Playing the other sex


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

ugh I just want to play pathfinder


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male. Women have to be twice as good as their male competitors to get the same positions. So that's not a good basis to use.


But I agree. why bother distinguishing between male and female stats when gender isn't the only thing that affects them. Size, shape, natural talent, making realistic system would be crazy complex and not fun. I'm with Lamontius on this! Ugh, I just want to play pathfinder


Personnaly, I am offended by all this male/female seperation


Waglinde wrote:
Personnaly, I am offended by all this male/female seperation

I get where you are coming from. But it's human nature to separate and categorize, unfortunately.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing a female character for the first time.

Gender norms and expectations on Golarion aren't what they are on Earth, so I don't bother with them. There doesn't seem to be much of the stereotyping and option-dwindling we have here.

So, to echo Haladir's comment, how do I play her? Like a well-rounded person.

My character is an academic professional, an adventurer, a Chelaxian, a treasure-hunter, a wiz with gadgets and magic items, and a woman. I'm not any of those things in real life and I don't see why the very last descriptor would or should be hardest to roleplay.

story:
When a male NPC hit on my character in the middle of a cave crawl, she simply turned and said, "We have kobold blood on our shoes, we've been sleeping on the ground for a week, my hair isn't washed, you stink of sweat and gore, and I haven't seen a hot bath in over a month. Don't you think wooing me can wait?"


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Who said "ignore cultural reasons"?

There are actual biological reasons for both more muscle mass and for that muscle mass producing higher peak power in males. We commonly refer to this combination as "strength".
Whether this bears a direct relation to the PF stat STR is an open question.

And I don't think anyone in this thread has said we should change the game to add such penalties.


thejeff wrote:


And I don't think anyone in this thread has said we should change the game to add such penalties.

A proposed breakdown of those stats is where the "Why do men get a +2 Int" came from.

I personally think we should leave it. I don't WANT that much realism in my games!


Liranys - I like your style! I wish you were playing in one of my games.


Terquem wrote:
Liranys - I like your style! I wish you were playing in one of my games.

I'm flattered. But what style are you referring to? My complete and utter goofiness or my desire for a lack of reality :)


Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).


Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).

I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P


I can think of no place "further" from the Capital of California, than where I live (Eastern Idaho!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And I don't think anyone in this thread has said we should change the game to add such penalties.

A proposed breakdown of those stats is where the "Why do men get a +2 Int" came from.

I personally think we should leave it. I don't WANT that much realism in my games!

I agree.

As does Kirth, who proposed that breakdown

Kirth wrote:
Once you get started down that path, there's no stopping. It's a lot better to hand-wave the gender differences in the interst of a better game.


Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P

Terquem doesn't, but I'm in San Jose :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
But I agree. why bother distinguishing between male and female stats when gender isn't the only thing that affects them. Size, shape, natural talent, making realistic system would be crazy complex and not fun.

That was exactly my point.

thejeff wrote:

I agree. As does Kirth, who proposed that breakdown

Kirth wrote:
Once you get started down that path, there's no stopping. It's a lot better to hand-wave the gender differences in the interst of a better game.

Exactly: I posted all that crap to illustrate how absurd and unproductive it is to even go there.


Terquem wrote:
I can think of no place "further" from the Capital of California, than where I live (Eastern Idaho!)

I can. You could live in Eastern Maine ;)


jemstone wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P
Terquem doesn't, but I'm in San Jose :D

Ever been to the local SciFi conventions? I work at one of them every year. Heh.


Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P

"near"? Darlin', I'm currently stuck in the cow-town part of the capitol (AKA: Rio Linda). Used to regularly game in Carmichael (Adventures FTW!), but, well... Money went poof.


Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male.

Not necessarily. From what's been covered in Anthropology class, men and women have similar average intelligence, but women have a shallower deviation curve within this spectrum, meaning that men are more likely to be above or below average intelligence than women. So, it may be that there are more particularly intelligent men than women, but also more blockheadedly stupid men. This could make true equality of numbers in top fields unlikely.


jemstone wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P
Terquem doesn't, but I'm in San Jose :D

Really? That's my hometown. I still go there all the time. Like tomorrow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm... Just found out one of my fiance's pet peeves when it comes to tables.

Pretty much Pan's problem. Where every guy plays a chick, and every girl plays guys. Well, moreso the guys playing girls part.

She doesn't mind when some guys do it. But, given her gaming experiences, it's come to annoy her to no end. The "Beauty Queen Lesbian 75lb Amazon" syndrome, as I call it.

Might also have something to do with her MMO gaming experience. Every time she revealed she was a girl, EVERY SINGLE TIME I must clarify, they were like "No your not!", and would never believe her. Happened in her free-form chat/message board RPs as well. No one believed she was a chick, and many so called 'females' she ran into were actually dudes. Most likely scarring in one's younger years.

She's got no real problem with it when guys do it well. She's just had too many bad experiences with it to not have a minor knee-jerk reaction to it.

Me? I've seen too many creepers play chicks. I've a general rule of thumb that I warn anyone playing the opposite gender. Make it too weird, and you'll find yourself with a permanent girdle of opposite gender on your character. You get two warnings.


Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male. Women have to be twice as good as their male competitors to get the same positions. So that's not a good basis to use.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Sure there are some places where women have a harder time getting a job than men, and there are some where it is the opposite.

A large part of why most scientists in these fields are male however has nothing to do with sexist recruitment policies. The main factor is a difference in interest. A lot fewer women are simply interested in these fields.

It has nothing to do with either a difference in intelligence, or a bias towards hiring men over women, no matter the qualification.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Sure there are some places where women have a harder time getting a job than men, and there are some where it is the opposite.

A large part of why most scientists in these fields are male however has nothing to do with sexist recruitment policies. The main factor is a difference in interest. A lot fewer women are simply interested in these fields.

It has nothing to do with either a difference in intelligence, or a bias towards hiring men over women, no matter the qualification.

Well, actually...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male. Women have to be twice as good as their male competitors to get the same positions. So that's not a good basis to use.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Sure there are some places where women have a harder time getting a job than men, and there are some where it is the opposite.

A large part of why most scientists in these fields are male however has nothing to do with sexist recruitment policies. The main factor is a difference in interest. A lot fewer women are simply interested in these fields.

It has nothing to do with either a difference in intelligence, or a bias towards hiring men over women, no matter the qualification.

And there are no cultural elements to those differences in interest?

There may well be innate biological differences at work as well, but the evidence for that is swamped by the evidence for systemic bias. It's no longer the kind of extreme, open, "I'll never hire a women" bias some people imagine, but more of a finger on the scales at all stages along the way.

Courtesy of KSF over in the LGBT Gamer thread:
Why Aren't Women Advancing at Work? Ask a Transgender Person


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Edit: Y'know what? Nvm


Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Hmm... Just found out one of my fiance's pet peeves when it comes to tables.

Pretty much Pan's problem. Where every guy plays a chick, and every girl plays guys. Well, moreso the guys playing girls part.

She doesn't mind when some guys do it. But, given her gaming experiences, it's come to annoy her to no end. The "Beauty Queen Lesbian 75lb Amazon" syndrome, as I call it.

Might also have something to do with her MMO gaming experience. Every time she revealed she was a girl, EVERY SINGLE TIME I must clarify, they were like "No your not!", and would never believe her. Happened in her free-form chat/message board RPs as well. No one believed she was a chick, and many so called 'females' she ran into were actually dudes. Most likely scarring in one's younger years.

She's got no real problem with it when guys do it well. She's just had too many bad experiences with it to not have a minor knee-jerk reaction to it.

Me? I've seen too many creepers play chicks. I've a general rule of thumb that I warn anyone playing the opposite gender. Make it too weird, and you'll find yourself with a permanent girdle of opposite gender on your character. You get two warnings.

That's why I play the "ugly" races when I go with a female character. Well, not exactly why, but it is a side effect. Most of my character concepts when it comes to the "ugly" races usually end up as female. Female half-orc, female gnoll (never get to play that one), the animal races (ratfolk, kitsune, tengu), female full orc. Of course, whenever I do make a female of the "pretty" races (human, half-elf, other human-looking races with a very mild physical alteration), it is never the "Beauty Queen Lesbian 75lb Amazon" type.

But I can definitely see your fiance's aversion to it. It is also why I typically play male characters when first starting out with a new group (which is fairly often since I play online), so they don't think I am one of those creepers. And thankfully I have never come across any of those.


Liranys wrote:

Ever been to the local SciFi conventions? I work at one of them every year. Heh.

I used to attend BayCon, DunDraCon and SiliCon all the time, and was a regular at DunDraCon. Then my job got crazy and I'm lucky to do one or two (last few years, Fanime and Clockwork Alchemy) in any given year.

There's also some personal reasons that I'd rather discuss off-thread as to why I no longer do certain conventions. Nothing really private to a large degree, just not suited for this thread.

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Really? That's my hometown. I still go there all the time. Like tomorrow.

Well, Milpitas technically, but hi fellow South Bayer! :D


thejeff wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male. Women have to be twice as good as their male competitors to get the same positions. So that's not a good basis to use.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Sure there are some places where women have a harder time getting a job than men, and there are some where it is the opposite.

A large part of why most scientists in these fields are male however has nothing to do with sexist recruitment policies. The main factor is a difference in interest. A lot fewer women are simply interested in these fields.

It has nothing to do with either a difference in intelligence, or a bias towards hiring men over women, no matter the qualification.

And there are no cultural elements to those differences in interest?

There may well be innate biological differences at work as well, but the evidence for that is swamped by the evidence for systemic bias. It's no longer the kind of extreme, open, "I'll never hire a women" bias some people imagine, but more of a finger on the scales at all stages along the way.

Courtesy of KSF over in the LGBT Gamer thread:
Why Aren't Women Advancing at Work? Ask a Transgender Person

I'm going to concur here. Though I pointed out above that there are some differences in intelligence, I also don't believe for one second that we don't still have systemic sexism within most of the more elite employment areas. As somebody said above, women have to work a lot harder than men to be reckoned as their equals. Also, those innate biological differences are a matter of how many people deviate from the average. There are still a ton of women who are on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum, and they very often don't get as much respect or recognition as men once they get into their employment fields.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
I'm going to concur here. Though I pointed out above that there are some differences in intelligence, I also don't believe for one second that we don't still have systemic sexism within most of the more elite employment areas. As somebody said above, women have to work a lot harder than men to be reckoned as their equals. Also, those innate biological differences are a matter of how many people deviate from the average. There are still a ton of women who are on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum, and they very often don't get as much respect or recognition as men once they get into their employment fields.

Also, as was pointed out about Strength earlier, Intelligence is a very complicated thing that we don't really have a good handle on measuring.

Certainly not enough to sort out cultural and gender biases. Nor is the thing we measure in the real world necessarily a direct match for the PF Int stat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Threeshades wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male. Women have to be twice as good as their male competitors to get the same positions. So that's not a good basis to use.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Sure there are some places where women have a harder time getting a job than men, and there are some where it is the opposite.

A large part of why most scientists in these fields are male however has nothing to do with sexist recruitment policies. The main factor is a difference in interest. A lot fewer women are simply interested in these fields.

It has nothing to do with either a difference in intelligence, or a bias towards hiring men over women, no matter the qualification.

I agree with your assessment that the difference in career paths has nothing to do with a difference in intelligence, but I disagree with the rest.

Your statement is demonstrably untrue, backed up by research.

Women are consistently discouraged from the "hard science" fields, both actively and passively. This starts in high school, and intensifies as they climb the academic ladder. Many drop out because of the obstacles.

The female scientists that I know personally all report that they have to be twice as good and twice as persistent to be half as successful as their male counterparts.


Kirth Gersen, I think your little bit on intelligence, constitution, dexterity, and so forth is, if not intentional obfuscation, certainly an effective bit of it.

There is no sexism or opinion inherent in the statement that human males are physiologically stronger than human females as a whole due to biological factors. This isn't a matter of cultural norms, or gender roles, or anything o the sort. Males physiologically for the same amount of effort add more muscle mass, and have greater peak muscle potential (especially in the upper body) than females. If I remember correctly, the gap opens in the teenage years. I remember reading something a couple years ago that basically observed that at age 10 male and female upper body strength was almost identical (especially relative to total mass), but by 16 the gap had opened to a tremendous extent, something on the order of almost 50% by adulthood.

With that in mind, I think you could make a physiological argument for +2 Strength in males, +2 Dex in females, in an overall sort of sense. Generally speaking having your center of gravity in your hips tends to result in greater balance, while higher testosterone, body mass, and the different ways in which males and females build muscle tend to result in males having greater physical strength.

Or, alternatively you could let it go and say that most random NPC human males put their free +2 in Strength, and most human females put their +2 in Dex.

Personally, I'd just go with the later. It might be slightly unrealistic, but it's pretty clear that the human in D&D / Pathfinder is not a perfectly symmetrical version of the real world human.

Haladir wrote:
I agree with your assessment that the difference in career paths has nothing to do with a difference in intelligence, but I disagree with the rest.

With you here.

Haladir wrote:
Women are consistently discouraged from the "hard science" fields, both actively and passively. This starts in high school, and intensifies as they climb the academic ladder. Many drop out because of the obstacles.

I don't know how active it is in the modern era, but there's a lot of passive pressure and it starts way before high school. You have women basically encouraged (innocently, unthinkingly, often by parents) away from pursuits that encourage their interest in science from a very young age in an overall sort of sense. 'Don't play in the dirt', 'bugs are gross', 'go play with your dolls', 'you're a princess', ect. You can even look at how most toys have been marketed towards them for the last twenty years, and how rarely you see female scientific role models in media.

Certainly 20 years ago there was a lot of active pressure academically, and certainly even today the higher percentages of males to females in these fields creates an inherent bit of difficulty and bias academically. A lot of light though has been shined on systemic discrimination in the last couple decades.

I suspect you would still see a bit of a skewed stat even if you didn't have social pressures on females, simply because of the generally large time commitments that many high end STEM fields require, both in terms of education, internships, and so forth thereafter relative to some other fields - in correlation with things like child bearing - but certainly not as large as is present currently.

Haladir wrote:
The female scientists that I know personally all report that they have to be twice as good and twice as persistent to be half as successful as their male counterparts.

This right here sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me. It's ridiculous statements like this that make it easy for people like Threeshades to dismiss your entire argument out of hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:

Kirth Gersen, I think your little bit on intelligence, constitution, dexterity, and so forth is, if not intentional obfuscation, certainly an effective bit of it.

There is no sexism or opinion inherent in the statement that human males are physiologically stronger than human females as a whole due to biological factors. This isn't a matter of cultural norms, or gender roles, or anything o the sort. Males physiologically for the same amount of effort add more muscle mass, and have greater peak muscle potential (especially in the upper body) than females. If I remember correctly, the gap opens in the teenage years. I remember reading something a couple years ago that basically observed that at age 10 male and female upper body strength was almost identical (especially relative to total mass), but by 16 the gap had opened to a tremendous extent, something on the order of almost 50% by adulthood.

With that in mind, I think you could make a physiological argument for +2 Strength in males, +2 Dex in females, in an overall sort of sense. Generally speaking having your center of gravity in your hips tends to result in greater balance, while higher testosterone, body mass, and the different ways in which males and females build muscle tend to result in males having greater physical strength.

Or, alternatively you could let it go and say that most random NPC human males put their free +2 in Strength, and most human females put their +2 in Dex.

Personally, I'd just go with the later. It might be slightly unrealistic, but it's pretty clear that the human in D&D / Pathfinder is not a perfectly symmetrical version of the real world human.

You basically just repeated exactly what Kirth was saying, so I really don't think you can call it intentional or unintentional obfuscation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
This right here sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me. It's ridiculous statements like this that make it easy for people like Threeshades to dismiss your entire argument out of hand.

Except it's not ridiculous at all.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P
"near"? Darlin', I'm currently stuck in the cow-town part of the capitol (AKA: Rio Linda). Used to regularly game in Carmichael (Adventures FTW!), but, well... Money went poof.

Really? Wow, you're close! I live in South Sac. Ever been to ConQuest Sac?


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
This right here sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me. It's ridiculous statements like this that make it easy for people like Threeshades to dismiss your entire argument out of hand.
Except it's not ridiculous at all.

That is the article I was thinking of but couldn't find. Thanks!


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
You basically just repeated exactly what Kirth was saying, so I really don't think you can call it intentional or unintentional obfuscation.

Um, no, not really. Kirth's earlier comments seemed to be dragging through the mud +2 Int, -2 Wis, +2 Charisma, +2 Con, ect for various genders based on relatively heavily stereotyped comments. E.g. Women give birth, men hold more elevated intellectual positions. That's obfuscating the earlier discussion, which was about the quantifiable different in physical strength between the sexes.

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
This right here sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me. It's ridiculous statements like this that make it easy for people like Threeshades to dismiss your entire argument out of hand.
Except it's not ridiculous at all.

Those measures are a lot less than 50%. In most places it looks like less than a quarter, which is exactly my point. You diminish the value of the very real gap when you make easily dismissed arguments like "I have to work twice as hard for half as work", which is my point. Nowhere did I say "there is no bias". Nowhere did I say "there are no problems". Blowing problems out of proportion though to hyperbolic extents though serves no purpose except to distract the majority who scan only headlines. If I had a shiny nickle for every idiot I've debunked on Facebook or a message board quoting some idiot factoid with zero statistical support I could retire, and it really bothers me when people repeat them.

Edit Wow, that's Scientific American and they're putting out charts like Figure 2? That's... really agenda driven. I love how she tries to bring it up later though, but never offers a defense other than to lump people that point it out in with everyone who denies the entire finding.


Liranys wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P
"near"? Darlin', I'm currently stuck in the cow-town part of the capitol (AKA: Rio Linda). Used to regularly game in Carmichael (Adventures FTW!), but, well... Money went poof.
Really? Wow, you're close! I live in South Sac. Ever been to ConQuest Sac?

Nah, wanted to go, but my money started drying up about six years ago. Last con I went to was Sac Anime, don't remember the year, but the first time in that new hotel after they moved out of Red Lion in Arden.

Actually, despite having lived in Sac for 20 years or so, I've never figured out where "(compass direction) sac" areas are, lol.

Sad that women can't seem to get the same respect in the scientific fields. I can remember a time when women were respected, and damn-near worshiped as better than men. Granted, that was in the history books, but still. Same thing with the whole "skinny is beautiful" thing I have to keep reminding my fiance of. Biologically, human males are attracted more towards bigger women, as it's a sign of capable & healthy child birth. This "Stick figure barbie doll" crap is rather abnormal when compared to the rest of human history. (What can I say, bigger is beautiful!)

BTW. *aol voice* You've got PM! (or, going to be getting one, in a moment. Need to go cook dinner first)

Silver Crusade

I'm currently located in Campbell, CA. San Jose area, for the map-impaired. Sacramento ain't that far, and there's a few of you out this way. :)

Now back to the thread...

I've often played cross-gender characters, and will probably continue to play some in home games. In general, I play my characters as people... try to explore new ideas and different perspectives, and I approach character-building from more or less a writer's perspective. Some ideas, some characters find their voice and happen to be female. And, if I can work on imagining the world as seen through alien eyes, it seems to me to be much easier (as well as fun) to try imagining the world through a different gender's eyes.

I've been noticing that it seems almost pointless in PFS play-- scenarios run by much too quickly, with too much of a rapid-shifting cast in each party, for as much ongoing IC social/role-playing as I'd like; and while some of my characters have been memorable to others and noticed/remembered for role-playing reasons (with no reference to gender either way), if a character's gender is different from my own, it seems to be ignored-- to such an automatic/pervasive extent that there isn't much point in a four-hour scenario of bludgeoning the point until it gets acknowledged. At least that seems to be the local PFS experience, and I've observed it happening (also repeatedly) to anyone else who tries to play "cross-gender".

Since all but one of my PFS characters who are cross-gender are in fact still 1st level, I'm pretty strongly considering remaking all of my cross-gendered characters other than Kseniya (my over level 1 female PFS character-- past that 1st level total rebuild authorization) as male characters. Doesn't seem to be enough room for expanding and developing a character's personality in PFS for it to make much difference anyway-- my most successful characters in PFS, as far as role-play/personality goes anyway, have been wrapped around broad but reasonably distinctive and focused schticks: Crispin's a cat, and Arik is a thoroughly disillusioned expatriate mercenary (bastard son of Cheliax-- no loyalty left there). It works, and is fun, but it doesn't need much development to explain and put into play.

Regarding the PFS issues-- thoughts/comments/is there a different way I should approach PFS play?


Haladir wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Why do men get a +2 int?

See above. Look at the % of top scientists, mathematicians, and chess players who are male, vs. female. Since we're told to ignore cultural reasons and just look at what's obviously "realistic"...

P.S. Needless to say, I don't think they should.

Our world is male dominated. If all things were equal and you were judged solely on performance and sex never came into it, there would most likely be equal numbers of top scientists, mathematicians and chess players who are female as well as those who are male. Women have to be twice as good as their male competitors to get the same positions. So that's not a good basis to use.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Sure there are some places where women have a harder time getting a job than men, and there are some where it is the opposite.

A large part of why most scientists in these fields are male however has nothing to do with sexist recruitment policies. The main factor is a difference in interest. A lot fewer women are simply interested in these fields.

It has nothing to do with either a difference in intelligence, or a bias towards hiring men over women, no matter the qualification.

I agree with your assessment that the difference in career paths has nothing to do with a difference in intelligence, but I disagree with the rest.

Your statement is demonstrably untrue, backed up by research.

Women are consistently discouraged from the "hard science" fields, both actively and passively. This starts in high school, and intensifies as they climb the academic ladder. Many drop out because of the obstacles.

Then I do need a demonstration, because I have never seen women being actively or passively discouraged from hard sciences.

Maybe it's because I dont live in the USA.


Threeshades wrote:
Haladir wrote:

Your statement is demonstrably untrue, backed up by research.

Women are consistently discouraged from the "hard science" fields, both actively and passively. This starts in high school, and intensifies as they climb the academic ladder. Many drop out because of the obstacles.

Then I do need a demonstration, because I have never seen women being actively or passively discouraged from hard sciences.

Maybe it's because I dont live in the USA.

Are you a woman? Are you a scientist?

A lot of the ways women are discouraged these days are subtle enough that it's easy to miss them if they're not happening to you. Sometimes even if they are, it's not obvious that it's because you're a woman.

In the study linked above, the professors didn't come out and say "I'm not hiring you because you're a woman", most of them probably didn't even think it. They saw a female name and automatically gauged the associated resume as less competent.

Now, things may be different in your part of the world. I can't possibly comment without knowing where that is, but if you have similar results - less women in the hard sciences - as the US, I'd be deeply suspicious of claims that it's just how things naturally are.


I live in Germany.

As I said it does happen that women are disadvantaged in some places. I have heard of this study before.

However there is also research that indicates that a majority of women prefer to follow vocations that involve interpesonal contact. You can't completely dismiss that as another factor.

I will look up material about it when i have some more time. Lately I've been a bit busy.

whether that preference is culturally or biologically informed I do not claim to know, but then a lot of western culture, archaic as it still might be in regards to gender especially, is orginally biologically informed and if going with a non-science vocation is what someone genuinely prefers they will go with that and be happy. If it isn't and they go with it anyway these people will find they aren't happy with it. The same way a person with gender dysphoria will not be happy with being encouraged to act as their physical sex will still feel unhappy trying to do so.
we'd need a study to see how many women in such jobs (nurses, teachers etc) are unhappy with their job.


Threeshades wrote:

I live in Germany.

As I said it does happen that women are disadvantaged in some places. I have heard of this study before.

However there is also research that indicates that a majority of women prefer to follow vocations that involve interpesonal contact. You can't completely dismiss that as another factor.

I will look up material about it when i have some more time. Lately I've been a bit busy.

whether that preference is culturally or biologically informed I do not claim to know, but then a lot of western culture, archaic as it still might be in regards to gender especially, is orginally biologically informed and if going with a non-science vocation is what someone genuinely prefers they will go with that and be happy. If it isn't and they go with it anyway these people will find they aren't happy with it. The same way a person with gender dysphoria will not be happy with being encouraged to act as their physical sex will still feel unhappy trying to do so.
we'd need a study to see how many women in such jobs (nurses, teachers etc) are unhappy with their job.

Of course. I'm not saying that the mere existence of a gender gap in certain fields is evidence of barriers or discouragement. I'm saying that, given evidence of such barriers, I'm not willing to assume that the gender gap is just a natural result of different preferences and abilities between genders.

And even though that evidence was only provided in one culture, if a similar gender gap exists in another (and from a quick look, it seems like it does in Germany), I'm going to strongly suspect that similar factors are at work there.

If prejudice helps to produce a gender gap of X in one country, it's unlikely that a gender gap of X exists in another country without some form of prejudice.

I also like to point out that similar explanations (such and such job is men's work, women are better at certain things, women just aren't suited for math, women are happier with social jobs, not hard data ones) have been used in the past to justify whatever the current situation was and later changes have shown that to be wrong I'm again suspicious when I hear them used to justify the current situation. Maybe we really have reached some natural equilibrium, but I'll need some hard data to back that up.


With the big quotes going on, maybe a new thread on itself is more convenient for that topic?

Like Finn Kveldulfr said, back on topic:

My amount of male/female chars is balanced.
Doing this over PbP saves the need to do voices, which might make things easier.
If for a story you want to make a concept of a character, gender doesn't need to be the 1st priority, but comes more like a potential compatibility. Would a character with personality X come more forward in your eyes as a guy or a woman?

When i do play one of the female characters, i play them like i would imagine they would, as a person. With some of their backgrounds, i'd find them being the gender other than currently less appealing.
Example: you see plenty of guy rangers, probably (i could be wrong) more in % than women, but i'd laugh more if a woman has as strong a spirit and talks down "Don Corleone" into a humble wuss than if it'd been Aragorn for instance.

I feel like it depends on concept and the feeling weither it be a M or F to bring it more to life.


I think we both can agree then, that we need more data to really come to a conclusion here.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
She doesn't mind when some guys do it. But, given her gaming experiences, it's come to annoy her to no end. The "Beauty Queen Lesbian 75lb Amazon" syndrome, as I call it.

I think the lesbian bit can be considered a warning. If a straight male exclusively plays lesbian female characters, then it is a safe bet that he does not have the foggiest idea how real life women think. Just suggest to him that he play either a straight female or a homosexual male and watch him squirm. So why is it easier for him to change gender and sexual orientation at once?


jemstone wrote:
Liranys wrote:

Ever been to the local SciFi conventions? I work at one of them every year. Heh.

I used to attend BayCon, DunDraCon and SiliCon all the time, and was a regular at DunDraCon. Then my job got crazy and I'm lucky to do one or two (last few years, Fanime and Clockwork Alchemy) in any given year.

There's also some personal reasons that I'd rather discuss off-thread as to why I no longer do certain conventions. Nothing really private to a large degree, just not suited for this thread.

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Really? That's my hometown. I still go there all the time. Like tomorrow.
Well, Milpitas technically, but hi fellow South Bayer! :D

I have worked at BayCon (aside from this year, I was only an attendee this year), for over 7 years. In registration. We may have met. Hello. lol


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Liranys wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Both! (My games, in particular, have always reflected my own sense of escapist fantasy and an unwillingness to commit to serious business).
I bet you don't live in California near the capital, do you. :P
"near"? Darlin', I'm currently stuck in the cow-town part of the capitol (AKA: Rio Linda). Used to regularly game in Carmichael (Adventures FTW!), but, well... Money went poof.
Really? Wow, you're close! I live in South Sac. Ever been to ConQuest Sac?

Nah, wanted to go, but my money started drying up about six years ago. Last con I went to was Sac Anime, don't remember the year, but the first time in that new hotel after they moved out of Red Lion in Arden.

Actually, despite having lived in Sac for 20 years or so, I've never figured out where "(compass direction) sac" areas are, lol.

Sad that women can't seem to get the same respect in the scientific fields. I can remember a time when women were respected, and damn-near worshiped as better than men. Granted, that was in the history books, but still. Same thing with the whole "skinny is beautiful" thing I have to keep reminding my fiance of. Biologically, human males are attracted more towards bigger women, as it's a sign of capable & healthy child birth. This "Stick figure barbie doll" crap is rather abnormal when compared to the rest of human history. (What can I say, bigger is beautiful!)

BTW. *aol voice* You've got PM! (or, going to be getting one, in a moment. Need to go cook dinner first)

Sign up to run a game. I gave you a link in my return PM. If you run 8 hours of games over the weekend, you get a free weekend badge. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Let's take the discussion about gender bias in hiring practices over to Off-Topic Discussions, and return to the topic of role-playing a character of the opposite sex.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PIXIE DUST wrote:

Oh speaking of other genders and such...

One thing that always.. bugs me a little is how for most races, males and females are mechanically identacle. That makes no sense. For instance, a female cannot get a strong as a male with equal amounts of effort. If you take a female power lifter, she will near always lift less than an equally skilled male power lifter.

There is a reason why the title strongest human on earth always go to males. Their physiology is specifically designed to be big and strong.

/endrant

While I suppose we could give Males a +2 to Str, to be equally realistic that would mean giving females a +2 to Int, Wis, Con, Dex & CHA, which would seem unbalancing, so we don't. ;-)

251 to 300 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Playing the other sex All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.