Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

[Witty Username]

Its a matter of mental distance.

conquest and fighting and whatnot, especially the kind that fantasy and such engage in are distant issues that most people today have never experienced. they're abstract to us in a sense.

but marginalization and lacking equality are more personal. therefore we care more about it because it hits closer to home.

TV tropes link
Would this be a fair assessment of what your getting at?

[Lord Raziere]

TV tropes link
Would this be a fair assessment of what your getting at?

Yes, but I wouldn't put it that the way the trope names it self. I'd name for it more on the lines of being a skewed perspective or something.

but it is why you make sure the villain kicks a few puppies on the path of corpses they walk when telling a story: one of the reasons Joker is effective is because some of his evils are completely personal, Freeza is both a genocidal tyrant and an unpleasant person to know, there is a reason why many villains aren't good bosses who treat their employees well like the evil overlord list recommends. intersect the evils: make your genocidal villain also a racist against what they're genociding, when your villain with good publicity is not making a grandiose speech of lies to sway the public they're rotten to the core when speaking in secret. make them give a few speeches about despair to the heroes, try to break their will or do a sadistic choice.

because some people aren't going to care unless something more personal is involved to make them hate the guy. when a villain screws something up and you hate the choice they made, chances are its completely intentional to make sure you have that reaction. we may be drowning in snarky internet comedy these days pointing out certain story beats, but they work in the first place for a reason.

[Liquor Box]

Article by the aforementioned Judith Jesch.
https://norseandviking.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html

"Not so fast" article about the Birka grave -- which of course cites Jesch.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/have-we-finally-found-hard-evidence-for-viking-warrior-women/

More coverage of the general resistance to the idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/15/how-the-female-viking-warrior-was-written-out-of-history


I'll have some more examples later today, after I get some feedback from an expert in the field I know online.

Or maybe now.

In-depth coverage:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/viking-warrior-women-reassessing-birka-chamber-grave-bj581/7CC691F69FAE51DDE905D27E049FADCD

Someone who seems pretty determined to change the interpretation to match the conclusion:
https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/viking-warrior-women-an-archaeodeath-response-part-1/

Ummm, I'm not sure that those are examples of what we were talking about (other than Jesch who was already acknowledged) - none seem to be examples of people trying to explain away a woman warrior grave as anything other than a woman warrior

• The first is the Jesch article
• The second quotes the Jesch article, but concluded it probably was a woman - although it did say that the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests viking warrior women is the exception not the rule (indeed, the conclusion is that "it is the exception that proves the rule")
• The third unambiguously asserts that it was indeed a woman
• The fourth is from the same researcher who originally published the research showing the skeleton to be female - who restates their position that it was a female warrior
• The fifth seems to take the opposite position from what you do. It suggests that people are overeager to find ways to interpret data to suggest that women were warriors. But it is explicitly not saying that the skeleton question was not a female warrior.

Other than Jesch none of those seem to be people trying to come up with strained interpretations explaining away the skeletal remains as something other than a female warrior. I suspect you are right that there are a few outliers pushing alternative interpretations (as there often are when interpreting arcealogical evidence) - but I think those are outliers (and I wont speculate whether they are motivated by gender bias). I do think it is pretty widely accepted that some (only a few to be fair) female were warriors in viking society - that doesn't even rely on archaeological evidence, its is clear from the contemporaneous literature (the Viking sagas etc).

[Max_Killjoy]

Ummm, I'm not sure that those are examples of what we were talking about (other than Jesch who was already acknowledged) - none seem to be examples of people trying to explain away a woman warrior grave as anything other than a woman warrior

• The first is the Jesch article
• The second quotes the Jesch article, but concluded it probably was a woman - although it did say that the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests viking warrior women is the exception not the rule (indeed, the conclusion is that "it is the exception that proves the rule")
• The third unambiguously asserts that it was indeed a woman
• The fourth is from the same researcher who originally published the research showing the skeleton to be female - who restates their position that it was a female warrior
• The fifth seems to take the opposite position from what you do. It suggests that people are overeager to find ways to interpret data to suggest that women were warriors. But it is explicitly not saying that the skeleton question was not a female warrior.

Other than Jesch none of those seem to be people trying to come up with strained interpretations explaining away the skeletal remains as something other than a female warrior. I suspect you are right that there are a few outliers pushing alternative interpretations (as there often are when interpreting arcealogical evidence) - but I think those are outliers (and I wont speculate whether they are motivated by gender bias). I do think it is pretty widely accepted that some (only a few to be fair) female were warriors in viking society - that doesn't even rely on archaeological evidence, its is clear from the contemporaneous literature (the Viking sagas etc).

They give examples of other people trying to explain the data away.

One -- yes, the aforementioned Jesch article.
Two -- "well OK sure you found one example, but of course it's a huge exception and it was super rare".
Third -- read beyond the conclusion, besides being literally titled "How the female Viking warrior was written out of history" it actually gets into the assumptions about "women's roles" that some in the field cling to.
Fourth -- author goes into all the assumptions that were made about the grave's occupant because of the grave goods -- the same assumptions that would later be questioned by some in the field in order to avoid the idea of a female warrior and commander.
Fifth -- it's a 12 article series, keep reading. It is overall skeptical about the straightfoward and plain reading of the grave's occupant and contents. At one point the author actually claims "well Insular and Scandinavian archaeologists broadly have discarded a straightforward link between grave goods and social roles" as an attempt to counter the fact that the Birka grave was never interpreted as a non-warrior grave until after the original 2017 article detailing the evidence that the occupant was female. (He's wrong both about how broadly archaeologists have discarded that link, and implies a falsehood about when those who have discarded it did so, trying to make it seem that they had already done so before the 2017 article.)


The simple fact is, the Birka grave is a perfect example of how the presence of weapons and other items in the grave, lead to an assumption that the occupant was male. When it was proven that the occupant was female, some archaeologists, historians, etc, were so attached to the their assumptions about male vs female roles that instead of questioning them, they changed the way their interpret evidence to social status instead of social role.

I'm fine at this point with the evidence provided for that course of events, I'm not going to waste more time demonstrating that what happened, happened.

[Segev]

When it was proven that the occupant was female, some archaeologists, historians, etc, were so attached to the their assumptions about male vs female roles that instead of questioning them, they changed the way their interpret evidence to social status instead of social role.

You say this as if it were some sort of blind, stupid, foolish prejudice, rather than something backed by prior evidence from other known aspects of the culture. I'm leery of crossing lines on forum rules, so while I think what I wrote stayed far from politics, this whole subject is fraught enough that I'm going to try to be shorter and pithier here.

People holding to a theory that is supported by a body of evidence rather than rejecting it in favor of a theory that is contradicted by that same body of evidence are not "attached to...assumptions" in an unreasonable fashion. People who find one exception to a rule and demand that the prior conclusions be thrown out in favor of their own new conclusions, then try to force old evidence to fit their conclusions, are just as guilty of bad logic as you apparently are accusing archeologists who don't immediately accept the new conclusions of being.

(I could be wrong about your accusation, but it certainly seems to be there by my parsing of what you wrote.)

[OldTrees1]

People holding to a theory that is supported by a body of evidence rather than rejecting it in favor of a theory that is contradicted by that same body of evidence are not "attached to...assumptions" in an unreasonable fashion. People who find one exception to a rule and demand that the prior conclusions be thrown out in favor of their own new conclusions, then try to force old evidence to fit their conclusions, are just as guilty of bad logic as you apparently are accusing archeologists who don't immediately accept the new conclusions of being.

One of the downsides of different areas of science is some areas have better falsification tests than others do.

Imagine if I see 100 black crows and thus theorize all crows are black. Then if I see a white crow I might initially disbelieve it is a white crow. However some careful study would identify that white bird was a crow and thus falsify my theory with only that single counter example.

However it is rare for archeology (making guess about past events based on leftover remains) to have any falsification test nearly that clear. So instead they find leftover remains that suggest an increased probability that there once was a counter example to the current theory. Once that probability is high enough, then the theory should be overturned.

Although that does not mean people change gears at the rational point. Theories are sticky, especially when the only falsification tests are so limited. In those cases I theorize that erroneous theories are held onto longer past the rational point than if the falsification test was crystal clear.

[Segev]

One of the downsides of different areas of science is some areas have better falsification tests than others do.

Imagine if I see 100 black crows and thus theorize all crows are black. Then if I see a white crow I might initially disbelieve it is a white crow. However some careful study would identify that white bird was a crow and thus falsify my theory with only that single counter example.

However it is rare for archeology (making guess about past events based on leftover remains) to have any falsification test nearly that clear. So instead they find leftover remains that suggest an increased probability that there once was a counter example to the current theory. Once that probability is high enough, then the theory should be overturned.

Although that does not mean people change gears at the rational point. Theories are sticky, especially when the only falsification tests are so limited. In those cases I theorize that erroneous theories are held onto longer past the rational point than if the falsification test was crystal clear.

While possible, I also think that ... shall we say pressure from wanting to be popular, politically correct, or funded by agenda-driven groups? ... is a significant factor in pushing for conclusions to be drawn from scant evidence as if it were hard proof.

Which is to say: I don't think that it's so much that people won't switch past the rational point (though there obviously will be some for whom that's true), and more that the "rational point" - when you have so little to work with - is a lot fuzzier and may not yet have been reached.

[Max_Killjoy]

You say this as if it were some sort of blind, stupid, foolish prejudice, rather than something backed by prior evidence from other known aspects of the culture. I'm leery of crossing lines on forum rules, so while I think what I wrote stayed far from politics, this whole subject is fraught enough that I'm going to try to be shorter and pithier here.

People holding to a theory that is supported by a body of evidence rather than rejecting it in favor of a theory that is contradicted by that same body of evidence are not "attached to...assumptions" in an unreasonable fashion. People who find one exception to a rule and demand that the prior conclusions be thrown out in favor of their own new conclusions, then try to force old evidence to fit their conclusions, are just as guilty of bad logic as you apparently are accusing archeologists who don't immediately accept the new conclusions of being.

(I could be wrong about your accusation, but it certainly seems to be there by my parsing of what you wrote.)

I will put it another way.

There was an assumed conclusion based on only part of the evidence, that matched a long-standing model.

When examination of the full evidence revealed that the model may have been at least incomplete (if not wrong), and indicated that at least some exceptions existed... some in the field were willing to revise the model to accommodate the new evidence and acknowledge the existence of at least a few exceptions... and some in the field instead discarded the assumed conclusion in order to make the new evidence fit their existing model and disregard any possible exceptions to that model.