PDA

View Full Version : A little help (please)



Cunningtub
2014-12-10, 01:42 PM
So I know by now that most of you on here are experienced players and have encountered many problems/challenges, both in and out of game. So I have come to you all for advice.

A good friend of mine is GMing for a group of 5, me, a friend of mine, and two of his friends I don't really know.
Now heres the problem, he's racist/sexist and i only just found this out a month ago, and i mean racist/sexist in a "I've never experienced it so I dont care" way. (mostly because he is a wealthy, white dude.)

The thing is, I like roleplaying challenges, playing a strange race, multiple personalities, differing sex's, etc. and I fear he may try to put down my character as a result. (he already has once, trying to make my "Brienne of Tarth" a pretty little princess)

I just need advice on what to do, I've never encountered something like this before in my time RPing and it would help a lot for someone to help me stay friends with this guy, without poor Brienne being forced into a dress.

Haruki-kun
2014-12-10, 09:06 PM
I would say in this kind of situation there's no option but to put your foot down, out of character. Tell him you don't want the GM to be making decisions on how you play your character and that you would like him to leave you be. If he doesn't understand that then leave the group (always the last option).

Kane0
2014-12-10, 10:33 PM
Agreed. You play your character, he plays the world. If he tries to dictate how your character thinks, feels or acts you call him out on it.

Alternatively play a non-human. Theres less chance he's going to make a bearded dwarf woman wear a dress as she takes her warhammer into battle.

Solaris
2014-12-10, 11:33 PM
So I know by now that most of you on here are experienced players and have encountered many problems/challenges, both in and out of game. So I have come to you all for advice.

A good friend of mine is GMing for a group of 5, me, a friend of mine, and two of his friends I don't really know.
Now heres the problem, he's racist/sexist and i only just found this out a month ago, and i mean racist/sexist in a "I've never experienced it so I dont care" way. (mostly because he is a wealthy, white dude.)

The thing is, I like roleplaying challenges, playing a strange race, multiple personalities, differing sex's, etc. and I fear he may try to put down my character as a result. (he already has once, trying to make my "Brienne of Tarth" a pretty little princess)

I just need advice on what to do, I've never encountered something like this before in my time RPing and it would help a lot for someone to help me stay friends with this guy, without poor Brienne being forced into a dress.
That's not because he's a wealthy white dude, it's because he's an *******. That's a condition that knows no boundary of economic background, race, or gender.

He seems to want to dictate to you how to play your character according to his stereotypes. If he refuses to let you play your character, why play the game? No gaming is better than bad gaming - and this champ seems like the sort of guy that gaming horror stories are made from.

But hey, on the plus side there's an off chance that you'll wind up with a 'funny if it didn't happen to you' story out of this.

NikitaDarkstar
2014-12-11, 12:21 AM
The others pretty much have you covered here. Talk to him about it, how you don't want him trying to control your character, and any real-life examples he can think of to justify such actions are basically completely and utterly worthless in a game that has magic, gods, dragons, monsters, and whatever else in it.
But also try to be polite about it, this isn't really about his worldviews (or yours), and you may want to make that clear, this is about a game, nothing more, nothing less.

That said, if it becomes to big of a problem, and you feel you can't deal with it walk away before it destroys your friendship, assuming you're interested in preserving it that is.

Jay R
2014-12-11, 12:48 PM
I enjoy playing ten thousand character types. But I find that things go more smoothly when I play the kind of character that both the GM and I enjoy.

When Nolen is GMing, I go for a character with lots of options, because he likes seeing something unexpected. When Rob is the DM, I play a literary classic. In Dirk's game, it's best to play a swashbuckling hero. For Bob, I'll choose a politically focused character.

My recommendation is to either drop out of the game, or play a character who will be treated well within it.

Seto
2014-12-11, 12:53 PM
Besides, the "I've never experienced it, so I don't care" type is generally not actively racist/sexist, just passively. And he's being actively sexist by enforcing the view that your girl character should wear a dress. But yeah, tell him your character is yours to control as you see fit, and if he doesn't hear it (like, "ok she puts on an armor, but the second she goes out in public she's put in priso because the world is sexist"), have a serious OOC talk. If that still doesn't work, tell him you don't feel like this is a game for you.

Palegreenpants
2014-12-11, 01:04 PM
I enjoy playing ten thousand character types. But I find that things go more smoothly when I play the kind of character that both the GM and I enjoy.

When Nolen is GMing, I go for a character with lots of options, because he likes seeing something unexpected. When Rob is the DM, I play a literary classic. In Dirk's game, it's best to play a swashbuckling hero. For Bob, I'll choose a politically focused character.

My recommendation is to either drop out of the game, or play a character who will be treated well within it.


This is a good suggestion, but not one you really want to implement with a racist GM. I can vouch, as a GM, that characters who fit my own milieu are the most successful personalities. I, for instance, favor conflicted heroes and sympathize-able villains. Characters who are terrible people have me weeping inside for the entire session. For a GM who has a more unhealthy milieu, however, that's a not a good (or comfortable) place to go.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-11, 04:45 PM
Alternatively play a non-human. There's less chance he's going to make a bearded dwarf woman wear a dress as she takes her warhammer into battle.

Not even for the hilarious mental image?:smalltongue:

Cazero
2014-12-11, 05:06 PM
Not even for the hilarious mental image?:smalltongue:

You mean, a rugous leather skirt above the chainmail pants, with heavy reinforced boots, and lipstick putting a touch of warmth and color on that helmeted bearded head?

Anonymouswizard
2014-12-11, 06:02 PM
Besides, the "I've never experienced it, so I don't care" type is generally not actively racist/sexist, just passively. And he's being actively sexist by enforcing the view that your girl character should wear a dress. But yeah, tell him your character is yours to control as you see fit, and if he doesn't hear it (like, "ok she puts on an armor, but the second she goes out in public she's put in priso because the world is sexist"), have a serious OOC talk. If that still doesn't work, tell him you don't feel like this is a game for you.

This, exactly this. Someone whose being passively sexist should be fine if called out on it. One of my players pointed out I was being sexist with my tendency to make characters male, and so I'm trying to solve this in my current Vampire game, where people of both genders are sprinkled throughout (the only reason Mithras is Prince of London instead of Anne is because I want to play around with what it would be like to have another character's soul inside you, he occasionally acts more like I'd imagine Monty would), and have specifically made the leader of the local Sabbat something they wouldn't expect (specifically a low-gen female Salubri Anttribru brave enough to attack the Tremere Chantry head on and strong enough to survive that (7 points of Fortitude and extensive feeding earlier in the night)) to throw them off their toes. None of them have brought up anything racist I've done yet, but I'm far less likely to mention a character's race (which I hope mean they'll be surprised when the anglo-chinese woman is prancing through the Chantry).

So the answer is to try bringing it up with him, because if he isn't consciously sexist he should be able to come to an understanding with you.

Solaris
2014-12-11, 06:43 PM
... One of my players pointed out I was being sexist with my tendency to make characters male...

That's... that's not what sexism is. Not even a little bit.

If you were trying to force females into certain roles, that would be sexist. If you were trying to act like females can't do certain things, that would be sexist. If you were suggesting females would like certain things more than others because of their genders, that would be sexist. Females simply not existing in your game isn't sexist, especially if it's a game based around violence, being as violent occupations are almost exclusively male and all.

Anonymouswizard
2014-12-11, 07:42 PM
That's... that's not what sexism is. Not even a little bit.

If you were trying to force females into certain roles, that would be sexist. If you were trying to act like females can't do certain things, that would be sexist. If you were suggesting females would like certain things more than others because of their genders, that would be sexist. Females simply not existing in your game isn't sexist, especially if it's a game based around violence, being as violent occupations are almost exclusively male and all.

It's not problematic sexism (it is still sexism technically, but that's a point of semantics), and was actually joked about at the time, but the problem was that women just weren't certain things, as a side-effect of me not paying attention to genders. The point was that if it's subconscious sexism (e.g. all the leaders of a country/corporation/whatever are male because I wasn't paying attention to roles) it's far easier to deal with than conscious sexism (all women must wear dresses, because they are women). I actually have more problems with racism in real life (specifically I have a handful of traits I apply to people when meeting them based on skin tone, even though most of the people I meet don't fall into stereotypes), but it doesn't show in game.

As an example, I tend to assume that Chinese people are humourless, even though my best friend is Chinese, and all my Chinese friends have very good senses of humour. But due to the setting of my last couple of games, it's been realistic to have 90%+ of the in-game population to be white.

My BIG problem with sexism is making all my movers and shakers (the specific role that the player pointed out) male, which I've solved within the last month or so. I was accidently implying that women didn't have the capacity to be in that category, which is why my current game revolves around a power struggle between at least three people, with both the most and one of the least competent being women. In fact, one of them has a good chance of winning even if the PCs oppose her, because she's the only one that makes good use of her allies (instead of just making good use of their underlings).

Most of the fighters I use tend to be male, which is something that's just understood, and it's nowhere near as problematic as the OPs problem, but I thought I'd share an example about how sometimes it's just someone not realising they're doing it (I do have a tendency to assume female PCs wear certain clothing, but that's more of a case of 'you didn't say what you were wearing, I'm going to make it generic (so there's probably a dress or skirt in there)'.), because here it MIGHT just be a lack of experience with female PCs.

Anyway, this is a tangent, and I've forgotten enough of the incident that I can't remember the line of reasoning used. If you're interested in defining sexism, be my guest to try, but I'd like to point out that, In my opinion, leaving a gender out of a role is just as sexist as forcing them into one (which is why there's such a kerfuffle about female engineers in my university, the gender proportions are serious out of line with the other courses).

SangoProduction
2014-12-11, 10:32 PM
One of my players pointed out I was being sexist with my tendency to make characters male

OK. I admit, I haven't read the rest of the comment...but this isn't sexism. To be -ist is to put down, or think less of a group of people. To say that having your characters being male is sexist is like saying to only have sex with females is sexist.

EDIT: now read the rest of the forum. If people want to infer that your whole not thinking about the sex is sexist, then that's really on them. I won't condemn your actions to 'correct' what you see as wrong though, especially when it is with yourself, and not in the form of abusive trash talk.
Also, not enough female engineers? What? Are you going to force them out of what they want so they can be engineers?

Jeff the Green
2014-12-11, 11:33 PM
Well, I'd quit then and there, but that's probably neither productive nor what you want to do. I sometimes take a scorched earth policy to things that don't really require it, like personal relationships and gardening.

I'd suggest an OOC chat, like everyone else. I'd start with the "don't play my character for me" and then segue into "and some of the things you've been saying/doing have made me uncomfortable and since we're friends I think you should make an effort to stop."


OK. I admit, I haven't read the rest of the comment...but this isn't sexism. To be -ist is to put down, or think less of a group of people. To say that having your characters being male is sexist is like saying to only have sex with females is sexist.

EDIT: now read the rest of the forum. If people want to infer that your whole not thinking about the sex is sexist, then that's really on them. I won't condemn your actions to 'correct' what you see as wrong though, especially when it is with yourself, and not in the form of abusive trash talk.
Also, not enough female engineers? What? Are you going to force them out of what they want so they can be engineers?

Not enough heads or desks in the world.

The reason it's sexist (though not a particularly problematic kind) is that Anonymouswizard was making a bunch of countries and made them all run by men without intending to, which, when not paired with any other sign of sexism in the world, gives the impression that women aren't suited for leadership. It was not intentional, but because that's the sort of miasma we live in it's unavoidable to some extent.*

And no, no one's saying women who don't want to be engineers should be forced to be engineers. No one's suggesting men who don't want to be teachers or nurses should be forced to be either. The suggestion is that men should avoid doing stuff like making sexist jokes that make women not want to be in that field, passing up women for promotions, not picking women as proteges, and all the little things that make women decide not to enter a field. (Male nurses/teachers tend to be more a problem of it being considered "unmanly" and many men preferring to die rather than have that thought of them.

*Note that it is not, in se, sexist to make all the leaders of a fictional country male. If you're writing a sexist society (as I write my dwarves) it can actually be enlightening to casual sexists as they might actually have to grapple with something that they don't usually. Or if you're writing a culture where women genuinely aren't good leadership material (e.g. they're trees), though this walks a fine line and only works well if you also demonstrate that you're not trying to imply this is true about humans. Even if the majority of your audience knows you're not implying it, there are enough ******* sexists that will think you're agreeing with them and take it as encouragement. I can say from experience that the feeling you get when you realize you've done this takes at least half a dozen showers to wash off

Solaris
2014-12-12, 12:12 AM
Not enough heads or desks in the world.

The reason it's sexist (though not a particularly problematic kind) is that Anonymouswizard was making a bunch of countries and made them all run by men without intending to, which, when not paired with any other sign of sexism in the world, gives the impression that women aren't suited for leadership. It was not intentional, but because that's the sort of miasma we live in it's unavoidable to some extent.*

That's kind of a reach. If it were paired up with something else kinda-maybe sexist (such as the token female leader being inept) I could see the claim carrying merit, but as it is it's more a case of not thinking of the character's gender at all. There's simply not enough evidence to suggest sexism in this circumstance. Shoehorning in female characters simply for the sake of having female characters in positions of power is sexist.

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 01:06 AM
Sounds like a great guy.

The best advice is to just move on. There is really no way this ends well.

Jeff the Green
2014-12-12, 01:51 AM
it's more a case of not thinking of the character's gender at all

Then shouldn't it be 50/50? Why is it that the default gender for leaders is male? That's the point. It's small, subtle, and insidious, but it's been shown over and over in study after study that this sort of sexism is omnipresent and results in things like female students not getting mentored (including by female profs) to the same degree as male ones, in black applicants not getting interviews as often as white ones, and makes people describe women politicians as "shrill" and male politicians as "forceful" when they're quoted (in a newspaper clipping, so it can't be tone or body language or anything other than gender) as saying exactly the same thing.

Kane0
2014-12-12, 03:53 AM
Maybe most of his leaders (and most NPCs in fact) are male because that is what he is most comfortable Roleplaying. My DM has openly admitted he doesn't know how to portray a female as well as a male and thus usually uses males when he has to make a NPC on the spot.

Vitruviansquid
2014-12-12, 03:57 AM
I'm gonna go against the grain here...

The reason I wouldn't like to play with a sexist or racist GM is because I wouldn't be able to stand this person in any situation, not just at a table.

But your situation is different. You *can* stand this person, and in fact, are good friends with him. Thus, I don't think you should sit him down and be like "Dude, you're racist and sexist, and you need to stop." You might want to eventually, I suppose, if it gets grating. But right now, that's jumping the gun.

You should just make your character, and whenever your friend makes a racist/sexist assumption, just correct him. Like make your female whatever, and whenever your friend assumes she's in a frilly dress (or substitute other offensive thing of your choice) just say "oh no, she's not. She's actually ____." Don't be passive aggressive about it or mean about it, you're just setting the record straight on your character. Because this person is your friend, and hopefully a good GM, he'll let you run your character how you wish whether or not he is sexist/racist.

I give this advice partly because you should never show up to a gaming table to fight the other players. That's not conducive to a good time for anyone and is kinda... what "That Guy" would do. I also partly give this advice because interacting with your friend with the assumption that he is ignorant about sexism/racism and that it is your duty to take him under your wing and teach him is kind of an insulting, uncool way to treat him.

TLDR: Be nice, play nice.

Nagash
2014-12-12, 06:09 AM
{ scrubbed }

Jeff the Green
2014-12-12, 08:07 AM
Maybe most of his leaders (and most NPCs in fact) are male because that is what he is most comfortable Roleplaying. My DM has openly admitted he doesn't know how to portray a female as well as a male and thus usually uses males when he has to make a NPC on the spot.

That would indeed be a reason I'd think was fine, though I'd encourage such a DM/player (especially a DM) to step outside their comfort zone in the same way I'd encourage someone who was uncomfortable playing male characters/meatheads/intellectuals/good guys/bad guys/neutral guys/etc. Anonymouswizard implied that this wasn't the case, however.


{ scrubbed }
{ scrubbed }


{ scrubbed }
{ scrubbed }

Broken Twin
2014-12-12, 08:26 AM
(he already has once, trying to make my "Brienne of Tarth" a pretty little princess)

What exactly you mean by this matters a great deal in how you approach the subject with him. Did he just assume she was a pretty princess, or did he refuse to accept how you wanted to play her? The former is easy, just play the game, and correct him when it comes up. Unless he's a jerk, he'll just roll with it and move on. The latter is a bit trickier, and probably means you should talk to him outside the game. If he insists on causing friction about you wanting to play characters that defy traditional roles, then I'd suggest either bowing out of the game, or rolling up something more standard.

Solaris
2014-12-12, 10:41 AM
That would indeed be a reason I'd think was fine, though I'd encourage such a DM/player (especially a DM) to step outside their comfort zone in the same way I'd encourage someone who was uncomfortable playing male characters/meatheads/intellectuals/good guys/bad guys/neutral guys/etc. Anonymouswizard implied that this wasn't the case, however.

From what I read of what he posted, he didn't imply that was the case at all - he outright stated he didn't think about their gender, which makes Kane0's point that he probably didn't think about gender at all very, very believable. He just defaulted to playing his own gender, and the ease with which he realized he was doing that also suggests to me that he really wasn't considering the presence or absence of the boobies in character design. It can't rightly be sexism when sex is an utter non-factor, can it?


{ scrubbed }

A. Where do you see someone suggesting that?

B. Where do you see someone suggesting that?

C. Where do you see someone suggesting that?

There's a whole lot of supposition there about motives that has no basis in reality, and strongly suggests that you barely skimmed the thread at all before posting.

Anonymouswizard
2014-12-12, 11:01 AM
The reason it's sexist (though not a particularly problematic kind) is that Anonymouswizard was making a bunch of countries and made them all run by men without intending to, which, when not paired with any other sign of sexism in the world, gives the impression that women aren't suited for leadership. It was not intentional, but because that's the sort of miasma we live in it's unavoidable to some extent.

It was also science fiction presented as "we've moved beyond prejudices", so yeah :smalltongue:


And no, no one's saying women who don't want to be engineers should be forced to be engineers. No one's suggesting men who don't want to be teachers or nurses should be forced to be either. The suggestion is that men should avoid doing stuff like making sexist jokes that make women not want to be in that field, passing up women for promotions, not picking women as proteges, and all the little things that make women decide not to enter a field. (Male nurses/teachers tend to be more a problem of it being considered "unmanly" and many men preferring to die rather than have that thought of them.

Basically this. The problem isn't 'women aren't becoming engineers, we must fix this', but 'women aren't becoming engineers, what's dissuading them?', especially as those who do tend to be really good at it. It's something we'd likely leave alone if it was a 3:7 split, but the fact is that it's more of a 1:9 or 2:8 split.


Maybe most of his leaders (and most NPCs in fact) are male because that is what he is most comfortable Roleplaying. My DM has openly admitted he doesn't know how to portray a female as well as a male and thus usually uses males when he has to make a NPC on the spot.

Unfortunately I enjoy playing female characters, I feel that it enhances immersion :smalltongue: however, I'm not someone who would force someone else to, so I find this reason acceptable, if not ideal.


{ scrubbed }
{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

True in the technical sense, but maybe there's this woman at my table who is kinda put off by it, and I try to stop it to be impolite. I listen to the concerns that my players have, because honestly, I like everyone I game with, and don't want to see them leave the table, or for it to be awkward at the table for them.




Fun fact, the players I've known most likely to roleplay their way out of a situation and resort to "let's just kill them" have both been women. The only difference I've ever noted is that I'm faster than everyone at building characters, men and women alike. There are minor differences between male and female gamers, but it's the same as the differences between male and female physicists, in that they tend to like slightly different things outside of the hobby. At the gaming table it might as well be "men with boobs" and "women without them" for all the difference gender makes.

[quote] { scrubbed }

Um, I'd do so regardless of gender. Especially as my elves are as matriarchal as western culture has been traditionally patriarchal. In fact, the only one of my races with no gender problems are orcs, who do not associate their gender with their sex (and so have customs to say 'I'm male', 'I'm female', 'I'm niether', and 'I prefer not to say'). They have their own things going on.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-12, 12:41 PM
It can't rightly be sexism when sex is an utter non-factor, can it?

Of course not, the problem is it's nearly impossible to say with much confidence that "sex is an utter non-factor" given how subtle and unconscious a bias can be.

Jeff the Green
2014-12-12, 04:57 PM
Of course not, the problem is it's nearly impossible to say with much confidence that "sex is an utter non-factor" given how subtle and unconscious a bias can be.

Recommended reading for those who don't understand or who dispute this:
Understanding Implicit Bias (http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/)
FAQ on Implicit Bias (http://med.stanford.edu/diversity/FAQ_REDE.html)
Implicit stereotype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype)
or, you know, just search "implicit bias" and click on random links, like I did. :smalltongue:

Sith_Happens
2014-12-12, 05:05 PM
Recommended reading for those who don't understand or who dispute this:
Understanding Implicit Bias (http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/understanding-implicit-bias/)
FAQ on Implicit Bias (http://med.stanford.edu/diversity/FAQ_REDE.html)
Implicit stereotype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype)
or, you know, just search "implicit bias" and click on random links, like I did. :smalltongue:

Cracked just two days ago published "5 Studies That Prove Racism Is Still Way Worse Than We Think (http://www.cracked.com/article_21822_5-studies-that-prove-racism-still-way-worse-than-we-think.html)," which is also a good read.

Themrys
2014-12-12, 05:24 PM
So I know by now that most of you on here are experienced players and have encountered many problems/challenges, both in and out of game. So I have come to you all for advice.

A good friend of mine is GMing for a group of 5, me, a friend of mine, and two of his friends I don't really know.
Now heres the problem, he's racist/sexist and i only just found this out a month ago, and i mean racist/sexist in a "I've never experienced it so I dont care" way. (mostly because he is a wealthy, white dude.)

The thing is, I like roleplaying challenges, playing a strange race, multiple personalities, differing sex's, etc. and I fear he may try to put down my character as a result. (he already has once, trying to make my "Brienne of Tarth" a pretty little princess)

I just need advice on what to do, I've never encountered something like this before in my time RPing and it would help a lot for someone to help me stay friends with this guy, without poor Brienne being forced into a dress.

Call him out on it. As you are male, he might listen.

Just to let you know you are not alone:

I had exactly that same situation, and it got gradually worse - first, all his NPC were male, (especially those in positions of power, some wives of less important men were allowed to exist), made our characters enter a country known for its sexism, then made this country, which should have only the medieval-fantasy-world level of sexim as sexist as Saudi Arabia, if not worse. (And this in spite of me having told him I didn't want to have anything to do with that country when the group formed).

I complained. I was complaining all the time. (In character, but as I am a woman in real life, it was obvious that I resented the whole thing just as much as my character did) So, after that adventure, I thought he had gotten it, but THEN, he came up with the idea to turn our characters (at that time we were down to to players, me and a man) into orcs, a race whose males in that game considered the women of their race animals. He also made my character the property of the male player's character, which that player thankfully handled in a respectful way.
That was when I asked GM guy whether he was intentionally trying to piss me off. He accused me of "closedmindedness" due to me not being open to learn about the interesting and wonderful misogyny of fantasy cultures.

He also cited his female aquaintances as proof that "women like that" and of course, women are a monolith. :smallannoyed:

That was when I told him that we should go separate ways.


So, no, it will not get better, it IS sexism, and he might try harder to make your character conform to his idea of femininity the longer you let him do this unchallenged. It is no use trying to work against that within the game mechanics. You have to talk about it openly.

I don't know if a male friendship can survive something like this, a friendship between a woman and a man definitely can't. One thing I can tell you, though: Don't want anymore. You will just become gradually angrier and angrier, which does not help reducing conflict. (I don't think the guy in my group would have been redeemable, but I still think I waited much too long until I called him out on his bull****)

Jeff the Green
2014-12-12, 06:11 PM
Cracked just two days ago published "5 Studies That Prove Racism Is Still Way Worse Than We Think (http://www.cracked.com/article_21822_5-studies-that-prove-racism-still-way-worse-than-we-think.html)," which is also a good read.

Oh yeah. That's where I got the bit on mentoring, I think. I sometimes forget my sources. :smallredface:


Call him out on it. As you are male, he might listen.

Just to let you know you are not alone:

I had exactly that same situation, and it got gradually worse - first, all his NPC were male, (especially those in positions of power, some wives of less important men were allowed to exist), made our characters enter a country known for its sexism, then made this country, which should have only the medieval-fantasy-world level of sexim as sexist as Saudi Arabia, if not worse. (And this in spite of me having told him I didn't want to have anything to do with that country when the group formed).

I complained. I was complaining all the time. (In character, but as I am a woman in real life, it was obvious that I resented the whole thing just as much as my character did) So, after that adventure, I thought he had gotten it, but THEN, he came up with the idea to turn our characters (at that time we were down to to players, me and a man) into orcs, a race whose males in that game considered the women of their race animals. He also made my character the property of the male player's character, which that player thankfully handled in a respectful way.
That was when I asked GM guy whether he was intentionally trying to piss me off. He accused me of "closedmindedness" due to me not being open to learn about the interesting and wonderful misogyny of fantasy cultures.

He also cited his female aquaintances as proof that "women like that" and of course, women are a monolith. :smallannoyed:

That was when I told him that we should go separate ways.


So, no, it will not get better, it IS sexism, and he might try harder to make your character conform to his idea of femininity the longer you let him do this unchallenged. It is no use trying to work against that within the game mechanics. You have to talk about it openly.

I don't know if a male friendship can survive something like this, a friendship between a woman and a man definitely can't. One thing I can tell you, though: Don't want anymore. You will just become gradually angrier and angrier, which does not help reducing conflict. (I don't think the guy in my group would have been redeemable, but I still think I waited much too long until I called him out on his bull****)

Ugh. Yeah, that's intollerable.

I wouldn't be sure that everyone like that is unchangeable, and it certainly depends on age. I know I held at least a few obnoxious opinions in middle and high school, mostly because nobody called me on them.

Being a guy calling out a guy might help, but I'm not certain. I don't get called a humorless harpy like some of my female friends do, but I do get called a *****, a white knight, and various other terms to imply I'm less than manly. Most people who hold explicit sexist/racist/other-ist views don't like getting called on them by anyone. Women/blacks/gays/etc. are ignored because they're not worth listening to and men/whites/straights/etc. are ignored because they're traitors.

That said, I still encourage talking to the guy if you think its at all possible you might get through to him.

Solaris
2014-12-12, 07:00 PM
Of course not, the problem is it's nearly impossible to say with much confidence that "sex is an utter non-factor" given how subtle and unconscious a bias can be.

True - but given a lack of any supporting evidence, I tend to look for ignorance instead of seeking out signs of malice. I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist - just that, because it's so difficult to prove, it's better to not assume it without additional supporting evidence such as "No female leaders" and "Only presents women as damsels in distress/rewards/sexual conquests".

Regardless, in any event it's not a bad thing to call someone on. Best-case scenario, they've gotten sloppy with their world-building. Worst-case scenario, they're erring on the side of chauvinistic.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-12, 07:12 PM
True - but given a lack of any supporting evidence, I tend to look for ignorance instead of seeking out signs of malice.

Implicit prejudice is ignorance rather than malice.

Solaris
2014-12-12, 07:17 PM
Implicit prejudice is ignorance rather than malice.

You're much kinder with your definitions than some others I've come across. (Sol's adventures with trolling feminazis is a topic for another day.)
By that definition, then yes, I'd have to agree with you on the point.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-12, 07:53 PM
You're much kinder with your definitions than some others I've come across. (Sol's adventures with trolling feminazis is a topic for another day.)
By that definition, then yes, I'd have to agree with you on the point.

I don't see how any reasonable person could call it malice, the whole point is that you have no idea you're doing it and may rightly think yourself quite open-minded (because by any more obvious metric you are).

Jeff the Green
2014-12-12, 08:01 PM
Implicit prejudice is ignorance rather than malice.

More specifically, it tends to be ignorance of the self; you have some platonic ideal of "nurse" or "engineer" or "leader" that is one gender/race or another against which you measure real nurses, engineers, and leaders, and when they fall short because they're the wrong gender or race you view them as worse at their job. It's really hard to blame someone for it because no one is very good at the kind of introspection you need to do to identify these ideals and kill them. There's also the sort of prejudice that comes from ignorance of others/general facts (like not realizing that sexist jokes causes a hostile work environment), which is somewhat less excusable as it generally requires some degree of willful blindness. Finally there's the "yes women are inferior go make me a sandwich" types.

The "lesser" forms are problems for two reasons. First, as mentioned, they can cause problems like inadvertently discriminating against people, which is kind of a vicious cycle as, in computer science for example, women aren't retained because they're not recruited/mentored/hired/promoted as men which makes peoples' image of a computer scientist exclusively male, which makes people less likely to recruit/mentor/hire/promote women. But it also encourages the people with more vicious prejudice. If the professor who thinks that women are inherently bad at computer science sees that his colleagues aren't mentoring as many female students he will assume they share his views and thus be encouraged in them. Generally when the well-meaning but still unavoidable biased (i.e. the majority of people) realize what they're doing they're horrified. The trick is to convince them that they're actually doing it and aren't reacting to relevant factors; this is why the various studies mentioned have been so important.


I don't see how any reasonable person could call it malice, the whole point is that you have no idea you're doing it and may rightly think yourself quite open-minded (because by any more obvious metric you are).

Part of it comes from the fact that people who actually are maliciously sexist/racist/whateverist have for the most part learned that it's not acceptable in polite society and disguise themselves as the ignorant kind. A lot of people who regularly fight the malicious ones get a sort of battle fatigue and/or warped perceptions in the same way someone who regularly fights terrorists may come to see all kinds of things as indicating terrorist sympathies.

Solaris
2014-12-13, 01:07 AM
I don't see how any reasonable person could call it malice, the whole point is that you have no idea you're doing it and may rightly think yourself quite open-minded (because by any more obvious metric you are).

The key word there is reasonable.
Zealots are not known for being reasonable people.

SangoProduction
2014-12-13, 01:17 PM
how do I get this forum to stop emailing me?

Themrys
2014-12-14, 01:48 PM
Ugh. Yeah, that's intollerable.

I wouldn't be sure that everyone like that is unchangeable, and it certainly depends on age. I know I held at least a few obnoxious opinions in middle and high school, mostly because nobody called me on them.

Being a guy calling out a guy might help, but I'm not certain. I don't get called a humorless harpy like some of my female friends do, but I do get called a *****, a white knight, and various other terms to imply I'm less than manly. Most people who hold explicit sexist/racist/other-ist views don't like getting called on them by anyone. Women/blacks/gays/etc. are ignored because they're not worth listening to and men/whites/straights/etc. are ignored because they're traitors.

That said, I still encourage talking to the guy if you think its at all possible you might get through to him.

Eh, yes, you may get called a lot of names, but he will value your opinion more than he would a woman's, and eventually he will have to admit that he is the one who doesn't fit in, and needs to change his ways to be accepted by other men. He would still be sexist in that case, of course, it is unlikely that this changes merely because others call him out on it, but he would learn to hide it better, and it would get less on everyone's nerves.

You sure you held your obnoxious opinions just because no one called you out on them? I mean, usually, you have some reason to hold opinions other than "I don't know better". In my experience, learning new stuff only changes your ideas on how to best achieve your goals. For example, I am for protecting the environment, and my opinion on whether a new lightbulb that needs less energy is the best way to achieve this, may change, but the basic opinion that someone should do something about it, will not.

Cunningtub
2014-12-15, 02:19 PM
wow, I honestly did not expect so much responses on this...

Thank you everyone that has given me advice on this problem, I hope I can show him the errors of his ways and change him to be a better person, which means i'm going to still be friends with him, but if he continues to show this type of behavior, i'll break off our relationship.

And to answer some other questions, I was basically the damsel in distress "crit'd the first encounter, knocked unconscious, and tied up by the chieftain to be...used... until the rest of the party showed up to rescue me" luckily I got to extract my revenge via disgracing of corpses (my dagger was named the nutty knife after that) after which we ended that session. so yeah. :smalleek:

Anonymouswizard
2014-12-15, 03:23 PM
wow, I honestly did not expect so much responses on this...

Thank you everyone that has given me advice on this problem, I hope I can show him the errors of his ways and change him to be a better person, which means i'm going to still be friends with him, but if he continues to show this type of behavior, i'll break off our relationship.

That's because it's actually an interesting topic :smallwink: This really sounds like the best course of action, I hope that he does change.


And to answer some other questions, I was basically the damsel in distress "crit'd the first encounter, knocked unconscious, and tied up by the chieftain to be...used... until the rest of the party showed up to rescue me" luckily I got to extract my revenge via disgracing of corpses (my dagger was named the nutty knife after that) after which we ended that session. so yeah. :smalleek:

is this the first time you've played with him? Because this could just be a case of him rolling with a crit followed by something that should have been glossed over (I'd run it with the players getting to decide when in the Chieftain's sequence of events they rescue their friend, although I would also dock pie from any who chose 'after' without the player of the captive player saying yes), although it could be very problematic if it wasn't glossed over (but I wouldn't jump to sexism as much as 'dude, can we not roleplay that?'). I'd say either talk to him about it before the next session or give him another session just to see if he was trying to roll with the dice. But if the same thing happens again? Then definitely talk to him about it, because it could in theory be anything from him being sexist (a good chance) to him picking on you (from what I understand this is basically not something that would happen between the two of you).

Although if everyone else is playing male characters, I'd err on the side of him being sexist. Is this the case?

Solaris
2014-12-15, 04:20 PM
And to answer some other questions, I was basically the damsel in distress "crit'd the first encounter, knocked unconscious, and tied up by the chieftain to be...used... until the rest of the party showed up to rescue me" luckily I got to extract my revenge via disgracing of corpses (my dagger was named the nutty knife after that) after which we ended that session. so yeah. :smalleek:

That's one of those major red flag situations.
I'd be particularly leery about continuing with this group. The GM seems to fail certain criteria for social behavior.

Jeff the Green
2014-12-15, 05:36 PM
That's one of those major red flag situations.
I'd be particularly leery about continuing with this group. The GM seems to fail certain criteria for social behavior.

My general rule is: If you don't have to include sexual assault, don't include it. If you do have to, you ****ed up somewhere along the way and should stop, figure it out, and undo it, retconning if necessary.

It's one thing to include rape in a book or movie—I really love Beloved—but it takes a very talented writer/actor to pull it off and it has an enormous risk of straining the relationship of the person playing the rapist and their victim. As powerful as it can be in other fiction, it just isn't worth it.

Solaris
2014-12-15, 06:24 PM
My general rule is: If you don't have to include sexual assault, don't include it. If you do have to, you ****ed up somewhere along the way and should stop, figure it out, and undo it, retconning if necessary.

It's one thing to include rape in a book or movie—I really love Beloved—but it takes a very talented writer/actor to pull it off and it has an enormous risk of straining the relationship of the person playing the rapist and their victim. As powerful as it can be in other fiction, it just isn't worth it.

Agreed completely. I've been DMing for almost two decades, and not once have I included sexual assault or rape in any of my games. It's utterly unnecessary.

ellindsey
2014-12-15, 06:31 PM
And to answer some other questions, I was basically the damsel in distress "crit'd the first encounter, knocked unconscious, and tied up by the chieftain to be...used... until the rest of the party showed up to rescue me" luckily I got to extract my revenge via disgracing of corpses (my dagger was named the nutty knife after that) after which we ended that session. so yeah. :smalleek:

This would be the point where, if this happened to me, I would stop gaming with the person responsible. And possibly stop talking to them completely.

Themrys
2014-12-15, 07:00 PM
wow, I honestly did not expect so much responses on this...

Thank you everyone that has given me advice on this problem, I hope I can show him the errors of his ways and change him to be a better person, which means i'm going to still be friends with him, but if he continues to show this type of behavior, i'll break off our relationship.

And to answer some other questions, I was basically the damsel in distress "crit'd the first encounter, knocked unconscious, and tied up by the chieftain to be...used... until the rest of the party showed up to rescue me" luckily I got to extract my revenge via disgracing of corpses (my dagger was named the nutty knife after that) after which we ended that session. so yeah. :smalleek:

Ugh ... you should definitely call him out on it and, most important, warn female players away from him. I mean, can you imagine a woman who has been raped having this dropped on her without warning when she's trying to have fun and relax? :smalleek:

Arbane
2014-12-16, 01:46 AM
Ugh ... you should definitely call him out on it and, most important, warn female players away from him. I mean, can you imagine a woman who has been raped having this dropped on her without warning when she's trying to have fun and relax? :smalleek:

Oh hell yeah. Ethically, murder may or may not be worse than rape in RPGs, but you are VASTLY more likely to be playing with someone who's been raped than someone who's been murdered. :smallmad:

My advice, in the OP's specific case, if reason proves to be ineffective (and it probably will, since you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into) is to screw with his head. Play a black female human who's intelligence score (or equivalent in that system) is higher than the rest of the party's combined.

Or just quit.

Jeff the Green
2014-12-16, 02:01 AM
Ugh ... you should definitely call him out on it and, most important, warn female players away from him. I mean, can you imagine a woman who has been raped having this dropped on her without warning when she's trying to have fun and relax? :smalleek:

Not just women—the most recent study pegged 17% of attempted or completed sexual assaults were perpetrated against men. (Probably more if you include the prison population.)

Yeah. Another good rule of thumb: if there's a good chance that something might trigger a common PTSD, avoid it. I'm not going to have explosions and amputations and children dying from crossfire if I'm playing with ex-soldiers without having a long talk with them first, and there are enough rape victims of every gender that it's not terribly unlikely you're playing with a victim.

goto124
2014-12-16, 02:54 AM
Even perfectly normal people who had the luck to not go through those sort of things can find them horrifying, in a manner that prevents enjoyment of the story and the game.

Speaking of the less extreme forms of sexism- people talked about stuff like 'almost everyone is male, not enough females'. Will it take more effort than changing 50% of the character's 'Sex' field from 'Male' to 'Female'? It can apply in other ways- for example, when you mention a crowd of people, say 'half of them were women'. Little stuff like that that doesn't really change anything can be a good start. Not perfect, but one small step for a man human, one giant leap for mankind humankind.

Themrys
2014-12-16, 09:31 AM
Not just women—the most recent study pegged 17% of attempted or completed sexual assaults were perpetrated against men. (Probably more if you include the prison population.)

Well, yes, but I was thinking of women, mainly, as about 20 or so percent of women have been raped or at least sexually assaulted in some way during their lifetime, which makes it almost certain that this GM will someday meet a rape survivor and pull this bull**** on them if they're trusting enough to play a female character. (Sadly, telling people that won't always help - my sexist ex-GM seriously tried to justify his **** with "a female friend of mine is a survivor and she thinks it's okay!")
I always play male characters in all-male groups, in order to not be the designated damsel. The GM of the only all-male group I played in was a decent guy, and took it upon himself to play a female character to even things out a bit, so that was probably not necessary, but you never know. With the GM that offended me so much, I think now I should have played a gay male, and flirt with his male city guards until he switches to female ones in order to avoid that. :smallbiggrin:

@goto124:

I don't know where you're from, but in my mothertongue, "group of people" is completely gender-neutral, so it would seem strange to mention that half of them are women. I'd only mention it if the PCs try to elbow their way through the group - then, they'd of course step on 50% female toes.

You are right, just changing 50% of the "sex" fields won't always work, if you still have to get rid of some subconscious sexism of your own. You might end up with a lot of "the innkeeper and his wife" and "the baron and his wife" couples. Better just throw a coin for every random NPC you create. That way, you will have no all-male city guard. (That got on my nerves a lot with the ex-GM - the game we played was 100% equal as part of the setting, and the rulebooks emphasized it, and still, random NPCs would only be female if they were romantically involved with some male.)

Also, get rid of implications of sexism. A father who is angry because his daughter had sex? Why would he be angry, in a world where his daughter is not his property? You can find a reason for parents to be angry at some boy who got their daugther pregnant by lying to her about having taken his contraception tea, or whatever, but you can't just rely on old tropes.

Solaris
2014-12-16, 11:12 AM
Well, yes, but I was thinking of women, mainly, as about 20 or so percent of women have been raped or at least sexually assaulted in some way during their lifetime, which makes it almost certain that this GM will someday meet a rape survivor and pull this bull**** on them if they're trusting enough to play a female character. (Sadly, telling people that won't always help - my sexist ex-GM seriously tried to justify his **** with "a female friend of mine is a survivor and she thinks it's okay!")

I'm reminded of the guy cracking racist jokes who justifies it with saying "Hey, plenty of my best friends are black!"
Just 'cause one person is okay with it doesn't mean everyone else is okay with it. He should at least have the decency to own his **** and admit to being sexist without using nonsensical arguments to justify it.


I always play male characters in all-male groups, in order to not be the designated damsel. The GM of the only all-male group I played in was a decent guy, and took it upon himself to play a female character to even things out a bit, so that was probably not necessary, but you never know. With the GM that offended me so much, I think now I should have played a gay male, and flirt with his male city guards until he switches to female ones in order to avoid that. :smallbiggrin:

Do one better - claim your current character was always male, and that he's a crossdresser.


Also, get rid of implications of sexism. A father who is angry because his daughter had sex? Why would he be angry, in a world where his daughter is not his property? You can find a reason for parents to be angry at some boy who got their daugther pregnant by lying to her about having taken his contraception tea, or whatever, but you can't just rely on old tropes.

He would still be responsible for helping her with the child, especially if the child were born out of wedlock and/or the father were a total deadbeat. It's not unreasonable to get angry because of kids fooling around on account of it can result in a pregnancy. There's also the consideration of medieval mortality rates - even with clerical spells, it's not like those are cheap, especially for peasants.
That particular trope didn't really rise out of 'women are property' so much as 'parents are responsible for their children'. I mean, wouldn't you be upset if you saw your kid doing something stupid that could jeopardize their future?

Now, if you want an unusual subversion of the trope, the Norse once believed that doing the naughty weakened growing boys, and that holding off until your twenties or so strengthened your thews and toughened your muscles. I've no doubt it arose from the above reasons, but it's a different expression of the social custom than the typical hick with a shotgun yellin' about desecrating his daughter.

goto124
2014-12-16, 12:19 PM
they'd of course step on 50% female toes.

"Calith stepped on a slim foot with manicured nails, and immediately said 'Sorry miss', only to be greeted with an elegant voice, 'It's sir. I get that a lot'. Samus stepped on a large, hairy foot, and said 'Sorry sir', but on looking up saw a large pair of mishappen breasts. A gruff voice said, 'It's Miss.' The party continued to trudge through the crowd..."

:smalltongue:


You are right, just changing 50% of the "sex" fields won't always work, if you still have to get rid of some subconscious sexism of your own. You might end up with a lot of "the innkeeper and his wife" and "the baron and his wife" couples. Better just throw a coin for every random NPC you create. That way, you will have no all-male city guard.

Actually, I was suggesting the 'throw a coin for every random NPC' thing. I'd assumed that when you changed the sex fields, you'd already used random.org to pick the characters that get changed. It'll also lead to many more gay and lesbian couples :smallbiggrin:


Also, get rid of implications of sexism. A father who is angry because his daughter had sex? Why would he be angry, in a world where his daughter is not his property? You can find a reason for parents to be angry at some boy who got their daugther pregnant by lying to her about having taken his contraception tea, or whatever, but you can't just rely on old tropes.

There's also the difference between 'in-universe characters being sexist' and 'DM being sexist'. Perhaps a better example of the latter would be a Virgin-Whore Complex, where every chaste and passive woman is protrayed as Good by the DM, and every sexually active woman is protrayed as Evil by the DM. It's one thing when other characters berate an woman for getting around, another when the DM has a monster eat said woman up almost immediately after she loses her virginity for no other reason. It's the difference between the 'all females are defined solely by their romantic relation to a male' thing, and having the in-universe males insist that the females be wives and servants and nothing else- and fail, because the DM said 'let these oppressed ladies fight their way out of the system'.


Do one better - claim your current character was always male, and that he's a crossdresser.

A crossdresser PC, that's nice! There might be implications if said character is Evil, though.
The crossdressing bit might be easier if you're always wearing armor :smallbiggrin:

Knaight
2014-12-16, 12:31 PM
There's also the difference between 'in-universe characters being sexist' and 'DM being sexist'. Perhaps a better example of the latter would be a Virgin-Whore Complex, where every chaste and passive woman is protrayed as Good by the DM, and every sexually active woman is protrayed as Evil by the DM. It's one thing when other characters berate an woman for getting around, another when the DM has a monster eat said woman up almost immediately after she loses her virginity for no other reason. It's the difference between the 'all females are defined solely by their romantic relation to a male' thing, and having the in-universe males insist that the females be wives and servants and nothing else- and fail, because the DM said 'let these oppressed ladies fight their way out of the system'.

There's a huge difference between depiction of sexist attitudes, and endorsement of sexist attitudes. With that said, the GM in question has been wallowing in the second (breaking the rules for the sole reason of having female PCs raped? Seriously?), and if there's a bunch of that depiction is likely to be read as endorsement. This is particularly true in RPGs, which are generally less able to do depth and subtlety as quickly as books are. How in-setting sexism is going to be interpreted is largely based on what is already known about the GM, out of character conversations, etc. RPGs also have the advantage of everyone involved often personally knowing each other (which isn't generally the case when reading a book), which helps prevent misreading.

Themrys
2014-12-16, 12:48 PM
There's also the difference between 'in-universe characters being sexist' and 'DM being sexist'. Perhaps a better example of the latter would be a Virgin-Whore Complex, where every chaste and passive woman is protrayed as Good by the DM, and every sexually active woman is protrayed as Evil by the DM. It's one thing when other characters berate an woman for getting around, another when the DM has a monster eat said woman up almost immediately after she loses her virginity for no other reason. It's the difference between the 'all females are defined solely by their romantic relation to a male' thing, and having the in-universe males insist that the females be wives and servants and nothing else- and fail, because the DM said 'let these oppressed ladies fight their way out of the system'.

Well, it depends. The GM I had a problem with insisted on shoehorning sexism into a society that was explicity gender-equal. Also, no female player had expressed the wish to fight her way out of the system. (The setting of The Dark Eye allows for patriarchal oppression, if that's what you want, but you can stay away from it, which we had consented to do prior to starting the game)

Handling a sexist universe in a non-sexist way means to have female characters succeed, with any and all approach they try to solve the patriarchal problems with. Therefore, if the female character decides that she does not want to show the guardsman her breasts so that he lets her go, but wants to bash his skull in, she should have a fair chance to succeed. (The ex-GM mentioned above always tried, and often succeeded in railroading female characters into using "feminine wiles" in order to win the game. He often decided what would happen in order to achieve that, for example when I used witch magic to disguise a female hero as harmless child, the bandits saw her as sex object, although I thought I had made it quite clear I meant a pre-puberty child. It was kind of satisfying to kill the bandits after that, but it would have been more fun to kill some female bandits who weren't pedophiles - I, personally, do not play fantasy games to relive reality. )

Solaris
2014-12-16, 02:12 PM
Well, it depends. The GM I had a problem with insisted on shoehorning sexism into a society that was explicity gender-equal. Also, no female player had expressed the wish to fight her way out of the system. (The setting of The Dark Eye allows for patriarchal oppression, if that's what you want, but you can stay away from it, which we had consented to do prior to starting the game)

Handling a sexist universe in a non-sexist way means to have female characters succeed, with any and all approach they try to solve the patriarchal problems with. Therefore, if the female character decides that she does not want to show the guardsman her breasts so that he lets her go, but wants to bash his skull in, she should have a fair chance to succeed. (The ex-GM mentioned above always tried, and often succeeded in railroading female characters into using "feminine wiles" in order to win the game. He often decided what would happen in order to achieve that, for example when I used witch magic to disguise a female hero as harmless child, the bandits saw her as sex object, although I thought I had made it quite clear I meant a pre-puberty child. It was kind of satisfying to kill the bandits after that, but it would have been more fun to kill some female bandits who weren't pedophiles - I, personally, do not play fantasy games to relive reality. )

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, how'd you play with that sleezeball longer than a session or two?

goto124
2014-12-16, 02:41 PM
Maybe the extreme part of his sexism didn't show itself until later in the game.

(Not quite on-topic: I'd assumed that Themrys is female IRL.)

Themrys
2014-12-16, 03:46 PM
Maybe the extreme part of his sexism didn't show itself until later in the game.

(Not quite on-topic: I'd assumed that Themrys is female IRL.)

Yeah, it was kind of a slippery slope. I thought he was just an ordinary bloke, with that background radiation sexism level almost everyone has. I mean, it is not that easy to get rid of the assumption that a medieval-like fantasyland has the same societal values they had in the real Middle Ages. I also acknowledge that GMing is a lot of work, so I was very forgiving.

Turning our characters into orcs was when I realized that he doesn't care about what I want out of the game (as I had previously mentioned I did not want to play in patriarchal cultures), and his reaction to me mentioning this was what made it impossible to still believe in his not doing this on purpose (I considered confronting him earlier, I think I started a thread here about the problem. I sent him a mail about this, which he didn't answer, and thought the problem was solved with that and he just didn't know what to answer.)

And yup, I am female-bodied. I don't display this on my profile because it is safer to not be female on the internet. Also, it is largely irrelevant, except in discussions such as this one, where the female point of view is relevant.

C'nor
2015-01-08, 06:44 AM
Ugh ... you should definitely call him out on it and, most important, warn female players away from him. I mean, can you imagine a woman who has been raped having this dropped on her without warning when she's trying to have fun and relax? :smalleek:

Entirely too easily, but at that point I'd probably be a bit occupied punching him out. >.>


"Calith stepped on a slim foot with manicured nails, and immediately said 'Sorry miss', only to be greeted with an elegant voice, 'It's sir. I get that a lot'. Samus stepped on a large, hairy foot, and said 'Sorry sir', but on looking up saw a large pair of mishappen breasts. A gruff voice said, 'It's Miss.' The party continued to trudge through the crowd..."

:smalltongue:


...That is awesome. :smallbiggrin:



A crossdresser PC, that's nice! There might be implications if said character is Evil, though.
The crossdressing bit might be easier if you're always wearing armor :smallbiggrin:

Potentially, yeah. But in fairness, those sort of implications can crop up in almost anything. My playing a flirty person who enjoys teasing people (Akaris) might be taken as implying that all women are sluts* and manipulative (the latter mostly because of the way she messes with people). Or my playing a self-reliant and personally powerful tiefling woman who owns a slave (admittedly a well-treated one, but that's more because, A, having damaged property reflects badly on her - "Seriously, you can't or won't keep your own belongings in good order?" -, B, she's a valuable one due to being another tiefling with a talent for magic, and amenable to getting training - damaging your own assets is stupid -, and C, she cares about that particular one for personal reasons) and is perfectly fine with turning unwilling people into hosts for demons if it serves her goals could be taken as a 'such women are clearly Evil and literally devils to boot'.

*(Before anyone starts: No, I have no objection to women (or men for that matter) who have a lot of sex; I also have no objection to non-monogamy or for that matter not pursuing any 'serious' relationship with your chosen sex partner or partners. The intent should be clear with that disclaimer and the context in which I'm saying this.)



Handling a sexist universe in a non-sexist way means to have female characters succeed, with any and all approach they try to solve the patriarchal problems with.

I get what you mean based on what you say later, but that's an odd way of putting it? 'Any and all approaches' implies that they have to win regardless of any other circumstances, which I personally wouldn't see as accurate. :smallconfused:

For instance, you give the example of a guard wanting to see a woman's breasts before allowing her to pass on, so let's go with that; if I were for some reason to have that come up in one of my games (doubtful, as I would try to actively avoid things like that in the first place (and even more so because I vehemently refuse to run anything at all because I don't think I'm good enough)) and she attempted to bash the guardsman's skull in, then unless she managed to do so in one blow and won the initiative roll, shortly thereafter the rest of the guard would show up and arrest her. Because, y'know, as far as they were concerned she just assaulted a guard, and they had no way of knowing why. Now, the guardsman would also be interrogated as to the events leading up to this, since they also wouldn't know who started it, or if she had reason to assault him that way, and the charges would be dropped as soon as she was questioned, assuming that circumstances are as stipulated (with, if there was any way to prove it, him being removed from duty and possibly having other actions taken against him depending on exactly what had occurred), but... In general, attacking the local authorities is not a functional course of action.

Now, I don't think you're objecting to that, as it's exactly the same result that a straight white human male who decided to bash a guard's skull in over anything else might get? But I do wish to make sure that that's actually the case, and if not, I'm curious why not? (Or, in other words - approaches have consequences.)

...Of course, thinking about it, by some metrics it did work - she did not have to expose herself in order to get out of the situation -, but I'm unclear on if that's what you meant by succeed there; I realize I'm probably being nitpicky about words, and I apologize for that, but I am curious about what your point of view actually is, and words can be important, so... Yeah. Hopefully this doesn't come across as offensive; it's not the intent, and I support the general principle that I think you're promoting.

goto124
2015-01-08, 07:08 AM
Potentially, yeah. But in fairness, those sort of implications can crop up in almost anything. My playing a flirty person who enjoys teasing people (Akaris) might be taken as implying that all women are sluts* and manipulative (the latter mostly because of the way she messes with people).

You do have a point there. It's why it helps to have a variety of females, to show that women are as good as men and can take on as many personalites as men do. It also helps to have a large enough number of females to play the different personalities. Hard to show variety with only... what... 1 or 2 women?


Now, I don't think you're objecting to that, as it's exactly the same result that a straight white human male who decided to bash a guard's skull in over anything else might get? But I do wish to make sure that that's actually the case, and if not, I'm curious why not? (Or, in other words - approaches have consequences.)

What I think she meant was: If a female tries to punch a guard out, she should goes through the same Strength checks and other mechanics as a male. As opposed to the DM stepping in and say 'she fails, period. Pun intended'. The Dm that Themrys was under took sexism to the logical extreme.

You're probably thinking of Positive Discrimination (Tvtropes page on it, but I won't link it because Tvtropes), which can turn out as badly as 'normal' discrimination. I don't think you really need to resort to Positive Discrimination when you're playing with a small bunch of friends, not showcasing your story to thousands of people.