I've seen DMs try to do the "sexism is realism" thing, and it's really disturbing. It doesn't make the male characters (or players) feel better, and makes the female characters (and players) feel worse. I've seen some interesting roleplayers get kind of down in the dumps when playing in a Sexist DM's game. It just wasn't cool. Especially when the only tank is the female and she's like, "I'm just a woman, can't you big men folk save me?" And we're like, "But you're a paladin with mid-20s Str and Cha!!! And high teens everything else!!!"
Also, "sexism is realism" is wrong. There's a reason it's an -ism.
I've pretty much switched the games I run to a "Kushiel's Dart" base-line, where there is pretty much egalitarian meritocracy, rape is heresy, and even the evil folk wouldn't do it anyways.
It's an odd question to ask. It's even odder to be asking it here on the message board. If I were you, I'd ask your players what they think about it. Their opinion (and yours) is all that...
It's not so odd to want to ask a question that can possibly get people discussing something game related. I posted it here because I already know what my players think; they're divided. I want to know what you guys and gals think.
I've seen DMs try to do the "sexism is realism" thing, and it's really disturbing. It doesn't make the male characters (or players) feel better, and makes the female characters (and players) feel worse. I've seen some interesting roleplayers get kind of down in the dumps when playing in a Sexist DM's game. It just wasn't cool. Especially when the only tank is the female and she's like, "I'm just a woman, can't you big men folk save me?" And we're like, "But you're a paladin with mid-20s Str and Cha!!! And high teens everything else!!!"
Also, "sexism is realism" is wrong. There's a reason it's an -ism.
I've pretty much switched the games I run to a "Kushiel's Dart" base-line, where there is pretty much egalitarian meritocracy, rape is heresy, and even the evil folk wouldn't do it anyways.
That's fine, but where does it stop? What line do we draw as we try to make our games so PC so as to not possibly offend anyone? A player complains that the racism between elves and dwarves smacks of well, racism and so you take it out of your game. Then a guy player complains that if sexism toward females isn't ok, sexism toward males shouldn't be either and so the Drow as a race are eliminated from your setting. Someone objects to slavery existing in game, and bam, it's gone now too. Pretty soon every single thing that someone could potentially think of as -unfair- is gone from the game (an extreme example sure, but hey, it could happen) and it's gone from a dangerously diverse and gritty game to a world where no one would think badly about anyone else and elves, dwarves, orcs, men and women all live in perfect harmony. If it's not ok to put sexism into a D&D/Pathfinder game, why would it be ok to put any other unpleasant aspect of human society in to it?
Me? I -like- strife and conflict in my games. It makes for interesting roleplay in my opinion.
EDIT: As always, just my personal opinion... though I do want to point out my wife agrees with 100% of this post.
I have sexist, racist and other -isms to give the players things to interact with, from friend to foe. Without great evil, one cannot perceive great good. I also use such to reinforce the fantastic nature of my game. Several races are flawed or 'broken' in order to generate story lines and conflicts within the game.
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.
This caught me as the most interesting part of the post.
The truth of the matter is: Pathfinder is whatever sort of game you want it to be. Plain and simple. I can only speak for myself but I run games very 'adult'. By adult I mean the PCs face issues with topics like slavery, psychotic butchery, drug use, sex, violence and all manner of things from gory undead exploding on them (inflicting disease) to simple picnics out in the middle of sun drenched fields.
That's the sorta game they want, so I give it to them.
They don't want me to sugar coat things. If they walk into a brothel tracking down a Rogue guild member they don't want the G-rated version. When they defeat a zombie they don't want to hear "you strike it down" they want all the gory details involved with fighting a bloated, waterlogged corpse of a pirate right up to where it's disemboweled and sea water and entrails coat the PCs feet and leggings.
To them, that's high adventure: details. Sometimes it's gross, sometimes it's heroic.
Sexism is the same way, it in the details. There are strong women out there and there are weak ones, same with men. There are Amazon Kingdoms ruled powerful Priestesses, The Drow, obviously. Several Kingdoms have female rulers... In my campaign world, yes there are places where women are treated as second rate citizens, even adventurers, which makes for great RP sometimes. Then again I have places where the locals think a man is only good for breeding and place more value on their livestock than they would any male.
It's up to you and the sort of game you and your people are looking for. In the end there are no wrong answers as long as everyone you're playing with is happy with (or mature enough) to accept the choices you've made. Sexism is no different than dealing with slavery, drug use, or certain physical crimes (rape, abuse, murder) at the RP table: you as a GM and your players must be alright with the subject matter and handle it with the maturity and care such touchy topics deserve.
It's a game, just a game, and no one should ever walk away offended.
I've actually gotten a lot of ideas from considerations of sexism in the societies I've created.
When I first started my homebrew, I created the "Nobeni" as an ethnic group of dark-skinned humans so that players could "realistically" play a dark-skinned human if she wanted. In the initial write-up, I didn't have many ideas for their culture, except that they were brought to Audor as mercenaries by the Toranian Empire, and then left stranded when the empire collapsed.
But consideration of how these Nobeni mercenaries, who would mostly be men, would try to settle down in a society where many of them were killed by local women, while there was a "Kosaka" culture across the mountains which has a very strict "no assassination" policy....
Add in an ultrafeminist goddess who is willing to allow herself to be worked into the Norse mythos while the god the Nobeni mercenaries worship does not want his followers to recognize Odin...
I ended up with a kind of a semi-amazonian society where the women are willing to take the oath of recognition to Odin, while the men continue worshipping their god of not recognizing Odin. Most families are split by religion, but have come to an agreement that that is the normal state of affairs. It's not that men are incapable of governing, of course, since the Duke is male, and Audor has had a number of competent kings, and a lot of the barons are male. It's just that men are happier letting women run things, taking on the hard jobs like deciding tax policy, judging disputes, making laws and setting punishments...
Of course, this raises the question of racial relations, because if the black-skinned guys on the west side of the mountains are content to let the women rule them, while the yellow-skinned guys on the east side of the mountains rule over the same kind of women, what does this say about how the yellow-skinned guys are going to regard the black-skinned guys? Especially those yellow-skinned guys who don't recognize that this is really a religion issue (recognize Odin or not recognize Odin), since the white-skinned guys on the west side of the mountain have decided that recognition of Odin is so important, anyway.
I've also been the subject of "fantasy-race racism" where I played a halfling, and then found out all the humans hated halflings--after character creation. It made me very uncomfortable, it wasn't fun, it made me not trust the DM, and I ended up quitting that group because of it. He also did the sexism thing and that wasn't fun either.
I like a certain amount of realism in my games
Doesn't really matter what you want. You're only a small part of the people in the room. What do your players want? If they do not want this, then it won't work.
If, like your wife, they're all in, then you'll do well.
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?Munchkin? Oh my... we're also elitist snooty eurogamers, Munchkin is for hoi-poloi gamers!
I think it's just a matter of degree. Aside from a few exceptions, the RPGers I know are willing to garnish our sessions with some roleplaying, but hardly anyone wants to explore anything to a great depth. It's more about creatively expressing sterotypes whilst killing things and taking their stuff.
What I've found fascinating though is that not a single woman I've played with has any interest in playing any kind of lady-like, princessy, girly type of character. They have ALL wanted to play bad ass, bordering on psychotic, hack and slash characters.
It's always some mild mannered guy who wants to play an ingénue female role.
I actually have had a first timer who wanted to be your typical Elf druid disney princess, she wanted her character to be pretty (and so it was very funny when I gave the group magic "cursed" items that gave benefits but one change to the opposing gender of the wearer, and the other made body grow an inch every half hour) guess which one she put on first : ) one of the other players (her Boyfriend in real life) called her " that hairy chick" the rest of the time
The "-isms" are a great way to provide conflict other than "me hungry, me take you food" or "I'm killing people 'cause I'm evil, that's why"
they can provide RP opportunity, particularly when the "hater" can be converted, this seems like something the paladin would love to do. You have to admit that player after having been scorned by mr.NPC would love to hear his reaction after the player saves his life.
That said there needs to be a balance and communication is a must, if someone doesn't like, don't do it!
Only do this with the explicit consent of both the male and female gamers at your table. Also, think about whether YOU want to consistently role play someone sexist, as you may not be comfortable with it. When you spend hours prepping a society, it can start to infect your daily life. "Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be." (Kurt Vonnegut)
I think that if you are going to have sexist societies, it is wise to have the player know which ones are sexist, and which way, and which aren't, and what they can expect. The same goes with slavery, racism (which can have many meanings in a fantasy world!) and other contentious issues.
Some players will find being a 'downtrodden' gender a challenge. Others will find it a right royal pain. If they know in advance what to expect, they can choose a background culture appropriately.
While theoretically such games can be interesting, let me be frank.
I have never seen issues of racism or sexism handled well in a D&D game.
Not in any of the campaign settings I've read, not in any of the fantasy societies or races described, not in any of the several games I've played in that included such themes.
At least one game and gaming group I have walked out of because they were blatantly using 'realism' as an excuse to play out their personal prejudices at the table. It was disgusting.
Are you a straight white dude? Have you had to deal with these kinds of issues in your every day life? Have you been pulled over by a cop for 'driving while hispanic'? Have you been disowned by your family and religion because of your sexuality? Have you ever expressed an opinion, only to have your points ignored in favor of a discussion of whether or not the listeners would have sex with you?
If you don't personally have any experience on the receiving end of discrimination, how are you going to depict it 'realistically' at your table? And if you do, why would you want to? This is D&D, where the women are as strong as the men, and magic and dragons are real. If you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong game, anyway.
In short, why would a woman put up with whistles and cat calls, and their implied threat of sexual aggression, on the walk to your D&D game only to have to deal with the same thing played out in character? And we wonder why there's such a gender imbalance in the player base of our little hobby.
So yeah, while initially I didn't care one way or the other about this issue, and I'm sure it's possible that these issues could be handled well, repeated negative experiences have brought me to the point where I just don't want to see it anymore at all.
It's not so odd to want to ask a question that can possibly get people discussing something game related. I posted it here because I already know what my players think; they're divided. I want to know what you guys and gals think.Since what you actually want to know is what I think about sexism being in games, I'll give you my opinion.
But first, I note that everyone is focusing on sexist attitudes against women. In reality, there are plenty of sexist attitudes against men. I don't think either sex has it better off - not even in games where one might assume the sword swinging is emphasized.
For example, there's the attitude that men are just dumb creatures who do all their thinking with the thing hanging betweeen their legs - that a sexy woman can easily reduce a man into a drooling sidekick. An interesting difference is that men tend to just shrug off this sexist attitude much the way that Foxworthy shrugs off "redneck". In reality, some people take offense at sexism and some people don't.
I challenge anyone to sit down and really watch TV ads and see how men are often depicted, most especially fathers. Most often they are shown to be blundering idiots that the rest of the family puts up with.
While theoretically such games can be interesting, let me be frank.
I have never seen issues of racism or sexism handled well in a D&D game.
Not in any of the campaign settings I've read, not in any of the fantasy societies or races described, not in any of the several games I've played in that included such themes.
At least one game and gaming group I have walked out of because they were blatantly using 'realism' as an excuse to play out their personal prejudices at the table. It was disgusting.
This is an issue with the players, not the game or the concept. What matters is not whether you have such issues in your game, but how they are implemented. This is an example of how not to do it.
Are you a straight white dude? Have you had to deal with these kinds of issues in your every day life? Have you been pulled over by a cop for 'driving while hispanic'? Have you been disowned by your family and religion because of your sexuality? Have you ever expressed an opinion, only to have your points ignored in favor of a discussion of whether or not the listeners would have sex with you?
I agree in that you cannot really understand prejudice until you have experienced it. Nonetheless your long roll-call of discrimination reveals how common it is in our cosmopolitan society. To say it does not exist in another culture is foolish - it most assuredly will be there in some form or another. How you implement it as a DM and how the player characters deal with it is another matter.
If you don't personally have any experience on the receiving end of discrimination, how are you going to depict it 'realistically' at your table? And if you do, why would you want to? This is D&D, where the women are as strong as the men, and magic and dragons are real. If you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong game, anyway.
Verisimilitude is the term. Some people don't mind 'pure fantasy' games, some prefer to feel the sand and grit.
In short, why would a woman put up with whistles and cat calls, and their implied threat of sexual aggression, on the walk to your D&D game only to have to deal with the same thing played out in character? And we wonder why there's such a gender imbalance in the player base of our little hobby.
Again, it's not what, it's how. Said woman may have to put up with wolf-whistles in real life, but can beat the cr@p out of NPC's that step out of line in character, and might very much enjoy doing so. Alternatively, the DM could represent such prejudice in a way she can either ignore or overcome without having to feel offended.
So yeah, while initially I didn't care one way or the other about this issue, and I'm sure it's possible that these issues could be handled well, repeated negative experiences have brought me to the point where I just don't want to see it any more at all.
I can certainly understand your point of view. However, you do seem to be assuming that any time this is represented in a game it's in a bad way because that is your experience. It certainly isn't mine. One notable campaign I was involved in the entire party was prejudiced against by almost everyone we met, because we were hicks from the sticks, some of whom were Cyran refugees. The answer to "Is X available in this city?" was often answered with "Yes, but not to the likes of you". It became a quest to gain prestige, influence and acceptance, and it was challenging and fun.
I can certainly understand your point of view. However, you do seem to be assuming that any time this is represented in a game it's in a bad way because that is your experience. It certainly isn't mine. One notable campaign I was involved in the entire party was prejudiced against by almost everyone we met, because we were hicks from the sticks, some of whom were Cyran refugees. The answer to "Is X available in this city?" was often answered with "Yes, but not to the likes of you". It became a quest to gain prestige, influence and acceptance, and it was challenging and fun.
I can see that, I can also see how those things could get old quick for a lot of people. Especially if those people have active lives and only have a limited amount of game time. Rehashing the same social issues every single session that have very little to do with the story itself quickly becomes tiresome for some.
|
The second relevant question is why has this forum, until now, focused exclusively on sexist attitudes against women?
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.
:(
I can certainly understand your point of view. However, you do seem to be assuming that any time this is represented in a game it's in a bad way because that is your experience. It certainly isn't mine. One notable campaign I was involved in the entire party was prejudiced against by almost everyone we met, because we were hicks from the sticks, some of whom were Cyran refugees. The answer to "Is X available in this city?" was often answered with "Yes, but not to the likes of you". It became a quest to gain prestige, influence and acceptance, and it was challenging and fun.I can see that, I can also see how those things could get old quick for a lot of people. Especially if those people have active lives and only have a limited amount of game time. Rehashing the same social issues every single session that have very little to do with the story itself quickly becomes tiresome for some.
Ah but they didn't - that was the thing: As the party advanced and gained prestige they gained respect, and doors started to open. This is the thing about handling prejudice well: it can be conquered.
Ah but they didn't - that was the thing: As the party advanced and gained prestige they gained respect, and doors started to open. This is the thing about handling prejudice well: it can be conquered.I can certainly understand your point of view. However, you do seem to be assuming that any time this is represented in a game it's in a bad way because that is your experience. It certainly isn't mine. One notable campaign I was involved in the entire party was prejudiced against by almost everyone we met, because we were hicks from the sticks, some of whom were Cyran refugees. The answer to "Is X available in this city?" was often answered with "Yes, but not to the likes of you". It became a quest to gain prestige, influence and acceptance, and it was challenging and fun.I can see that, I can also see how those things could get old quick for a lot of people. Especially if those people have active lives and only have a limited amount of game time. Rehashing the same social issues every single session that have very little to do with the story itself quickly becomes tiresome for some.
And yet in reality, that is just whitewashing of the true issue. Most of the times it doesn't matter how much someone proves themselves, people that are prejudiced against them are still going to be. So if a DM, basically has all the prejudice people change their stripes due to a few deeds by the heroes, I would say that is almost worst than not including the issues in the first place.
Honestly, IMO, this is not a Pathfinder question. Or even a Golarion setting question. This is a 'what is your table confortable with' question.
In any RPG, you as a GM have to decide what you want your universe to reflect. The level of social, political and interpesonal detail and intensity that you think will make for a good game that will entertain you and your fellow players while not treading on topics, subjects or play styles that will alienate or make anyone at your table uncomfortable.
Sexism is a topic that should be discussed with the players of your game and see if they are all ok with it being part of the game. As you yourself said, your wife is fine with it wile other female players don't want anything to do with it. There is no one right way to approach this beyond asking the people who you play with if that is a level of detail they want in the RP pastime.
Some RPG settings state in their sourcebooks that sexism is handled in a certain way. I remember that for the most part, female advetureres and warriors in the Forgotten Realms were generally considered equals to men in the majority of the setting. There were obviously exeptions based on what land you were in but for the most part the 4000+ year long history of the realms were so jammed with female as well as ale hero's that thinking females were 'the weaker sex' was laughed out of thought.
The only way to know is to discuss it with the group you have and see what they want in the game. Sometimes a ref will have to abandon things they personally want to do in their game if no one else in the game finds it fun or fulfilling. That is all part of running a good game.
One thing that struck me is, how do we even know what sexism is?
Saying that a female character can't be a Paladin because women can't be paladins is certainly sexist, but how many games do this?
But saying that a female character can't join the Order of Niganstarinor because it is run by guys who do not see women as equals, while other options exist for female characters. Is that sexist?
Or if in one culture women are expected to take every good opportunity to have sex, while in another culture women are expected to hold out for their one true love. Is either of these sexist? Or is it just that one culture will probably have a higher rate of out of wedlock births and adultery?
What about monsters that are always female, such as harpies, nymphs, and dryads? I've decided that males should be able to be nymphs, too, and that on the east side of the mountains the dryads are all male. (One guy didn't like that idea.) I've been thinking of having the harpies reproduce by having sex with males of other species, but that could have some reprecussions if I use that in a game.
(What happens if a male PC fails a couple saving throws, and a few years later a little harpy calls him "Daddy!"?)
Many times it might not be the game though, but the game master. I think I am an enlightened guy who gives female PCs plenty of room to be whatever they want to be. But some DMs I know have been pretty bad, and the attitudes in their game life reflected their attitudes in real life.
To answer my questions, I think there is a problem when:
1) Options are closed off to female PCs. Maybe the Kosaka chief does not believe that he has to listen to women, but a female PC could find ways to make him listen to her.
2) There is not a clear separation between attitudes of the fantasy culture and the DM's own attitudes. I, personally, am all in favor of women taking a more active role at work and in politics, and would like to see more women running for office, and I look forward to the day when a woman will become the President of the United States. But some of the NPCs I run might have different opinions.
3) The players are made to be uncomfortable. In the Kosaka culture, the chief can do pretty much anything that he wants. But that does not mean that he has to.
And yet in reality, that is just whitewashing of the true issue. Most of the times it doesn't matter how much someone proves themselves, people that are prejudiced against them are still going to be. So if a DM, basically has all the prejudice people change their stripes due to a few deeds by the heroes, I would say that is almost worst than not including the issues in the first place.Ah but they didn't - that was the thing: As the party advanced and gained prestige they gained respect, and doors started to open. This is the thing about handling prejudice well: it can be conquered.I can certainly understand your point of view. However, you do seem to be assuming that any time this is represented in a game it's in a bad way because that is your experience. It certainly isn't mine. One notable campaign I was involved in the entire party was prejudiced against by almost everyone we met, because we were hicks from the sticks, some of whom were Cyran refugees. The answer to "Is X available in this city?" was often answered with "Yes, but not to the likes of you". It became a quest to gain prestige, influence and acceptance, and it was challenging and fun.I can see that, I can also see how those things could get old quick for a lot of people. Especially if those people have active lives and only have a limited amount of game time. Rehashing the same social issues every single session that have very little to do with the story itself quickly becomes tiresome for some.
Why? many cases of prejudice are down to ignorance and misconception. Get past that, and you start to get past the prejudice. Sure, there are always people who will be prejudiced and determinedly so, but some do change. I never said that all of them did - that was your assumption. Some were resentful of the 'hicks and refugees' success - and it formed the backdrop for more stories.
The point here was that the 'ism' was there, it was dealt with realistically and no-one felt bad about it being there. That a minor BBEG was out to get us purely for prejudicial reasons just made them a better BBEG. Nobody felt bad about it, or complained, and one way or another barriers were overcome.
|
|
This can be a problem. For example, I once told a woman that, if I were in a relationship with her and she struck me, I'd certainly strike her back.This got around to her friends (male and female) and they could not believe that I'd said something like that.
But, having taught martial arts, I simply don't believe that women aren't capable of beating up men. I don't believe in them being "the weaker sex". I personally witnessed a small woman hip throw a guy who weighed over 300 lbs. It caused the room to shake. I've heard many guys complain that some particular woman punches too hard in sparring or seems to know a little too well where all their pressure points are.
I've trained more than a few women on how to do this.On the other hand, I know of guys who have been abused by women and refused to defend themselves because "men don't hit women".
This deserves more than a :(
But isn't NOT hitting back sexism? Your not hitting back because they are weaker and somehow need to be protected from retailation. I mean if a guy did it, you'd most certainly would hit back right? That the issue, the whole chivarly stuff of holding doors, giving up seats and what not IS sexism. Those nice thing are done because your view of women is not of an equal but something less that needs protecting. But when asked, most women WANT sexism of that form. Until women get it that such action are sexist, your not gonna end sexism. This is one of the key concepts they teach in women's studies at UC berkeley.
That the issue, the whole chivarly stuff of holding doors, giving up seats and what not IS sexism. Those nice thing are done because your view of women is not of an equal but something less that needs protecting.
Interesting.
And all this time I thought I opened doors for women because I'm a nice guy and because woman is the crown of creation deserving honor and respect.
|
Those nice thing are done because your view of women is not of an equal but something less that needs protecting. But when asked, most women WANT sexism of that form. Until women get it that such action are sexist, your not gonna end sexism. This is one of the key concepts they teach in women's studies at UC berkeley.
Seriously I said earlier that I do not like Sexism threads...
Let's put what you said in reverse view :
If after an harassing day at work, taking the corporate b*~!%!$#, insane processes, useless reports, and co workers abuse .... standard day ....
And my girlfriend is there smiling, saying the dinner is cooked, and after that we'll have to test her new clothes for a night of wild .... passion ?
It will sure be sexism, but I won't mind.
Considering the whole chivalry thing as sexism is also plain wrong IMO, as it is taken out of context.
Want to know why noblewomen enjoyed courtly love and chivalry ?
Because after years of being forcefully married to a loutish brute at best, and a murdering maniac to boot often, they really enjoyed when they could get that kind of respect and attention. That's the sad truth of medieval life.
|
|
That the issue, the whole chivarly stuff of holding doors, giving up seats and what not IS sexism. Those nice thing are done because your view of women is not of an equal but something less that needs protecting.Interesting.
And all this time I thought I opened doors for women because I'm a nice guy and because woman is the crown of creation deserving honor and respect.
And that's another aspect of it. Guys are taught that you do these things to be a "nice" guy and your holding women is high respect because of it...but from the neo feminist movement, that just is not the case. The neo feminist is different from tradional feminist because the tradional one hold that they wanna be equal, yet hold to the societal protection that women get. The neo feminists are of the belief that unless you are equal in ALL things (both the good and the bad) your not really equal. UC Berkeley is of the neo feminist school of thought.
And that's another aspect of it. Guys are taught that you do these things to be a "nice" guy and your holding women is high respect because of it...but from the neo feminist movement, that just is not the case.
Well, that's all fine and dandy, but some neo-theory regnant in the ivory tower doesn't change the facts of my life, no matter how much anyone wants to claim otherwise.
Funny, I hold the door for anyone going through it at the same time as me, regardless of gender, race, or preferred RPG.
Commendable. I tend to do that as well, but I guess I'll have to stop doing it for women now that I know UC Berkeley teaches that I have sexist motives for doing so.
But back on-topic.
I have no problem per se with controversial topics in my games, but I'd prefer to avoid them as a general rule. IME, too many folks who deliberately insert such topics into the game have some sort of pedantic agenda. "I'll make this NPC a homosexual to highlight my players' homophobia," and nonsense like that.
I don't game for teaching moments or to be exposed to alternative points of view. I game for fun. If a DM can insert controversial topics into the game and still have a fun game, go for it. If not, don't bother.
As for the PF game I run on Man Day, it's pretty much just kicking down doors, killing things, and taking their stuff. We interject roleplaying here and there, as well as wander off-game with bawdy insults, movie talk, et cetera.
But isn't NOT hitting back sexism?
A point to bear in mind between men and women, IRL: A man attacking a woman can be considered to be using lethal force because (a) he has a heavier musculature and (b) she has a more fragile skeletal structure. In other words, he can hit a lot harder and she is easier to hurt on average; a third point is that due to the hip structure, men can on average run faster than women. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but a man attacked by a woman has a far better chance of shrugging it off, containing the assault (grabbing her hands or blocking blows) or escaping than the reverse without having to resort to retaliation. These are the physical facts of the case that would apply to any two persons involved in an affray of those relative strengths and weaknesses.
So yes, unless the woman in question is armed or specially trained, or the relative strengths and weaknesses of both involved are otherwise far away from the norm, a man shouldn't have to hit a lone woman even if she initiates the assault.
This in turn does not mean that he has to just suffer it, though. He's perfectly within his rights to block it, report it, press charges, whatever. Violence is not acceptable IRL, period.
|
|
Seriously I said earlier that I do not like Sexism threads...
Let's put what you said in reverse view :
If after an harassing day at work, taking the corporate b@~!&~&#, insane processes, useless reports, and co workers abuse .... standard day ....And my girlfriend is there smiling, saying the dinner is cooked, and after that we'll have to test her new clothes for a night of wild .... passion ?
It will sure be sexism, but I won't mind.
Considering the whole chivalry thing as sexism is also plain wrong IMO, as it is taken out of context.
Want to know why noblewomen enjoyed courtly love and chivalry ?
But that isn't sexism. That's about gender roles...which is a whole other set of issues.
And if you think noble women historically enjoyed chivalry, your wrong. That is a concept that was brought up in victorian england...and yes it was to protect the "weak" women from the big bads of the world. And even then it was hardly practiced, and use more of a way to justify even more sexism.
|
|
But that isn't sexism. That's about gender roles...which is a whole other set of issues.
Hmm Possibly, though I'm not subtle enough to see the difference tonight/
That is a concept that was brought up in victorian england...
Hmm, No. I think it is way older than that, and I cannot possibly agree on the precise victorian-starting point.
But anyways, let's call it a day for now, must be off.
The problem with this is that D&D isn't realistic. The castle is a hilariously quaint fortification of defense in a land with things that fly. A standing army of knights is a hilariously quaint form of martial defense in a land of area attacks. Disease is gone and people live past 30.
Whenever I see calls for realism, however, it's never to address these things. It's to bring someone else down. You don't want realistic portrayals of dark ages Europe, half your team would die of dysentery before they hit level 2. No, it's usually "I don't like this idea, realism is a good excuse to kill it" or "I've got this bug up my craw about sexism, so I'm adding it in."
Yes, the drow have sexism. The drow are also a race of bad guys. Ignoring that the sexism and leather and masochistic stuff was originally put in by renowned pervert Greenwood because oh my god he is so fetishistic, the fact remains that sexism as it exists in D&D naturally is only "that thing the bad guys do." D&D isn't built off of Medieval morality, it's based off of modern morality, and that's because it's a modern game. It's a modern game with some of the trappings of psuedo-Medieval Europe, but the underpinnings are all distinctly modern. Xenophobia is a bad thing. Slavery is evil. Genocide of another country "because they're in our way" is generally looked down on. The good gods all generally get along. Trying to play a game based solely on realism wouldn't be fun. Every die you roll your "Do I die of disease" check. Your party member worships a different god, so you need to kill him since he doesn't convert. Beyond that, a game based on realism wouldn't work. As I mentioned earlier, D&D is astonishingly different from real life. Flying monsters, magic spells, divine curing, etc. The social ramifications of all of this is absolutely HUGE.
|
|
Commendable. I tend to do that as well, but I guess I'll have to stop doing it for women now that I know UC Berkeley teaches that I have sexist motives for doing so.
Well...no because then THAT becomes sexist too. You need to hold the door for everyone, like ToZ or me...or nobody to be truely egalitarian. Yeah yeah, theories...but if you really do study society, these theories make a lot of sense. But then again I was an anthropology major so it's kinda what we do. And id these theories didn't work, the CIA wouldn't be hiring anthropologists and sociologists to work on ways to break down other socities.
Well...no because then THAT becomes sexist too. You need to hold the door for everyone, like ToZ or me...or nobody to be truely egalitarian. Yeah yeah, theories...but if you really do study society, these theories make a lot of sense.
No, that's not sexist. That's me mocking the notion that some neo-theory taught as part of a pseudo-discipline can more accurately judge my motives than I can. I have no desire to be egalitarian in a way defined by some professor more attached to postmodern politics than to reality.
But, hey, each to their own. If someone wants to exercise their mind too muscle-bound with suspicion from jumping to conclusions just because I open a door for a woman, then that's their prerogative.
Meanwhile, I'll continue being chivalrous and ignoring the agenda-driven pop psychologizing.
:)
|
|
Hmm, No. I think it is way older than that, and I cannot possibly agree on the precise victorian-starting point.But anyways, let's call it a day for now, must be off.
Well the word is older...but it refered to mounted combatants more then a moral code. It became a loose moral code around the 12th centuary, but it was more about duty to one's lord. It was more solidified in the 14th cent...but once again, more about being a vassel then about women. The modern concept of chivalry is a victorian contraption.
As for the difference between gender role and sexism...well that requires text books worth of discussion...if there was a PM option I would send you one, but as there is no PM option on this board let's leave that out unless you really have to know ;) .
Then again, I've had women get offended by the notion of me holding the door open for them... :-(
So I'm screwed no matter what I do it seems. *laughs*
|
|
Well...no because then THAT becomes sexist too. You need to hold the door for everyone, like ToZ or me...or nobody to be truely egalitarian. Yeah yeah, theories...but if you really do study society, these theories make a lot of sense.No, that's not sexist. That's me mocking the notion that some neo-theory taught as part of a pseudo-discipline can more accurately judge my motives than I can. I have no desire to be egalitarian in a way defined by some professor more attached to postmodern politics than to reality.
But, hey, each to their own. If someone wants to exercise their mind too muscle-bound with suspicion from jumping to conclusions just because I open a door for a woman, then that's their prerogative.
Meanwhile, I'll continue being chivalrous and ignoring the agenda-driven pop psychologizing.
:)
Well fair enough...you have to realize that the theory is about societal level of mores and agendas...and not so much an individual one. It says as a society, such action that are taught and enforced is backing up sexism. Not that an individual who holds the door is sexist. Makes sense?
Well fair enough...you have to realize that the theory is about societal level of mores and agendas...and not so much an individual one. It says as a society, such action that are taught and enforced is backing up sexism. Not that an individual who holds the door is sexist. Makes sense?
Makes perfect sense. Doesn't make it true, though. ;)
|
Are you a straight white dude? Have you had to deal with these kinds of issues in your every day life? Have you been pulled over by a cop for 'driving while hispanic'? Have you been disowned by your family and religion because of your sexuality? Have you ever expressed an opinion, only to have your points ignored in favor of a discussion of whether or not the listeners would have sex with you?I'm white, but I'm gay. So, yeah, I think most eveyone here can agree that I know something about discrimination.
I'd wager that most people that actually post here here have faced at least a bit of mild discrimination for being a geek.
I just want things to be realistic.
For example, this discussion about men hitting women and women hitting men.
In my campaign, the Audorian girls are routinely trained with weapons, and because it is dangerous out in the countryside, with orcs and goblins always threatening to raid, commoners keep weapons around.
This means that marital violence could very quickly become deadly no matter who starts it. A man may be larger and stronger than his wife, but if she hits him over the head with a solid iron mace, ...
So, realistically, this culture would quickly evolve a rule that marital violence is unacceptable. Unacceptable.
The Kosaka on the other side of the mountain, where women are not supposed to touch weapons, are likely to laugh off attempts by women to slap their spouses, and allow men to "put their wives into their place, with physical violence if need be." Even if the wife gets desperate and picks up a sword, she'll probably be so inept with it that her husband can easily disarm her. (If she does manage to kill him, that would be murder and quickly followed by execution.)
(A Kosaka male is deterred from injuring his wife because he'd have to answer to his father, his father-in-law, and his chief.)
My motivation is just to see how things play out with certain assumptions being made.