IC sexism (not OOC sexism)

[Kurald Galain]

From another thread,

I'd still like to debate my 2 cents about sexism in-character and campaigns with sexist NPC's. Your thoughts on them? Or major NPC plot-hook prostitutes (where I still don't know what's so bad about them)?

Well, I can easily imagine people being offended by the existence of prostitutes, whether in-game or out. That, from a realistic point of view, most societies have them in one form or another does not mean that people want to have them in their fantasies.

Something struck me as peculiar... I recently read the book Shaman's Crossing by Robin Hobb (I can recommend it to people, it's good!) It struck me that the setting of the book is rather sexist - by which I mean that it has the medieval attitude that men are supposed to be soldiers and go to school, and women are supposed to stay at home and are not considered worth educating.

What struck me is that this is highly unusual for a fantasy novel. With the explicit exception of Tolkien (who, frankly, isn't contemporary anyway), nearly every contemporary author (say, Feist, or Erikson, or Lackey) has medieval settings that are egalitarian and have male-female-combined armies.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

[TheLogman]

Well, this would lead to a Biased worldview, since people would only experience one side of the coin so to speak, and then when confronted with actually sexist people/literature, they would be unable to understand the other opposite view. I am not advocating Sexism, but understanding that women are different from men, (Equal but different) is a facet of sexism, and one that should be embraced.

[Ulzgoroth]

Counterpoint Tamora Pierce. There isn't much sympathy offered for sexism, but it's a strong force in the setting. Though certainly not up to the level in Shaman's Crossing.

[Saph]

What struck me is that this is highly unusual for a fantasy novel. With the explicit exception of Tolkien (who, frankly, isn't contemporary anyway), nearly every contemporary author (say, Feist, or Erikson, or Lackey) has medieval settings that are egalitarian and have male-female-combined armies.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

I think it's not much egalitarianism as wanting to have it all. So there are lots of female adventurers and soldiers, and they can excel at whatever they want to and be just as strong as the men, and they have a healthy social life and a well-adjusted personality as well, and they're never tied down to taking care of a home or family, and they do all this adventuring and slaying demons while still looking fabulous, maintaining a perfect figure, and never getting a tangle in their waist-length hair. Since it's fantasy, you can have whatever you want, so why not? :P Obviously it's not at all realistic, but strict realism isn't the point of fantasy stories in the first place.

That said, there is one school of thought that says this isn't such a good idea, because it leads to the attitude that if a character isn't a combat fighter, they aren't 'worthwhile'. I can sort of see their point.

- Saph

[Silkenfist]

Well, I can easily imagine people being offended by the existence of prostitutes, whether in-game or out. That, from a realistic point of view, most societies have them in one form or another does not mean that people want to have them in their fantasies.

That's part of the unwritten contract between Players and DM, I guess. As DM you shouldn't create an environment where your players are uncomfortable to act and you don't send your arachnophobic players to battle the Spider Goddess Lolth either.
That said, I will always nudge my players softly into allowing for the fact that campaign world usually aren't pretty fairytale utopias. Prostitution was just the example that came up. Corruption, Treachery, Murder, Torture, Injustice, Racial Prejudices, Oppressive Regimes, Evil going Unpunished...all of these have occured or will occur in my games sooner or later. Simply because they are aspects of being human and because they will always occur (and because I like gloomy campaigns)
The one exception is rape. Partially because it makes almost everyone uncomfortable. Secondly, because I don't want to trigger memories/fears among my players. It occurs only where inavoidable and I try not to focus there.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

It certainly is a good thing, if this is our desire. But I just don't see the reason to give it to the players. I would like to see a world without racial/gender stereotypes. But I would also like to see a world without war, famine, poverty and diseases. However, my players are unlikely to ever see one.

[ForzaFiori]

From another thread,



Well, I can easily imagine people being offended by the existence of prostitutes, whether in-game or out. That, from a realistic point of view, most societies have them in one form or another does not mean that people want to have them in their fantasies.

Something struck me as peculiar... I recently read the book Shaman's Crossing by Robin Hobb (I can recommend it to people, it's good!) It struck me that the setting of the book is rather sexist - by which I mean that it has the medieval attitude that men are supposed to be soldiers and go to school, and women are supposed to stay at home and are not considered worth educating.

What struck me is that this is highly unusual for a fantasy novel. With the explicit exception of Tolkien (who, frankly, isn't contemporary anyway), nearly every contemporary author (say, Feist, or Erikson, or Lackey) has medieval settings that are egalitarian and have male-female-combined armies.

So people appear to write and enjoy reading fantasies of egalitarianism. That would be a good thing, no?

what are you reading by Feist? In the series I've read by him (His Midkemia books), while it isn't hugely sexist, there are basic gender rolls, and very few female fighters, and no females in the actual armies.

granted, it is less sexist than it could be, but it was still there.

[MartinHarper]

The fact that my male gnome is slightly taller than the average gnome female will seem unimportant to him given that I'm half the size of the average human. When there are huge and obvious differences between the races, smaller gender differences aren't going to stand out as much. This is especially true when, statistically, males and females are equally strong, dextrous, wise, intelligent, charismatic, and, uh, well-constituted. A sexist NPC who laughs at women for being small and weak is going to seem weird if he laughs at the female half-orc barbarian and fears the male elf bard.

I guess I can see sexism coming in by way of females giving birth. An anti-male cleric might see women as superior because they can create new life, whilst an anti-female fighter might see men as superior because they don't take breaks from their training to have kids. I'd still expect to see it as the exception rather than the rule. Your world may vary.

(by the way, does it kill catfolk to mix gender studies and D&D?)

[psychoticbarber]

(by the way, does it kill catfolk to mix gender studies and D&D?)

Hope not.

It's funny, I came to this thread from the other thread (the WOTC Campaign of Sexism; completely unrelated but closed while I was reading it, haha), and I'm always on the fence in my homebrewed settings between medieval realism and fantasy worlds.

Often I end up with the middle-ground that female adventurers exist and are accepted (to a point), but they're strange. They're strange alright, but so is every male adventurer.

Sure, I've usually got a society or two where women aren't appreciated like they should be, but I try to balance that out in other societies who don't appreciate men like they should.

[DeathQuaker]

Bottom line: if you as a DM are clear about the parameters of your world and what exists in it, and your players are comfortable playing as you intend it, generally, include the racism/sexism/etc. you want to.

Always, always, always be clear that it is fantasy, and separate the fantasy from OOC inter-player interactions.

And most of all, DO NOT use of "sexism" (or any -ism) as an excuse to discriminate against your players or make them feel lousy because they and their character are constantly being mistreated. If a player is being singled out as not being able to use their abilities as they should, that's discriminatory, and the fact that you designed your world to enable that discrimination doesn't make that acceptable.

Further: Do not use "realism" as an excuse for wanting something like sexism in a game, especially when it means putting excessive and unncessary restrictions on what players can choose for their characters. In "real life" there were exceptions to all rules. Elizabeth I was Queen during a very anti-feminist era, but she still managed to be Queen and was a revered one at that. Moll Cutpurse was fighting people with swords and wearing trousers when that was an offense punishable by law (and yet the law was oddly lax with her). Don't tell someone who wants to play a female warrior pirate they can't because it's "not realistic"; go tell that to Anne Bonny and Mary Read.

Also, do not use "realism" as an excuse for wanting something like sexism in a game, when you're running a game in "Magical Fluffy Land" that has dragons and wizards and elves. The sexism and any other cultural standards are yours to control as much as the fantastical elements; don't blame your fantasy on real life. If you really want to reflect different cultures, many of which are imperfect or intolerant by our postmodern standards, own up to it that this is your world and this is what you want and why.

Done well, you can create worlds with all kinds of cultural tensions, differences, etc. and make it a world of fluff players want to interact with. But the key is to ensure players are having fun with it and not feeling put out by the GM or other players. If someone is offended, don't do it.

Avoiding a friend's hurt feelings should be more important than a game.

[Silkenfist]

The fact that my male gnome is slightly taller than the average gnome female will seem unimportant to him given that I'm half the size of the average human. When there are huge and obvious differences between the races, smaller gender differences aren't going to stand out as much. This is especially true when, statistically, males and females are equally strong, dextrous, wise, intelligent, charismatic, and, uh, well-constituted. A sexist NPC who laughs at women for being small and weak is going to seem weird if he laughs at the female half-orc barbarian and fears the male elf bard.

This is definitely one of the better reasons against sexism in fantasy societies. There are some problems, though:

1. Males and Females don't need to have the same stats in the population. It is important to not alter the player characters because of their gender. However, it is perfectly reasonable to have a NPC society where males and females have different stats. (For example males could have higher Strength/Constitution, females higher Wisdom/Charisma).

2. It is plausible that gender differences are diminished in a world where race has a larger influence on people's roles than their gender. However, this only means that there will be more racial stereotypes. Once again, common sense doesn't win.

3. and most simple: Since when had objective differences anything to do with the amount of stereotypes? How many objective differences are there IRL between different "races"?

I guess I can see sexism coming in by way of females giving birth. An anti-male cleric might see women as superior because they can create new life, whilst an anti-female fighter might see men as superior because they don't take breaks from their training to have kids.

It's a bit different, but females getting pregnant and giving birth is one of the crucial points. It removes them from combat/hunting for some time, but this is not the most important reason. The important difference is the fact, that a man can father a lot of children in a short period. Women can't. The women who have the most children are the ones who retreat from hunting/battle entirely and dedicate their life to nurturing their children. Females who spend their life on the battlefield don't pass on heritage.
This also means that the amount of sexism in a culture depends on their life cycles. Races with a longer lifespan and less infant mortality (For example Elves compared to Orcs) should be less susceptible to misogynist tendencies. Also, reptilians (or other non-mammals) can easily be egalitarian, too.

Yes, I am resorting to Dawkins again and kill catfolk along the way.

I'd still expect to see it as the exception rather than the rule. Your world may vary.

Of course it does. Where would be the fun if it didn't. I just advocate to not remove all gender differences from the game (flavorwise) as a matter of principle.

(by the way, does it kill catfolk to mix gender studies and D&D?)

Don't care. Killing catfolk is fun.

[Dausuul]

I think a lot depends on how closely you're sticking to historical precedent. Historically, sexism has been rampant, so a low-magic world that tries for something vaguely resembling historical accuracy will have that element.

On the other hand, in a world where magic works and is usable by members of either sex equally, where deities both male and female regularly intervene in mortal lives, it makes sense that there would be less sexism.

As far as D&D game worlds go, there is the added factor that the primary goal of a game world is to enable the players to have fun. Worlds in which women are bound by the strictures of real-world medieval society are not real conducive to fun for people who want to play female characters. So published game worlds are generally accepting of female adventurers, at least to the extent that there are no mechanical penalties levied upon them and they don't have to deal with things like being stoned to death for immodesty.

[Stormcrow]

It basically comes down to wether the author's wish to write a psuedo-historical novel matches up against the chance that its going to get bashed in the reviews for being sexist and not sell.

In parts of the world one gender or the other _was_ treated in a subservient way, in some parts of the world they still are. Its reality. I guess I'm lucky enough to have a group that prefer's reality in its gaming. I think you'll find theres a lot of "sexism" in fantasy. Read the matriarchal monster manual entries, take the drow for example. Or is it not sexism if men are oppressed these days?

[puppyavenger]

A song of ice and fire by George Martin has a very sexist setting, very good seris though.

[Behold_the_Void]

One argument that could be made against sexism is the way certain abilities work. In D&D, for example, it's easily possible for a female to, say, spontaneously manifest sorcerous (or psionic) abilities, or get chosen by a god because of her particular characteristics. It's hard to keep women down when x god chooses them as a servant or they can inherently tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

If V was a girl, try telling V to go wash the dishes.

"I prepared explosive..."

[Charles Phipps]

I debate sometimes whether or not my own version of a fantasy session is too sexist or not. The point of being is that I am doing it to underscore the horrible nature of some certain villains while also being somewhat realistic (my gaming group is mid-twenties to early thirties) about the fact that raiding often results in unpleasantries.

Here's a list of some of my rather controversial choices.

+ Explicitly; Goblinoids and Human Raiders pose the threat of descending on down upon villages and either indulging themselves in rapine or carrying off females as breeding stock (more an Orc thing to do rather than your typical barbarians). I help use this to explain how Orcs continue to grow population wise even when so many people are determine to wipe them out.

Though I'm debating changing it, the implication is the vast majority of half-orcs are the product of war crimes.

+ Likewise, women are little more than chattle in Orc society and treated as such unless they're Crones. They're traded and property for the men to be exchanged or used as seen fit.

+ I encouraged one of our PCs to expand on the background of a Bard that came from a harem. The situation was one of implied terrible abuse to create mindlessly subservient and chipper women for sale to the merchant lords of Calisham.

Basically, I find it works well to have player characters struggle against societies that are "evil" given the Faerun folk are much more enlightened with no barrier to most professions or attempts to keep women down sexually.

[Ulzgoroth]

One argument that could be made against sexism is the way certain abilities work. In D&D, for example, it's easily possible for a female to, say, spontaneously manifest sorcerous (or psionic) abilities, or get chosen by a god because of her particular characteristics. It's hard to keep women down when x god chooses them as a servant or they can inherently tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

Fantasy sexism often (though not always) makes exception for those who manifest or have potential for phenomenal cosmic powers. This can range from the mage guild being the only gender-neutral group in the world to the simple principle of no one being dumb enough to tell the scary witch lady what she can and can't do.

[SurlySeraph]

It's always kind of annoyed me that the Drow and Githyanki, perhaps the most alien and evil societies in the DnD cosmology, are matriarchal. It's presenting women ruling as aberrant and freakish, and it annoys the hell out of me. Not that Drow culture doesn't have really cool fluff, but it just annoys me.

[Silkenfist]

Also, do not use "realism" as an excuse for wanting something like sexism in a game, when you're running a game in "Magical Fluffy Land" that has dragons and wizards and elves. The sexism and any other cultural standards are yours to control as much as the fantastical elements; don't blame your fantasy on real life.

Full agreement on the rest of your post. There are some lines, even ruthless me wouldn't cross:

- Making other players uncomfortable
- Isolating players from the rest of the party
- Treating players differently because of their gender (IC or OOC)
- Limiting their character choices because of their gender
- Limiting the use of their abilities because of their gender
- Give one player a significant advantage overr another because of their gender
- any other limits decreed by comon sense.

However...if I am to create "Magical Fluffy Land" and I am to control its cultural standards entirely? Why am I supposed to make it an egalitarian society? Of course it would be the easiest environment for players and DM, but stereotypes are a typical human flaw and why shouldn't they be implemented? They can add flavor, provide plot hooks or be a surprising hindrance for the party.

If you are concerned that stereotypes could make the game unfair or less fun for certain players, you should make sure that:

- the whole world hasn't the same stereotypes. If you throw in a few misogynist societies (Orcs, Goblins and - maybe - Humans recommended), you can add matriarchal systems to balance it out (Reptilians, Drow and - maybe - Elves recommended).
- stereotypes are not purely negative. Something can be said about being underestimated. If you are a part of the stereotypical weaker gender, you might not be attacked with full force immediately, people turn the back to you quicker or allow you a bit further towards the guy you want to kill.
- gender is not the only trait open for stereotypes. There may be sexist groups, but there can be racist ones just as well. Or a cult that believes red-haired people are sent by the devil.
- the stereotypes, whatever they are, are not omnipresent. The main part of the game should still be the good ol' Sword-and-Sorcery adventuring fun and getting your party member out of city prison because he dared to look at the High Priest isn't fun more than once. Keep it in mind and throw it at the players when it is reasonable.

[Silkenfist]

One argument that could be made against sexism is the way certain abilities work. In D&D, for example, it's easily possible for a female to, say, spontaneously manifest sorcerous (or psionic) abilities, or get chosen by a god because of her particular characteristics. It's hard to keep women down when x god chooses them as a servant or they can inherently tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

It is an argument against sexism, but - sadly - it doesn't hold truth in how our society works. The most powerful people in our society today don't rely on their strength. Our leaders in politics, business, media and law don't need physical ability - it's purely mental or social ability what counts. However...even in these positions, women are still underrepresented and/or denied from advancing.

I debate sometimes whether or not my own version of a fantasy session is too sexist or not. The point of being is that I am doing it to underscore the horrible nature of some certain villains while also being somewhat realistic (my gaming group is mid-twenties to early thirties) about the fact that raiding often results in unpleasantries.

Here's a list of some of my rather controversial choices.

+ Explicitly; Goblinoids and Human Raiders pose the threat of descending on down upon villages and either indulging themselves in rapine or carrying off females as breeding stock (more an Orc thing to do rather than your typical barbarians). I help use this to explain how Orcs continue to grow population wise even when so many people are determine to wipe them out.

Though I'm debating changing it, the implication is the vast majority of half-orcs are the product of war crimes.

+ Likewise, women are little more than chattle in Orc society and treated as such unless they're Crones. They're traded and property for the men to be exchanged or used as seen fit.

+ I encouraged one of our PCs to expand on the background of a Bard that came from a harem. The situation was one of implied terrible abuse to create mindlessly subservient and chipper women for sale to the merchant lords of Calisham.

I don't see too much problems with that if these are the antagonists. However, if it is the society in which the playerse travel most of the time, I think it would become too disencouraging to play a female character - something which I would avoid at all costs.

It's always kind of annoyed me that the Drow and Githyanki, perhaps the most alien and evil societies in the DnD cosmology, are matriarchal. It's presenting women ruling as aberrant and freakish, and it annoys the hell out of me. Not that Drow culture doesn't have really cool fluff, but it just annoys me.

The races I portray as typical patriarchs are Orcs and Goblins. Not the most pretty ones either

You would like Earthdawn though. They have patriarchal Trolls and matriarchal Lizardfolk, each one not being completely freaky and it is reasonable for them to be created in that manner (I already advertised somewhere else the concept of matriarchal Lizardfolk)

[MartinHarper]

It is plausible that gender differences are diminished in a world where race has a larger influence on people's roles than their gender. However, this only means that there will be more racial stereotypes. Once again, common sense doesn't win.

I completely agree here. Less sexism, but a shedload of "racism" (or species-ism, whatever). Thus, many PCs get +1 to hit goblins, but no PCs get +1 to hit men. D&D might be lower on sexism than the real world, but judging folks on the way they look would be very common. A human with even a slight trace of orcish blood affecting his appearance would probably suffer a lot of prejudice.

(yes, I'm focusing on this point because your other points are hard to argue against...)

[Dairun Cates]

That said, there is one school of thought that says this isn't such a good idea, because it leads to the attitude that if a character isn't a combat fighter, they aren't 'worthwhile'. I can sort of see their point.

They've obviously never met Lesser Used Fantasy Trope #42: The "Smarter than the Wizard, BBEG, and Librarian Combined Housewife"

It's always pretty fun dropping that one on the players and letting them figure it out over time.

On a more serious note, it really comes down to your group and how its handled. Exalted is actually a pretty damn sexist campaign setting. Women are often thrown into brothels, can't sail without disguising themselves or mutilating their bodies, treated as nothing but escorts, and sought after commonly for horrible things by other deviants. Still, it's a pretty interesting campaign setting, that's played by a lot of varied groups, and it's not like its impossible to be a female character. In reality, it gives the players something to rebel against. It gives female players an automatic character hook and attachment to the setting. It inspires players to change. In a perfect fantasy world, there's nothing to fight against except maybe monsters and that gets tiring.

It all comes down to this...

Spoiler

Show

PARADISE IS BORING!

That being said, it's a bad idea to overdo it. Fatal is THE prime example of this. Still, I think as long as you don't do it out of malice, society being bias against females is not really different from society being bias against tieflings or drows (I AM NOT encouraging you to make another Drizz't clone).

Still, whatever you do, don't start making rules for pregnancy. That's too far and has led to some pretty bad flame wars.

Side Note: At one point, I actually programmed a game that had a Housewife with a magical pendant that did nothing and a Wooden Spoon as her main weapon. It was a rather interesting experiment in abandoning as many RPG cliches as I could.

[BardicDuelist]

If V was a girl, try telling V to go wash the dishes.

"I prepared explosive..."

Read the end of the graphic novel.

Spoiler

Show

Evey becomes V, so V is a girl.

[MartinHarper]

Since when had objective differences anything to do with the amount of stereotypes? How many objective differences are there IRL between different "races"?

Eh, I reckon objective differences form the starting point for most stereotypes, though they are often exaggerated or out-of-date.
* The stereotype about Jews being tight with money comes to us from Jewish moneylenders in the medieval period.
* The stereotype of women buying lots of shoes arises because women spend more on shoes than men.
(apologies if either of these are untrue - I'm not intending to encourage prejudice)

We've talked about racial prejudice, and how it'd crowd out sexism in a D&D world. Another prejudice that will reduce the space for sexism is religious prejudice. Religious differences are much bigger in D&D, and that's going to make sexual differences in priorities seem minor.

[Dark Knight Renee]

Although both of the main settings I play in are pretty light on sexism generally, it's interesting to spice things up occasionally by including it. While I do not dispute that it's a serious, real world problem and that some people are uncomfortable dealing with it (or just don't find it to be their cup of tea), I usually encounter no problem with it in gaming so long as it isn't OOC or too restrictive. Racism, too, even among humans in multi-species fantasy worlds, but especially between species. Overly haughty and superior elves; brutish and evil orcs; shifty and thieving halflings; annoying and silly gnomes... all racist stereotypes that characters in my FR game have had to deal with, sometimes within the party itself.

I consider ignoring the presence of sexism to be missing out on perfectly good roleplaying experiences. I do lots of crossover games, and in some places there will be no sexism present at all (these are almost exclusively sci-fi settings, however), while in other places, we'll have difficulty with sexism being a major issue and either a driving force of the plot or an obstacle that must be overcome. Either extreme can bring sexism to the table, since the lack of sexism is odd to some characters. Usually there's at least a little bit on the side, much like in real life. When it comes up, it can be either seriously or humorous (though the characters themselves usually don't think so).

For example, many (1/4 maybe?) of the PCs in these crossover games are men who come from settings where some level of sexism towards women exists. The mindset often manages to survive for quite a while even when the crossover environment means spending vast amounts of time in places where gender differences are moot. The "protect the helpless womenfolk" mentality is remarkably prevalent still even in mixed-gender "adventuring parties", and inexperienced characters are often treated quite differently due to their gender, with females being protected more and assumed to be weaker or at least more fragile. A handful of characters have, instead, determined that females are especially lethal and competent. Even among characters native to mostly non-racist settings, some level of sexism along these lines is still expected.

On the other hand, in one memorable game we had a male character from a society which practiced sexism and female warriors were either exceptionally rare or non-existence, alongside a warrior woman from an extremely sexist tribe in which only women were warriors, honor was vitally important, and other quirks and taboos I can't recall (except that deer were sacred, unfortunate when the party was hunting for food). And another character was a woman from a setting where sexism was basically non-existent and people were rather open-minded, so that the other two both looked extremely backwards culturally. She also wore tight pants and was not particularly modest, which bugged the guy. That was a fun game, too bad it died due to plot issues.

On an even more comic note, I have this one recurring villain who has the notion in his head that women (and halflings, and children) are helpless and/or harmless. He's also been remarkably slow to adjust his attitude after being pwned by women (and halflings, and even children) far more often than by anyone else. He is, however, an idiot and something of a stooge.

Another game, set in a world where sexism is rampant, one of the main characters is a female knight; favored and respected by the king of her land, but largely scorned otherwise, both within her nation and outside of it. The game begun, however, with her rescuing a prince from the tallest tower of a castle guarded by a dragon. Most of the sexism in that game is more serious, however: the knight deals with scorn wherever she goes, and another female character pretends to be a man to avoid the same reactions.

Full agreement on the rest of your post. There are some lines, even ruthless me wouldn't cross:

- Making other players uncomfortable
- Isolating players from the rest of the party
- Treating players differently because of their gender (IC or OOC)
- Limiting their character choices because of their gender
- Limiting the use of their abilities because of their gender
- Give one player a significant advantage over another because of their gender
- any other limits decreed by common sense.

And to that, I totally have to agree. If I ever ran into those things in a game (temporary plot/setting incidents aside), I would be quite annoyed - at best.

[Eldritch_Ent]

I agree that it's easy to overdo things, but used properly sexism can be a great tool for making plot hooks, and can make players of female characters feel good about changing things. It's best used if you never outright say it's sexism, but rather you have the occasional NPC snub the female character(s) and let the players draw their own conclusions. (Or the same happen for your Half-Orcs and Tieflings.)

Really the only situation that calls for you outright stating that the NPC is reacting poorly to someone due to their age/race/gender, is if it's a Ranger who has that group as their favored enemy or if you want the female players to REALLY hate that character.

[Draz74]

there are lots of female adventurers and soldiers, and they can excel at whatever they want to and be just as strong as the men, and they have a healthy social life and a well-adjusted personality as well, and they're never tied down to taking care of a home or family, and they do all this adventuring and slaying demons while still looking fabulous, maintaining a perfect figure, and never getting a tangle in their waist-length hair.

On Thud and Blunder seems relevant.

[Charles Phipps]

I do admit, there's one setting that overt Chauvinism in my games triumphs and thats Hyborea. I can't really imagine doing a Conan game that wasn't littered with ridiculous machismo male-fantasy elements that make a Duke Nukem game look like the Lifetime Channel.

[Raistlin1040]

Personally, I see it as a neccessary evil in my campaigns. There's always IC racism. People don't like half-orcs because they are half orc. I once played an elf in an all-human party adventuring in a human town. I was subjected to severe elf racism. My name, my ears, my way of speaking, my magic, all of it was mocked. But, you have to take it in good humor and show them later.

If there's racism in the game (And there will be, to some extent) then showing sexism isn't all that bad. Womanizing bards and strict commanders for example. Both might not have entirely neutral feelings towards women warriors. And as long as the player doesn't take it as a personal attack (Which brings up the question of why you'd want a player like that playing with you) it's really not that bad. It could lead to interesting dialogue, or force a player to roleplay better. I don't really have a problem with it when I DM.

[SpiderKoopa]

Funny, I just remembered I'm playing in a campaign where the npc party fighter (soloing this campaign for now, wizard of course) is very sexist, especially to his younger ('roung my character's age) daughter. Says she won't be able to do anything because she's a woman. Well... my character is teaching her magic behind the father's back. I can't wait to see the look on his face when she casts her first fireball. Heheheh.