly spell, and Haley has a wand of the same effect. You have demonstrated adequate reasons to me why these beings can fly in your fiction.

By the same token, flying monkeys with wings require no explanation. Wingless flying monkeys do.

I do not expect you to serve 'my cup of tea.' My objection exists only when I am told I am being served tea and instead get a warm cup of Pluto Water.

Let's turn this on its head: assume from the start OoTS had been written and drawn with zero male characters. The story could have been the same in every other detail, but someone would have asked, (early on, for that matter,) "Why?"
(I further assert that such should have been the reaction to a world with zero females, but I am aware enough to know that many such works exist unquestioned.)

As an author it is entirely your right to write the story you want to write. I have never attempted to impose any quotas upon you. In fact, I have done the opposite; I have defended you from those who would impose quotas upon you.

[Reddish Mage]

Thats not, in my oppinion, anywhere close to whats being said. If you offer me a cup of tea, and it doesn't taste like any tea i've ever had, but instead tastes like mountain dew, maybe a little context is needed.



See that, to me, doesn't read, "it must conform to me or else", that reads, "if it doesn't conform to my world view, could you expand on how it came to be, that i can more readily identify with it."

I don't quite understand where that sort of view would be coming from. You seem to be suggesting that the comic, in some gender-related way, radically departs from reality to the point that it reads like tea tasting like mountain dew? Where and when exactly?

[Tvtyrant]

In humans you might give women +1 to fort saves and men +2 to athletics checks. I wouldn't, but I could see making that argument. Base stats are way too huge of a gulf for me to use, as an ogre is only 2 int points less than a human and considered barely functioning.

[Darilian]

Given that most modern works of fantasy revolve around some variation of Western European Medieval societies....

....I think that ones social status and upbringing is going to matter a lot more than one's sex at birth.

A young woman who grows up working on a farm most of her childhood is generally going to be a lot more 'robust' than a boy who grew up as the scion of a rich nobleman and spent his life in the library.

Sex, in those types of societies, isn't going to really impact what in a role playing game we call 'stats' nearly as much as how the person was raised. Gender, on the other hand, and perceptions of Gender 'norms', limit what is 'culturally acceptable' for a person of a given sex to do in that society.

TLDR-
I'm less interested in adjusting 'stats' along 'sex' lines in fantasy RPG's, and more interested in how a culture views gender, and what are the 'proper' ways that men and women are supposed to behave. A good example of this is MAR Barker's Tekumel setting- he goes into great detail as to what the 'proper' gender roles are in those societies, and then discusses how men and women who don't 'fit' subvert those gender norms to find a way to better be a square peg when everyone expects you to be a circle.

Then again, I'm also not that interested these days in Western European inspired modern fantasy. They all end up being copies or caricatures of Tolkien, and I've been there, read that. But that's a different topic.

Darilian

[The Giant]

OK, let's try this again with my view on verisimilitude. I'm not responding to any specific argument, just clarifying my position:

Verisimilitude is not without any value whatsoever; it is simply not the sole overriding concern of writing that some readers would like it to be. It is one tool in a very full toolbox of writing techniques that can be pulled out when it's useful and put away when it isn't. The main purpose of verisimilitude is to allow the author to focus the reader's attention on the things he or she wants them to pay attention to. Story elements with a high degree of verisimilitude tend to fade into the background while those without it stand out.

The error is in thinking that "standing out" is a negative thing that must be avoided at all costs; sometimes, the very point of an element's inclusion is to stand out. People include dragons and wizards in stories precisely because they stand out and make the story into something it otherwise wouldn't be—fantasy instead of historical fiction. Breaking verisimilitude can also be used to deliberately create suspense or provide foreshadowing, causing the reader to notice an odd detail that will later become crucial to the plot.

If an author writes a medieval fantasy story with more women than men, or with a higher number of LGBTQ+ people, or a black man in the lead, then because of the current homogenous nature of the existing body of fantasy literature, those choices will stand out. However, if standing out is the point—if these choices are being made partly because the author wishes to actively challenge the existing literary landscape—then providing no explanation in fact furthers that purpose. It forces the issue into the reader's mind and then, by refusing to address it at any point, normalizes it. It makes a statement that this is not something that needs justification, and hopefully by the end of the work, any reader who initially balked will no longer think anything of it. Coming up with an explanation for such demographics in fact strengthens the argument of those people who feel intolerance in the real world: "Oh, he's saying that in their world, women evolved differently, and that's why they're equal. But in the real world, we all know they're not, right? Right."

So I suppose if an author really wants to pander to everyone, they can both include a lot of women and then rationalize their equality away as being some mysterious quality of this wacky fantasy world, but that's essentially saying women aren't equal with a wink and a nod. Not to mention wasting a perfectly good opportunity to possibly effect real change in the minds of that author's readership.

And make no mistake, the real couter-argument to the idea that any wavering from historical demographic verisimilitude needs to be explained or it impugns the quality of the story is Roy. Have I ever provided any reasoning or tortured logic on why a medieval fantasy world has a family of black characters living in and adventuring in a decidedly European-flavored region of the world? Have I resorted to some clumsy kludge about how he comes from another region than everyone else? No, he's just there, from strip #1. His existence does not need to be justified, and it would be catering to the worst worldviews for me to rationalize his presence in the text of the story. Sometimes, heroes are black. Sometimes, they're women. Sometimes, they're gay. Sometimes, they're gay black women. Who captain airships. As an author, stooping to provide an explanation for any of those things in the story is to tacitly acknowledge the belief that they are Other that have no business being in the story without a good reason. And **** that.

Verisimilitude has its place, but it is wholly subordinate to authorial intent. The point of writing stories is for the author to communicate his or her views out to the world, both through what is said and what is left unsaid. If breaking verisimilitude helps that happen, then smash away.

[Lord Torath]

Just to answer a specific query (I hate leaving loose ends lying around) - in 2e, a strength score of 18 (and only 18, not, say, 19) came with a percentile result as well, which affected carrying capacity and very little else. (Sometimes you'd use it to settle a contest of pure strength with no other factors, like arm-wrestling.)

Males were limited to 18/00 and females were limited to 18/50.

So that's the last instance of it in the DnD core rules... at least as far as I know.2nd Edition AD&D didn't have the 18/50 limit for women. It did let strength for warriors go up to 18/100 though. 3rd Edition dropped the percentile strength. I think 1st edition AD&D was the only D&D that had different attribute limits for men and women.

[ahdok]

Many thanks for the correction Torath... I was basing largely on various videogames, and I always forget which ones are which editions - especially when they only half-implemented any rule anyway. Turns out that the rules dumped any changes even longer ago than I thought.

---

What gets me most about the whole statistical verisimilitude thing is that even if one were to willfully block your ears and ignore the very reasonable justification given to you in the rulebooks that people keep mentioning... Even if one were to insist on unwriting paragraphs of the rulebook to introduce 'real-world differences' so that your story can somehow now become "relatable"... people are then willing to use it as a crutch to argue that female inclusion in the party is unrealistic. These "Physical differences" that are significantly smaller than the physiological differences between races. Somehow it's a "logical" argument that women wouldn't be adventurers as much as men because they're physically weaker, but the idea that halflings or gnomes can be adventurers as readily as humans gets a free pass.

It's not just that statistical verisimilitude as an argument about inclusion is baloney, but it's inconsistently applied baloney.

---

I'm still laughing that people can be finding the concept that females can have equal value to males so ridiculously alien that they demand that it needs justification, compared to all the other alien ideas we just accept in DnD.

[Zyzzyva]

Somehow it's a "logical" argument that women wouldn't be adventurers as much as men because they're physically weaker, but the idea that halflings or gnomes can be adventurers as readily as humans gets a free pass.

Well, back in 1e there were racial strength limits as well, but yes, it's a ridiculous argument. And it's not like adventurers aren't all crazy statistical outliers anyways.

[brian 333]

... a lot of stuff with which I agree, see above for full text...

I would point out that by presenting other dark-skinned characters in the comic you have helped to 'normalize' the idea that dark skin in your world is not a cause for bias. Similarly, there have been several powerful female characters as well. Even if I had been 'shocked' that a dark-skinned character or a female character could act as party leader, your later inclusions of similar characters explained without saying a thing that such is your world's norm.

I'll return to the original example of the mother dragon. Here we have a creature which in our fantasy lore is an evil, Machiavellian monster without any sense of compassion or kindness. You presented her as a grief-stricken mother. That is an outlier, something beyond our expectations.

In the pyramid the family tree drawing indicates three children born to a black dragon father and a human mother, indicating a stable, long-term relationship. You have just supported the idea that black dragons in your world are something more than we expected, and that the grief-stricken mother is less odd than she perhaps had first appeared.

This is what I mean when I say I want some kind of explanation as to why my expectations have not been met. I don't need a novel-length discussion of human bias against dragons or any in-depth discussion of draconic romance and family life, but I do want some context in which to understand these things which stand out.

As a writer you do a marvelous job of providing that crucial understanding. Apparently without thinking about it too.


Somehow it's a "logical" argument that women wouldn't be adventurers as much as men because they're physically weaker, but the idea that halflings or gnomes can be adventurers as readily as humans gets a free pass.

It's not just that statistical verisimilitude as an argument about inclusion is baloney, but it's inconsistently applied baloney.

It was never my argument that physical differences played any part in the selection of females as adventurers. I cited them to support the idea that males are physically more robust because they are the ones sent to deal with the lions, and only the survivors get to breed. By nature and by nurture, females are less likely to be violent, (see crimes reports section of your local newspaper and compare the number of males to females involved in violence,) and adventuring is a game of violence.

If you were to honestly assess the argument, you would realize that choice of the character is the paramount issue, and not quotas imposed by me. Statistically fewer women choose dangerous occupations even though they may be as capable or more so than men in the same occupation. Why would women, who refuse to take industrial construction jobs with a very low, but potential, risk of death, dismemberment, or debilitating injury, choose to accept jobs as adventurers with an extremely high risk of these same results?

Write your stories as you will. I don't want to discourage you from creating a world that never had gender bias, or that overcame such ideas so long ago that nobody speaks of it any more. (Star Trek's later incarnations come to mind.) However, I do ask for some context in which to understand your society. As a writer it's up to you to provide that; as a reader it's up to me to 'get it' or not.

[ahdok]

I can totally see Belkar or Roy making a comment about Elan's intelligence, and Elan replying with "I'm a statistical outlier!"

[TheYell]

wow, just wow. This is absurd and quite frankly insulting.

Mr. Burlew is part of that old-school generation that believes objective meaning is a conscious construct. If he wants the ratio of feminine-style characters to masculine-style characters to mean something, then it means something. (I say style, because they don't actually exist. They apprehend actual beings who would be capable of a gender role.)

And if he doesn't consciously intend for it to mean anything, then it has no meaning for anybody.

There is a post-modernist school that says it does mean something we can infer from his text, whether he is aware of it or not, and if he denies it, he's just doubling-down and underlining the subtext, rather than arguing against it. Maybe you were taught that is the real true way to look at life. I saw examples of it twenty-years ago at the University of California.

My point in writing is, when you meet one of us modernists who believe that there wasn't any subconscious message in a conscious communication, the tactful thing to do is let us know that you did infer some subtle second meaning, and give the message you received, and ask us if we consciously mean to convey that message.

NOT "wow. just wow".

[ahdok]

By nature and by nurture, females are less likely to be violent, and adventuring is a game of violence.
{scrubbed}


This isn't real life, it's really just fantasy. If it's caught in this landslide of indignation, there's no escape from reality.

I say just open your eyes, look up to the skies, and see. It really doesn't matter.

[Keltest]

This isn't real life, it's really just fantasy. If it's caught in this landslide of indignation, there's no escape from reality.

I say just open your eyes, look up to the skies, and see. It really doesn't matter.
(Insert applause here)

[happycrow]

I agree with this post.

Cultural conditioning and training can make a world of difference in the numbers of women who might pursue a combat-oriented career. If this is an aspect of the world it should be demonstrated in the story so that the reader understands. It need not be an overt statement, but it should be demonstrated in some way.

Example:
As they passed the courtyard the ring of steel on steel brought back familiar images of their own time in the training yard.
"You are faster, he is stronger!" shouted the weaponsmaster. "If you want to survive, use your speed and do not attempt to match him blow-for-blow!"

This was done explicitly by feminist fantasy author Barbara Hambly, in The Darwath Trilogy. The fact that she was into full-contact karate matches may or may not have had something to do with it, but she does a pretty good job portraying "fighter mindset" in my opinion.

[happycrow]

This isn't real life, it's really just fantasy. If it's caught in this landslide of indignation, there's no escape from reality.

I say just open your eyes, look up to the skies, and see. It really doesn't matter.

And don't forget to change out the lenses in your binoculars from time to time. What looks like a turd through one lens may turn out to be subtle and sublime through another.

[brian 333]

By nature and by nurture, females are less likely to be violent, and adventuring is a game of violence.

(plus repeated insistence of many in these threads that fictional worlds need conform to expectations from the real world, or give reasons why they don't)

This isn't real life, it's really just fantasy. If it's caught in this landslide of indignation, there's no escape from reality.

I say just open your eyes, look up to the skies, and see. It really doesn't matter.

This is an extremely bad representation of my points, and an example of the much hated straw man argument. (http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm)

I do not require fiction to conform to my expectations. I said that I, and every other reader, comes to fiction with expectations. It is the duty of the author to give context for the reader to understand when these expectations are not true within his world. If the author does not provide some context then he risks alienating his intended audience.

By saying 'It's only fantasy' you may as well say, 'It was only a dream.' How many times has that particular literary device been used to justify absurdities in a story? How many times has it succeeded? Had I sat through 400 pages of Frank L. Baum only to find out Dorothy never left Kansas in the first place I would have been pissed, and I submit that you would have as well.

I have never made the claim that there should be any set limit of female characters in any story. Others said there were too few in Rich's work, and I gave reasons which demonstrated that he had not only represented females in his work, but he had done so at a rate that would exceed any expectations we in the real world might have for women in such occupations. If he wishes to put more women in central plot positions within his work, it is entirely within his right as an author, and I submit that he has already demonstrated ably and early that it would not be abnormal in his world that this occurs. He has already provided the context I need to understand why his world is different from the real world.

{scrubbed}

[Jasdoif]

{scrubbed}You object to consumers telling producers what they want?

[ti'esar]

{scrubbed}

[brian 333]

I object to consumers strong-arming artists into producing what the consumer wants.

Consumers are free to consume or not consume any product they wish. Consumers are free to communicate their wishes for more or less of a particular kind of content to an artist and leave it up to him to decide if that is what he wants to do.

Where I draw the line is when people make claims of favoritism by an artist based on their own agenda which is as easily biased as anything of which they accuse the artist.

When the tweet came out that Rich was rejecting the threats of the person who threatened him with boycott based on his inclusion of a lesbian character, I said, "Go Rich." I realize the pro-inclusion crowd has not been as blatant, but the fact exists that they are demanding Rich meet their quotas, and their quotas are based on nothing more than their own agenda.

But so long as special interest groups can bully artists into conformity, we have less than free expression. I hate bullies of any stripe. I will not back down to bullies; I will reveal them for what they are in any way I can.

[Jasdoif]

I object to consumers strong-arming artists into producing what the consumer wants.

Consumers are free to consume or not consume any product they wish. Consumers are free to communicate their wishes for more or less of a particular kind of content to an artist and leave it up to him to decide if that is what he wants to do.

Where I draw the line is when people make claims of favoritism by an artist based on their own agenda which is as easily biased as anything of which they accuse the artist.

When the tweet came out that Rich was rejecting the threats of the person who threatened him with boycott based on his inclusion of a lesbian character, I said, "Go Rich." I realize the pro-inclusion crowd has not been as blatant, but the fact exists that they are demanding Rich meet their quotas, and their quotas are based on nothing more than their own agenda.

But so long as special interest groups can bully artists into conformity, we have less than free expression. I hate bullies of any stripe. I will not back down to bullies; I will reveal them for what they are in any way I can.Oh, you object to groups of consumers telling producers what they want together.

[jere7my]

By saying 'It's only fantasy' you may as well say, 'It was only a dream.' How many times has that particular literary device been used to justify absurdities in a story? How many times has it succeeded? Had I sat through 400 pages of Frank L. Baum only to find out Dorothy never left Kansas in the first place I would have been pissed, and I submit that you would have as well.

Guess you never saw the movie version, huh? I understand it was pretty popular.


When the tweet came out that Rich was rejecting the threats of the person who threatened him with boycott based on his inclusion of a lesbian character, I said, "Go Rich." I realize the pro-inclusion crowd has not been as blatant, but the fact exists that they are demanding Rich meet their quotas, and their quotas are based on nothing more than their own agenda.

Could you quote a member of the pro-inclusion crowd demanding that Rich meet some sort of quota? At most, I've seen people (including Rich, amusingly) criticizing the work for having certain blind spots, but criticism isn't a demand. Stating a preference isn't a demand. Do you have quotes to support your assertion?

[Reddish Mage]

Verisimilitude is not without any value whatsoever; it is simply not the sole overriding concern of writing that some readers would like it to be. It is one tool in a very full toolbox of writing techniques that can be pulled out when it's useful and put away when it isn't. The main purpose of verisimilitude is to allow the author to focus the reader's attention on the things he or she wants them to pay attention to. Story elements with a high degree of verisimilitude tend to fade into the background while those without it stand out.

I find it hard, in an era where we are so used to fantasy being inclusive, that including women who are just as capable men would break verisimilitude for... anyone.

Peter Jackson expanded the role of women in "The Hobbit" because the total lack of female characters in the story would be extremely jarring to a contemporary audience.

In the era of post-Xena, of anime, of Marvel, of Shrek and the latest Disney movies...aren't fantasies that exclude women from prominent roles in the extreme minority?


If an author writes a medieval fantasy story with more women than men, or with a higher number of LGBTQ+ people, or a black man in the lead, then because of the current homogenous nature of the existing body of fantasy literature, those choices will stand out. However, if standing out is the point—if these choices are being made partly because the author wishes to actively challenge the existing literary landscape—then providing no explanation in fact furthers that purpose. It forces the issue into the reader's mind and then, by refusing to address it at any point, normalizes it. It makes a statement that this is not something that needs justification, and hopefully by the end of the work, any reader who initially balked will no longer think anything of it.

There is something to this...but it suggests that black man in the lead is something curious...and hasn't everyone who has gone to the movies or turned on the TV seen this?

Heck, it took me awhile before I even realized Roy was black. I think it only hit me when I saw his sister that it was even a thing...

I'm not sure if simply including characters in a story where race is an non-issue is the most inclusive way to approach race...as there are people that are quite tolerant of people of different skins and hats but not different mannerisms, speech, customs, and values....but that's another story.



2nd Edition AD&D didn't have the 18/50 limit for women. It did let strength for warriors go up to 18/100 though. 3rd Edition dropped the percentile strength. I think 1st edition AD&D was the only D&D that had different attribute limits for men and women.

After reading you and this (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/04/the_12_most_insane_old_school_dungeons_dragons_rul .php), I realized this was something that Gary Gygax and Co. actually gave a lot of thought to this...and came to the conclusion that this was desirable! Simply place a limit on female fighter strength on the grounds that the strongest woman isn't as strong as the strongest man...

A rule that works only to disallow women fighters from being in first place and affects a vanishingly small proportion of characters...it seems more arbitrary than anything else, and apparently it was controversial pretty early on too...

[Sith_Happens]

{scrubbed}

http://img.pandawhale.com/27717-Zelda-Abandon-thread-gif-LwhD.gif

[YossarianLives]

http://img.pandawhale.com/27717-Zelda-Abandon-thread-gif-LwhD.gif
I concur. I've decided to give up on this thread before I get any angrier than I currently am.

[Brumagris]

I don´t understand the point to which this thread derivated (which by the way was discussed already).
As far as I can see, all the people trying to say "not enough women", "enough women", "not enough black/gay/whateverlabelyouwannaput" "too much black/gay/whateverlabelyouwannaput", should be the ones actually examining themselves, rather than negatively critizicing like that. Why so? It is simple, the more you label somebody, the more you are excluding that person. Regardless of how much of a protector of that person/group you are, the moment you put a label you are excluding somebody.

As explained before in many threads and said by The Giant as well, we can distil that: what does it matter the sexual preferences, race, sex etc in a character? (apart from V as a comical relief from time to time, and that is more because of his elfishness :P)
What makes a difference with a character is not how much representation does it get compared to real world, but how is the character´s behavior and insight. The black dragon mother is a perfect example, malack as well, Samantha, Miko, Lien, Tsukiko, Xykon, Redcloack... they all are part of a "minority", yet we did not see them as such before. Why starting now such a petty argument over whether it is being fair towards gay/women/whatever? How does that make a difference and why, all of you that preach "protection" for those "groups" are actually segregating them by saying "they need representation"?
Honestly, I can see that at the moment The Giant starts making comics with the lines "I am a lesbian and I need to justify because" or "hello I am a black hero and I need to explain why I am not dying on the first panels" the full coherence and quality of the story will go to hell. Because he will be actually clicheing, rather than if this facts are naturally accepted.
(In fact, I never took Roy being black as something strange until I saw this thread).

As for the on-topic and the stats modifications because of gender, we need to think that RPG give the flexibility of being whatever we want however we want... and in the fantasy novels we can see, for example, one of the best warriors of AD&D, Kitiara Uth Matar, who is female, and one of the phisically weakest creatures, Raistlin Majere, to be male.
And let´s not get started with historical references because the list would be endless XD

[Prospekt]

Oppressed groups gain recognition, community, pride, and the tools with which to fight said oppression with being able to say, "I am ___" and talking about that. Saying otherwise comes from privilege and ignorance. Wanting to get rid of labels is wanting to get rid of adjectives. We need those. How about stop applying inferiority to certain labels?

[SaintRidley]

Oppressed groups gain recognition, community, pride, and the tools with which to fight said oppression with being able to say, "I am ___" and talking about that. Saying otherwise comes from privilege and ignorance. Wanting to get rid of labels is wanting to get rid of adjectives. We need those. How about stop applying inferiority to certain labels?

Aye. It's easy to be colorblind, or genderblind, etc. if you're on the privileged end of the spectrum. It's a lot harder if your life is actually negatively impacted in meaningful ways by being a woman or a person of color or disabled (and so on - seriously, pick your poison. To paraphrase, make board safe, and expand Paul Money's brilliant quote into applicability across all spectra of privilege: everybody wants to be underprivileged, but nobody wants to be underprivileged.

[Brumagris]

Oppressed groups gain recognition, community, pride, and the tools with which to fight said oppression with being able to say, "I am ___" and talking about that. Saying otherwise comes from privilege and ignorance. Wanting to get rid of labels is wanting to get rid of adjectives. We need those. How about stop applying inferiority to certain labels?

Right now you are labelling me as "ignorant and privileged", without not knowing any fact, so my point applies. It is not the labels, it is the actual person who makes the difference.

In fact I belong to a couple of the "opressed groups" myself and never had problem gaining recognition, community, pride... hence I never needed a tool for fighting an oppression that was not there most of the time.
Labels do not equal adjectives. Labels are imposed by people, willing to segregate for whichever reason. and even in order to "protect", if you keep labelling, you keep victimizing these "labels", because you are, de facto, telling the labelled people they are different and they need protection from you. If you want equality for everybody, you can start by giving everybody the same credit regardless of any "adjective".

Back to the point, adjective is by definition "a member of a class of words that describes nouns", therefore a neutral word, Label comes as a negative word, so no, getting rid of labels is not getting rid of adjectives.
Saying that Roy is black as an adjective is completely different from saying that Roy is black as a label. The moment you acn see that difference, you will understand what true equality is.

[factotum]

Peter Jackson expanded the role of women in "The Hobbit" because the total lack of female characters in the story would be extremely jarring to a contemporary audience.


That's something I personally don't agree with, though. It's OK for the author of a work to change it, if they believe it needs updating for newer sensibilities*; I don't think anyone else should take that right for themselves. I'd also point out that there are many, many people who read the Hobbit and LOTR every year, and they don't all seem to have been so jarred by the experience that they swore off reading fantasy ever again?

* And yes, this does mean I acknowledge George Lucas had the right to create the Star Wars Special Editions, even if I disagree with some of the changes he made.

[Astrella]

Right now you are labelling me as "ignorant and privileged", without not knowing any fact, so my point applies. It is not the labels, it is the actual person who makes the difference.

In fact I belong to a couple of the "opressed groups" myself and never had problem gaining recognition, community, pride... hence I never needed a tool for fighting an oppression that was not there most of the time.
Labels do not equal adjectives. Labels are imposed by people, willing to segregate for whichever reason. and even in order to "protect", if you keep labelling, you keep victimizing these "labels", because you are, de facto, telling the labelled people they are different and they need protection from you. If you want equality for everybody, you can start by giving everybody the same credit regardless of any "adjective".

Back to the point, adjective is by definition "a member of a class of words that describes nouns", therefore a neutral word, Label comes as a negative word, so no, getting rid of labels is not getting rid of adjectives.
Saying that Roy is black as an adjective is completely different from saying that Roy is black as a label. The moment you acn see that difference, you will understand what true equality is.

Labels being imposed by others is a huge difference from labels being self-applied. And the world isn't equal. It isn't. Pretending it is is not a good step towards equality, acknowledging differences and oppression is. People AREN'T the same. I'm not the same from you, but that doesn't mean I deserve hurt or discrimination, but we aren't the same. I see no value in erasing the diversity of humanity and pretending we're all the same.

[ufo]

{scrubbed}

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/02/nope.gif

[ahdok]

This is an extremely bad representation of my points

Actually, it's an extremely bad representation of a rock song.

[ahdok]

Since the thing that sparked this off is in a different thread and has been lost in the noise, my original problem and point I've been arguing against were statements in a number of posts that suggested that:

1) It'd be unrealistic, or weird or unnatural to have equal representation of women in adventuring parties (the idea that women might make up more than half of an adventuring party was so unthinkable that it didn't even come up.)

2) That having one woman in a group of six characters was "extremely inclusive" - The very idea that one out of six was an 'extreme' as a level of inclusion is frankly galling to me.

When saying this, I'm not "imposing quotas" I'm not demanding that anyone change anything or cater to my whims, and in this specific case, I'm not even complaining about Rich's work. What I am saying is that if you're going to make arguments about representation and inclusion, it's rather silly to start with the assertion that one out of six is somehow a superlative at the top end of a reasonable scale.

3) That if writers don't conform to the expectations of their audiences, that they need explain it. Rich did the best job I could possibly imagine of explaining this one, and his point about providing explanations normalising those expectations, but not providing explanations normalising the content of the media under scrutiny is a very important one.

--
--

As a minor note: the argument "Well I never had a problem with this" is quite a common tool used to trivialize and marginalize the problems and worries of people who have had a problem with it. This probably isn't your intention, but it's always worth thinking about before making such statements. I'm pretty sure if I wandered up to a homicide victim and said "well I never had a problem with being murdered, there's clearly no issue here." they wouldn't exactly agree with my point.

--
--

{scrubbed}
{scrubbed}

I absolutely love the idea that by making a bunch of arguments that are essentially paraphrases of the Giant's own arguments on this matter, and agreeing with everything he's said about it, that I'm apparently the one who's trying to strongarm the creator into pandering to my views.

[Rakoa]

I'm pretty sure if I wandered up to a homicide victim and said "well I never had a problem with being murdered, there's clearly no issue here." they wouldn't exactly agree with my point.

That is probably because they would be dead. :smalltongue:

[Zyzzyva]

That's something I personally don't agree with, though. It's OK for the author of a work to change it, if they believe it needs updating for newer sensibilities*; I don't think anyone else should take that right for themselves. I'd also point out that there are many, many people who read the Hobbit and LOTR every year, and they don't all seem to have been so jarred by the experience that they swore off reading fantasy ever again?

* And yes, this does mean I acknowledge George Lucas had the right to create the Star Wars Special Editions, even if I disagree with some of the changes he made.

But Peter Jackson was the one making the movie. Tolkien's dead, does that mean LotR is now set in stone? Shakespeare's been dead for even longer, does that mean The Lion King is an abomination that should not be?

Also, fun project: reread the Hobbit (it's a kids' book, it's a quick read) and replace every pronoun referring to Bilbo with a female pronoun. It's amazing what that does to the feel of the book. (Side note: as a different individual from Tolkein, do I have the right to do that? :smalltongue:)


{scrubbed}

That was such a great short. "But I'm a nice guy."

[happycrow]

To be entirely fair, I've used the term "feminazis" myself, having written something which ran afoul of that hideous version of feminism (but which exists in any ideology) which says "if you don't express agreement with every postulate and toe the line on every position, you are an enemy worthy of vituperation, scorn, 4000 hits in one day on your utterly insignificant blog, a half-dozen totally bizarre essays about you, and a thread with truly vile things said about you, your writing, and your grandmother on Reddit." Because there *is* a strand of people who say "toe every line or be Other." And they mean it, and are willing to attempt to destroy you personally in the process, because they've forgotten that their lens is not the only legitimate lens through which to view reality, and that there's a reality bigger than they are.

Been there. Not much fun. Not much fun to get your ass beat either literally or figuratively for being (x). But I think so long as we refuse to Other people simply because they disagree with us (no matter which angle one is coming from, and remember these discussions are about angles, not sides - because there are a lot more than just two of them), and we remember to start from an assumption of good motives, that this sort of thing can be discussed happily and humanely and well.

[ahdok]

Also... I'm a creator as well. Not as famous or well known as Rich, but hey, I had 20,000 pageviews and 2000 tumblr reblogs yesterday... so my figures aren't completely irrelevant. I draw comics about random things, but a lot of those random things are DnD jokes, or use characters from DnD games I play in.

Now I admit I didn't exactly think this bit through, but the characters I use for my jokes tend to be the characters from the game that spawned that joke in the first place. My comic currently uses five distinct adventuring parties to tell jokes set in three different DnD worlds. It's pretty confusing because I haven't actually explained what's going on anywhere, or that these are set in distinct stories. That's a bad thing and could confuse my readers.

However... of the characters I've used in DnD strips in the comic so far, the male to female balance of the characters that have appeared in my comics is 7 males and 20 females. I never counted until today. None of my readers are clamouring for any explanation or justification of this. Nobody is telling me it's an anomaly. Nobody reading my comic needs a reason why so many of my characters can be female, and I'm pretty sure I never lost a reader because my comic has lots of women in it. If this doesn't align with your expectations, to the level where it actually causes issues for you reading the strip, it's still not my 'duty' to justify to you why I think that women are people. Women having agency and relevance is normal to me... You can go work it out yourself.

[johnbragg]

Well, back in 1e there were racial strength limits as well, but yes, it's a ridiculous argument. And it's not like adventurers aren't all crazy statistical outliers anyways.

"My male Human Fighter, whose 18 Strength is 4 standard deviations above the mean, is totally plausible and believable. Your female human Fighter, whose 18 Strength is 5 standard deviations above the mean, is totally unrealistic!"

(Numbers made up for humor value. Not interested in debating the merits of human male vs female upper body strength as applied to fantasy elf-and-dragon games.)

[factotum]

But Peter Jackson was the one making the movie. Tolkien's dead, does that mean LotR is now set in stone? Shakespeare's been dead for even longer, does that mean The Lion King is an abomination that should not be?

If Peter Jackson wanted to make a story *based* on the Hobbit, but not called that and not directly associated with it--as The Lion King is loosely based on Hamlet--then sure, he can do what he likes with it. When he is producing an adaptation of someone else's work then he should cleave a bit closer to the original, so we don't end up with Boromir taking half an hour to die, Deus Ex Ghosts clearing up the Minas Tirith battle or the character assassination of Faramir! And yes, as far as I'm concerned LOTR *is* set in stone, and the publishers must presumably agree given the published text today is still pretty much the same as it was after Tolkien's revisions in the 60s.

Let me put your question another way: if someone were to take LOTR and rewrite it so Sauron is the good guy and the hobbits are evil thieves trying to depose him from his rightful throne, should that still be called LOTR? I think not. (Although I'd be fascinated to read such a thing in its own right :smallwink:).

[Spiryt]

The way I see it, Hobbit by PJ, or at least two last parts,sadly is an abomination that should not be.

However, some random female character just put there is likely easily the smallest problem, if problem at all, so I can't see how it's very relevant. :smalltongue:

[Zyzzyva]

If Peter Jackson wanted to make a story *based* on the Hobbit, but not called that and not directly associated with it--as The Lion King is loosely based on Hamlet--then sure, he can do what he likes with it. When he is producing an adaptation of someone else's work then he should cleave a bit closer to the original, so we don't end up with Boromir taking half an hour to die, Deus Ex Ghosts clearing up the Minas Tirith battle or the character assassination of Faramir! And yes, as far as I'm concerned LOTR *is* set in stone, and the publishers must presumably agree given the published text today is still pretty much the same as it was after Tolkien's revisions in the 60s.

But... exactly! It's not like Jackson went out and pulped every extant copy of the Hobbit. If his version of the Hobbit has an elf lady show up and barrel-riding action scenes and some weird junk with a giant gold dwarf (:smallconfused:), that's his right as an adaptor.


Let me put your question another way: if someone were to take LOTR and rewrite it so Sauron is the good guy and the hobbits are evil thieves trying to depose him from his rightful throne, should that still be called LOTR? I think not. (Although I'd be fascinated to read such a thing in its own right :smallwink:).

If it was a book? No, it probably should be named something different, just because it's a different work written by someone else. If it was a movie? Well, that's not really the same thing. It's an adaptation, and adaptations have an enormous amount of latitude.

Slightly more direct comparison than Lion King: the '96 Romeo and Juliet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/) is, in fact, a direct adaptation of the play. It also moves some lines around to suggest Romeo and Mercutio are trippin' balls at the party at the end of Act I, and has Juliet wake up while Romeo is still barely alive because cruelty to the characters. Is that enough to push it over the line? Is this movie terrible?

Case study two: I haven't seen many Merchant of Venice adaptations, but I am told that Shylock generally isn't presented as a loathsome, grotesque villain much these days. (Well, antagonist sure, but not evil because !EVIL JEWISH GUY!.) That's against both the letter and the spirit of the original text; do these versions no longer deserve to be called Merchant of Venice?

[happycrow]

The way I see it, Hobbit by PJ, or at least two last parts,sadly is an abomination that should not be.

However, some random female character just put there is likely easily the smallest problem, if problem at all, so I can't see how it's very relevant. :smalltongue:

While I'm usually pretty fanatical about this one (I can be reduced to spluttering nerdrage over what he did to Faramir and the Ents), I'm totally okay with how he did the Hobbit's characterization (the combat got turgid), because it let them do some shout-outs to some very rare and somewhat high-speed/low-drag Tolkien geekery. So I've headcanon'd everything Jackson did as "fanfic on film" and learned to love my decaf. (Not that Jackson gives a rat's butt for my opinion anyway, heh).

[Porthos]

Case study two: I haven't seen many Merchant of Venice adaptations, but I am told that Shylock generally isn't presented as a loathsome, grotesque villain much these days. (Well, antagonist sure, but not evil because !EVIL JEWISH GUY!.) That's against both the letter and the spirit of the original text; do these versions no longer deserve to be called Merchant of Venice?

For some reason that I only partially understand, people think it is far more acceptable to make changes to a play (sometimes radical changes) than to make changes to a book. Either when adapting to another medium or even redoing it in the same medium.

The only reason I can think that this is really seen as acceptable is.... it's been done for centuries (or millennia if one prefers) and getting angry about it now is kinda self-defeating. :smallwink:

Doesn't stop some from even getting angry when changes to plays are made, mind. But there's always someone out there. :smalltongue:

[Zyzzyva]

For some reason that I only partially understand, people think it is far more acceptable to make changes to a play (sometimes radical changes) than to make changes to a book. Either when adapting to another medium or even redoing it in the same medium.

The only reason I can think that this is really seen as acceptable is.... it's been done for centuries (or millennia if one prefers) and getting angry about it now is kinda self-defeating. :smallwink:

Doesn't stop some from even getting angry when changes to plays are made, mind. But there's always someone out there. :smalltongue:

Yeah, but fortunately for me factotum seems to be taking the hardliner "only the original creator can change a work" stance, so it's on them to explain the distinction. :smallwink:

[johnbragg]

For some reason that I only partially understand, people think it is far more acceptable to make changes to a play (sometimes radical changes) than to make changes to a book. Either when adapting to another medium or even redoing it in the same medium.

The only reason I can think that this is really seen as acceptable is.... it's been done for centuries (or millennia if one prefers) and getting angry about it now is kinda self-defeating. :smallwink:

Doesn't stop some from even getting angry when changes to plays are made, mind. But there's always someone out there. :smalltongue:

I think it's more about the passage of time from the original, and the scope of the changes. Shakespeare's plays have been done and adapted in different ways for hundreds of years, so nobody minds much. STar Wars Special Editions, 20-25 years later? #hanshotfirst.

Or maybe nerdrage is just more amplified now. Plenty of changes from Frank S Baum's Wizard of Oz to Judy Garland's, but either people dealt with it (maybe changing features of a story from a book to a movie was less tragic when Hitler and the Great Depression were major topics of interest) or we've forgotten.

[brian 333]

Since the thing that sparked this off is in a different thread and has been lost in the noise, my original problem and point I've been arguing against were statements in a number of posts that suggested that:

1) It'd be unrealistic, or weird or unnatural to have equal representation of women in adventuring parties (the idea that women might make up more than half of an adventuring party was so unthinkable that it didn't even come up.)

This is not an argument I have ever made, and yet it is continually thrust in my face as if I had, (and in fact, I did make a point about a book with an all-female starship crew.) This is an unfair debating technique called the straw man. It is impossible to debate when one imposes views the other does not espouse, (or even agree with,) then devotes the rest of his argument to that, completely ignoring the point the other did actually try to make.


2) That having one woman in a group of six characters was "extremely inclusive" - The very idea that one out of six was an 'extreme' as a level of inclusion is frankly galling to me.

I invite you to any construction site in America where you may count the number of women. The number zero is most common, although on large sites where major firms with huge recruiting budgets operate, the number of women appearing is increasing. This has been, in my experience, a good thing. However, even one female on a construction site is still a rare occurrence worthy of note. Why would adventurers be any different?

Facts are not galling if faced with honesty. It is not an insult to women to say they are underrepresented in a particular field. If one simply blames 'the old boys network' without attempting to understand why the situation is what it is, one risks never solving the problem. If you have a bad starter, changing the battery won't start your car.

I concede that in times past male personnel directors discouraged the hiring of females for many positions. This is a fact. But for most of my career companies have actively pursued women, (mostly for compliance with EEOC, I am sure,) and women are still a rarity in my field. Something is keeping them out, and it's not the big bad man.

I believe I have explained why this is the case: women typically choose careers which allow them to remain close to their families, and careers which have much lower chances of death, dismemberment, and debilitating injuries. Adventuring is a career which leads one away from families for extended periods of time with a very high chance of death, dismemberment, and debilitating injuries. My observations show that few women would choose such a career.


When saying this, I'm not "imposing quotas" I'm not demanding that anyone change anything or cater to my whims, and in this specific case, I'm not even complaining about Rich's work. What I am saying is that if you're going to make arguments about representation and inclusion, it's rather silly to start with the assertion that one out of six is somehow a superlative at the top end of a reasonable scale.

I would love to see a one out of six ratio in construction workers. It would be far higher than the existing ratio, which I am guessing is lower than 1 in 10. Fact checked myself: According to an OSHA report, 9% of American construction workers in 2010 were female.
...over 800,000 women workers employed in construction (i.e., managerial, professional, administrative, and production employees) in 2010. Of those, approximately 200,000 were employed in production occupations, such as laborers, electricians, plumbers, etc. It did not separate construction by Industrial and Commercial categories, so I can only anecdotally assert that in Industrial Construction the numbers are much lower. But even overall, the percentages of construction hands, (as opposed to clerical workers,) is a little better than 2% of the work force.

Again, factual observation is not insult. While you personally may not be one of those clamoring for 50:50 representation, (it was to those I addressed my arguments in the first place,) the fact remains that 1:6 is 8 times higher than any expectation based on what we know, (as opposed to what we might want.) Now I have no idea how that translates into misogyny of any kind.

In fact, had Rich written his story with a 100% female cast I'd have read it. Sure, some of the jokes wouldn't be as funny, but I'm sure other funny jokes could have replaced them. I do not oppose more females in comics, stories, movies, or in the workplace. I think when the day arrives in which a person is judged by the content of his character rather than the content of his underwear it will be a better world.


3) That if writers don't conform to the expectations of their audiences, that they need explain it. Rich did the best job I could possibly imagine of explaining this one, and his point about providing explanations normalising those expectations, but not providing explanations normalising the content of the media under scrutiny is a very important one.

And I explained how he did a marvelous job providing context for the audience. I have yet to find a case of 'water flowing uphill' in Rich's work.


As a minor note: the argument "Well I never had a problem with this" is quite a common tool used to trivialize and marginalize the problems and worries of people who have had a problem with it. This probably isn't your intention, but it's always worth thinking about before making such statements. I'm pretty sure if I wandered up to a homicide victim and said "well I never had a problem with being murdered, there's clearly no issue here." they wouldn't exactly agree with my point.

A valid point, but it is not something I have ever asserted. Women do deal with gender bias in our world. LGBT persons do face discrimination in our culture. The very real hurt caused by this should be a source of shame for all who cannot see the person under the label. And so long as we continue to impose the label first, "This is my gay friend Al," as opposed to, "This is my friend Al," we reduce the person to something less than human. It's time to lose the label and see the person first.


http://www.socksandpuppets.com/misc/memesgifs/icecream2.gif

I read the comic, and it is interesting, to say the least. My favorites are the story segments, but then I prefer a story style comic to the joke-a-day style. Give it a try, it may be your cup of tea.


I absolutely love the idea that by making a bunch of arguments that are essentially paraphrases of the Giant's own arguments on this matter, and agreeing with everything he's said about it, that I'm apparently the one who's trying to strongarm the creator into pandering to my views.

I didn't say you were the culprit. The ones I have directed my arguments to, exclusively and from the start, were the ones who said less than 50:50 representation was biased and unfair. I have continued the argument with you because you have either misunderstood my points or have twisted them for dramatic effect.

It's apparent I'm not as good a writer as The Giant, because to have been so consistently misunderstood and taken out of context, I must have said it wrong. However, from the outset, my point has been that those who claim 50:50 representation is the only fair ratio of representation do not base their argument on reality, but on their own desires and their own agenda. Reality indicates a much lower number is far more likely. The author, of course, has the right to decide what goes into his work and why.

(And I have still not received any answer as to why 50:50 is the only fair ratio other than, "I want it to be that way.")

[ahdok]

The "straw man" in these cases are actual real people on these forums. Allenw below this makes a good point, so for clarity I've dug out the specific other comments I had in mind (although in many cases these specific quotes are just the first ones I found for arguments made by multiple individuals:)


I agree that more individual female charecters would be good but in universe even with magic raising standard of living would it really be realistically viable to have an equal number of female to male adventurers? This is an actual question.

In fact I belong to a couple of the "opressed groups" myself and never had problem gaining recognition, community, pride... hence I never needed a tool for fighting an oppression that was not there most of the time.

The only comment of Brian333 that I was referring tois the continued insistence that one in six females is some kind of "extreme inclusion" because you don't see women on American construction sites, of all things... because I can think of nothing that better compares to fighting giant fire-breathing space-lizards with raw psionic power than carrying bricks around in a wheelbarrow...

When you're happy to accept that Minotaurs and Halflings are equally valid options to go adventuring, despite their massive physical differences, the idea that men and women aren't equally valid choices in an adventuring party, due to some real-world sociological hang-up to do with operating a crane seems crazy. It seems crazier the more paragraphs you write insisting it matters. It seems crazier the more you demand that writers have a "duty" to justify its existence, and it seems completely crazy at the point when you start comparing people arguing against it to feminazis.

[allenw]

If this thread is to continue, I as an interested reader would find it helpful if ahdok and brian were to provide cites to the arguments they intend to dispute.

[brian 333]

You keep assuming all my comments are directed at you, but several of them are for other people, the "straw man" in these cases are actual real people on these forums.

My apologies, I may have overpersonalized things.

[Corneel]

<snip>

It was never my argument that physical differences played any part in the selection of females as adventurers. I cited them to support the idea that males are physically more robust because they are the ones sent to deal with the lions, and only the survivors get to breed. By nature and by nurture, females are less likely to be violent, (see crimes reports section of your local newspaper and compare the number of males to females involved in violence,) and adventuring is a game of violence.

If you were to honestly assess the argument, you would realize that choice of the character is the paramount issue, and not quotas imposed by me. Statistically fewer women choose dangerous occupations even though they may be as capable or more so than men in the same occupation. Why would women, who refuse to take industrial construction jobs with a very low, but potential, risk of death, dismemberment, or debilitating injury, choose to accept jobs as adventurers with an extremely high risk of these same results?
{scrubbed}

If women are given a chance to shine, they will (Joan of Arc), even if, while capable military leaders, they might turn out be just as cruel and power hungry as men (Marguerite d'Anjou), and what is fantasy if not giving a chance, giving a real chance to the less probable, the improbable or even the impossible.

(*) The women soldiers were rigorously trained, given uniforms, and equipped with Danish guns (obtained via the slave trade). By the mid-19th century, they numbered between 1,000 and 6,000 women, about a third of the entire Dahomey army, according to reports written by visitors. The reports also noted variously that the women soldiers suffered several defeats, but that the women soldiers were consistently judged to be superior to the male soldiers in effectiveness and bravery.

[brian 333]

{scrubbed}

If women are given a chance to shine, they will (Joan of Arc), even if, while capable military leaders, they might turn out be just as cruel and power hungry as men (Marguerite d'Anjou), and what is fantasy if not giving a chance, giving a real chance to the less probable, the improbable or even the impossible.

(*) The women soldiers were rigorously trained, given uniforms, and equipped with Danish guns (obtained via the slave trade). By the mid-19th century, they numbered between 1,000 and 6,000 women, about a third of the entire Dahomey army, according to reports written by visitors. The reports also noted variously that the women soldiers suffered several defeats, but that the women soldiers were consistently judged to be superior to the male soldiers in effectiveness and bravery.

How does this in any way conflict with what I have written?

Women do shine in traditionally male fields when they have the opportunity. Many dangerous careers are not chosen by women for the reasons I cited.

Asserting that I have no understanding may make you feel better, but it does not invalidate my arguments.

Edit: please demonstrate which cultural values I share with the colonialists of the 1800's. I am now curious.

[rafet]

Oh, and in the future: Please don't tell other posters on which thread to discuss a particular topic. If you want to talk about the strip in the Discussion thread, then just go ahead and do so. Don't tell other people to stop talking about other topics. If you think other posters are dangerously far off topic and would like them to stop, issue a report to the moderating staff and someone will come take a look.

Noted, sorry Rich

[happycrow]

Brian333,

FYI, since my wildly misspent you was spent as an actual researching-and-publishing medieval-warfare specialist, real-world female combatants in premodern settings has always hovered around 20%. That's big-brush, obviously, and the percentages change here and there (notably higher among the Taborites in medieval central europe, and in several instances during the Albigensian Crusades).

I could give a rat's about 50:50. But I think there's a valid argument in favor of starting with that as a benchmark if one is thinking about representation issues when one starts designing protagonists, and that's to appeal to the widest possible variety of readers by presenting a good diversity of characters of various sexes and types. And as a writer (albeit a hobbyist - I've written a grand total of one novel, mostly just for fun), the reason I would most be inclined to do that are:

1) Commercial success if I am aiming to do something beyond "just on a lark," by appealing to the widest net I can catch. (pragmatic)
2) Personal quality of writing to ensure that I don't fall into accidentally writing up somebody as a trope without also lampshading it for lulz.*

*Rich is really good at this - the "Haley does gymnastics looking for traps while dressed like Tomb Raider" may offend absolutists like Liliet (Liliet, correct me if I'm wrong and I will bow to the lash), but the joke itself actually mocks the males in the strip for acting like adolescent dorks (note that Roy, the voice of reason, immediately reasserts adult behavior). c.f. strips 35 and 102. Similar for Haley in 88.

[Spiryt]

Brian333,

FYI, since my wildly misspent you was spent as an actual researching-and-publishing medieval-warfare specialist, real-world female combatants in premodern settings has always hovered around 20%. That's big-brush, obviously, and the percentages change here and there (notably higher among the Taborites in medieval central europe, and in several instances during the Albigensian Crusades).
.

Uh, but how.

20% combatants in Roman legion, knights retinue or marauding vikings?

How did anybody collected such numbers?

I could understand it in case of one of those supposed 'total migrations' that were happening on some non precised scale, in Migration period, for simplest example. But such percentage in any actual army frankly stinks.

[dancrilis]

Oppressed groups gain recognition, community, pride, and the tools with which to fight said oppression with being able to say, "I am ___" and talking about that. Saying otherwise comes from privilege and ignorance. Wanting to get rid of labels is wanting to get rid of adjectives. We need those. How about stop applying inferiority to certain labels?

I am going to try and tackle this.

The reason labels are bad is because of Person A.

Person A represents every last person in humanity (and probably some of the animals too) - and person A is a jerk and a hypocrite.

When Person A works hard and succeeds they look at poor people and assume they are better than them, when they have a bit of hard luck and end up on the street they look at people with homes and think they just lucked out and don't deserve to have it easier then Person A.
When Person A cheats on there significant other - it was harmless fun, when they break up Person A has been victimised by being made to look like the villain.
When Person A has a child who likes to hurt animals - it is a phase that they are going through, when the neighbours kid kicks a dog they are going to grow up to be a scum-bag and it is their parents fault.

Now an individual Person A hears about a group they are not part of? That Person A is overjoyed because as they are not part of the group that group is an easy target for blame for many things that Person A doesn't like.
Maybe Person A blames that group is responsible for holding them back, or for getting more tax benefits, or for whatever.

And if push comes to shove and it becomes necessary Person A will round up all those Groups and fix/kill them.

So simple accept that you are Person A and stop telling all the other Person As out there that you are not - that is how the game is played (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html).



You can of course do whatever you want providing you don't expect the rest of Person A to care - and if you make them care by making it a problem, expect that problem to be solved.



Because you are a real person in the real world reading a made-up story in a made-up world.

Huh ... I always assumed it was a real story in a made-up world, or a made-up story in the real world.

So now I suppose the question is who is making up this story - is this Elan telling it and the entire tale is essentially him talking to his kids (someone else), 'How I Met Your Mother' style.
Not sure how I feel about that.

[Zyzzyva]

*Rich is really good at this - the "Haley does gymnastics looking for traps while dressed like Tomb Raider" may offend absolutists like Liliet (Liliet, correct me if I'm wrong and I will bow to the lash), but the joke itself actually mocks the males in the strip for acting like adolescent dorks (note that Roy, the voice of reason, immediately reasserts adult behavior). c.f. strips 35 and 102. Similar for Haley in 88.

I'm not sure about that; all of those happen in the first book, when Rich was writing a different comic in any number of ways, from plot to continuity to characterization (does anything in 35 seem in-character for Durkon as presented later?) to, yes, gender issues. I can't imagine he would write that joke nowadays.

[happycrow]

Any big-brush statement is contextually dependent, so if you privilege one exemplar above another, ymmv dramatically. Given that we're talking about fantasy worlds, I see no reason to do so.

Certain areas and times have lower percentages, certain areas and times higher. Medieval noble retinues are much lower (b/c the game of dynasties puts such a huge privelege on heirs - and one can make a very valid argument that in many cases the non-combatant women are actually calling the shots in terms of policy, too) but even in this context you find numerous examples dispersed throughout the literature, from archers wreaking havoc during the Crusades, to female knights who pound the snot out of their opponents, up to and including "in charge of armies" - not just figureheads like whatshername in the Hundred Years' War, but seriously bad-ass people like Matilda of Tuscany, who gave the Holy Roman Emperor absolute fits (many of her exploits were dismissed as literary topoi in the early-mid 20c, but have gradually come to be acknowledged as literal).

[happycrow]

I'm not sure about that; all of those happen in the first book, when Rich was writing a different comic in any number of ways, from plot to continuity to characterization (does anything in 35 seem in-character for Durkon as presented later?) to, yes, gender issues. I can't imagine he would write that joke nowadays.

Probably not, given that some folks *were* offended. Also, the PCs have all seen significant character development and growth as well, so at this late stage, while there's huge potential for lulz, lulz of that particular sort would no longer make much sense.

//edit: in 35, my headcanon is that Durkon was simply agog, since it seems that dwarves tend to be pretty conservative dressers. Hilgya is unfathomably wild by dwarven standards, but quite consevatively dressed in nice, functional armor. but, you know, head-canon, ymmv.

[Zyzzyva]

Probably not, given that some folks *were* offended. Also, the PCs have all seen significant character development and growth as well, so at this late stage, while there's huge potential for lulz, lulz of that particular sort would no longer make much sense.

Yeah, but in the original discussion thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=273185&postcount=239), Rich goes for a fairly indifferent attitude to people being offended; something that I again don't think he would do nowadays. (Um, not trying to put words in your mouth, Rich, if you're reading this thread. :smallredface:) So I don't think it's so much "balance" as "he held one position originally and holds a different one now."

[happycrow]

Zyzzyva,

You're quoting "balance," but it's not a word I've used or idea I've tried to express here. You may have interpreted what I wrote in a way that I didn't intend.

[pendell]

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread....

My wife is trying to get me to play Star Ocean 3 , a game in which the single toughest character is a 13-year-old girl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgD-bQP0EXE). She pulls a hammer out of -- hammerspace -- and clobbers bad guys with it.


Since this takes place in a computer simulation called the Eternal Sphere


it's totally justified in-game.

Now, of course, in the real world a 13-year-old anything is pretty much totally out of place on the battlefield. Child soldiers do exist but they don't last long or do well.

So why do they show up in games and children's books as the Saviors Of The World? Why, because kids want to save the world , too.

Fantasy isn't just about describing the world *as it is*. It's also about describing the world *as we want it to be*.

There are plenty of 13-year-old girls out there who want to fight bad guys or whip their brothers in versus mode. So the game designers put in a character by that name.

Likewise at an RPG table -- I dunno about the rest of you, but I find the table more interesting and entertaining when there are female gamers contributing. That means we have to give them some sort of agency beyond "baggage to be fought over by male party members", which was their role in real-world war all too often.

If you want a real-world representation , play Panzerblitz. The armed forces in the game are almost 100% male, and ordinary soldiers die in carload lots.

On the other hand, if you're objective is to craft a story wherein which you are a world-saving hero, maybe it's worthwhile to give people powers and abilities they wouldn't otherwise have.

And in such a world, I don't see any reason why women can't dream too.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Spiryt]

Certain areas and times have lower percentages, certain areas and times higher. Medieval noble retinues are much lower (b/c the game of dynasties puts such a huge privelege on heirs - and one can make a very valid argument that in many cases the non-combatant women are actually calling the shots in terms of policy, too) but even in this context you find numerous examples dispersed throughout the literature, from archers wreaking havoc during the Crusades, to female knights who pound the snot out of their opponents, up to and including "in charge of armies" - not just figureheads like whatshername in the Hundred Years' War, but seriously bad-ass people like Matilda of Tuscany, who gave the Holy Roman Emperor absolute fits (many of her exploits were dismissed as literary topoi in the early-mid 20c, but have gradually come to be acknowledged as literal).

That's all good, but those are all notable examples about women leading armies in various situation, and I have no trouble believing that number of women leaders/commanders in various meaning of the words could be double digit.


But leading and actual bulk of combatants is completely different thing.

Actual 'practical' documents show minimal amount of women in fighting companies, and it's usually suspected, to almost certain, that their names were just used to pull out more money from whoever was paying for troops by numbers.



Medieval noble retinues are much lower (b/c the game of dynasties puts such a huge privelege on heirs

I'm not sure what is implied here to be honest.

What heir has to do with armed retinues?

Aside from the fact that majority of members of such retinues wouldn't likely have much, if any heir. As they would be peasants, pages, professional thugs etc.

[rafet]

Anyone see Guren Lugan?
They shot a random laser through all of the space between like 11 to 12th dimensions in hopes of hitting the enemy ship, and it was a direct hit. Realism-not important

Fans of Dr. Who?

"Timy-whimy" passes to get past logic on what is considered one of the best shows across the US and UK.

Logic ain't important it's all abut what makes it a good show. As a viewer you get decide, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else, that is your welcome to be part of any fanship, but if you don't like it because it doesn't appeal to your sense of logic, why stay?

[SowZ]

That's all good, but those are all notable examples about women leading armies in various situation, and I have no trouble believing that number of women leaders/commanders in various meaning of the words could be double digit.


But leading and actual bulk of combatants is completely different thing.

Actual 'practical' documents show minimal amount of women in fighting companies, and it's usually suspected, to almost certain, that their names were just used to pull out more money from whoever was paying for troops by numbers.




I'm not sure what is implied here to be honest.

What heir has to do with armed retinues?

Aside from the fact that majority of members of such retinues wouldn't likely have much, if any heir. As they would be peasants, pages, professional thugs etc.

Women have always fought in wars. The effectiveness of female warriors and female mercenaries, when not wiped from history due to chauvinism, is such that the difference in fighting capability is probably not a good explanation as to why there are fewer female warriors throughout history.

There may be evolutionary reasons why women are less likely to engage in conflict, (less disposable, less likely to compete for mates, etc. etc.) but are largely exaggerated seeing as there are clear evolutionary reasons why a man would want to avoid a fight to the death. Even the evolutionary reasons could easily be attributed more to cultural evolution as opposed to genetic.

The, "Woman combatants are rare," argument is hardly relevant seeing as women were barred from such roles by most cultures but when they fought anyway are equally and often more effective than their male counter-parts.

[Zyzzyva]

Zyzzyva,

You're quoting "balance," but it's not a word I've used or idea I've tried to express here. You may have interpreted what I wrote in a way that I didn't intend.

Fair, I apologize. The original footnote I was responding to seems to have some kind of a "Rich is hitting a happy medium" vibe to it, which I disagreed with and which is not, apparently, what you meant.

Hugs all around!

ETA and I'm firmly with pendell and SowZ, on their points.

[happycrow]

Spiryt, serfs, workers, and random thugs did not get to be part of a normal retinue, aka familiares. Any further discussion would be enough of a tangent that I'd prefer to either drop, or move to PM.

[Corneel]

Many dangerous careers are not chosen by women for the reasons I cited.
And that is one of the main reasons why you are wrong: have you ever asked yourself why women don't choose certain careers and ever come up with answers different from "they are not as good at it as men" and whether it's really a free choice? Or can you allow for the fact that women are actively discouraged from taking up these type of careers and if not actively discouraged face social barriers to entrance linked to the "boys will be boys" and "women are weak" culture within many fields of employment such as construction or the military.


Edit: please demonstrate which cultural values I share with the colonialists of the 1800's. I am now curious.


I invite you to any construction site in America where you may count the number of women. The number zero is most common, although on large sites where major firms with huge recruiting budgets operate, the number of women appearing is increasing. This has been, in my experience, a good thing. However, even one female on a construction site is still a rare occurrence worthy of note. Why would adventurers be any different?
Yeah this would not have anything to do with the active hostility of construction workers and especially the overseers against recruiting female workers. So in that way you get with the French soldiers who had difficulties believing women could be accomplished soldiers and thus got killed by the Dahomey women warriors.

[zimmerwald1915]

For some reason that I only partially understand, people think it is far more acceptable to make changes to a play (sometimes radical changes) than to make changes to a book. Either when adapting to another medium or even redoing it in the same medium.

The only reason I can think that this is really seen as acceptable is.... it's been done for centuries (or millennia if one prefers) and getting angry about it now is kinda self-defeating. :smallwink:
There are a couple other reasons. When it comes to Shakespeare specifically, it's hard to defend the authenticity of the text on an originalist basis. The texts we have come down to us from many avenues, few of them being Shakespeare's pen. In many cases, actors and audience members would copy down what they remembered of a play, sometimes months or years after the fact, and send that copy to the printer. Some of the texts are heavily edited. Some seem to be missing scenes. Given that pedigree, why not make further alterations now? What's the difference? Similar issues crop up with more ancient plays (Greek, Noh, etc.), and with translations where a mediating writer is required (Ibsen, Chekhov, Brecht, etc.).

The deeper reason, that goes beyond Shakespeare, is that the text is not the play. The play is an ephemeral performance, not a fixed expression. The only playwright that can truly be credited with a play is one who writes and plays the play herself (one of my dear friends is such a person). A perfectly authentic, originalist text may or may not be changed in performance. Whether it is changed is beyond the control of the playwright, or the director; it is solely in the control of the players. Similarly, any change made in the writing and directing process may or may not be preserved, or further altered, in performance. Given this, what is the harm in making changes? There are going to be changes regardless of what the adapter does.

Books, films, recorded broadcasts, and comics, however, are fixed and are not ephemeral. In the case of books and comics, there isn't even an original performance to refer back to when looking for authenticity (see people complaining over film remakes or reboots). There is only the text.

[Spiryt]

Women have always fought in wars. The effectiveness of female warriors and female mercenaries, when not wiped from history due to chauvinism, is such that the difference in fighting capability is probably not a good explanation as to why there are fewer female warriors throughout history.

There may be evolutionary reasons why women are less likely to engage in conflict, (less disposable, less likely to compete for mates, etc. etc.) but are largely exaggerated seeing as there are clear evolutionary reasons why a man would want to avoid a fight to the death. Even the evolutionary reasons could easily be attributed more to cultural evolution as opposed to genetic.


Of course, sheer mean, 'palpable' difference likely wasn't enough, it got amplified by different cultural and societal constructs. To various degree.

Still, result was that in vast majority of societies with some warfare tradition it was dominated by males, claiming that 'chauvinism' wiped away all traces is not very serious way to research it.

In more 'primitive' wars sheer difference in athleticism etc. between sexes was likely enough, and it got carried along into situations where sheer physicality theoretically wasn't nearly that important anymore.


a man would want to avoid a fight to the death

Plenty of even very 'serious' fighting wasn't to the dead.


Even the evolutionary reasons could easily be attributed more to cultural evolution as opposed to genetic.

Of course, but cultural things generally tend to amplify genetic differences as well.



Of course, I'm not really fan of enforcing any stuff like that in games, comics that are generally about something completely else, and aren't aiming at any accurate portrayal of tribal warfare of whatever.

So this is kinda offtopic here, I guess.


Spiryt, serfs, workers, and random thugs did not get to be part of a normal retinue, aka familiares. Any further discussion would be enough of a tangent that I'd prefer to either drop, or move to PM.

To keep it short, you're probably thinking about different meaning of 'retinue' then.

'Retinue' as high/late medieval group of,people following one knight/main, rich combatant to war and similar thing, absolutely was composed of many different 'classes'. It could be knightly as well, of course, in many cases.

[factotum]

Yeah, but fortunately for me factotum seems to be taking the hardliner "only the original creator can change a work" stance, so it's on them to explain the distinction. :smallwink:

Er, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one? Whether it's a play, a book, or a movie, I don't see it any differently. Got no problem with someone essentially rewriting Shakespeare as SF and calling it Forbidden Planet, but if they'd called it "The Tempest" and given Shakespeare the primary writing credit I'd have called foul.

[Zyzzyva]

Er, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one? Whether it's a play, a book, or a movie, I don't see it any differently. Got no problem with someone essentially rewriting Shakespeare as SF and calling it Forbidden Planet, but if they'd called it "The Tempest" and given Shakespeare the primary writing credit I'd have called foul.

OK, but then what if you want to crib off someone else's story, to some intermediate degree between "island + marooned sorcerer + shipwreck" and "literal transcription"? Is Romeo + Juliet legitimate? How about the Beeb Sherlock?

[jere7my]

Er, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one? Whether it's a play, a book, or a movie, I don't see it any differently. Got no problem with someone essentially rewriting Shakespeare as SF and calling it Forbidden Planet, but if they'd called it "The Tempest" and given Shakespeare the primary writing credit I'd have called foul.

Different mediums have different constraints. Even authors who adapt their own work to other mediums (Douglas Adams and George RR Martin, to name two) make significant changes to the work when they do so, because radio is not a book is not a TV show is not a video game. An adaptation is its own thing, and must adhere to its own artistic vision or risk being a faithful failure; more than that, an adaptation creates its own constraints, and a scene may be rewritten entirely because an actor overslept one day.

That said, if you're the one person in the world who thinks the LotR movies would have been better with half an hour of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, more power to ya.

[Zyzzyva]

Different mediums have different constraints. Even authors who adapt their own work to other mediums (Douglas Adams and George RR Martin, to name two) make significant changes to the work when they do so, because radio is not a book is not a TV show is not a video game. An adaptation is its own thing, and must adhere to its own artistic vision or risk being a faithful failure; more than that, an adaptation creates its own constraints, and a scene may be rewritten entirely because an actor overslept one day.

That said, if you're the one person in the world who thinks the LotR movies would have been better with half an hour of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, more power to ya.

Also this. Jackson cut the book's content like a maniac and LotR the movie is still very, very long as movies go (12 hours is well into the realm of aggressively unwatchable art films, with a very few exceptions).

[hamishspence]

Different mediums have different constraints. Even authors who adapt their own work to other mediums (Douglas Adams and George RR Martin, to name two) make significant changes to the work when they do so, because radio is not a book is not a TV show is not a video game.William Goldman for The Princess Bride and Marathon Man, would be another good example of "adapting their own work to another medium".

[ahdok]

If we're seriously going to start citing stuff as old as Roman Legions as a source of comparison, then please consider this:

In classical literature, what proportion of the Greek and Roman gods were female, and how do they feature in Greek and Roman literature? I've read the Odyssey, and honestly, Odysseus is an incompetent whiny buffoon, and Athena (goddess of wisdom and BATTLE) pulls his ass out of the fire so many times it's comical. There's a point near the end where Odysseus' boat sinks just off the coast of an island, and he's all "woe is me, imma drown now" and Athena shows up and is like "Seriously, you're supposed to be a hero? it's like a mile swimming tops" and Odysseus is all "Nah, I think imma drown, I too rubbish for swim" and Athena's all "Seriously, you're pathetic, but it would be handy if you got to the end of the story."

And she tows him to shore.

So honestly, if Homer could live in a society without any gender equality, and still write females into prominent valued roles, in some of the earliest examples of written stories that we, as an entire species have... then I'm sure we can manage it too.

[Zyzzyva]

In classical literature, what proportion of the Greek and Roman gods were female, and how do they feature in Greek and Roman literature? I've read the Odyssey, and honestly, Odysseus is an incompetent whiny buffoon, and Athena (goddess of wisdom and BATTLE) pulls his ass out of the fire so many times it's comical. There's a point near the end where Odysseus' boat sinks just off the coast of an island, and he's all "woe is me, imma drown now" and Athena shows up and is like "Seriously, you're supposed to be a hero? it's like a mile swimming tops" and Odysseus is all "Nah, I think imma drown, I too rubbish for swim" and Athena's all "Seriously, you're pathetic, but it would be handy if you got to the end of the story."

And she tows him to shore.

He's not totally a buffoon, but yes, Athena is the coolest Greek god by a margin that's not even funny.

[goodpeople25]

If we're seriously going to start citing stuff as old as Roman Legions as a source of comparison, then please consider this:

In classical literature, what proportion of the Greek and Roman gods were female, and how do they feature in Greek and Roman literature? I've read the Odyssey, and honestly, Odysseus is an incompetent whiny buffoon, and Athena (goddess of wisdom and BATTLE) pulls his ass out of the fire so many times it's comical. There's a point near the end where Odysseus' boat sinks just off the coast of an island, and he's all "woe is me, imma drown now" and Athena shows up and is like "Seriously, you're supposed to be a hero? it's like a mile swimming tops" and Odysseus is all "Nah, I think imma drown, I too rubbish for swim" and Athena's all "Seriously, you're pathetic, but it would be handy if you got to the end of the story."

And she tows him to shore.

So honestly, if Homer could live in a society without any gender equality, and still write females into prominent valued roles, in some of the earliest examples of written stories that we, as an entire species have... then I'm sure we can manage it too.
Actually i think jere7my brought up in an old discussion thread that not all appearances of the greek gods are totally literal, Im not sure about that particular scene, and Im no expert, but it could be his mind fighting with his tired body there and athena is representing his mind.
Also on athena awesomeness i hate to be cynical and I'm not sure about this but i think being the patron goddess of Athens might have a little bit to do with that. Im probably wrong though any greek history buffs out there?

[Fish]

I do not require fiction to conform to my expectations. I said that I, and every other reader, comes to fiction with expectations. It is the duty of the author to give context for the reader to understand when these expectations are not true within his world. If the author does not provide some context then he risks alienating his intended audience.
For any author to take this alleged "duty" to provide context for all expectations held all his readers is impossible. Literally, absolutely, without question, impossible. No sane author would try. The reader always, always, always bears some burden of understanding or interpolating or hypothesizing said context on his own, without the author's Cliff Notes.

It is not the author's job to answer every question or to provide context for every curiosity about his story. I could not disagree more with your premise here.

Do readers sometimes get alienated? Yes. Is it a shame? Yes. Is it the author's fault? No. Can an author control for this alienation completely? Definitely not.

Seriously, does anybody read Romeo and Juliet and say, "Geez, how come Billy Shakes didn't just write a scene where Juliet takes out her smart phone and texts Romeo to say 'faking my death, C U soon, LOL' or something? Jeez, it's the author's job to provide me with context." No. Nobody says this. Nobody says Shakespeare is a bad author for omitting this key piece of context, or the crucial context in "The Merchant of Venice" which explains why Antonio doesn't just go to a bank or take out a Visa card. Does anybody assail Dante Alighieri for failing to be explicit that the symbolism of the She-Wolf only has contextual meaning vis-a-vis 14th-century Italian politics? No. Does anybody rail at Stockton for failing to explain the ending to "The Lady and the Tiger?" Or at Brian Singer for failing to explain whether Verbal Kint was Keyser Söze? And we've been waiting 30 years for a straight answer from Don Mclean on what the lyrics to "American Pie" are supposed to mean.

Sometimes the answers aren't there. Sometimes they are meant not to be; sometimes they just aren't. It's my experience that authors don't write for an audience; they write for themselves and happen to have an audience, if they're fortunate. Rich has his audience, and he acquired it without detailed explanations in every other panel.

[brian 333]

Many dangerous careers are not chosen by women for the reasons I cited.
And that is one of the main reasons why you are wrong: have you ever asked yourself why women don't choose certain careers and ever come up with answers different from "they are not as good at it as men" and whether it's really a free choice? Or can you allow for the fact that women are actively discouraged from taking up these type of careers and if not actively discouraged face social barriers to entrance linked to the "boys will be boys" and "women are weak" culture within many fields of employment such as construction or the military.

I have never said that women are not as good as men in any occupation. I have seen some fine female E&I techs out there, (my field,) and I have seen women welders, carpenters, and even laborers who work as well or better than any man. I am not biased against women in construction trades, but any sane person must admit that they are rare, because that is the simple fact.

Women are, on average, weaker than men, but this does not mean all women are weaker than all men. In fact, many women are stronger than many men because not all males are hulking brutes of 300+ pounds, and not all women are timid 90 pound wallflowers.

Social barriers do exist; I hope they are crumbling with each generation. EEOC (http://www.eeoc.gov/) compliance, if nothing else, discourages the kind of behavior you are discussing, and indeed, insures that any woman who applies for a job in construction will get it even when competing with more experienced men for the same job.

So the question is, "Why are women still so badly underrepresented in the Industrial Construction trades?" Blaming the overbearing male may feel good, but it will not solve the problem any more than repeatedly changing the battery in your car will fix the broken starter.


Yeah this would not have anything to do with the active hostility of construction workers and especially the overseers against recruiting female workers. So in that way you get with the French soldiers who had difficulties believing women could be accomplished soldiers and thus got killed by the Dahomey women warriors.

Go to your daughter's class on Career Day and give a presentation on Electrical and Instrumentation. I promise you you will not be talking to the girls in the class, even though the only child there you care to impress is one of them.



For any author to take this alleged "duty" to provide context for all expectations held all his readers is impossible. Literally, absolutely, without question, impossible. No sane author would try. The reader always, always, always bears some burden of understanding or interpolating or hypothesizing said context on his own, without the author's Cliff Notes.

When did I ever make the assertion you bolded? It is easy to misrepresent someone's argument then bash it away. It is much harder to deal with the actual argument. Let's try again:


For any author to take this alleged "challenge" to provide context for the typical reader's expectations is the hallmark of good writing. All of the great writers do it, and all of the rest at least try. The reader always, always, always bears some burden of understanding or interpolating or hypothesizing said context on his own, without the author's Cliff Notes, but if an author leaves too many or too glaring unexplained phenomenon in his work he risks alienating the reader

Still not exactly what I said, but a lot closer.


It is not the author's job to answer every question or to provide context for every curiosity about his story. I could not disagree more with your premise here.

Do readers sometimes get alienated? Yes. Is it a shame? Yes. Is it the author's fault? No. Can an author control for this alienation completely? Definitely not.

I recommend you read Winter's Tale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter%27s_Tale_%28novel%29) The author followed your formula, and while he enjoyed some commercial success and a movie adaptation of the novel, nobody to this day can explain to me what the hell was going on. The novel was simply unreadable, and though I did not see the film, it appears to have been met with a reaction similar to mine.


Seriously, does anybody read Romeo and Juliet and say, "Geez, how come Billy Shakes didn't just write a scene where Juliet takes out her smart phone and texts Romeo to say 'faking my death, C U soon, LOL' or something? Jeez, it's the author's job to provide me with context." No. Nobody says this. Nobody says Shakespeare is a bad author for omitting this key piece of context, or the crucial context in "The Merchant of Venice" which explains why Antonio doesn't just go to a bank or take out a Visa card. Does anybody assail Dante Alighieri for failing to be explicit that the symbolism of the She-Wolf only has contextual meaning vis-a-vis 14th-century Italian politics? No. Does anybody rail at Stockton for failing to explain the ending to "The Lady and the Tiger?" Or at Brian Singer for failing to explain whether Verbal Kint was Keyser Söze? And we've been waiting 30 years for a straight answer from Don Mclean on what the lyrics to "American Pie" are supposed to mean.

Wow. Just... wow.

Context is an important part of understanding any literary work. Today it is important to explain to young readers that there were no cell phones in Renaissance Europe, but the idea of gang warfare, which is central to R&J, is far more intuitive to the current generation which has grown up amid the Capulets and Montagues fighting it out in the streets. The people of the day understood this context because they grew up in it, while for me, it required a brief study of history to grasp certain concepts of Shakespeare's work.

By the same token, having grown up immersed in the music of the '60's and '70's in America I have no trouble identifying with American Pie. Perhaps if it is such a stretch for you there is some help. (http://whrc-wi.org/americanpie.htm)


Sometimes the answers aren't there. Sometimes they are meant not to be; sometimes they just aren't. It's my experience that authors don't write for an audience; they write for themselves and happen to have an audience, if they're fortunate. Rich has his audience, and he acquired it without detailed explanations in every other panel.

Agreed, but sometimes and most of the time are not the same thing. Most of the time the writer must consider the reader, or he will lose him.

[Lissou]

Huh ... I always assumed it was a real story in a made-up world, or a made-up story in the real world.

So now I suppose the question is who is making up this story - is this Elan telling it and the entire tale is essentially him talking to his kids (someone else), 'How I Met Your Mother' style.
Not sure how I feel about that.

I'm fairly certain the Giant meant it's a made-up story (made-up by him) that takes place in a made-up world (also made-up by him although partially based on D&D among other things).

Not that "The Order of the Stick" is a story made up by one of the characters like you seem to have interpreted.


About plays vs books. I think a big difference is that while nowadays people read a lot of plays, those are meant to be performed, and experienced by an audience, not a reader. As a result, every production was expected to have some differences to begin with, which may explain why people are more accepted of adaptations that differ a lot from the original material.

Brian, I think the main issue we're having here is that you keep talking about construction workers and using those figures. When people mention warriors and other professions that are more similar to adventurers than construction workers ever will be, you still counter with construction workers.
Not only was it not relevant to begin with as no comparison with the real world was even needed, but it's even less relevant when more fitting comparisons don't go your way. I don't know why women are less likely to want to build stuff. They are way more likely to want to fight for things they care about though. Either way, even if they weren't, I think we're already established that it doesn't matter in the first place so I'm not sure why you are still repeating your point. People aren't disagreeing with you because they didn't understand you the first time you said it. They are disagreeing because, well, they don't agree. Just repeating the same thing won't change much.

[Reddish Mage]

Case study two: I haven't seen many Merchant of Venice adaptations, but I am told that Shylock generally isn't presented as a loathsome, grotesque villain much these days. (Well, antagonist sure, but not evil because !EVIL JEWISH GUY!.) That's against both the letter and the spirit of the original text; do these versions no longer deserve to be called Merchant of Venice?

Its arguable what exactly Shakespeare intended. Its a pretty bland boring play except for the inclusion of Shylock, who is involved in one out of two subplots and is removed halfway through Act IV and isn't present in the final act.

The earliest of the early plays we know about are well after Shakespeare's death, and the playbills bills it as a rousing comedy...with Shylock wearing a big red clown wig and perhaps even being played by the clown!

However, the version we know, with Shylock played sympathetically, is found even in the 17th Century. The "traditional" red-Jew wig (red hair was associated with Jews) leaves too.

The former version would be absolutely disgusting to a modern audience; imagine Shylock giving the "do I not bleed" speech in a manner meant to provoke guffaws!

...actually now I'm thinking of various Jewish comedians who could pull that off beautifully...with a little creative irony: "eh if you cut us, do we not bleed red? I mean, what other color would we bleed? Pink....well maybe if we eat enough lox"... but that's neither here or there...

If the original intent was to throw together a bunch of boring merchants with a hilariously evil Jewish moneylender (cause you know...its not like Christian Italy was a financial center or something)...then the other version is clearly a rewrite of the entire play!

But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see original....well maybe if Jon Stewart played Shylock...


Brian333,

FYI, since my wildly misspent you was spent as an actual researching-and-publishing medieval-warfare specialist, real-world female combatants in premodern settings has always hovered around 20%. That's big-brush, obviously, and the percentages change here and there (notably higher among the Taborites in medieval central europe, and in several instances during the Albigensian Crusades).

I'd like to hear more actually. 20%? Really, knights? That's not a side you typically hear and I would to see where I could read more.



Different mediums have different constraints. Even authors who adapt their own work to other mediums (Douglas Adams and George RR Martin, to name two) make significant changes to the work when they do so, because radio is not a book is not a TV show is not a video game.

And I don't care if Douglas Adams did endorse it. I think the romance between Arthur and Trillian in the HGTTG movie seems unrealistic and forced and is lowest point of the movie.

[zimmerwald1915]

And I don't care if Douglas Adams did endorse it. I think the romance between Arthur and Trillian in the HGTTG movie seems unrealistic and forced and is lowest point of the movie.
Are you sure jere7my meant the movie? HTTG's series is itself an adaptation of and expansion on several radio plays.

[Reddish Mage]

Are you sure jere7my meant the movie? HTTG's series is itself an adaptation of and expansion on several radio plays.

I know, I read the scripts. They read like they would be better if there were tapes *sigh.*

[jere7my]

Are you sure jere7my meant the movie? HTTG's series is itself an adaptation of and expansion on several radio plays.

Indeed. Adams wrote the radio plays, then changed things significantly for the books, including changes to characters, plot points, worldbuilding, and so on. Then he did it again for the TV show, the stage play, the video game, and the screenplay that ultimately became the movie—all of which he wrote.

[jere7my]

I know, I read the scripts. They read like they would be better if there were tapes *sigh.*

There are tapes. You can buy the radio series from Amazon, or listen to it on YouTube. They are the definitive version of HHGttG, insofar as one exists.

[Zmeoaice]

Yeah, Adams probably didn't endorse the movie because he was kind of dead when it was made.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1486493.1381147562!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

Anyhow, when it comes to giving women equal strength to men in fantasy stories and RPGs and whatnot, I don't have a problem unless they're scrawny and still as compentent as the men. Which happens often. They should be beefcakes.

[jere7my]

Yeah, Adams probably didn't endorse the movie because he was kind of dead when it was made.

He was, but the movie was based on his screenplay. The producers said "this film is not a literal translation of the books (just as the books were not a literal translation of the original radio show), but all of the new ideas and characters came from Douglas Adams himself. The hired writer simply came aboard to improve structure and make the screenplay more coherent."
(from IMDB)

[Lissou]

I'd like to hear more actually. 20%? Really, knights? That's not a side you typically hear and I would to see where I could read more.

You may find this article (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) interesting, and it links to other places that show sources. One of the interesting things, I found, was how people had always assumed Viking warriors were male because they were warriors, but when they decided to actually check the bones, they found that within their sample about half of them were female.

[Fish]

When did I ever make the assertion you bolded?
When you asserted:


I, and every other reader, comes to fiction with expectations. It is the duty of the author to give context for the reader to understand when these expectations are not true within his world.

I don't think I misunderstood a thing; I think you vastly overstated your thesis.

Context is an important part of understanding any literary work. Today it is important to explain to young readers that there were no cell phones in Renaissance Europe, but the idea of gang warfare, which is central to R&J, is far more intuitive to the current generation which has grown up amid the Capulets and Montagues fighting it out in the streets. The people of the day understood this context because they grew up in it, while for me, it required a brief study of history to grasp certain concepts of Shakespeare's work.
Yes, this is how it works in the real world. When a reader lacks context he seeks it; he does assume it is the author's duty to provide him with an EZ-Reader.

Agreed, but sometimes and most of the time are not the same thing. Most of the time the writer must consider the reader, or he will lose him.
Movement, thy name is goalpost. "Most of the time the writer must consider the reader" and "give context" to "[me] and every other reader" are not the same thing. The former I can agree with; the latter is unrealistic in the extreme.

[factotum]

Is Romeo + Juliet legitimate? How about the Beeb Sherlock?

Not sure what Romeo and Juliet has to do with anything. As for BBC Sherlock, that's an odd one, because what they essentially did was take the central characters and put them into situations and plotlines that bore very little resemblance to the originals; in a way, that's not so bad, because there's very little chance of anyone confusing the BBC show with A.C. Doyle's work. I'd still rather they'd called it something other than Sherlock, though.

[pendell]

Women have always fought in wars. The effectiveness of female warriors and female mercenaries, when not wiped from history due to chauvinism, is such that the difference in fighting capability is probably not a good explanation as to why there are fewer female warriors throughout history.
There may be evolutionary reasons why women are less likely to engage in conflict, (less disposable, less likely to compete for mates, etc. etc.) but are largely exaggerated seeing as there are clear evolutionary reasons why a man would want to avoid a fight to the death. Even the evolutionary reasons could easily be attributed more to cultural evolution as opposed to genetic.


A few years ago I had a mouse problem in my house. While researching I came across This snippet (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1696368/posts)



According to an exterminator friend of mine, the best thing to put in a mousetrap is not cheese or peanut butter or any food product. He says put lint or cotton in the trap.
If you put peanut butter or cheese in the trap you are going to catch a male mouse who is out hunting for food. You can kill males by the dozens, but if you leave one female alive - you are going to continue to have a mouse problem.

If you use cotton or lint you are going to catch a pregnant female who is out looking for nesting material to have her litter in.

By killing the pregnant females - you will stop the infestation at its source. Kill all the females and the mice will die out after a while. Kill the males and you will have mice forever.


Why can't it work the same way with humans?

I think this is the real reason there aren't more female combatants. It's because, back in the days before we had 7 billion people, putting females in line of battle meant you were risking the future safety of your tribe, which may have numbered only a few hundred or thousand people. Males are expendable, females are not.

This would explain why there are such societal constraints which require protecting women, and why women aren't legitimate targets in war. So long as men confine themselves to killing other men, it's a dominance dance (http://www.boxer-rescue-la.com/training_tips/Two_or_More_Dogs.htm), an adjustment which gets rid of the aggressive members of the population but doesn't threaten the genetic line. In a dominance dance, combatants struggle but there is a surrender which results in a new social order. By contrast, when you start killing the women as well as the men, war has stopped being a dominance game and becomes a battle of outright extermination, the attempt to wipe out an entire tribe or family or genetic line.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[happycrow]

//edit to accomodate Brian P's reply

Brian,

Depends on the kind of warfare, what's driving it, and who's being targeted. Context counts, and women-and-children were not always considered off-limits even officially.

Lissou, Reddish Mage

That's a pretty good entry-level article for it. Note that the actual history-professor is entirely non-plussed by the idea that women didn't do all these things. "Warrior" was also not always a strictly binary definition - "civilians" were armed to the teeth in many medieval contexts, taking part in feuds and other forms of "private warfare," (blood feud, inimicitiae capitales) particularly prior to the invention of the civil state and its monopolization over violence in the name of justice. In several forms of blood feud, peasants and other generally-considered-noncombatants were the explicit targets in a declaration of war. I can't do this topic real justice -- dissertations can and have been written on the individual figures in question, and any serious "ask Dr. Google" will pull up enough examples to drown the thread in links. I would take serious issue with one thing the author asserts that has ramifications for how we discuss things here, and that's the assertion that if one writes mostly men doing this stuff, one is consciously choosing to erase half of humanity.


As if, for Comic #2, The Giant got up one morning twirling his mustache and chuckling "mwahaha, I will erase dem...."

That's not how it works. We've got cultural conditioning based on a somewhat-aberrant historical period providing women in general with much more freedom at the same time as it worked to create and then enforce gender-role norms which hadn't necessarily applied previously, said norms being both promulgated and attacked primarily by women, much as women's suffrage was (long discursions into economic and social history which so don't belong in this thread), and which are taken as historical universals, because that's what pop-culture does. History is a game of dangerous assumptions. Without a deep grounding in historical memory, it's easy to look at the society you grew up in and think "this is how it is." Pop culture generally argues for the universality of contemporary mores even while it pushes the envelope in specific areas ("Dr. Merry's Husband" is a "whoo" title for the 40s and 50s and I have it on my bookshelf, but most of its social assumptions would be considered seriously antiquated by our readers here). Lots of things we take for granted can be very surprising on a historical basis (for instance, it might surprise a lot of readers to know that sexual abstinence outside of marriage was the feminist position in the early-mid 19th century, and feminists willing to go to the mat over that nearly brought down a US President).

Pop culture does that and is driven by the commercial tastes of both sexes. Sexy women sell. Male beefcake sells. I make game assets on the side here and there (halting attempts at 3d modelling being my one 21st-century skill), and I'm constantly appalled that many game players who happen to be boob-enabled far prefer sexy armors to actually protective ones. But that's their preference, and I've no right to tell them what they should and shouldn't enjoy, any more than I could tell somebody that they're wrong to like curly hair rather than straight.

Most people don't look around and think "wow, I sure am growing up during a historically unusual and economically aberrant period! Future historians are going to look at my world and have a hard time convincing their students about just how weird we were!" We're all going to be considered hopelessly retrograde thirty years from now because of social mores they'll take for granted but which we can hardly imagine.

[ahdok]

Actually i think jere7my brought up in an old discussion thread that not all appearances of the greek gods are totally literal, Im not sure about that particular scene, and Im no expert, but it could be his mind fighting with his tired body there and athena is representing his mind.

I suppose we could back up our arguments by spontaneously re-interpreting classical literature to remove all the agency of female characters in order to support flawed worldviews... but eh, it's a lot of effort.


Women are, on average, weaker than men

Can we please move on from this? it seems like every other one of your posts starts from this premise, but it belies a massive understanding of statistical distributions. While technically correct, it's really not at all the reason why (for example) Women are vastly under-represented in the military or the construction industry.

Population distributions are typically broad bell-curves. The shift in the position of these bell curves in raw strength for males and females is proportionally very small compared to the size of the bell curve itself. The physical strength required to perform these jobs is a barrier to entry, but the population of looking-for-employment potentially interested females who sit above that barrier is significantly larger than the number of posts available. This is even ignoring the fact that if someone actively wants to pursue such a career but "doesn't qualify" they can go weight-training and get physically stronger.

When using phrases like "on average" you're making a statistical argument, and anyone who understands population distributions or has a background in statistics can tell you that the statistical difference in men and women seeking work in these industries is largely an irrelevance.

The main barrier for entry to these professions for females is currently, and has always been an ingrained cultural conditioning that these professions are "for men" - and females are discouraged from a very early age from pursuing paths that lead to these eventualities.


For any author to take this alleged "duty" to provide context for all expectations held all his readers is impossible.

When did I ever make the assertion you bolded? It is easy to misrepresent someone's argument then bash it away. It is much harder to deal with the actual argument.
Uh, you did.

I, and every other reader, comes to fiction with expectations. It is the duty of the author to give context for the reader to understand when these expectations are not true within his world.
Since you blew off the last one for being a minor paraphrasing of your point, here's your "actual argument".

Since Rich has already stated that it's not the 'duty' of an author to give this context, and Fish did a very good job of it, and I already made my version of the argument too, I don't see it worth retreading those points, but I will add something.

Not only do authors not have this duty to meet the expectations of their readers, but also I think your expectations in this regard are bunk.

We're talking about a fantasy story comic strip, set in a world not like ours. If you had expectations to the contrary then those are set right in panel 1 of strip 1, because there are goblins. Readers might expect to see a world unlike ours - there are goblins. They might expect to see something awesome and fun and exciting and interesting - because the people who pointed them at the comic strip will have evangelized about it and told them it's worth reading. These are reasonable and typical expectations. An author might expect that people who have been pointed at their work will have also been told that it's good.

But I don't think the typical reader comes into such a context with the expectation that the societal norms of a fictional fantasy world conform to the social environment of the modern-day American construction industry. I don't think the typical reader comes along and expects the story to naturally follow the typical gender-relations that our real world does. It's a story. Most readers will come to the story unsaddled by preconceptions about what characters they are going to see or what roles they have in the story. The whole point of stories is that you approach them in a receptive state to take in the narrative.

What you're doing is taking your real-world experiences (which from your arguments seem to be somewhat heavily rooted in construction) and applying them to the story. You're bringing your own personal baggage along and telling the author they have a duty to carry it. If this were a flight, the airport staff would ask you to pay an extra surcharge for excess baggage.

By arguing that an author of a fantasy comic strip in a fictional world containing more than 1/6 females in roles of value would "have a duty to justify that decision to the reader" because it "doesn't conform with female representation in real-world-comparable industries" you're also making the statement that every author of every story that contains a higher representation of females than a comparable real-world situation needs to individually make justification for their existence, and this includes every fantasy story, every war story, and even every modern-day story about any field with this imbalance (let's say, crime fiction) ever written.

And you're also telling me that I have a duty to explain to my readers why so many of my adventurer characters in my comic strip are female. I don't, and it's an irrelevance to anything I'm trying to accomplish with my strip.

Your expectations are bunk. Typical readers do not come to these stories with those expectations. And... even if they did, writers still don't have a duty to justify a decision to disregard them.

[goodpeople25]

I suppose we could back up our arguments by spontaneously re-interpreting classical literature to remove all the agency of female characters in order to support flawed worldviews... but eh, it's a lot of effort.
Where did i do that? all i said is that i read that the appearances of the greek gods in the oddessy isn't always necessarily literal and that Athena could sometimes represent his cleverness. So your example isn't perfect. If you mean my suggestion that Athena looks good in myths much more then she looks bad cause she was patron of Athens and the other war god was Ares? Well what I'm saying I guess is using classical lit as an example isn't the greatest as there is a much different culture and a large amount of history behind it.

[ahdok]

I suppose we could back up our arguments by spontaneously re-interpreting classical literature to remove all the agency of female characters


Where did i do that? all i said is that i read that the appearances of the greek gods in the oddessy isn't always necessarily literal and that Athena could sometimes represent his cleverness.

You did it right in the thing I directly quoted. I've bolded it this time. You said "we could remove this female character and say she's a metaphor" and I said "Yeah, we could, but let's not."

It's an interesting interpretation of the work, and certainly merits its own discussion when discussing that work, but I'd rather not do that kind of thing in the context of this argument. I chose one strong female character from one classical epic mostly because the example I had to hand was funny, but there are loads of candidates for the point I made. An argument about whether this particular one "counts" is a little irrelevant to the point that even classical authors like Homer and Virgil could write women into strong roles. If the nature of Athena specifically is an issue, let's have Dido or Circe instead.


As for BBC Sherlock, that's an odd one, because what they essentially did was take the central characters and put them into situations and plotlines that bore very little resemblance to the originals;

I'm aware that this is a little off topic, but I'm pretty sure the new Beeb Sherlocks are based on the individual books fairly heavily. I've only watched the first series though. When I did so, my girlfriend, who really likes detective stories, was able to fairly cleanly work out each of the plots in advance from the specific Sherlock story it was based on. They're heavily reworked, but they are still the originals. I think. (Waves not a Sherlock Expert flag)


So now I suppose the question is who is making up this story - is this Elan telling it and the entire tale is essentially him talking to his kids?

QUADRUPLE FANTASY!!! QUADRUPLE FANTASY!!!

Although in all honesty, while a common trope, it's quite fun to think of OotS this way, and you can even use it to hand-wave fourth-wall breaking and things disobeying the written rules of the game in-universe.

[goodpeople25]

You did it right in the thing I directly quoted. I've bolded it this time. You said "we could remove this female character and say she's a metaphor" and I said "Yeah, we could, but let's not."

It's an interesting interpretation of the work, and certainly merits its own discussion when discussing that work, but I'd rather not do that kind of thing in the context of this argument. I chose one strong female character from one classical epic mostly because the example I had to hand was funny, but there are loads of candidates for the point I made. An argument about whether this particular one "counts" is a little irrelevant to the point that even classical authors like Homer and Virgil could write women into strong roles. If the nature of Athena specifically is an issue, let's have Dido or Circe instead.
Okay that is fine that the interpretation dosen't help your arguement but is a interpretation of the work and i believe all arguments should hold up to scrutiny and have problems pointed out no matter what side of the argument I'm on. so saying I'm supporting a flawed worldview is kinda insulting to me personally. Also the viewpoint means that athena represents his cleverness .. Which he got from Athena. also i never said it didn't count but on the flip-side using an example where oddyesus is useless till athena saved him but disliking oddyesus using Athena's gift to save himself kinda weakens your argument as in one athena saves oddyesus the other one Athena saves oddyesus. main difference bieng the Man looks weaker in yours.

[ahdok]

Yes, it's a valid interpretation of the work, but you can pretty much apply any interpretation you like to any work you like, and therefore support any argument you like by re-interpreting all works to support your statement. Whether or not you view Athena as "real" has very little relevance to my argument at all, it's completely besides the point. It was one example out of many that ancient Greeks and Romans could write female characters with agency into their stories, despite their societal norms.

The "flawed worldview" I mention was the original point that I was arguing against, not yours... Specifically the argument that we should be taking the gender-composition of Roman Legates as a benchmark for the expectations of our fantasy stories.

[goodpeople25]

Yes, it's a valid interpretation of the work, but you can pretty much apply any interpretation you like to any work you like, and therefore support any argument you like by re-interpreting all works to support your statement. Whether or not you view Athena as "real" has very little relevance to my argument at all, it's completely besides the point. It was one example out of many that ancient Greeks and Romans could write female characters with agency into their stories, despite their societal norms.

The "flawed worldview" I mention was the original point that I was arguing against, not yours... Specifically the argument that we should be taking the gender-composition of Roman Legates as a benchmark for the expectations of our fantasy stories.
Okay but sorry for the edit but i added a 2nd argument in my post. Im now aruguing your point that my interpretation weakens Athena. It doesn't because oddesyes's cleverness and intelligence comes from Athena, your view does however weaken oddesyes and i rather your good points against sexism not be sullied by sexism.

[ahdok]

Okay, you've officially lost me.

Here's where I think we're at, please correct any mistakes.

--

I'm saying that Ancient Greeks wrote strong female characters in their stories, despite their social environment. That's all. I cited Athena specifically as one example.

--

Your original argument appeared to be presented as a counter-argument to my point, essentialy saying "You can really count Athena as an example of a strong female character, because you can just interpret her as a metaphor." If this wasn't stated as a counterpoint, then I don't follow your argument from the outset, and apologise, although I would like to know what you meant.

--

My second argument is that "Athena's only a metaphor" is a terrible counter-argument to the starting premise.

One: Because she is cited only as one example to support my argument, out of a pool of many valid examples,
Two: Because even if she's only a metaphor, she's still a female character in the story who's a badass.

--

Your argument now appears to be that I'm a sexist because I'm "weakening Odysseus"? No, I'm lost. Sorry.

Also... have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus is a complete tool.

[goodpeople25]

Okay, you've officially lost me.

Here's where I think we're at, please correct any mistakes.

--

I'm saying that Ancient Greeks wrote strong female characters in their stories, despite their social environment. That's all. I cited Athena specifically as one example.

--

Your original argument appeared to be presented as a counter-argument to my point, essentialy you were saying "I'm not sure you can really count Athena as an example of a strong female character, because you can just interpret her as a metaphor." If you did not intend this as a counterpoint, then I apologise for the misinterpretation, and in that case I don't understand what you're trying to argue from the outset.

--

My subsequent argument is that "Athena's only a metaphor" is a terrible counter-argument to the starting premise.

One: Because she is cited only as one example to support my argument, out of a pool of many valid examples,
Two: Because even if she's only a metaphor, she's still a female character in the story who's a badass.

--

Your argument now appears to be that I'm a sexist because I'm "weakening Odysseus"? No, I'm lost. Sorry.

Also... Odysseus is a total tool.
Actually i was just pointing it out. what im pointing out now is that you said i was reinterpreting athena to remove her agency and support flawed world views.
I said i did not i was just stating an interpretation.
You said i was removing her and not to bring it up as it doesn't help your argument.
I said it doesn't remove her and that Odysseus's cleverness comes from athena so saying shes sort of a metaphor doesn't change her strong female charecterness but it kinda weakens odysseus so it kinda looks like you prefer odysseus to be dragged by athena to shore cause hes useless.
You said you didn't get it.
We catch up in real time.
Im sorry if you didn't get my point but all im saying is its a valid interpretation that Athena is kinda there but not there. And that it doesn't weaken Athena anymore than it does by making Odysseus look less weak.

[SaintRidley]

This post is a public service announcement.

Remember, folks, that when you use "female" as a noun to refer to humans, you sound either like an extraterrestrial anthropologist writing notes about your latest discovery. At best.

At worst you sound like this guy:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e191/General_Ridley/humon%20feemale_zpsasdjpdkh.jpg

This post has been a public service announcement.

[ahdok]

Okay okay, I think I follow... but if we both think "Athena as a metaphor" is entirely irrelevant to her agency as a character, or the inclusion of female characters in Classical literature... then what point are you making by bringing it up?


This post is a public service announcement.

Remember, folks, that when you use "female" as a noun to refer to humans, you sound either like an extraterrestrial anthropologist writing notes about your latest discovery.

Actually, it's a little deliberate on my part... Where I can I'm trying to approach the whole discussion from the mindset of an extraterrestial anthropologist... (i.e. one that's not approaching the discussion with the conditioning of one of the groups being discussed) so that's quite a compliment :)

Mostly though I haven't been writing "women" or "girls" because many interpret one to exclude the other. I've also seen similar discussions in the past where the huge diverse landscape of genders that exist have interacted badly with those specific words and derail the conversation. As I'm not the most keyed-in person to the precise subtext of everything people say and Trans-representation has been an undercurrent of this conversation throughout, I've been using the safest term I've seen from my previous experience.

If you have suggestions for better terminology then I'm receptive.

[goodpeople25]

This post is a public service announcement.

Remember, folks, that when you use "female" as a noun to refer to humans, you sound either like an extraterrestrial anthropologist writing notes about your latest discovery. At best.

At worst you sound like this guy

This post has been a public service announcement.
Im trying to avoid saying woman and girls as well as trying to sound impartial. But still if you have better terminology plz share.

Okay okay, I think I follow... but if we both think "Athena as a metaphor" is entirely irrelevant to her agency as a character, or the inclusion of female characters in Classical literature... then what point are you making by bringing it up? I cant post a different interpretation on a piece of literature without ulterior motives? Well i kinda like that it makes Odysseus look less like an idiot. And maybe that a female character dragging the useless male to shore is kinda not the best argument to chose to make against sexism. But really its possible to quote someone and not have a stake in the argument.

[brian 333]

Here is the thing, and I'll say it again:

I am not opposed to more women in comics, stories, movies, or 'traditionally' male-dominated careers. I support a woman's right to choose, and whether that choice is 'traditional' or not it affects me not at all.

I abhor labeling. It reduces a person to whatever label is stuck on him. I advocate seeing the person first, and any characterization of that person is secondary. This means I do not support quotas for inclusion of any group, because this reduces them to being a label which 'only made it here because of the quota', regardless of merit.

When someone demands a quota because Group X is underrepresented, I ask myself, (and I think you should as well,) underrepresented as opposed to what? If the advocates want Group X to be represented at a 50:50 level, I ask, is that their real world level of representation? Or is that simply the advocate's dream? As it turns out, even in the most generous analysis of women warriors presented here, the numbers fall far short of 50:50, with 20% being presented as more realistic number. Since the author of this comic has already exceeded this, I am left with the feeling that this is simply an agenda pushed by certain groups rather than an actual complaint of non-inclusion.

As to the context idea: my comments are valid. All of the good writers give context for the reader to understand his world. Even Rich. Verisimilitude is an important part of writing, and ignoring it leaves the reader confused and eventually he abandons the work for more palatable fare. If the writer wishes readers to enjoy his work he has a duty to his reader to create the feeling of realism in his story. If he is writing for himself and does not care about readers, it is certainly his choice to ignore this concept.

Stories, such as Winter's Tale, which I cited earlier, which do not provide context for the reader to understand the fantasy, or which create situations and characters lacking in verisimilitude, may be a literary buzz for a time, but they are soon forgotten. Hemingway and Steinbeck are still read today because they do provide context that allows the reader, even most of a century later, to understand their works. Who remembers Mark Helprin?

Now, as I am not a warrior, nor am I a medieval research scholar, my comparisons have been based on what I do know. I am an Industrial Electrical and Instrumentation Technician. I travel a lot, and live far from home for most of the year. My work is not as dangerous as adventuring, nor as physically challenging. There are no barriers, (other than those imagined,) to women entering my field, and many incentives. Over the thirty years I have been in my trade, I have seen more women enter the workforce. But the numbers are staggeringly low. Women are choosing not to enter my trade, and the reasons I have heard from women who have entered and left the trade I have cited earlier: family, no desire to travel, potential danger. A career as an adventurer has all of these and more. Why is this an invalid extrapolation?

Finally, I want to point out that from the very beginning I have not made any anti-women comments, and yet my comments have been re-interpreted as if I have an anti-woman agenda. Based on what? Based solely on the idea that anyone who doesn't wholly agree with an agenda is opposed to what the agenda is supposedly supporting. I happen to believe, based on my life experience, that quotas are far more harmful than helpful, and I happen to believe, based on my life experiences, that groups pushing agendas may begin with good intentions, but eventually end up victimizing the very group for which they are supposedly fighting.

Feminism should be about choice, not quotas. Quotas limit more than they liberate, while choice opens all doors. Art should be about the artist's vision, not political correctness. Vision opens the eyes to wonders undreamed, political correctness installs blinders on everyone.

[ahdok]

All of the good writers give context for the reader to understand his world.

Are you saying that because in my comic I haven't explained why 70% of my adventurers are female, I'm a bad writer? I'm pretty sure it makes more sense to blame my suckiness on my thesaurus (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/507-rubbish/).

More importantly... Aren't there plenty of good stories where that context is deliberately withheld, so the reader can formulate their own ideas about what's going on? Isn't reader interpretation an essential part of art in general? I'm not the most scholarly person here, I'm still a Physicist, but I have no clue what's really happening in Alice in Wonderland, and I love the story. Stories are a shared communication between the author and the reader, where the meaning and message is created collaboratively, and a huge part of the magic is that they can have different meanings to different people. By providing context for everything, don't we destroy the magic of possibility?


When someone demands a quota because Group X is underrepresented, I ask myself, (and I think you should as well,) underrepresented as opposed to what?

Let's say... as opposed to the fictional worlds I might find most fun? how about "as opposed to any fiction I can imagine"? They're as equally as valid as comparisons as the real world, the barriers that separate them are "one universe to another"

I'm not sure anyone here throughout the entire discussion has "demanded a quota" - I think it's been opposition of the idea that a low (i.e. around 20%) level of representation should be held as a valid baseline.


Or is that simply the advocate's dream? As it turns out, even in the most generous analysis of women warriors presented here, the numbers fall far short of 50:50, with 20% being presented as more realistic number*. Since the author of this comic has already exceeded this, I am left with the feeling that this is simply an agenda pushed by certain groups rather than an actual complaint of non-inclusion.

What's the difference? Why is "an agenda" to aspire to see women having equal representation in stories juxtaposed to a complaint that they're not when they're not?

And even if "this is simply an agenda pushed by certain groups", so what? Your tone suggests that it's somehow a bad thing?

So what if it turns out that I have an "agenda" to aspire to have equality of gender-agency in the overall landscape of our species' stories? That the baseline for males and females in narrative roles should be about equal? Then great! that's a good thing. It seems like a fundamental underpinning of equal rights to me. If we're unwilling to accept it as normal in our fiction, we'll never accept it as normal in our lives.

[Lissou]

If the writer wishes readers to enjoy his work he has a duty to his reader to create the feeling of realism in his story. If he is writing for himself and does not care about readers, it is certainly his choice to ignore this concept.

Authors do not have a duty to readers.

And readers are a vast group. There will always be people who enjoy a work and people who don't. Some won't enjoy a work because some things aren't explained. Others will enjoy the same work for the exact same reason. Your premise is that all readers enjoy realism and no readers enjoy the lack of realism. It's not true. Even if it were, authors still would have no duty to readers. If they write poorly, they won't get read. That's still fine. If they want to be read, there might be things they could do that would help them with that, but zero percent of those things are a duty.


Art should be about the artist's vision, not political correctness.

That I agree with. (Or at least the first part. You make them sound incompatible. What if someone's vision IS politically correct?)

[ti'esar]

(Or at least the first part. You make them sound incompatible. What if someone's vision IS politically correct?)

I don't know why people seem so convinced that Rich must have been pressured into becoming more socially conscious in his writing, and not have just decided to do so of his own free will.

[ahdok]

I genuinely think I've run out of interesting or new arguments about this, so I'm going to sign off and start putting my rhetoric into practice by drawing more comics where this issue remains irrelevant. However, I'd like to ask you all one last question.

Let's use The Order of the Stick, because it's the thing that we're most familiar with, and let's shuffle Vaarsuvius over to one side just for economy of message.

Take the remaining five menbers of the Order. If, from day one, Rich had of written this story with Roy, Elan, Haley, Belkar and Durkon all having their genders swapped... what difference would it actually make? The story would have all the pronouns swapped, and some of the more gender-laden insults would need to be changed, and the small bit here or there would be a different... but other than that? What does it matter?

Are you genuinely willing to argue that, had Roy/Elan/Durkon/Belkar been female, and Haley been male, you as a reader would have found the strip alien or unintelligible or uncomfortable or weird or unfamiliar or unrelatable or (whatever word you want, pick yer poison)... to the extent that as a reader you'd have been alienated to the point of not reading it? Do you actually believe that?

Well... your loss. Imma go read Rat Queens (https://imagecomics.com/comics/releases/rat-queens-vol.-1-sass-and-sorcery-tp) now.

[brian 333]

Are you saying that because in my comic I haven't explained why 70% of my adventurers are female, I'm a bad writer? I'm pretty sure it makes more sense to blame my suckiness on my thesaurus (http://comicpress.socksandpuppets.com/comic/507-rubbish/).

You do not need to write a thesis statement to grant a concept verisimilitude. By including many female characters presented as characters first, (who happen to be female,) you have given verisimilitude to your world. If all of your female characters had been damsels in distress, then I would have wondered, "Where are the heroes?" (You may be too young to remember MUD's.) That would have required explanation.


More importantly... Aren't there plenty of good stories where that context is deliberately withheld, so the reader can formulate their own ideas about what's going on? Isn't reader interpretation an essential part of art in general? I'm not the most scholarly person here, I'm still a Physicist, but I have no clue what's really happening in Alice in Wonderland, and I love the story. Stories are a shared communication between the author and the reader, where the meaning and message is created collaboratively, and a huge part of the magic is that they can have different meanings to different people. By providing context for everything, don't we destroy the magic of possibility?




I enjoyed Alice as a child because of the visual imagery it invoked. As an adult I am far more critical, and have a higher threshold of suspension of disbelief. I would read it again now as a trip into the past, to relive the age when I first went through the looking glass. Today, picking up a copy for the first time, I wouldn't read it all the way through. The story is discontinuous, disjointed, and lacks reference to things I understand. This is also another case of the movie turning the whole thing into a dream.



Let's say... as opposed to the fictional worlds I might find most fun? how about "as opposed to any fiction I can imagine"? They're as equally as valid as comparisons as the real world, the barriers that separate them are "one universe to another"

I'm not sure anyone here throughout the entire discussion has "demanded a quota" - I think it's been opposition of the idea that a low (i.e. around 20%) level of representation should be held as a valid baseline.

As a writer you can use whatever baseline you like. As a reader you can judge it by any baseline you like. As an agenda driven protester you may not demand a writer conform to your chosen baseline by altering his story to appease you, or if you do I and people like me will call you out. My original post was in response to exactly such demands. Almost all of my subsequent posts have been corrections of misinterpretations and misrepresentations of my original post and subsequent defenses.




What's the difference? Why is "an agenda" to aspire to see women having equal representation in stories juxtaposed to a complaint that they're not when they're not?

The difference is simple; the first is educational. It informs the reader that something is seen as unfair by a member of a group. It may even propose a solution. The second is authoritarian. It claims authority over a particular subject and demands conformity to this authority. Think of Kyle and Cartman from South Park. Kyle attempts to convince, while Cartman demands obedience.


And even if "this is simply an agenda pushed by certain groups", so what? Your tone suggests that it's somehow a bad thing?

It is my opinion that this is a bad thing. Such advocacy often begins with good intentions, and grows into an organization which has as its sole purpose the maintenance of the issues which it 'fights'. If the issue is ever actually solved the group loses power and purpose, after all, and therefore the bar is always moved up and up and up. The goal may be equality today and reparations for past injustice once equality is achieved.

You can easily tell the difference between the two: one is amenable to reason, the other is not. One allows various viewpoints while the other demands adherence to only one view. One advocates choice, the other demands conformity. If you belong to a group which says in one way or another, "If you don't agree with us 100% you are the enemy!" then you are not following a cause, you are promulgating an agenda.


So what if it turns out that I have an "agenda" to aspire to have equality of gender-agency in the overall landscape of our species' stories? That the baseline for males and females in narrative roles should be about equal? Then great! that's a good thing. It seems like a fundamental underpinning of equal rights to me. If we're unwilling to accept it as normal in our fiction, we'll never accept it as normal in our lives.

If you aspire to that then by all means put it in your work and share it with everyone. This is what I have been saying all along. However, I did try to point out that even though others may not do this, it does not mean they are advocating gender inequality. The reaction to my post demonstrates I am not as good a writer as I wish to be.

And here's the thing: he doesn't do A so he means B. This is a concept that has caused a lot of heartache over the years. If person writes a murder story from the PoV of the murderer, can you then extrapolate that that person advocates murder? If a person writes a pirate story from the PoV of the pirate, does it mean he has a Jolly Roger tacked up on the wall of his garage? (He may not even have a garage!)

So a writer who writes a story with five male and one female lead characters is a misogynist who wants to repress women? How is that a fair conclusion? Or better yet, must such a writer prove he is not a misogynist by more inclusion of female lead characters or else risk being so labeled? Again, where is the fairness?

50:50 was proposed as the only fair ratio. I claim it is not, and gave valid reasons for my claims. If you want to write 50:50 stories, go for it. If you want to write 100:0 stories, again, go for it. I hope you include enough context for me to enjoy your tales, because from what I can see so far, you're a pretty good writer and I wouldn't mind reading more of your work. (It's a bit episodic and drifts off into one-panel-bits from time to time; I prefer stories, but that's just my preference.)

But to claim that The Giant was being unfair when he did not make a 50:50 cast is unreasonable.

(I know adhok never made this claim, but this claim was the one to which I originally responded.)


I genuinely think I've run out of interesting or new arguments about this, so I'm going to sign off and start putting my rhetoric into practice by drawing more comics where this issue remains irrelevant. However, I'd like to ask you all one last question.

Let's use The Order of the Stick, because it's the thing that we're most familiar with, and let's shuffle Vaarsuvius over to one side just for economy of message.

Take the remaining five menbers of the Order. If, from day one, Rich had of written this story with Roy, Elan, Haley, Belkar and Durkon all having their genders swapped... what difference would it actually make? The story would have all the pronouns swapped, and some of the more gender-laden insults would need to be changed, and the small bit here or there would be a different... but other than that? What does it matter?

Are you genuinely willing to argue that, had Roy/Elan/Durkon/Belkar been female, and Haley been male, you as a reader would have found the strip alien or unintelligible or uncomfortable or weird or unfamiliar or unrelatable or (whatever word you want, pick yer poison)... to the extent that as a reader you'd have been alienated to the point of not reading it? Do you actually believe that?

Well... your loss. Imma go read Rat Queens (https://imagecomics.com/comics/releases/rat-queens-vol.-1-sass-and-sorcery-tp) now.

If you were alive in the days of "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Hartman,_Mary_Hartman) you might also recall "All that Glitters" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_That_Glitters_%28TV_series%29). The show may have been ahead of its time, and anyway, "Soap" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_%28TV_series%29) beat the crap out of both shows not only in the talent of the actors, but in the fact that it was self-consciously a comedy.

"All That Glitters" was a direct role-reversal TV show with an internally consistent world in which Eve was create by God. Then She took one of Eve's ribs to make Adam. Surprisingly, the show lasted 65 episodes in the Archie Bunker era of TV.

So no. I would not have had a problem at all, as I said in an earlier post, with an all female cast of OoTS, (though I may have thought the title a boorish pun in that case.) You see, this is part of the fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have of my posts: I am not against including more women in comics. I have never been. It takes a serious revision of what I say, or a very clever selection of text out of context, to even generate the idea that I have any problem whatsoever with women in literature, or life.

What I am against is people who threaten to label an artist who does not conform to their agenda. When you say 1:6 isn't fair, I refute that with real world numbers indicating that it may well be more than fair, not because I would exclude women from adventuring careers, but because they would chose other careers. If you find an adventuring group with higher representation more suited to your fiction, then by all means use them. But don't label The Giant a misogynist because he didn't make your choice.

And don't label me one simply because I happen to believe that women and men are different. I see the evidence of it all around me every day. Women can be as brave or cowardly as any man. Women can be as smart or dumb as any man. Women can be as loyal, kind, just, honest, or have any other trait you can imagine. But women are not men, and because of this a woman may make choices a man would not for reasons a man would not.

Different does not imply better. Or worse. And I think that is the obstacle we keep running into. "He says different, but he means better." No. I don't mean that. I never even implied that. That idea came from you, not me.

[ahdok]

Nono... I'm proposing 50:50 as a fair approximate baseline for the global ratio of all characters in all writing, not that every individual writer conform to 50:50. (This is why I used such a stupidly wordy phrase as "equality of gender-agency in the overall landscape of our species' stories?". I'm not Vaarsuvius most of the time.)

I would aspire to a world where our fiction represents our people fairly on the global level. Individually, story concerns will always come first. If a story has only four characters, and two are homosexual, and the other two have a baby over the course of the story, it's unlikely that this story will have a 50:50 gender ratio (although in a fantasy world, I'm totally down with the idea that a lesbian couple might both have babies through magic... that's totally cool.)

As a writer and a reader, I don't demand anything of any individual, but what I can do is highlight the disparity that exists in our stories overall and make the recommendation to writers that when the decision doesn't matter to their narrative, that they might consider leaning towards whichever group is under-represented.

I'm bad at keeping my pledges, I'm really stopping now. :)

[Liliet]

Three major points actually. In addition to the two you brought up, there is a very good reason, in story, for Haley to not be kicking butt. She's a rogue. They go out of their way to avoid situations like that. No surprise shes in a lot of trouble when she's forced into a confrontation she isn't equipped to handle.


Make that four major points:

4) This comic has long moved past the point where Haley being saved from Crystal via timely intervention by another member of the Order could ever end up looking anything remotely like a damsel in distress situation. It would purely be a big damn heroes moment, one-liners and "Are you okay"-s would be exchanged, Haley would insist on staying in the fight (likely aided by the presence of Durkula as one of the reinforcements), the tide would turn on Crystal who would promptly escape with her last hit point (even if by accident), and the hunt for Bozzok would begin.
Okay soooo that was the point that was, by and large, made by me.

You see, there have been scenes with male characters being freaking awesome and badass solo. Like, the scenes that center specifically on their awesomeness on their own.

A good example which was not first brought up by me was Roy's arena fight with Thog.

There is only one female character who could have such a scene: Haley. It does not matter to me personally, as a girl, how high a percentage of male characters have got those scenes; what matters to me is, since that was established as a thing, I want a female character - who I, due to our shared gender, see as more or less a representation of me in the comic - to get one too.

At the time of that debate, she hadn't.

Now, there are two subproblems there.

1) No matter how many male characters don't get their scenes, it only takes one female character to not have it to have the ration hopelessly skewed in favor of male characters. Why? Because this female character constitutes 100% of female characters in OotS.
In other words, there is only one girl.
Rich has written about this before - that early on, he fell into the Smurfette Principle trope, and that this is something he recognizes and regrets and will not do again.
However, acknowledging the mistake does not, by itself, remedy it. There are still 4 male characters and 1 female character in the strip. That's a fact.

2) Apparently Haley can't get her scene (she can btw, everyone who said the rest of Order need to intervene because she can't handle it by herself has been proven WRONG WITH A BIG BANG) because she's a ranged Rogue.
Aka a teamwork oriented class that is not suited to close melee combat and is, as far as I know, considered the most underpowered class in core 3.5 after Monk.
Which is a conscious choice made by Rich at the time of her creation - to give specifically her specifically that class.
Which falls RIGHT INTO the tropes of "guys are brawl, girls are brain" and "guys smash girls shoot" and "girls are team oriented, guys are solitary" which result from and contribute to perpetuation of traditional gender roles.
And, in a great example of why those roles suck, in the eyes of many forumites apparently prevents Haley from getting a badass solo scene.

I don't even know why I have to try so hard to explain that the situation of "There is just one girl in the party, and she just so happens to be the weakest class" is not good...

My argument was that, while Rich cannot do anything not horribly retcon-y to remedy either the situation with the gender ratio in the party (EXCEPT IF CRYSTAL JOINS THE ORDER AHEM OFFTOP SORRY) or Haley's class,
he can, however, fight off the straight-down-the-railroad-of-gendered-assumptions unfortunate implications of Haley being less capable of epic solo feats.

By giving Haley an epic solo feat.

Which is exactly what happened.


*Rich is really good at this - the "Haley does gymnastics looking for traps while dressed like Tomb Raider" may offend absolutists like Liliet (Liliet, correct me if I'm wrong and I will bow to the lash), but the joke itself actually mocks the males in the strip for acting like adolescent dorks (note that Roy, the voice of reason, immediately reasserts adult behavior). c.f. strips 35 and 102. Similar for Haley in 88.
Okay, so you got exactly right that I have a problem with that scene. There is not much point in criticizing it - it was, like, 10 years ago - and I did enjoy it as a joke back when I first read it.

There is, however, a problem there.

Upthread many words were said about normalization. About how if you write something in a certain way without highlighting it, it gets perceived as "just this normal thing" that little bit more.

Well, here's the thing: it works both ways.

By writing a dark-skinned main character without any lampshade or explanation for it, Rich normalized seeing black people in main roles.
By writing all male characters in the party acting like pre-pubescent boys in sexually inappropriate ways, Rich normalized...
men acting like pre-pubescent boys in sexually inappropriate ways.

Which is a thing and a problem. A huge problem. For details, google "rape culture" because I'm not explaining all of this here on such a small prompt, but IT IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

I have many, many words in a very, very irritated tone to say about it, but tl;dr
it sucks

(Rich has partly remedied that by examining Roy's chauvinism in the Miko arc, but the work would have still been better without that joke)
(do you know how ****ing hard it is to find a work with a female protagonist where said female protagonist is never sexually assaulted in any way?)
(kind of a little bit MUCH HARDER than a work with a male protagonist fulfilling same criteria)


You may find this article (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) interesting, and it links to other places that show sources. One of the interesting things, I found, was how people had always assumed Viking warriors were male because they were warriors, but when they decided to actually check the bones, they found that within their sample about half of them were female.
TBH, the whole "they assumed swords meant men and brooches meant women without ever thinking to actually check" kind of sums up half this thread for me.

[BannedInSchool]

(do you know how ****ing hard it is to find a work with a female protagonist where said female protagonist is never sexually assaulted in any way?)
But if in a work of fiction the women were never verbally, physically, and sexually assaulted/abused it would break verisimilitude because the real world just doesn't work that way.

[happycrow]

...actually, at least as I interpreted it, he mocked them acting that way. Now, possibly I misread it.

Not getting into "rape culture" and what it defines as abuse. If I behaved the way rape-culture theorists wanted me to behave, my wife would divorce me for emotional abandonment.... sorry, just not going there, been Othered too many times. And no, I'm not going to argue about that here (or in PMs).

[Jasdoif]

You see, there have been scenes with male characters being freaking awesome and badass solo. Like, the scenes that center specifically on their awesomeness on their own.

A good example which was not first brought up by me was Roy's arena fight with Thog.

There is only one female character who could have such a scene: Haley. It does not matter to me personally, as a girl, how high a percentage of male characters have got those scenes; what matters to me is, since that was established as a thing, I want a female character - who I, due to our shared gender, see as more or less a representation of me in the comic - to get one too.

At the time of that debate, she hadn't.I would be remiss to let 470 go unmentioned. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0470.html)

[SaintRidley]

470 is good, but I do think that the most recent stretch of strips is definitely more comparable to Roy v. Thog than 470. The composition of this fight has a similar scope to that fight, rather than the single-strip 470, and involves going against the character's most hated nemesis in a situation where everything appears to be completely stacked against you.

Not saying 470 isn't awesome. It is. Just not a pants-crappingly awesome hero moment like Roy vs. Thog. The 970s? That's Haley's pants-crappingly awesome hero moment right there.

[pendell]

This post is a public service announcement.

Remember, folks, that when you use "female" as a noun to refer to humans, you sound either like an extraterrestrial anthropologist writing notes about your latest discovery. At best.

At worst you sound like this guy:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e191/General_Ridley/humon%20feemale_zpsasdjpdkh.jpg

This post has been a public service announcement.

Am .. am I being lectured on how to sound human by a pony? How is this even ...?

Ah, well. If the meatbags mistake me for human (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg1gTas7OAA) then I guess it's not really a problem.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Liliet]

...actually, at least as I interpreted it, he mocked them acting that way. Now, possibly I misread it.
He mocked it as "this normal thing that happens".
That is mock-worthy but also this normal thing that does not even have to align with the rest of characterization. Yes, a Good party will behave like this towards their female member(s). (I also remember V's orbs incident)
Like, it aligns with Belkar's characterization, but not actually anyone else's if we don't assume that it's a normal thing that literally everybody does...


But if in a work of fiction the women were never verbally, physically, and sexually assaulted/abused it would break verisimilitude because the real world just doesn't work that way.
^^^ shortcut to my point


470 is good, but I do think that the most recent stretch of strips is definitely more comparable to Roy v. Thog than 470. The composition of this fight has a similar scope to that fight, rather than the single-strip 470, and involves going against the character's most hated nemesis in a situation where everything appears to be completely stacked against you.

Not saying 470 isn't awesome. It is. Just not a pants-crappingly awesome hero moment like Roy vs. Thog. The 970s? That's Haley's pants-crappingly awesome hero moment right there.
^^^ also my point exactly

[Lissou]

I agree that gymnastics scene was pretty weird. It goes against the characterization of several of the characters (including Haley herself giggling about her top falling off) but yeah, it's a really old strip and there isn't much that can be done about it now.

And I saw the joke less about "those guys are acting immature" and more about "they're all lusting after her and she doesn't even notice!" which isn't that funny to me because it's representative of some very dark real-world issues, but when I first read it, I just skipped to the next comic and didn't worry about it more. I think it's a good comparison though to show how far the comic has come.

[Keltest]

^^^ also my point exactly

And a source of much frustration on my part. When you claim such a scene does not exist, one is then provided, but apparently its not good enough.

And for that matter, whats wrong with using your wits to solve a problem rather than your fists? Is Vaarsuvius suddenly a poor example for genderqueer characters because they have never thrown people five times their weight or more through a wall with their bare hands? And what about characters like Miko or Kazume, who have both had their moments? Do they not count because they aren't in the main cast?

[Rakoa]

And a source of much frustration on my part. When you claim such a scene does not exist, one is then provided, but apparently its not good enough.

And for that matter, whats wrong with using your wits to solve a problem rather than your fists? Is Vaarsuvius suddenly a poor example for genderqueer characters because they have never thrown people five times their weight or more through a wall with their bare hands? And what about characters like Miko or Kazume, who have both had their moments? Do they not count because they aren't in the main cast?

I don't quite understand. Lilliet hasn't said there is any problem with Haley using her wits rather than her fists, and actually referred to that encounter (via quote) as Haley's pants crappingly awesome hero moment or whatever. Agreed on Miko and Kazumi, though.

And I love the mental image of Vaarsuvius throwing Roy through a wall with some Elven wrestling technique. Preferably in a WWE arena.

[Keltest]

And I love the mental image of Vaarsuvius throwing Roy through a wall with some Elven wrestling technique. Preferably in a WWE arena.

Id pay to see that. Maybe next time Rich is bored he can doodle it for us.

[Gwynfrid]

You see, there have been scenes with male characters being freaking awesome and badass solo. Like, the scenes that center specifically on their awesomeness on their own.

A good example which was not first brought up by me was Roy's arena fight with Thog.

There is only one female character who could have such a scene: Haley. It does not matter to me personally, as a girl, how high a percentage of male characters have got those scenes; what matters to me is, since that was established as a thing, I want a female character - who I, due to our shared gender, see as more or less a representation of me in the comic - to get one too.

At the time of that debate, she hadn't.

It would seem that you bemoan the lack of scenes with Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0716.html)as a freaking (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0108.html) awesome (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0618.html) badass (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0517.html) solo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html). Seriously? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html)

[SaintRidley]

Those are great individual strips. Nothing wrong with them. But they're not extended sequences of pants-crappingly awesome heroism where Haley uses her wits and her skills to best a nemesis. What we're seeing right now in the comic? That is. And if people were complaining that Haley needed to be bailed out, that undercuts her abilities as a hero and prevents her from being as pants-crappingly awesome a hero as we have been watching her be over the past several strips.

[happycrow]

Well, no - it just means they're complaining.

[zimmerwald1915]

But they're not extended sequences of pants-crappingly awesome heroism where Haley uses her wits and her skills to best a nemesis.
That's a very specific list of elements. I count five:

1) The sequence must be extended over multiple strips;
2) The sequence must be driven by a character's heroics;
3) The heroics must include the use of wits;
4) The heroics must include the use of skills;
5) The heroics must culminate in the besting of a nemesis.

Why this specific list? Why, in particular, is the length of the sequence important? Why, if each element is so critical, did no one complain that any of Gwynfrid's example strips failed to include one or more of them at the time the strips were released?


Well, no - it just means they're complaining.
Or it means their memory of earlier strips is poor, or it means they haven't read earlier strips at all, or it means they got so focused on the moment that they didn't bother to think back to earlier strips . . .

[Keltest]

Those are great individual strips. Nothing wrong with them. But they're not extended sequences of pants-crappingly awesome heroism where Haley uses her wits and her skills to best a nemesis. What we're seeing right now in the comic? That is. And if people were complaining that Haley needed to be bailed out, that undercuts her abilities as a hero and prevents her from being as pants-crappingly awesome a hero as we have been watching her be over the past several strips.

If that is the standard to which we are holding it, then Roy is the only character who has gotten one. And you seem to be forgetting that a significant portion of that sequence was not Roy being an awesome hero so much as as Thog's workout equipment. And finally, Roy is the main character of the story, and Rich explicitly included that sequence to show that Roy's claims of being more than a meatshield with a giant weapon are true.

[snowblizz]

and Rich explicitly included that sequence to show that Roy's claims of being more than a meatshield with a giant weapon are true.
Also, Giant explicitly included the entire sequence because he wanted to write and draw a gladiator style combat.

[Gwynfrid]

Those are great individual strips. Nothing wrong with them. But they're not extended sequences of pants-crappingly awesome heroism where Haley uses her wits and her skills to best a nemesis. What we're seeing right now in the comic? That is. And if people were complaining that Haley needed to be bailed out, that undercuts her abilities as a hero and prevents her from being as pants-crappingly awesome a hero as we have been watching her be over the past several strips.

See Zimmerwald's and Keltest's replies above. I can only add this: Haley is portrayed consistently as every bit the action hero Roy is, actually more frequently so. There are the examples I showed, plus of course #470, plus the current sequence. She has more strips showcasing sheer skill than anybody else in the comic, and she routinely outsmarts every other major character. The only reason Roy is the main protagonist is that the story begins as his personal quest.

[pendell]

Hmm .. as far as being badass I would say Haley is more of a badass than Elan is. Elan has his dashing swordsman prestige class but he's wildly erratic, at turns incredibly competent and then laughable in the very next strip. He's also been held hostage at least once more than Haley has (back when Kubota gave Therkla the 'hero's choice').

By contrast, Haley is competent all the time. She's not always flashy but c'mon, she's a rogue. If a rogue is flashy or standing out , she's doing something wrong.

If I had to pick one person from OOTS to partner with on and adventure, and ONLY one, I'd take Haley. She's skillful all the time, unlike Elan. She's got common sense, unlike Vaarsuvius. And unlike Roy, she isn't excessively proud, she's much better than he at spotting cons, and she's willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. So as far as I'm concerned, she's a keeper, better than Roy in any situation except an actual hand-to-hand combat where raw power counts for more than anything.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Liliet]

I agree that gymnastics scene was pretty weird. It goes against the characterization of several of the characters (including Haley herself giggling about her top falling off) but yeah, it's a really old strip and there isn't much that can be done about it now.

And I saw the joke less about "those guys are acting immature" and more about "they're all lusting after her and she doesn't even notice!" which isn't that funny to me because it's representative of some very dark real-world issues, but when I first read it, I just skipped to the next comic and didn't worry about it more. I think it's a good comparison though to show how far the comic has come.
^^^yes


And now I see people arguing /against/ my point by citing examples that Haley is pants-crappingly awesome despite her class.

Let's rewind a bit to the argument that started this for me: people were explaining that Haley CANNOT beat this encounter alone because her class is just not suited for this, and her teammates interfering would be not just acceptable, but in fact necessary.

Apparently, for them, all the examples provided above that Haley is pants-crappingly awesome were not enough to be convinced that she could pull off a badass hero moment on her own.


Before that, I never complained that Haley didn't get her own badass moments. It never crossed my mind. However, when the strip started building up to one, and people came out of woodwork with arguments that she can't get one?
Yeah, that made me think.

[goodpeople25]

^^^yes


And now I see people arguing /against/ my point by citing examples that Haley is pants-crappingly awesome despite her class.

Let's rewind a bit to the argument that started this for me: people were explaining that Haley CANNOT beat this encounter alone because her class is just not suited for this, and her teammates interfering would be not just acceptable, but in fact necessary.

Apparently, for them, all the examples provided above that Haley is pants-crappingly awesome were not enough to be convinced that she could pull off a badass hero moment on her own.


Before that, I never complained that Haley didn't get her own badass moments. It never crossed my mind. However, when the strip started building up to one, and people came out of woodwork with arguments that she can't get one?
Yeah, that made me think.
Okay i just want to put this out there on Haley vs Crystal Gnomeland edition.
I at least could not see her brute forcing her way through crystal. Also the last panel of the previous strip looked like she was about to die in a couple rounds and I didn't think she could beat the grapple. I did think diplomacy or leading crystal to Bozzok was possible. but I thought Haley lost her chance and was going to die or be saved by the calvary and i did not think it farfetched or bad that her teammates would bail her out. Haley getting out on her own was preferable but i did not see her getting out by grappling and she was being choked so no diplomacy. But of course i forgot about the one factor that could get her out, i forgot about the knife.
Is it so bad that i overlooked a factor? Is it so bad that I like Haley and don't want her to die if her party could save her? Is wanting her to be saved by her teammates really so bad if I thought she was going to die otherwise?

[happycrow]

Liliet, that's a severe mischaracterization of the discussion.

Bulldog said "please don't damsel in distress this."
Other people said "meh, teamwork, nobody expects the rogue to out-melee a cyborg killing machine, won't bother me."
Other people (including myself) said "she doesn't need to out-melee it in order to win."
The drones got distracted and haven't shown up yet.
And then the thread went into its usual tailspin as everybody with a chip in that game started talking past each other, choosing to interpret each others' statements in lights that were never intended, and generally straw-manning each others' posts, etc etc ad nauseam infinitam. Just like always happens here.

[johnbragg]

Let's use The Order of the Stick, because it's the thing that we're most familiar with, and let's shuffle Vaarsuvius over to one side just for economy of message.

Take the remaining five menbers of the Order. If, from day one, Rich had of written this story with Roy, Elan, Haley, Belkar and Durkon all having their genders swapped... what difference would it actually make? The story would have all the pronouns swapped, and some of the more gender-laden insults would need to be changed, and the small bit here or there would be a different... but other than that? What does it matter?

Are you genuinely willing to argue that, had Roy/Elan/Durkon/Belkar been female, and Haley been male, you as a reader would have found the strip alien or unintelligible or uncomfortable or weird or unfamiliar or unrelatable or (whatever word you want, pick yer poison)... to the extent that as a reader you'd have been alienated to the point of not reading it? Do you actually believe that?

Well... your loss. Imma go read Rat Queens (https://imagecomics.com/comics/releases/rat-queens-vol.-1-sass-and-sorcery-tp) now.


Alien, unintelligible, uncomfortable, weird, unfamiliar, unrelatable? No. Different, yes. OOTS started as the adventures of a standard-issue D&D party, complete with token female character (player). Swapping everyone's gender changes all of that, as much as making all-but-one of the party halflings, or gestalt paladins, or Tier 3 classes. OOTS-at-the-beginning was a (pretty accurate) representation of the standard D&D party at most tables. Most tables were pretty psyched to transition from 2E to 3E, or to come back to D&D with 3E. Most tables transitioned from 3E to 3.5 without much complaint (except from Belkar's player.) In 2015, that table is less representative, but probably still a plurality.

Making OOTS an Amazon party would have been moving away from the standard, and immediately raised the question "why"? In a way where not-answering would be interpreted as an answer.

Roy's blackness and V's androgyny didn't raise those questions immediately because of the early OOTS art style. Roy's blackness isn't expressed in anything but skin tone, since it's nearly impossible to express real-world race in RPGs without using racial and racist stereotypes, except through realistic art where you can tell Denzel Washington from Robert Redford without using color shading. (Just stating color isn't enough--no one codes ebony-skinned drow as "black".)

[johnbragg]

Liliet, that's a severe mischaracterization of the discussion.

Bulldog said "please don't damsel in distress this."
Other people said "meh, teamwork, nobody expects the rogue to out-melee a cyborg killing machine, won't bother me."
Other people (including myself) said "she doesn't need to out-melee it in order to win."
The drones got distracted and haven't shown up yet.
And then the thread went into its usual tailspin as everybody with a chip in that game started talking past each other, choosing to interpret each others' statements in lights that were never intended, and generally straw-manning each others' posts, etc etc ad nauseam infinitam. Just like always happens here.

As a DM, I would have given Haley XP for staying alive and staying up long enough until she could lead Crystal to the "cavalry", and for drawing Crystal away from the civilians. Solo'ing Crystal through clever use of bluff and diplomacy (setting aside Bandana for now) is a bonus.

[Jasdoif]

If that is the standard to which we are holding it, then Roy is the only character who has gotten one. And you seem to be forgetting that a significant portion of that sequence was not Roy being an awesome hero so much as as Thog's workout equipment. And finally, Roy is the main character of the story, and Rich explicitly included that sequence to show that Roy's claims of being more than a meatshield with a giant weapon are true.Also, it's at least questionable whether Thog counts as Roy's nemesis.


Apparently, for them, all the examples provided above that Haley is pants-crappingly awesome were not enough to be convinced that she could pull off a badass hero moment on her own.


Before that, I never complained that Haley didn't get her own badass moments. It never crossed my mind. However, when the strip started building up to one, and people came out of woodwork with arguments that she can't get one?
Yeah, that made me think.It made you think...what, exactly?


The drones got distracted and haven't shown up yet.Well, that lightning tank budget's gotta be justified somehow, and it's never going to fairly beat the drones to the scene....

[zimmerwald1915]

If that is the standard to which we are holding it, then Roy is the only character who has gotten one. And you seem to be forgetting that a significant portion of that sequence was not Roy being an awesome hero so much as as Thog's workout equipment. And finally, Roy is the main character of the story, and Rich explicitly included that sequence to show that Roy's claims of being more than a meatshield with a giant weapon are true.
Not quite. Vaarsuvius v. Zz'dtri qualifies unless either 1) you believe Zz'dtri that it was Yukyuk who defeated him, not Vaarsuvius, or 2) you don't consider Vaarsuvius's use of her skills (as opposed to her wits, which is a separate element, and her snark, which is not an element at all) "pants-crappingly awesome." For what it's worth, we're not supposed to believe Zz'dtri, and awesomeness is subjective.

[dancrilis]

Before that, I never complained that Haley didn't get her own badass moments. It never crossed my mind. However, when the strip started building up to one, and people came out of woodwork with arguments that she can't get one?
Yeah, that made me think.

Weren't all the 'arguements' that she a) didn't need one, b) didn't detract from her character if she didn't get one, c) unlikely to be badass.

Frankly Haley's tactic is smart, in character, and delivered well - but it is not exactly badass.

I mean really can you see that Movie Action Hero/Heroine who is a legitimate ass kicker, is in the fight of his/her life and ... talks the enemy down, than walks with them back to their base and watches as they pick a fight with a (likely still) much stronger character.

I can still see this backfiring on Haley - which also does not detract from her getting out of the situation in the first place.

[Keltest]

Not quite. Vaarsuvius v. Zz'dtri qualifies unless either 1) you believe Zz'dtri that it was Yukyuk who defeated him, not Vaarsuvius, or 2) you don't consider Vaarsuvius's use of her skills (as opposed to her wits, which is a separate element, and her snark, which is not an element at all) "pants-crappingly awesome." For what it's worth, we're not supposed to believe Zz'dtri, and awesomeness is subjective.

I smirked a bit, but I felt that the awesomeness was undercut by V being punted to the Semi-Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing (as did V).

[johnbragg]

Weren't all the 'arguements' that she a) didn't need one, b) didn't detract from her character if she didn't get one, c) unlikely to be badass.

Frankly Haley's tactic is smart, in character, and delivered well - but it is not exactly badass.

I mean really can you see that Movie Action Hero/Heroine who is a legitimate ass kicker, is in the fight of his/her life and ... talks the enemy down, than walks with them back to their base and watches as they pick a fight with a (likely still) much stronger character.

I can still see this backfiring on Haley - which also does not detract from her getting out of the situation in the first place.

Harrison Ford's "The Fugitive", trying to convince Tommy Lee Jones of his innocence while, er, being a fugitive?

Luke Skywalker at the end of Return of the Jedi?

Convincing the implacable, powerful enemy that they should be squishing someone besides you is not THAT uncommon.

[Keltest]

Harrison Ford's "The Fugitive", trying to convince Tommy Lee Jones of his innocence while, er, being a fugitive?

Luke Skywalker at the end of Return of the Jedi?

Convincing the implacable, powerful enemy that they should be squishing someone besides you is not THAT uncommon.

Not uncommon, sure, but I would hardly call Luke getting electrocuted a lot "badass".

[dancrilis]

Harrison Ford's "The Fugitive", trying to convince Tommy Lee Jones of his innocence while, er, being a fugitive?

Luke Skywalker at the end of Return of the Jedi?

Convincing the implacable, powerful enemy that they should be squishing someone besides you is not THAT uncommon.

There is a difference between badass and awesome.

I am dubious as to whether begging your daddy to solve your problems counts as either (can easily I suppose count as one/both for your daddy).
Luke's badass moment was actually defeating Vader.

Haley's moment here was awesome (thought I think she might come to regret her silent background gloating), it is not badass.

Now badass and awesome is subjective - so feel free to disagree.

[brian 333]

Weren't all the 'arguements' that she a) didn't need one, b) didn't detract from her character if she didn't get one, c) unlikely to be badass.

Frankly Haley's tactic is smart, in character, and delivered well - but it is not exactly badass.

I mean really can you see that Movie Action Hero/Heroine who is a legitimate ass kicker, is in the fight of his/her life and ... talks the enemy down, than walks with them back to their base and watches as they pick a fight with a (likely still) much stronger character.

I can still see this backfiring on Haley - which also does not detract from her getting out of the situation in the first place.

I find it exceptionally badass. The hero uses her strengths against her opponent's weaknesses to win. With Roy it's literal strength, (or constitution, in his particular case, as he performed a Rocky rather than a Tyson,) With Vaarsuvius it's Intelligence, in figuring out the foe's plan and thwarting it, in Elan's it would be plain dumb luck, (otherwise known as dramatic timing,) and in Haley's it's her ability to fast talk her way out of anything.

Each of the characters is unique, and comes to any challenge from a unique perspective. To have them all face a challenge in the same way Roy would is not reasonable: each should fight with their best stat for the situation. Roy's Str was useless against Thog, so he went to his best stat for that fight: his Int. Haley's Dex score won't help much against a golem, so she went to her best stat for the situation: her Cha.

You don't always have to kill the monster to get the XP.

[goodpeople25]

Not quite. Vaarsuvius v. Zz'dtri qualifies unless either 1) you believe Zz'dtri that it was Yukyuk who defeated him, not Vaarsuvius, or 2) you don't consider Vaarsuvius's use of her skills (as opposed to her wits, which is a separate element, and her snark, which is not an element at all) "pants-crappingly awesome." For what it's worth, we're not supposed to believe Zz'dtri, and awesomeness is subjective.
True but it was as keltest said it was kinda a mutual defeat, and if you accept that, you could say haley getting crystal to the Calvary counts, though durkons death could count then.

[dancrilis]

I find it exceptionally badass.

And you are allowed to - there is no hard and fast definition and even if there were we could argue over the definitions of the words that form that definition.

However for my Elan got his badass moment when he defeated Kubota, or when he defeated Nale after getting the Dashing Swordman level.

Haley has a few as well as documented by others above, as do all the other characters.

Haley grabbing Crystal and flying up and dropping her in the Ocean? - Yea badass, likely awesome.
Talking her down and turning her on Bozzok? - Awesome, not badass.

[Reddish Mage]

On the subject of the most awe-inspiring, personal-victory-through-uniquely-personal-means moment of the Characters:

Roy: Defeating Thog through Knowledge: Architecture
Vaarsuvius: Defeating the Ancient Black Dragon
Elan: Swooping in to save Haley at the last moment (someone was Damsel'ed there)
Durkon: Still forthcoming
Belkar: I'M A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR! + saving Haley (what again?) + Riding a goddamned dinosaur into battle!
Haley: Diverting Crystal through reason and shiny objects

Of these, I'm not sure why Haley's victory is eliciting so many comments, and what's too incredible about it.

[Liliet]

On the subject of the most awe-inspiring, personal-victory-through-uniquely-personal-means moment of the Characters:

Roy: Defeating Thog through Knowledge: Architecture
Vaarsuvius: Defeating the Ancient Black Dragon
Elan: Swooping in to save Haley at the last moment (someone was Damsel'ed there)
Durkon: Still forthcoming
Belkar: I'M A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR! + saving Haley (what again?) + Riding a goddamned dinosaur into battle!
Haley: Diverting Crystal through reason and shiny objects

Of these, I'm not sure why Haley's victory is eliciting so many comments, and what's too incredible about it.

Okay so
my personal reasons for loving this victory very much

1. I've wanted Haley to be friends instead of enemies with one of her only two female peers we know of from Crystal's very first introduction, especially given how dumb a reason for their rivalry was (and playing on freaking awful gender stereotypes and expectations)
2. This strip has been built up to over an extended period of time, creating tension and excitement. It even had steampunk gnome police force, for hell's sake!
3. Haley hadn't really gotten a prolonged, epically built-up-to moment of personal triumph like this before. She got offhand acknowledgement of her supreme badassery and scattered moments of brief on-screen awesome, and also several instances of being damsel'd.
4. I, personally, as a (mostly potential) DnD and general videogame player, find non-combat skills and their uses to save your ass in ways other than "hit it in the face until it falls down", really freaking awesome.
5. I love it when characters display bravery. Not just badassery, like when Belkar was mowing down hobgoblins in hundreds, but bravery. When the character is up against someone above their level, and still persists and protects others. V got a moment like this in Xykon's tower, and it remains just about my favorite sequence of all this comic. Roy got a moment like this on the arena. Durkon can be said to have gotten a moment like this in the dungeon, although him actually losing made it sad more than awesome. Nobody else in the party has, as far as I remember.
And Haley got her moment of _bravery_, of going against a known more powerful opponent and distracting it and leading away from civilians, and trusting into her abilities and Crystal's remaining personality over hatred... she got it now and she got it there. I had my breath baited when she stopped and turned to Crystal, and when Crystal stopped too...

This was freaking awesome.

[Lissou]

Durkon can be said to have gotten a moment like this in the dungeon, although him actually losing made it sad more than awesome. Nobody else in the party has, as far as I remember.

Durkon kind of won. I mean, yes, obviously, he was turned into a vampire (and I think we're slowly going towards a big Durkon success related to that) but it fits very well with his personality to sacrifice to save the others. And he did. He did make Malack promise to leave the others alone, and as a result, Malack said nothing when he noticed the Order in the corner (right next to the gate). I find it significant, even if it's not "badass" in a showy way.

[Liliet]

Durkon kind of won. I mean, yes, obviously, he was turned into a vampire (and I think we're slowly going towards a big Durkon success related to that) but it fits very well with his personality to sacrifice to save the others. And he did. He did make Malack promise to leave the others alone, and as a result, Malack said nothing when he noticed the Order in the corner (right next to the gate). I find it significant, even if it's not "badass" in a showy way.

True. It was a built-up intense sequence too, with a week of daily updates, if I remember correctly.

This was such an event for Haley, and I find it freaking awesome.
And anyone who said that when confronted with an objectively stronger opponent the best Haley can do is just hope her party members arrive on time... *rolls eyes so hard they nearly pop out of the sockets*

[LadyEowyn]

I agree heartily with both Reddish Mage and Lillit's analysis. This is Haley's first big multi-strip arc of her taking on a personal enemy and defeating them without someone else showing up to help, while most of the other characters have had one. I was expecting that Roy would have to show up to help Haley - not because he's male, but because Crysal's build seemed tailored to not be vulnerable to anything other than "hit it a lot with something sharp and heavy", and Roy's the party member best equipped to do that. I like that Haley was able to use her own skills to find a more innovative way to 'defeat' Crystal.

Although with regard to Haley being "damseled", I think she's rescued Elan more times than she's been rescued by anyone else, and there have also been clear subversions, for example, here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html.

[Kish]

Am .. am I being lectured on how to sound human by a pony? How is this even ...?

Ah, well. If the meatbags mistake me for human (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg1gTas7OAA) then I guess it's not really a problem.

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.
Considering you appear to be a blank white square, yes, I'd say a pony is closer to human than that.

[Zyzzyva]

Considering you appear to be a blank white square, yes, I'd say a pony is closer to human than that.

He's a set of (chinese?) characters, although you can only see that if you open-in-new-tab or similar.

Possibly you might want to invest in a lower-resolution avatar, Pendell. :smalltongue:

[pearl jam]

He's a set of (chinese?) characters, although you can only see that if you open-in-new-tab or similar.

Possibly you might want to invest in a lower-resolution avatar, Pendell. :smalltongue:


That's a single character: 礼




But a smaller image would seem to be in order, yeah.

[137beth]

Okay so
my personal reasons for loving this victory very much

1. I've wanted Haley to be friends instead of enemies with one of her only two female peers we know of from Crystal's very first introduction, especially given how dumb a reason for their rivalry was (and playing on freaking awful gender stereotypes and expectations)
2. This strip has been built up to over an extended period of time, creating tension and excitement. It even had steampunk gnome police force, for hell's sake!
3. Haley hadn't really gotten a prolonged, epically built-up-to moment of personal triumph like this before. She got offhand acknowledgement of her supreme badassery and scattered moments of brief on-screen awesome, and also several instances of being damsel'd.
4. I, personally, as a (mostly potential) DnD and general videogame player, find non-combat skills and their uses to save your ass in ways other than "hit it in the face until it falls down", really freaking awesome.
5. I love it when characters display bravery. Not just badassery, like when Belkar was mowing down hobgoblins in hundreds, but bravery. When the character is up against someone above their level, and still persists and protects others. V got a moment like this in Xykon's tower, and it remains just about my favorite sequence of all this comic. Roy got a moment like this on the arena. Durkon can be said to have gotten a moment like this in the dungeon, although him actually losing made it sad more than awesome. Nobody else in the party has, as far as I remember.
And Haley got her moment of _bravery_, of going against a known more powerful opponent and distracting it and leading away from civilians, and trusting into her abilities and Crystal's remaining personality over hatred... she got it now and she got it there. I had my breath baited when she stopped and turned to Crystal, and when Crystal stopped too...

This was freaking awesome.
Yes! All of these! I'm so glad I'm not the only one who wanted to see a Haley and Crystal team-up.

Everyone go home, Liliet won the thread.

[pendell]

He's a set of (chinese?) characters, although you can only see that if you open-in-new-tab or similar.

Possibly you might want to invest in a lower-resolution avatar, Pendell. :smalltongue:

Japanese Kanji. Imageshack has been giving me grief and I will probably be switching to a new avatar at some point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zyzzyva]

Japanese Kanji. Imageshack has been giving me grief and I will probably be switching to a new avatar at some point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gif of Aretha Franklin, maybe? :smallwink:

[pearl jam]

Gif of Aretha Franklin, maybe? :smallwink:

LOL. Nice.





Also, the term "Japanese Kanji" as a differentiation from "Chinese" characters is humorous, given that the word "kanji" literally means "Chinese character". :smalltongue:


漢字

[Reddish Mage]

Japanese Kanji. Imageshack has been giving me grief and I will probably be switching to a new avatar at some point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think its time for Pendell to pick a pony avatar.

Friendship is verisimilitude Magic :smalltongue: