I was wondering what folks think of the idea of glossing over things like sexism in D&D/Pathfinder. I like a certain amount of realism in my games and so sexism will be something that a female warrior may run into. Perhaps an NPC male may assume that the female warrior doesn't really know how to use a sword and the player of that character may have to show him exactly what she can do to prove him wrong. It's a role-playing opportunity imo. In real life males have a tendency to instinctively want to protect women... I would imagine this instinct exists in a high fantasy setting as well, and so you would have men that don't like the idea of women putting themselves in danger. Is it wrong to have sexist attitudes in an RPG? Should we pretend the fantasy societies in Golarian are so socially enlightened that things like sexism and racism don't exist just to avoid potentially offending our female gamers? It's a very touchy subject, believe me. My wife thinks we shouldn't ignore it... she enjoys RPing in situations where sexism may be present. It's a challenge to be overcome in her opinion. Other women I've talked to think the opposite, that they have to deal with sexism in real life, so why should they have to encounter it in a role-playing-game, something they play to temporarily escape from real life?
Is Pathfinder/D&D a "lighter" form of RPG where such things don't necessarily need to be taken into account as opposed to say a World of Darkness game that's more RP intensive? If that's the case should we then take out such things as Drow society where sexism against men is taken to the extreme? If sexism against women is glossed over, sexism against men should be glossed over as well, right? I'd like to know what some of the women gamers on these boards think as well as the men.
Personally, I use sexism, as well as other forms of discrimination in my games. I try to create a gritty world where individual NPCs, groups and countries have their own specific view on their place in the world. Thats one of the things I really like about Golarion and Paizo, they don't cut that material out of their books. Its part of the setting and I feel it should be.
Some people will disagree with me, some vehemently. That is how my wife and I like our games to be though. I also have had amazonian societies in my games have a completely reversed idea, the Drow matriarchy, northern Viking sorts where a woman isn't supposed to fight...etc. All these elements lend realism and depth to the campaign world when everything isn't the same everywhere. I also have played up how egalitarian some areas of the settings as well.
|
Different gamers look at their game-time differently -- many just want to get away from real life for a while -- so real life suckiness ain't so fun for them.
Some, like you and I, enjoy putting some of this realism in our games.
I'd say be careful -- know your Players.
But it's nothing for me to create an NPC I want my Players to hate so I make him (Balabar Smenk, for example) sexist or racist or a child molester or a republican or a nazi.
If you haven't made an NPC, or "crowd of citizens" like this yet, make it obvious they're bad guys. Make sure your "sheep-lovin'" NPC is juxtaposed with an NPC that is pretty disturbed by her empathy with sheep.
And be careful -- in the mid 90s I gamed with someone who, while not grossly religilous, still didn't like the idea of playing with devils and demons. So we didn't play with Baatezu and Tanar'ri.
|
I was wondering what folks think of the idea of glossing over things like sexism in D&D/Pathfinder.
If I'm gaming with players who are sensitive to issues of gender, race, politics, religion, physical or mental handicaps, cruely to animals, etc. I'll avoid presenting any material that's 'in their face,' so to speak. In the absence of players with such issues, I really don't think about it.
I bring to the table a knee-jerk dislike of the use of rape in-story, and the people I game with either know about that dislike, or don't appear interested in dealing with that in-game anyway.
Everybody has their windmills. It's just good taste to avoid filling a game session with things that piss off your friends.
But it's not Paizo's job to worry about what sets me, or anyone else, off, when they are writing their setting, IMO. It's the GM's job to think, "I'm gaming with Rob, who is in a wheelchair, and Ian, whose aunt is retarded, I think I'll avoid setting the campaign in Nidal, where people who are considered physically or mentally unfit are hauled away and executed..." or come to the conclusion that, "Ian might not appreciate my DC/Wildstorm Universe crossover game involving Dr. Arthur Light and the rape camps of Sliding Albion..."
I like realism, but it is also important to make sure that ladies have opportunities in RPGs. For example, in my homebrew, the Kosaka don't let women use weapons, unless they have been specifically blessed to be able to use weapons, in which case they are "nakka" and expected to carry weapons.
Thus, when a woman played a Kosaka female fighter in my game, she knew that she had a status that most women from her tribe did not have.
The majority culture in my campaign though, the Dormacs, have long practiced equality between the sexes, and there the culture has a strong tradition of strong matriarchs telling guys what to do. Girls are trained to fight as a matter of course, and carry rune-carved weapons, although they typically do not go out to fight wars or adventure, so they fight like Commoners instead of like Fighters.
Women have asked me if there were cultural restrictions on what women could do, and they almost seemed disappointed when I said there weren't, although I think the one woman liked the idea that her PC had superior status to most women in her tribe.
|
|
I like realism, but it is also important to make sure that ladies have opportunities in RPGs. For example, in my homebrew, the Kosaka don't let women use weapons, unless they have been specifically blessed to be able to use weapons, in which case they are "nakka" and expected to carry weapons.
That sort of thing is fairly common in various cultures around the world. Women aren't supposed to do X, except for some women, who 'choose a man's role' and are then treated like men for most purposes. Shamen in some native american tribes went the other way, being born men, but considered to be 'women' as far as status and role, dress and behavior, even to the extreme point of sometimes being symbolically married to the (also male) chief, although said chief generally had a 'real wife' as well and such relationships weren't assumed to be sexual.
It's a fun way to add a little gender versatility to an otherwise gender stereotyped culture, to have a woman warrior who acts like a man, because, by the standards of her people, she has taken on a male role and is to be treated as a man, and vice-versa for that physically male tribal spellcaster, who is regarded by his tribe as having taken on a 'woman's role' of healer, advisor, communer-with-spirits, etc. The culture continues to have sexist gender-role stereotypes of 'men should do X, women should do Y', but the physical gender of any given individual doesn't necessarily conform to the stereotype...
The problem is "realism" in the game world rarely corresponds with "realism" in the Real World. Female warriors are just as capable as male warriors in the game world, thus sexism showing up suggesting otherwise wouldn't be "realistic". I would suggest looking at how superheroes treat one another. Female superheroes are just as likely to be at least as tough as a male hero as another male hero would be. You rarely see female superheroes treated as "a poor fragile porcelain doll". Does that stop sexism, no.
I was just rereading my comic novel of the original Secret Wars. The Absorbing Man kept calling Titania, "Legs". People kept calling Volcania a "blotted cow". But nobody acted like they couldn't hold their own in a fight.
The problem is "realism" in the game world rarely corresponds with "realism" in the Real World. Female warriors are just as capable as male warriors in the game world, thus sexism showing up suggesting otherwise wouldn't be "realistic".
I'm not talking about capability... I'm talking about the presence or absence of gender roles in the D&D/PF setting. Whether or not the female warrior can kick your sorry butt into next week is irrelevant. It's whether the perception of that society is that the woman shouldn't be taking the "man's role" as it were by going out and putting herself in danger. Do gender roles exist in your games? If not, why? If so, would NPCs treat women warriors differently than they would a man? If so, is a female gamer within her rights to be offended out of game? Should that kind of sexism be avoided like the plague in any RPG? Just D&D/PF? If just D&D/PF, why? What makes the high fantasy setting so different?
A lot depends on the culture, and on the roles within it. A lot of modern perception of sexism in ancient cultures (especially the European medieval period which serves as a 'standard backdrop' to many games) comes through the romanticised Victorian sensibilities, where women were helpless and didn't exist from the neck down.
The damsel in distress was pretty much a myth; while you wouldn't find a woman in plate armour, many knew their way around a sword and buckler (there was at least one defensive style developed especially for women) and a bow. Women hunted with bows in that period, and a woman with a bow in a castle is as effective at picking off attackers as a man, or indeed of blocking a narrow passageway until the men-at-arms can repel an attack.
Certainly there was still sexism, but it was not as prevalent or as strong as you might think. That said, few fantasy games represent the sexism you would have found. It's a matter of flavour that the game designers would prefer to leave to the individual groups to decide, for fear of offending anyone.
That said, few fantasy games represent the sexism you would have found. It's a matter of flavour that the game designers would prefer to leave to the individual groups to decide, for fear of offending anyone.
With the notable exception of the Drow.
A lot depends on the culture, and on the roles within it. A lot of modern perception of sexism in ancient cultures (especially the European medieval period which serves as a 'standard backdrop' to many games) comes through the romanticised Victorian sensibilities, where women were helpless and didn't exist from the neck down.
The damsel in distress was pretty much a myth; while you wouldn't find a woman in plate armour, many knew their way around a sword and buckler (there was at least one defensive style developed especially for women) and a bow. Women hunted with bows in that period, and a woman with a bow in a castle is as effective at picking off attackers as a man, or indeed of blocking a narrow passageway until the men-at-arms can repel an attack.
Certainly there was still sexism, but it was not as prevalent or as strong as you might think. That said, few fantasy games represent the sexism you would have found. It's a matter of flavour that the game designers would prefer to leave to the individual groups to decide, for fear of offending anyone.
If I ever pick up my Audor game again, I'll point out that many of the archers on the castle walls and guards in the castle are women, while most of the people going out to fight the battles are men.
|
I was wondering what folks think of the idea of glossing over things like sexism in D&D/Pathfinder. .
To be honest, and not to offend you, I am quite sick of the sexist/sexism threads. There were quite a few on EN World.
To be short : there is no easy answer to this. It depends on the maturity of your players.
Personally, I would assume that sexism is a problem to be overcome, much like it was IRL in the middle ages and even later : strong women types could rule (E.g. Eleanor of Aquitaine), but they had to fight against the male dominated establishment.
It can be done, it IS rewarding ... it's just not for everybody.
Pennies for your thoughts and best regards
I don't see a reason to build it into the most basic setting assumptions. Much like racism or speciesism, such things are much easier to add then to remove. While there are cases of all three in various forms (mostly amoung evil cultures like goblins or drow) it really doesn't need to be included as a 'challenge' to the players.
I could see where a highly specialized RPG could included sexism as a default, however I don't see it getting many players.
|
|
Certainly there was still sexism, but it was not as prevalent or as strong as you might think. That said, few fantasy games represent the sexism you would have found.
Indeed : you would have sexism by law, especialy in land ownership / inheritances ...
But hey, as long as you killed the bad guy/offender/enemy of the state ... nobody would think twice if you were a woman ...
To be honest, and not to offend you, I am quite sick of the sexist/sexism threads. There were quite a few on EN World.
That's cool. The subject is new to me, though... hence why I started the thread. No worries, no offense taken.
So what makes D&D different than other RPGs? I have a female gamer friend who has no problem with sexism in the World of Darkness or any game even slightly based off the real world, but is highly offended by the idea of it existing at all in a D&D game. That makes absolutely no sense to me. RPGs are RPGs imo.
Many female gamers I have known are adverse to the idea of women being discriminated against in game, but would have no problem with gaming in a setting where men are discriminated against, such as with the Drow. I'm not personally offended by the presence of the Drow, but I'll bet if a guy gamer complained about it in a sexism context he'd get laughed at... it's only a game after all.
|
|
I don't think it's a WoD/D&D thing. I think it's a campaign specific thing. In the 'Real World' setting of WoD, there IS sexism. It's based on our world, which has it, thus it is setting specific.
D&D has no basis to include sexism. It's not our world or based on it. That I think is the issue with your female friend.
And the laughter at sexism against men is a problem in our society. People don't think it can happen because the 'norm' is against women. Thus any man saying 'I was discriminated against because of my gender' is looked at in amusement.
|
My theory is that people playing fantasy RPG often seek a full "escape" from The Real World - moving away from injustice, inequity and intolerance into a perfect world where white is white, black is black, there are good guys and bad guys, and all this crap around us is gone.
That's why some dislike the gritty elements of Golarion - some come expecting yet another "Princess Bride/Willow" optimistic world and suddenly they bump into all the dirty, nasty stuff Golarion has to offer.
Actually the same problem happens in Warhammer FRP (which is far more popular in Europe, so you might not hear of that). Folks expect a tolkien-esque fantasy world and are suddenly thrust into a dystopian, rotten, bleak reflection of XVI-century Germany.
WoD, on the other hand, reflects the modern world, so it's easier to accept all the Bad Things there.
The problem is "realism" in the game world rarely corresponds with "realism" in the Real World. Female warriors are just as capable as male warriors in the game world, thus sexism showing up suggesting otherwise wouldn't be "realistic".I'm not talking about capability... I'm talking about the presence or absence of gender roles in the D&D/PF setting. Whether or not the female warrior can kick your sorry butt into next week is irrelevant.
I don't think it is. In the RW, statistically speaking women are weaker than men. Take a random man and a random woman and face them off against one another, more times than not, the man is going to win. This fact influences the relationships between gender roles in the RW. Women are treat as weaker, because statistically they are. In a setting where this basic issue is absent, then different effects to gender role would evolve. To assume gender roles would develop the same when the basis for those roles has changed is not approaching the issue logically.
Do gender roles exist in your games?
There are some, mostly with non-standard races.
If not, why? If so, would NPCs treat women warriors differently than they would a man?
Nah, there would be other ways, but female warrior vs. male warrior, not really an issue.
If so, is a female gamer within her rights to be offended out of game?
Of course. If I can't properly address her concern, she definitely shouldn't waste her valuable time gaming with me, or I with her.
Should that kind of sexism be avoided like the plague in any RPG? Just D&D/PF? If just D&D/PF, why? What makes the high fantasy setting so different?
As I mentioned above, when the fundamentals have changed, then the social dynamics must also change. A better question is about "sexism" when it comes character creation. Should there be physical and/or mental difference between males and females? If there would, then what would be the "natural" outgrowth of these differences for the society(ies).
I don't think it's a WoD/D&D thing. I think it's a campaign specific thing. In the 'Real World' setting of WoD, there IS sexism. It's based on our world, which has it, thus it is setting specific.
D&D has no basis to include sexism. It's not our world or based on it. That I think is the issue with your female friend.
But as well, there is no reason to exclude it. Men are men, regardless of whether they're working a modern construction job or working as a barkeep at the Prancing Pony. Why is there this fantasy world where everyone is living without gender bias in a perfectly socially enlightened way? And why if there is no gender bias is there still racial bias? Humans just don't work that way. Elves and Dwarves hate each other but have no kind of gender bias at all? There needs to be a reason... at least for me. I can't just gloss over something that makes no sense in the name of not offending someone out of game. I have to have an in game explanation for -everything-... and I know for a fact that I'm not alone in that thinking.
This is all extremely interesting and you have all given me a lot to think about... but neither am I ready to fully abandon my preference for "realism" in all RPGs. This has been a great thread. Thanks to all who've replied. :-)
|
The problem is "realism" in the game world rarely corresponds with "realism" in the Real World. Female warriors are just as capable as male warriors in the game world, thus sexism showing up suggesting otherwise wouldn't be "realistic".I'm not talking about capability... I'm talking about the presence or absence of gender roles in the D&D/PF setting. Whether or not the female warrior can kick your sorry butt into next week is irrelevant. It's whether the perception of that society is that the woman shouldn't be taking the "man's role" as it were by going out and putting herself in danger. Do gender roles exist in your games? If not, why? If so, would NPCs treat women warriors differently than they would a man? If so, is a female gamer within her rights to be offended out of game? Should that kind of sexism be avoided like the plague in any RPG? Just D&D/PF? If just D&D/PF, why? What makes the high fantasy setting so different?
I am a perfectionist with my campaign worlds. I try to create cultures in their entirety, with the smallest of societal details being rationally considered. If I were a faster writer, I'd likely have tried getting published years ago. What does this have to do with your questions? Well, if I removed racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, prostitution, and other things from my game cultures, I'm left with the Epcot World Parade or Disney's 'Its a Small World' ride as a campaign world.
A well designed world should have cultures inspired and influenced by the real world, but not a mirror image of those cultures. I strive for dichotomies that challenge people's real world pre-conceptions and force them to analyze their prejudices in a safe gaming environment.
For example, my world features a LG goddess of fertility, community, and diplomacy. She started as a halfling godess worshipped in farming communities and was adopted by the human nomads who later settled in the area. Sounds standard so far, right? Well, the humans interpreted the religion differently than their halfling neighbors, and instead of considering the fertility of their fields and livestock, they focused on human fertility. That's right, in this society, the LG priestesses of this goddess engage in sacred prostitution. Sex is considered a gift to the goddess, and the money charged goes to pay for orphanages and needed civil institutions & charity. Its also a positive situation for the citizens, as any pregnancy that results from these unions is considered a gift of the goddess. These children go on to be trained as the priests, paladins, and civil servants of the society. Its a stable system, based off of LG ethos. The obvious kicker is being forced to examine the question "Is prostitution inherently evil? Can a society exist where its practice is actually 'good'?" Placing this controversial issue into their culture took a humdrum society and made it very memorable for my pcs.
Long story short, uncomfortable issues like sexism make a game world real. They can force people to examine their prejudices, and perhaps change their world view. Conversely, they also allow people to reaffirm their beliefs and get some chances to work out their frustrations in a way that feels good, but won't get them arrested.
|
|
Like I said at first, it's hard for me to accept widespread sexism when you have high priestesses and matriarchies in evidence all around. Sure, there will be some men that think that way, but without the male domination of society that our world has, it should not be the default way of thinking. There are plenty of churches led by honest-to-godess women who would take a very poor view to anyone espousing such a demonstrably idiotic view.
I'm not talking about capability... I'm talking about the presence or absence of gender roles in the D&D/PF setting. Whether or not the female warrior can kick your sorry butt into next week is irrelevant.I don't think it is. In the RW, statistically speaking women are weaker than men. Take a random man and a random woman and face them off against one another, more times than not, the man is going to win. This fact influences the relationships between gender roles in the RW. Women are treat as weaker, because statistically they are. In a setting where this basic issue is absent, then different effects to gender role would evolve. To assume gender roles would develop the same when the basis for those roles has changed is not approaching the issue logically.
Well take a look at 1st ed D&D. As I recall, women characters took a negative to Strength, which realistically makes sense and I would entertain doing that for Pathfinder, but not without giving them something in return, like an extra skill point per level or +2 to Dexterity. Likewise, a female character with a natural Strength of 16 or even 18 is not going to look like a bikini model in my games anymore than a male with Strength that high will look like a skinny scholar.
|
|
Yah, you know, the no-bias angle comes from the fact that PCs are in the first place exceptional people, far out of the norm of their society.
In today's world, especially in the tolerant USA, a few oddballs are not going to raise to much eyebrows as long as they keep to themselves.
However, in Europe in my grandfather's time, someone dressed a bit strangely who stole an orange could get a 20 years sentence. Or worse.
Conformism, respect for law/custom/tradition was WAAAAYYYYYY more stifling than we can ever know in today's comfy world.
Exceptions were tolerated. The norm was pretty bleak.
|
|
So what makes D&D different than other RPGs? I have a female gamer friend who has no problem with sexism in the World of Darkness or any game even slightly based off the real world, but is highly offended by the idea of it existing at all in a D&D game. That makes absolutely no sense to me. RPGs are RPGs imo.Well, WoD is more Emo than D&D, and what's more Emo than having The Man keep you down?
Quick, somebody call Black Dynamite ... I mean ... Dark Dynamite !
|
|
Well take a look at 1st ed D&D. As I recall, women characters took a negative to Strength, which realistically makes sense and I would entertain doing that for Pathfinder, but not without giving them something in return, like an extra skill point per level or +2 to Dexterity. .
+ 2 CON : you have to survive childbirth in a world without condoms .... Or nursery teams.
|
|
Quick, somebody call Black Dynamite ... I mean ... Dark Dynamite !So what makes D&D different than other RPGs? I have a female gamer friend who has no problem with sexism in the World of Darkness or any game even slightly based off the real world, but is highly offended by the idea of it existing at all in a D&D game. That makes absolutely no sense to me. RPGs are RPGs imo.Well, WoD is more Emo than D&D, and what's more Emo than having The Man keep you down?
I just saw that movie last night. Utterly brilliant!
Take a random man and a random woman and face them off against one another, more times than not, the man is going to win.Not if they're facing off with sniper rifles. The average woman has better hand-eye coordination than the average man.
That's actually where my +2 to Dex for women would come in...
|
|
So women make better sharpshooters? You sexist. :)
Better fighter pilots, too. Russian tests concluded that something about female physiology allows them to endure higher G-forces without passing out than males, allowing them to perform maneuvers that would leave a man unconscious.
Russian military men being no more thrilled with the idea of female fighter pilots than you'd expect, nothing ever came of this.
US research also determined that, due to some properties of the sun and the upper atmosphere (which, frankly, I didn't follow), the best color for daytime operating 'stealth' aircraft would be a delicate shade of rosy pink. Yeah, that didn't happen either...
The group just wants to get on with the story, kill some things, and take their stuff.
O.O Yikes. That is so not what an RPG is to me. The RP is a thousand percent more important than anything else imo. Otherwise, why not just play a game of Munchkin?
|
|
The group just wants to get on with the story, kill some things, and take their stuff.O.O Yikes. That is so not what an RPG is to me. The RP is a thousand percent more important than anything else imo. Otherwise, why not just play a game of Munchkin?
Different strokes. I prefer the RP myself (hence the multi-page backstories that my GM never reads), but the 'G' for Game is also important, and not everyone sits down at the table with the same basic assumptions.
Somewhere between playing a Role and playing a Game, is where 'RPG' comes together.
I think that the game system assumes that although there are some differences between men and women (with regard to strength, coordination and resilience), they are not significant in the grand scheme of things, as there are always exceptions to every rule.
But it's nothing for me to create an NPC I want my Players to hate so I make him (Balabar Smenk, for example) sexist or racist or a child molester or a republican or a nazi.
Heh. I like how you put all of these things into a single sentence. :)
I do play up sexism and rascism in my games, when appropriate, but usually when it's going in a different direction to the discrimination we find in our world. Folks rarely question a swordswoman, for instance, unless the society in question is intended to be "backward" in that way to make a specific point. Specific enemies, however, are often discriminatory in one way or another.
It was fun to really go a little crazy when the PCs (a party of mostly men, including a paladin of Hieronious [sp?] that thought pretty highly of himself) visited a house matriarch in a drow city. She would only speak with the lady of the party (a darkish divine caster), to the point of offering to her to "silence her male for her if she could or would not". After they made frenemies she also offered the use of her harem (all but the most "skilled" had had their tongues removed so they couldn't fill the air with their "prattle".)
This sort of thing is not for everyone, however, so YMMV.
M
edit: BTW, I often bring in some mild stereotypical themes from the real world into my fantasy games. The drow in question above had a pretty 1970s "blaxploitation" feel to them. I felt that was okay with my players and no slight was intended toward anyone in the real world...it was just a fun thing to do.
|
|
As for the main topic. Yes sexism can work in DnD like any game. As long as
1) Everyone is ok with it.
2) It is not over done. (Anything over done is bad/boring)
As for the side topic about women snipers and pilots. The US military tested these things as well. Women can in fact handle G's better than men. It mostly has to do with.
1) Women are shorter
2) Even at the same height women typically have smaller torso's(our legs are longer at the same height typically)
The reason this matters is because what happens in G's is the blood is unable to pump from the heart to the brain causing a black out. Women's hearts are closer distance wise to their brains so less travel, so they are able to keep blood flowing to the brain under more stress of G's.
Least that was the results given and why. I am paraphrasing here, my military time is long past and this is from memory.
As for snipers it is actually untrue and no one knows why, for sure though there is theories.
1) 800 meters or less women on average do better than men.
2) 800-1200 meters men or women are roughly equal.
3) Beyond 1200 meters women dramatically drop in accuracy.
While men gradually get worse with range. They as far as I know never figured out what that was true. The theories I remember floated about at the time.
1) Men have better long range sight. While true it is a moot point with a scope.
2) Women have wider hips. Yeah I didn't get that either.
3) Not strong enough to keep the heavy sniper rifles steady. Very unlikely since the rifle is often proped up anyways.
4) Women have breasts. Which kinda makes sense. For long range shooting you are laying on your stomach and the slightest move throws the shot off. Men lay on muscle over bone which is a fairly steady base. Women lay on their breasts which are made of fat cells. As anyone knows that has felt one, they have a lot more give to them than muscle.
To me the 4th one makes the most sense.
Anyways just thought I would share.
1. First and foremost, I feel the priority is not to alienate players. If fictional cultural oppression of any kind (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) can be represented narratively in a mature, sensible manner and does not start fights around the game table, and it makes sense for the campaign you are running, then fine.
But I always remember that for me and for most of the people I play with, RPGs are escapism, the way in which we vent our frustrations and have quite a bit of fun along the way. If in-game oppression ends up making a player, any player, feel uncomfortable or stressed out, then it's just not worth it. While a GM may put a lot of work into his or her campaign setting and will certainly want to try to preserve that work--in my personal opinion, a real person's feelings and a player's having a good time are infinitely more important than the setting of a pretendy funtime game (however intensely written the pretendy funtime game setting is). Of course, ideally there is plenty of room for communication and compromise before this ever becomes an issue.
And I anticipate someone will ask: "But it's a pretendy funtime game, why should someone take it personally?"
Because if the pretendy funtime game presents something that a player has to deal with in real life that they find unpleasant, then they will have trouble pretending or having funtimes. And again, I personally consider making the game FUN for EVERYONE most important.
2. I think if sexism--or again, any other form of cultural oppression--exists in the world, there needs to be good reason, and I don't consider "because people mistreated women in the olden days" not necessarily good enough (another poster upthread pointed out many women had strong roles in "the olden days" anyway, even if not always commonly). It needs to make sense within the context of the world. Women tend to be more oppressed in societies where child and maternal mortality is high--the "you must stay home and make babies" becomes a social priority when the baby-makers and the babies die off at a high rate. When those mortality rates go down, women start agitating--and earning--the right to do those crazy things like get educated and work because at that point, more educated and working people are more valuable to society than having someone stay at home pumping out babies that are now becoming a resource drain rather than a necessity for survival. And because it sucks to be treated like property, but that should go without saying, I hope.
And in most typical D&D/PF like fantasy worlds--you are talking about a world where a 1st level adept can help clean out a water supply or decontaminate food, and disease can be mitigated by relatively low level divine intervention. I imagine typical high fantasy worlds generally have a relatively high standard of living, which means it would be unlikely or unusual for women to be particularly oppressed (although they may be in particularly run down areas).
In an atypical world, one where magic is restricted or quality of life is a certain way, it might make more sense. Or if the gameworld is extremely closely based on a real life oppressive society from history (but I have rarely seen a D&D world based recognizably upon such a world), then sure. And then in this case, you make that clear to your players, and see #1.
3. Anecdotally, I have seen "sexism" in games where someone's cry was "But it's realistic!" and it was clear from the interpersonal communication going on that this was a rationalization where the sexist behavior was in fact intent upon antagonizing a female player. And I think probably that is why most campaign settings have done away with cultural oppression that a player might personally relate to strongly--because unfortunately, some gamers (rather, some people) are asshats and will use whatever excuse they can to be a jerk. If the rules or setting of the game provide that excuse, that just leads to tears and ruin, generally speaking.
Otherwise, see #1 and #2.