| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, y'know, maybe we're just playing a game.What, exactly, would the thought process be behind creating a fictional world and deciding to populate it with nothing but heterosexual relationships and not with any homosexual relationships?
It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F#*#ING THINK OF IT.".
Do you think about every possible ethnicity/sexuality/religion before you take any given action?
"Ah, I want a hamburger. Wait, s@%&, Hindus don't eat hamburgers I might offend them. Well how about a ham sandwich...oh wait Jews don't eat pork I might make that Jewish guy in the corner mad..."
I can imagine then why you'd be so hostile towards someone who doesn't share your pain.
I believe that if you decide to create a fictional society and don't include any same-sex relationships in it, you are actively contributing to a cultural narrative that treats same-sex relationships as something abnormal, foreign or other by tacitly denying their existence in "normal" society, and therefore actively contributing to discrimination.I believe statements like this are ridiculously inflammatory.
I mean, seriously. Someone doesn't add any same-sex relationships to their freakin' elfgames, and now they're "actively contributing to discrimination" ??!
Good grief. Is Paizo going to sell a set of Golarion-themed hip-waders anytime soon?
Yes, I believe that every time you create a world, you're also (intentionally or not) putting forth a worldview. To shift the discussion away from orientation to a different example, if you create a world and don't include any female leaders in that world (assuming, of course, that the point of the story isn't to create a dystopian society), you're putting forth a worldview that says that it is abnormal or unnatural for women to lead.
The idea that, for example, having every civilization in your world be white is a value-neutral setting, while having people of color is an "agenda" is pretty much a privileged viewpoint in a nutshell.
The idea that having a fantasy setting where all the leaders are straight white males is somehow less radical than having a setting where all the leaders are gay black women is ridiculous.
I don't think you are communicating this well enough..... Creating a world a treating it as a given that there are GLTIBI people in it so if somebody says are there any gay NPCs in your world you can say yes and cater to the wants and needs of your players.
Is different from going and stating out every NPCs sexuality so that you know that the peasant you pass scrounging in the filth is called Dennis he is 37 gay and an anarcho sydicatist communist,
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F@$$ING THINK OF IT.".
That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview.
Like an adult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview.
They are not the norm. That's WHY it takes special thought to include.
Like I said, do you include every minority in your games? EVERY one of them?
No, you don't. Because you didn't think of at least one of them I'm sure. That no more actively contributes to marginalizing them than including a hamburger on the menu at McDonalds marginalizes Hindus, as I said before.
|
That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview.It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F@$$ING THINK OF IT.".
As 90-95% of the world they kinda are the "norm".
That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview.It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F@$$ING THINK OF IT.".
This is the point. I would disagree that you'd be "actively contributing to discrimination", but definitely reinforcing the worldview.
I don't know what defines "actively", exactly. With intent to do harm? Probably not. But it is one's own decision we're talking about.
Either way, I'd probably be guilty of the same thing if I were just trying to quickly throw a fantasy world together. Sexuality seems kind of mundane and falls to the bottom of the pile when you need to come up with things like how magic works, where monsters come from, and what forms the gods take. But a thoroughly fleshed-out campaign setting - one worth being proud of - ought to address it.
As 90-95% of the world they kinda are the "norm".That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview.It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F@$$ING THINK OF IT.".
Please read this article, Andrew R.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a Wikipedia page.
Not exactly your go-to source for accurate info and non-biased views.
"Heteronormative" in the sense of "Gays are icky and weird ewww" is bad, yes.
"Heteronormativity" in the sense that homosexuality is, in a literal sense, not the norm (not the most common type) is just a statement of fact.
Know the difference, it could save your life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All sexual preferences and fetishes appear in my games. But not all at once.
Once those offended become the final arbiters of what constitutes genuine (as opposed to simply perceived) offense, any statement, however innocuously intended (or actually innocuous), may be interpreted as definitively objectionable by even the fainthearted, the hypersensitive, or those looking to claim the role of wronged party for purposes of their own.
And as long as the offenders retain control over deciding what constitutes offense the oppressed have no voice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a Wikipedia page.
Not exactly your go-to source for accurate info and non-biased views.
That's your counter? "It's Wikipedia"? I thought people were finished treating Wikipedia like the red-headed stepchild of information sources eight years ago.
The article represents what I understand to be an accurate view of modern thought on heteronormativity.
"Heteronormative" in the sense of "Gays are icky and weird ewww" is bad, yes.
"Heteronormativity" in the sense that homosexuality is, in a literal sense, not the norm (not the most common type) is just a statement of fact.
That's not what the problem behind perpetuating heteronormativity is. The problem is that we don't simply treat homosexuality (or non-heterosexuality) as uncommon - which is factually correct, as far as we can tell. We, societally, have treated and continue to treat homosexuality as abnormal, which creates/perpetuates a social stigma. Please read the article. You think you know what you're talking about, but you don't.
Left-handedness is uncommon. It is not, however, treated as abnormal.
Homosexuality is uncommon. It is also treated as abnormal.
The difference is non-trivial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is entirely beside the point, since nobody here is saying "I exclude homosexuals because they're not normal". They're saying " I don't include homosexuals because it's not something I think about when populating my world".
You're twisting something innocuous into something malicious in the hopes of proving some kind of point.
Which is entirely beside the point, since nobody hear is saying "I exclude homosexuals because they're not normal". They're saying " I don't include homosexuals because it's not something I think about when populating my world".
And we're saying that doing so implicitly reinforces a heteronormative worldview by presenting heterosexuality as default, which makes about as much sense as calling brown hair the default.
You're twisting something innocuous into something malicious in the hopes of proving some kind of point.
I'm not calling it malicious, but it does demonstrate a point: Almost none of us, myself included, would think to give the sexual orientation of NPCs in our hastily-made fantasy world any serious thought, and yet not doing so is missing an opportunity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't include homosexuals because it's not something I think about when populating my world".
I could totally go with that line of explanation... except that now this thread has specifically made everyone think of it, myself included. So the cat's out of the bag for the participants. Going forward -- we can try to stuff him back in the sack and pretend he's not in there, or we can think about the stance we're sticking up for.
"I don't include homosexuals because it's not something I think about when populating my world".I could totally go with that line of explanation... except that now this thread has specifically made everyone think of it, myself included. So the cat's out of the bag for the participants. Going forward -- we can try to stuff him back in the sack and pretend he's not in there, or we can think about the stance we're sticking up for.
And, honestly, even if equal rights and treatment weren't worth fighting for (and they are), it will make your campaign world more interesting in a way that doesn't rely on the fantastical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not calling it malicious, but it does demonstrate a point: Almost none of us, myself included, would think to give the sexual orientation of NPCs in our hastily-made fantasy world any serious thought, and yet not doing so is missing an opportunity.
And presented in that manner/context, I can't help but agree with you.
The statement "actively contributing to discrimination," however, implies maliciousness where none necessarily exists.
It's needlessly combative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is entirely beside the point, since nobody hear is saying "I exclude homosexuals because they're not normal". They're saying " I don't include homosexuals because it's not something I think about when populating my world".And we're saying that doing so implicitly reinforces a heteronormative worldview by presenting heterosexuality as default, which makes about as much sense as calling brown hair the default.
If 90-95% of the population had brown hair it would certainly be the default assumption that any given child born or person you meet would have brown hair, yes.
Regardless of the fact that I'm very proud of my blonde coloring, if I were in a game with only brown haired people I would not be offended. I would point it out and say "So my character's blonde, I guess that makes him stand out a bit. Any other blonde haired guys around?"
And the GM's response (unless he's a secret supporter of the grand Brunette Agenda) should be something like "Yeah that's fine. And you see a few other people with different colors walking around too, they're just not as common", and all would be well.
And presented in that manner/context, I can't help but agree with you.
The statement "actively contributing to discrimination," however, implies maliciousness where none necessarily exists.
It's needlessly combative.
I'm cool with agreeing to call it passive contribution. The word "active" is nebulous enough to allow for easy misinterpretation.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really trying hard to care, but I can't quite do it. I fear that the world may just have to absorb the toxic externalities created by my furtherance of the heteronormative worldview in my own private game.
Question: Am I allowed to enjoy my sex life from a heteronormative view, or do I have to pretend that I or my partner may not be heterosexual at some point during the act? Am I anti-feminist if I want to be on top? I just worry that there are other arenas in which my heteronormative views might be problematic...
Edit: What about fantasies intended for personal consumption only? Given that my shared fantasy world needs to be conducted in a way that doesn't further the heteronormative worldview, I worry that my individual fantasies may be problematic as well.
If 90-95% of the population had brown hair it would certainly be the default assumption that any given child born or person you meet would have brown hair, yes.
Why would we make any assumption?
Regardless of the fact that I'm very proud of my blonde coloring, if I were in a game with only brown haired people I would not be offended.
I'd wager that this is probably due to the fact that, for most people, they don't consider their hair color to be an essential piece of who they are.
I'm really trying hard to care, but I can't quite do it. I fear that the world may just have to absorb the toxic externalities created by my furtherance of the heteronormative worldview in my own private game.
Question: Am I allowed to enjoy my sex life from a heteronormative view, or do I have to pretend that I or my partner may not be heterosexual at some point during the act? Am I anti-feminist if I want to be on top? I just worry that there are other arenas in which my heteronormative views might be problematic...
Edit: What about fantasies intended for personal consumption only? Given that my shared fantasy world needs to be conducted in a way that doesn't further the heteronormative worldview, I worry that my individual fantasies may be problematic as well.
If you don't regularly have sex in the reverse-Dutch-helicopter position, I'm comfortable calling you a "mutant commie".
If 90-95% of the population had brown hair it would certainly be the default assumption that any given child born or person you meet would have brown hair, yes.Why would we make any assumption?
Because people make assumptions. That's hardwired into us as a species. You will always assume that the thing that usually happens is going to happen again. Our brains even subconsciously "assume" what a word is even when it's vaguely misspelled or cut off.
The deciding factor being: What do you do when your assumptions are challenged? Do you take it in stride or do you throw a fit that something wasn't what you expected it to be?
Regardless of the fact that I'm very proud of my blonde coloring, if I were in a game with only brown haired people I would not be offended.I'd wager that this is probably due to the fact that, for most people, they don't consider their hair color to be an essential piece of who they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cool with agreeing to call it passive contribution. The word "active" is nebulous enough to allow for easy misinterpretation.
I'd dispute that it's even contributing, period, considering that I don't allow the content (or lack thereof, as it may be) of a game to dictate or influence my worldview, which is already inclusive and accepting of the subject matter at hand.
I'd like to think we're all just a little more intelligent than that.
The whole idea is a just a repackaging of ridiculous notions that "D&D = Satanism" or "Video Games Cause Mass Shootings," but I'll back off on the subject.
Because people make assumptions. That's hardwired into us as a species. You will always assume that the thing that usually happens is going to happen again. Our brains even subconsciously "assume" what a word is even when it's vaguely misspelled or cut off.
Is this something worth encouraging? Or is it something worth discouraging, especially when it can be shown that doing otherwise has a marginalizing effect on an entire class of people?
Left-handedness is uncommon. It is not, however, treated as abnormal.Though it has been in the past.
Recently, even. I always got my hand slapped by a ruler when I was being taught to write and used my left hand.
I'd dispute that it's even contributing, period, considering that I don't allow the content (or lack thereof, as it may be) of a game to dictate or influence my worldview, which is already inclusive and accepting of the subject matter at hand.
It's really, really hard to say for certain that something you're exposed to regularly does or does not influence your worldview in subtle ways. And even if you could say for certain that it doesn't, the same might not hold true for all of those at your table.
Again, if you're not going to make an effort to include less common sexualities in your fantasy world, I don't think we're going to say that you're a bad person for it - just that you're missing an opportunity.
Because people make assumptions. That's hardwired into us as a species. You will always assume that the thing that usually happens is going to happen again. Our brains even subconsciously "assume" what a word is even when it's vaguely misspelled or cut off.Is this something worth encouraging? Or is it something worth discouraging, especially when it can be shown that doing otherwise has a marginalizing effect on an entire class of people?
It's much more often useful than when it's not.
Especially since I disagree that assuming the norm is marginalizing in the first place.
Like I said, it's what you do when your assumptions are challenged that matter, not the assumptions themselves.
I don't think failing to include homosexuals in a world is automatically a statement. Not everybody reflexively thinks, "I better consult the U.S. Census before designing this town's populace." Not everybody thinks, "Gee, 10% of America's population is Asian*, I better include one Tian NPC for every nine non-Tian."
At worst, you can say failing to include homosexuals in a world is a little thoughtless. I can understand that. But it's not an act of defiance against LBGT rights organizations.
It's just a minor oversight. You can't expect the GM to get everything flawless.
*That number is completely made up. I didn't feel like finding actual facts. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think failing to include homosexuals in a world is automatically a statement. Not everybody reflexively thinks, "I better consult the U.S. Census before designing this town's populace." Not everybody thinks, "Gee, 10% of America's population is Asian*, I better include one Tian NPC for every nine non-Tian."
I must say, I do find it rather ironic and amusing that, in other discussions on these messageboards, when people have stated that "including X in my game makes it seem unrealistic" they've been mocked for such, since it's a fantasy game with magic and dragons, yet, here we are on this subject.
It's much more often useful than when it's not.
Especially since I disagree that assuming the norm is marginalizing in the first place.
I think we're probably better off letting the marginalized decide where the marginalization is coming from, don't you? It's abundantly clear that a lot of LGBTQ folk feel that heteronormativity is a marginalizing force. Why would you question that?
Recently, even. I always got my hand slapped by a ruler when I was being taught to write and used my left hand.Left-handedness is uncommon. It is not, however, treated as abnormal.Though it has been in the past.
I experienced something of the sort, as well. I went to a Catholic university some years ago, and the priest teaching me Latin Grammar made as if to smack my hand when anticipating an error in my recited declensions (one I actually didn't make, ha!). I was, at that point, already an Air Force veteran, and warned him to keep walking even if I was wrong or I'd disarm him in most unseemly fashion.
He got the point.
This was in the late 70's. In a Methodist run preschool. (...and I have now dated myself) I've met a lot of people who think that kind of thing only happened in the 1800's.
Kirth Gersen just made an interesting point ... Attempting (through implication that indifference is offensive) to make it one for those who find it unimportant is itself, arguably, a form of bullying. Attempting to educate people is one thing. Browbeating them into sullen submission is quite another.
You might have been reading more into that post than was intended. I, personally, already include a bunch of GLB relationships, so I'm not worried about my game -- I just feel the thread will make me more likely to notice it (or its lack) in other games.
But the thing is, unless I'm going to invite a gay friend to his game, I don't actually care if Sebastian includes that stuff in his campaign, or doesn't. The fact that he's thought about it and made his decision in that light is cool. My point is that, for people who honestly never did think about it, now they can. Whatever decision they come up with is at least more informed. I do not in any way advocate "bullying" or "browbeating" -- and if you got the impression I was doing so, you are mistaken.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that I do more to further the heteronormative/male oppressor point of view with my constant jokes about frequenting hookers (not to mention the jokes about murdering them) than with anything at my gaming table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that I do more to further the heteronormative/male oppressor point of view with my constant jokes about frequenting hookers (not to mention the jokes about murdering them) than with anything at my gaming table.
I'm pretty sure that murdering hookers puts you well outside the scope of heteronormative behavior. Fight the power!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're probably better off letting the marginalized decide where the marginalization is coming from, don't you? It's abundantly clear that a lot of LGBTQ folk feel that heteronormativity is a marginalizing force. Why would you question that?It's much more often useful than when it's not.
Especially since I disagree that assuming the norm is marginalizing in the first place.
Because just because they feel it A.) Doesn't mean it's true, B.) Doesn't mean I have to believe it and C.) Doesn't mean I need to be chastised for it.
It's just like extremist feminists. Just because they think every man is a closet rapist who's going to jump them from the bushes if they let their guard down and let a man "win" (read: Speak to them on an even level without agreeing to them) doesn't mean all of that isn't a crock of b**&+!#*.
Just because I don't include something in every aspect of my life doesn't mean I don't respect it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that murdering hookers puts you well outside the scope of heteronormative behavior. Fight the power!I'd like to point out that I do more to further the heteronormative/male oppressor point of view with my constant jokes about frequenting hookers (not to mention the jokes about murdering them) than with anything at my gaming table.
Hmmm...
"How do you handle murdering hookers in your campaigns" may not be the successor thread we need, but it's the successor thread we deserve.
I think we're probably better off letting the marginalized decide where the marginalization is coming from, don't you? It's abundantly clear that a lot of LGBTQ folk feel that heteronormativity is a marginalizing force. Why would you question that?It's much more often useful than when it's not.
Especially since I disagree that assuming the norm is marginalizing in the first place.
Because just because they feel it A.) Doesn't mean it's true, B.) Doesn't mean I have to believe it and C.) Doesn't mean I need to be chastised for it.
It's just like extremist feminists. Just because they think every man is a closet rapist who's going to jump them from the bushes if they let their guard down and let a man "win" (read: Speak to them on an even level without agreeing to them) doesn't mean all of that isn't a crock of b~$#%@*#.
Just because I don't include something in every aspect of my life doesn't mean I don't respect it.
There is a word for "extremist feminist". And since most radfems hate trans people, yeah, I can't really get behind that.
|
Because just because they feel it A.) Doesn't mean it's true, B.) Doesn't mean I have to believe it and C.) Doesn't mean I need to be chastised for it.
Fair enough for points A and B - you're welcome to do and believe what you like. But I don't think free speech ever excuses you from the consequences of your actions, so people totally have the right to do C. You don't have to agree with them, but I think the point is that they don't agree with your choice of A and B either...