Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[Raineh Daze]

Some objections to the table:

1. 'Aristocrats'. Upper class would be better, and could then more accurately reflect certain situations (e.g. Tarquin and Malack might not own land, but both of them are obscenely well off due to their positions and the whole setup. 'Spare Ring of Regeneration', for instance. Too high up to be middle class, but not landed gentry.)
2. Half-orcs don't have their race listed as green.
3. Samantha and her father are both deceased
4. Gannji and Enor aren't criminals. Not sure where that's come from.
5. Girard doesn't seem like his class is right. He isn't exactly much of a land owner any more than Dorukan is.

[Cavelcade]

No, it doesn't mean they absolutely HAVE to, but that logically, they would. But yeah, it's probably gender normativity and gender constructs seeping through.

Not necessarily - even if they can, there will still (probably) be tendencies based on culture with in the setting which causes them to gravitate towards certain positions. That's not to say that women mightn't be more inclined to be fighters, but it seems likely they'd be more inclined to be something. If they aren't, and there is literally no difference between the genders well...why have them at all, then?

I guess the idea of an essentially genderless world doesn't particularly interest me because ours isn't. While I would prefer our media not reinforce the idea that women are weak, fragile, delicate things and LGBT is unnatural, I would prefer that they not ignore it either. I suppose I could see a few ways this could be interesting - but most of them would be in reference to less pleasant things.

If that is what you're interested in - fair enough.

While D&D has indeed suffered from ingrained sexism, it's still a way for women to roleplay a woman in a world completely different to theirs, where the patriarchy does not exist, and their characters are viewed as exactly equal to men. That alone should be something worth cherishing.

Interestingly, one of the most feminist minded woman I know really dislikes that element of it, because she views it as a historian, and doesn't buy into the genders being magically equal - she finds it off putting, because all the historical setting vibe puts her in her historian mode, and then that just seems completely wrong to her.

But yeah, it has sexism issues. Lots of them.

Well, the published material does. The game itself is I guess progressive, mostly.

Firstly, who says I don't already do that? Because I do, I assure you. There are some works I would not touch with a ten-foot pole. Secondly, no change is ever going to be made without someone going out there to try and bring education and information to people. Not to tell them what to do, but to tell them things they might not be aware of, and then letting them do with that information what they will. In a sense, I'm like a salesman. I have a sales pitch to sell you inclusion in the media, but the decision is yours.

I don't agree that having it be without those issues is the correct way to enact social change. It'd be like the horribly edited for daytime TV version of Blazing Saddles I saw - it had all the racism taken out, which made it both pointless and dull. Having it be present in the story doesn't mean it supports it - if the story is about how idiotic those ideas are and overcoming them, then quite the opposite.

[Raineh Daze]

I guess the idea of an essentially genderless world doesn't particularly interest me because ours isn't. While I would prefer our media not reinforce the idea that women are weak, fragile, delicate things and LGBT is unnatural, I would prefer that they not ignore it either. I suppose I could see a few ways this could be interesting - but most of them would be in reference to less pleasant things.

Please consider your wording more carefully. I doubt that you're saying they shouldn't ignore that LGBT is unnatural, but that's what it can be read as.

[Cavelcade]

Jesus Christ, I am way too tired to be commenting if that's what that came out as.

I meant they shouldn't ignore it or treat it as unnatural.

[Shadowknight12]

Not necessarily - even if they can, there will still (probably) be tendencies based on culture with in the setting which causes them to gravitate towards certain positions. That's not to say that women mightn't be more inclined to be fighters, but it seems likely they'd be more inclined to be something. If they aren't, and there is literally no difference between the genders well...why have them at all, then?

I guess the idea of an essentially genderless world doesn't particularly interest me because ours isn't. While I would prefer our media not reinforce the idea that women are weak, fragile, delicate things and LGBT is unnatural, I would prefer that they not ignore it either. I suppose I could see a few ways this could be interesting - but most of them would be in reference to less pleasant things.

If that is what you're interested in - fair enough.

It is, actually. I am a gender deconstructivist. I support the destruction of gender (understood as "all that cultural baggage we pile onto biological sex") and the vision of gender as exclusively cosmetic, with no cultural or psychological baggage. Of course, I understand my position is controversial, and I don't expect anybody to share it or agree. I bring it up because yes, you've encapsulated my preferences exactly. An essentially genderless world would make me squee with glee. Which is, funny enough, the basic premise of D&D when it says that gender is purely cosmetic.

Interestingly, one of the most feminist minded woman I know really dislikes that element of it, because she views it as a historian, and doesn't buy into the genders being magically equal - she finds it off putting, because all the historical setting vibe puts her in her historian mode, and then that just seems completely wrong to her.

That's probably because she's not a gender deconstructivist. I'm a feminist ally myself, but that doesn't mean other feminists and I see eye to eye on everything. There are things we simply agree to disagree.

I don't agree that having it be without those issues is the correct way to enact social change. It'd be like the horribly edited for daytime TV version of Blazing Saddles I saw - it had all the racism taken out, which made it both pointless and dull. Having it be present in the story doesn't mean it supports it - if the story is about how idiotic those ideas are and overcoming them, then quite the opposite.

I consider that a matter of personal preference. Some people prefer to see those issues addressed and overcome, as you indicate. Others (like me) would rather see fiction where such issues don't exist at all, in order to give us an inspiration to strive for, or an ideal to pursue, or simply to enjoy the novelty of not being treated like crap by society. That sort of thing has a value of its own.

[Raineh Daze]

Reminds me of a discussion I was in a few days ago about whether a genderless society would be better or worse for gender dysphoria.

I don't think D&D eliminates the concepts of masculinity or femininity, so gender isn't purely cosmetic. Theoretically (i.e., before the settings get involved) unbiased, but not genderless.

[Shadowknight12]

Reminds me of a discussion I was in a few days ago about whether a genderless society would be better or worse for gender dysphoria.

I don't think D&D eliminates the concepts of masculinity or femininity, so gender isn't purely cosmetic. Theoretically (i.e., before the settings get involved) unbiased, but not genderless.

Well, obviously, so long as there are two different biological sexes in a species, there will always be femininity and masculinity. But if we remove all the sociocultural and psychological baggage that we pile atop the reproductive organs, in the end, masculinity and femininity will have nothing to do with behaviour, psychology, culture, preferences, professions, attitudes, social roles or even physical appearance, they will be reduced exclusively to reproductive organs. They will still exist, but their sphere of effect will be vastly, vastly reduced.

In theory, anyway.

[Cavelcade]

An essentially genderless world would make me squee with glee. Which is, funny enough, the basic premise of D&D when it says that gender is purely cosmetic.

This is something I support as an ideal, but is not something I would be particularly interested to see in literature - although, maybe I'm being unfair. It's more that if that were the basis of the work, I wouldn't be interested. The work itself could still be interesting to me based on other things.

[Raineh Daze]

Well, obviously, so long as there are two different biological sexes in a species, there will always be femininity and masculinity. But if we remove all the sociocultural and psychological baggage that we pile atop the reproductive organs, in the end, masculinity and femininity will have nothing to do with behaviour, psychology, culture, preferences, professions, attitudes, social roles or even physical appearance, they will be reduced exclusively to reproductive organs. They will still exist, but their sphere of effect will be vastly, vastly reduced.

In theory, anyway.

I think the overall conclusion was 'it would probably make things harder', so I find that ideal unappealing. Not that I wouldn't mind for things to be less rigidly defined and constricting.

[Water_Bear]

And this is part of why I hate biological psychology. Nothing but endlessly reinforcing the same problems, and you can't falsify it either, because genetics is so hideously complicated...

All psychology is biological psychology, because humans are living organisms. And since our brains are biochemical machines (like every other organ), genes and gene expression is very important to understand how and why we think and act the way we do. [/Pedant]

But either way, science isn't the problem here. Equality doesn't require people to be identical, or to be treated as if they were, so the fact that the sexes are different is not something which needs to be concealed. Knowing that women are more dexterous and mentally resilient on average or that men tend to be stronger and think more hierarchically/aggressively doesn't mean that women need to be barefoot and pregnant for society to function; on the contrary, that information reveals just how wasteful it is to have half the population locked out of jobs they are likely to excel at.

Biology is not the enemy of societal progress, in fact it's quite the opposite; people cannot possibly hope to reach their potential if we don't understand what that potential is or how best to unlock it.

I see absolutely no reason why a fantasy world with fairer LGBT and female representation would feel unnatural.

Because it's what we're not used to seeing, and that's why we need to see it more.

Personally, I like my Fantasy societies to have real world precedent because fantasy authors are lazy. If someone took the somewhat-matriarchal Iroquois Confederacy (or any of the other RL matriarchal/egalitarian civilizations) as the base for their fantasy kingdom I'd be thrilled, not just because that society fascinates me but because it has an actual history which caused it to develop that way. In my experience most fantasy authors are terrible world-builders as it is, so dropping a rare societal setup into a culture which developed from an entirely different set of pressures without any better explanation than "it's progressive!" makes me wretch. It's almost as bad as the fake languages full of apostrophes.

There are enough societies where bi/homosexuality (male and/or female) and/or transexuality were accepted or even considered ideal, and enough where women had an equal (or better) say in politics, that inventing one out of whole cloth is pointless. At best it'll just be a ton of work to get the same effect as switching the names of countries around, and at worst you end up with an illogical mess.

-Edit-

[Enormous Chart]

I like the idea, but this thing needs some fine-tuning.

Class is the most obvious to me.

• Redcloak and the higher-ranking Hobgoblins might present as middle class, but they're either very high or very low class depending on how that's seen. In Goblin society they're at the top of the heap but outside of it they're Kill-On-Sight Untouchables. Either way, they're not working for a living so much as ruling or scrabbling to survive.
• Nale is not middle class; Tarquin's three-empire scheme was going pretty much his entire life, leaving him as the son of the Top General / secret dictator of wherever they were at the time. That and his attitude put him solidly in the aristocratic category.
• Diago and Kazumi may have noble titles, but they're the definition of nouveau riche. If Kubota had killed them, I doubt the other Noble Houses would see it as anything other than getting rid of pretentious rabble.
• Tarquin is even less Middle Class than Nale. He literally sips fine wine while watching slaves killed for his personal amusement.

Those are the most obvious ones, but going over the list more carefully will probably show more. Again; I like the idea, just the execution needs work.

[Shadowknight12]

This is something I support as an ideal, but is not something I would be particularly interested to see in literature - although, maybe I'm being unfair. It's more that if that were the basis of the work, I wouldn't be interested. The work itself could still be interesting to me based on other things.

It's so wonderful that you have over 95% of all fantasy literature to cater to your tastes, isn't it?

I kid, I'm just jealous that heternormativity and gender constructs are so prevalent in fiction, so the people who like that have a ton of stories to enjoy, while the people who don't... well... have to write their own, sadly.

I think the overall conclusion was 'it would probably make things harder', so I find that ideal unappealing. Not that I wouldn't mind for things to be less rigidly defined and constricting.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Sorry, I didn't mean to be insensitive, I failed to realise what the implications of my post would be.

Biology is not the enemy of societal progress

No, but biological determinism is.

I have no problems with biology (I'm a biochemist, in fact), but when people start making assumptions that our biology is deterministic, that's where social progress is stymied and oppression is perpetuated.

[Raineh Daze]

Well, no, there's the psychological stuff that explains things without going into the biological reasoning behind it, which has the positive side effect of not raising the question of why we even bother, when the ultimate point is just to make more babies.

Everything's pointless enough without adding on more.

Biology is not the enemy of societal progress, in fact it's quite the opposite; people cannot possibly hope to reach their potential if we don't understand what that potential is or how best to unlock it.

Yay, pigeonholing people based on biological sex. Great. Wonderful. Not the basis of a dictatorship at all.

[Water_Bear]

No, but biological determinism is.

I have no problems with biology (I'm a biochemist, in fact), but when people start making assumptions that our biology is deterministic, that's where social progress is stymied and oppression is perpetuated.

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see that it applies here. As you know, gene expression is at least as important as (and much more complicated than) the genotype itself; the fact is that most of what we call development or socialization operates through epigenetic means. Like the mice who were raised in isolation from parental love and affection, the effects of which were then reversed by mucking with the expression of a few genes which are normally activated through those pathways.

Genetics are not immutable, gene expression is the very definition of mutability, and phenotype depends on other factors besides. But these are all fundamentally biological factors, and it distresses me to see people turning away from understanding them out of this notion that we biologists are out to steal everyone's freedom.

Well, no, there's the psychological stuff that explains things without going into the biological reasoning behind it, which has the positive side effect of not raising the question of why we even bother, when the ultimate point is just to make more babies.

Everything's pointless enough without adding on more.

The "ultimate point" and "why we bother" are subjective metaphysical questions which you really can't expect any branch of science to answer for you.

And any psychologist who claims to explain human behavior without referencing neurochemical processes is probably peddling BS. Just because heredity comes into play doesn't make it Evopsych; there is a lot of incredible stuff going on in neurology and psychiatry right now about how genetics/epigenetics affect behavior, and it's as legitimate as it is fascinating.

Yay, pigeonholing people based on biological sex. Great. Wonderful. Not the basis of a dictatorship at all.

I've explained myself poorly.

What I mean is, sexism is based on assumptions about human nature which even the most cursory understanding of human biology contradicts. Replacing the stereotypical caricatures around which much of our society is based with actual understanding of human behavior and capabilities can only improve things.

[Shadowknight12]

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see that it applies here. As you know, gene expression is at least as important as (and much more complicated than) the genotype itself; the fact is that most of what we call development or socialization operates through epigenetic means. Like the mice who were raised in isolation from parental love and affection, the effects of which were then reversed by mucking with the expression of a few genes which are normally activated through those pathways.

Genetics are not immutable, gene expression is the very definition of mutability, and phenotype depends on other factors besides. But these are all fundamentally biological factors, and it distresses me to see people turning away from understanding them out of this notion that we biologists are out to steal everyone's freedom.

The thing is, when someone says "men are physically stronger than women because biology" (for example), this can be interpreted in two ways. Is this a factual statement of current events and nothing more? Or is this a statement of unchangeable determinism? A scientist means the former, obviously, but most lay people mean the latter, actually. They mutilate, misappropriate and grossly abuse the noble science of biology to justify their ingrained sexism (and racism, and homophobia, and classism, and ableism, and so on and so forth). Most people genuinely think that genetics is immutable, they have no concept of epigenetics, genetic plasticity or cultural polymorphisms.

This is why one must be exceedingly wary when bringing up biology and genetics to sociocultural or psychological matters. Nobody's aiming to censor scientific discovery (that would be ridiculous), but us scientists can't pretend that the rest of the world, that the society in which we live on, is just like our universities and laboratories, where we handle certain assumptions that colour our communications. We need to be aware that other people are grossly misusing our terminology and findings, and that misinformation runs rampant. We can't just stride into a conversation and use scientific terminology that has been awfully misused, and then expect others to understand how we use it. The onus of educating and being cautious with the language falls on us, not on them.

[Raineh Daze]

The "ultimate point" and "why we bother" are subjective metaphysical questions which you really can't expect any branch of science to answer for you.

At least most of them don't make the attempt.

And any psychologist who claims to explain human behavior without referencing neurochemical processes is probably peddling BS. Just because heredity comes into play doesn't make it Evopsych; there is a lot of incredible stuff going on in neurology and psychiatry right now about how genetics/epigenetics affect behavior, and it's as legitimate as it is fascinating.

... right, because it is completely wrong to model things. Sure. Whatever. Psychology is obviously nothing but biology, clearly everything else I have ever seen to the contrary is a delusional fabrication.

What I mean is, sexism is based on assumptions about human nature which even the most cursory understanding of human biology contradicts. Replacing the stereotypical caricatures around which much of our society is based with actual understanding of human behavior and capabilities can only improve things.

No.

It can easily make things worse. Because then, people will just replace the previous problems with new ones, but because of scientific backing, it'll have more legitimacy, and then things are pretty much messed up indefinitely.

Or people'll start saying that, because of some biological aptitude for something, that's what you have to do.

That's not an improvement at all.

I have nothing against science, for reference. I like physics. I like chemistry, but stay the hell away from it because I'd end up causing a disaster. I like non-biological psychology. Computer Science? Really like that. My only problem's with biology. ._.

[Water_Bear]

Shadowknight, I love your response but there is one thing that needs to be addressed;

{SCRUBBED}

[Shadowknight12]

Shadowknight, I love your response but there is one thing that needs to be addressed;

Wow, that is profoundly depressing.

I see where you're coming from, though. It's incredibly sad, because, you know, anti-science makes me sad.

[The Giant]

OK, folks, and that's the end of the portion of this discussion that relates to political thought or action. Discussing real-world politics is against the message board rules around here, no exceptions. You can go back to discussing the role of gender and sexuality in the media, or feel free to keep criticizing OOTS, but no politics. Scrubbing forthcoming.

[oppyu]

Ok folks, that's 9 pages before a thread titled 'Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS' necessitated admin intervention. Pretty good effort, I think.

Changing topics, one of the more explicit inequalities of gender representation in media, in my opinion, is this 'glass ceiling' which prevents women from reaching certain narrative positions. They're free to hang around as token team members and love interests, and in more progressive works like OOTS they can hold their own or even dominate the position of 'second-in-command to their male leader'. But when it comes to being the protagonist/antagonist/on-screen leader, there's a definite gendered disparity as well as the possibility that any time they do get ahead, anything they do will be centred around their womanhood.

(Also, that 'possibility that anything they do will be centred around their womanhood' thing? Double, no, triple that for LBGTQ characters)

[Zmeoaice]

^What about Our Little Adventure?

http://danielscreations.com/ola/char...haracters.html

[oppyu]

^What about Our Little Adventure?

http://danielscreations.com/ola/char...haracters.html

Well yeah, there's a difference between 'gendered disparity' and 'complete lockout'.

Also, a decent-looking webcomic starring a (as far as I can tell) non-exploitative female lead and a gender-balanced cast? That looks awesome. Thanks for the new webcomic, and very effective advertising there

[Shadowknight12]

All right, then! Steering this back to topic!

I have a few suggestions for the OP, in the form of math:

In relation to the gender ratio between living and dead characters

Percentage of men killed/dead: 39%
Percentage of women killed/dead: 44%

In relation to the gender ratio between unattached characters and total characters

Percentage of unattached men: 85%
Percentage of unattached women: 69%

In relation to relevancy by gender

Percentage of semi-important or important men that are relevant: 78%
Percentage of semi-important or important women that are relevant: 69%

Changing topics, one of the more explicit inequalities of gender representation in media, in my opinion, is this 'glass ceiling' which prevents women from reaching certain narrative positions. They're free to hang around as token team members and love interests, and in more progressive works like OOTS they can hold their own or even dominate the position of 'second-in-command to their male leader'. But when it comes to being the protagonist/antagonist/on-screen leader, there's a definite gendered disparity as well as the possibility that any time they do get ahead, anything they do will be centred around their womanhood.

I completely agree. I think that this is one of the most pervasive and ingrained aspects of the patriarchy, the way that women are often kept aside from traditionally male activities. Some of it, actually, comes from benevolent sexism, when it comes to women as frontline fighters. Some male authors do not like the idea of women being exposed to physical violence, much less at the hands of men, so they tend to relegate women to non-combat positions, or keep them away from the front lines (as archers, mages and healers, mostly).

Or, in stories that involve more personal conflict and less open warfare, combat is gender segregated (men fight men, women fight women). The Giant even lampshaded this with Haley, who finds herself fighting airborne women a lot.

But yes, the glass ceiling in female agency, power and the kind of things she's allowed to do, are extremely prevalent in the fantasy genre, and in the media in general.

(Also, that 'possibility that anything they do will be centred around their womanhood' thing? Double, no, triple that for LBGTQ characters)

Ouch, this one hurts because it's so true. It stems, I think, from what I posted in a previous comment: that non-straight sexualities and non-cis gender identities need a "reason" to exist in the narrative, and therefore they need to be constantly justifying their existence to the audience.

It goes back to the idea of heteronormativity and LGBTQ+ people being the Other. Straightness and cis-gendered identities are the norm, and their inclusion is not only accepted without question, but expected. Anything else? It needs to have a reason to exist in the narrative. Straight/cis privilege at its finest.

[lio45]

Yeah, you can try to justify it using vague terminology, such as "feels natural", but that's just heteronormativity and gender constructs. The whole "natural" thing does not exist in the fantasy genre. And it's absent of a big part of the sci-fi genre.

That's where we disagree. The fantasy genre has not been invented out of nothing, it's rooted in a mix of traditions. A classical dragon in a fantasy story is waaaaay more "natural" in that context than, say, an alien in a flying saucer would be.

You lose the right to talk about what feels natural or not in a fantasy work when you have enormous, unfathomably heavy, intelligent lizards flying around on a wing and a prayer.

Or, you know. Anything magic does, ever.

Yes, but with the nuance that it's only the ridiculous things (like, for example, those enormous, unfathomably heavy, intelligent lizards flying around on a wing and a prayer) that are already super well documented and accepted as a component of fantasy tradition that are getting a pass on "feeling natural". The ridiculous things that don't happen to already be in that category (or at least close enough) would be just that, ridiculous.

Elves, dragons, magic are among those select few things that are OK because they've already been accepted as part of the genre for a long time. Yes, I know that you'll probably think it sucks that most authors don't get out of that box, but stories are made for readers, and readers aren't impervious to cultural influences, so... if there's no particular in-story reason to make your world go against the expected/accepted on a given minor story point, I can totally understand that an author will generally choose what's "natural".

By all means, feel free! I'm always up for some science in my retinae.

I was just reacting to your assumption that you could. I actually think it's pretty unlikely either one of us could blind the other -- that's a pretty high threshold. But just like you, I'm always up for that :) And even if it's not exactly blinding, it will most definitely still be of interest!

There is a term for that. It's called cultural inertia. It's the concept that because something cultural has been done before, it must be maintained for no other reason than because it has been done before. It is absolutely arbitrary, and therefore perfectly changeable.

Agreed, but most authors won't want to risk changing it for no reason. Cultural products are intended for an audience... Sure, fantasy humans could perfectly be an oviparous species in any given fantasy story, but if any author has ever considered the idea, it's likely that he/she has concluded that the number of "How stupid!" audience reactions would certainly outweigh the number of "Wow, really original, how cool!" audience reactions, and so that the risk would definitely not be worth the possible benefits -- and the really-out-of-the-box-yet-with-little-added-story-value idea got dismissed.

[oppyu]

All right, then! Steering this back to topic!

I have a few suggestions for the OP, in the form of math:

In relation to the gender ratio between living and dead characters

Percentage of men killed/dead: 39%
Percentage of women killed/dead: 44%

In relation to the gender ratio between unattached characters and total characters

Percentage of unattached men: 85%
Percentage of unattached women: 69%

In relation to relevancy by gender

Percentage of semi-important or important men that are relevant: 78%
Percentage of semi-important or important women that are relevant: 69%

Added the first two (the figures came up somewhat different on Excel; I might go through and check with a fine-toothed comb later but the differences are negligible and I'm not THAT obsessive compulsive). My problem with the last ratio is that would probably have more to do with how many irrelevant characters I added, as well as how I classified character. More of a figure about me than the comic.

I completely agree. I think that this is one of the most pervasive and ingrained aspects of the patriarchy, the way that women are often kept aside from traditionally male activities. Some of it, actually, comes from benevolent sexism, when it comes to women as frontline fighters. Some male authors do not like the idea of women being exposed to physical violence, much less at the hands of men, so they tend to relegate women to non-combat positions, or keep them away from the front lines (as archers, mages and healers, mostly).

Or, in stories that involve more personal conflict and less open warfare, combat is gender segregated (men fight men, women fight women). The Giant even lampshaded this with Haley, who finds herself fighting airborne women a lot.

But yes, the glass ceiling in female agency, power and the kind of things she's allowed to do, are extremely prevalent in the fantasy genre, and in the media in general.

Regarding the benevolent sexism, that's where I have to give the Giant credit. He never shies away from throwing Haley into the action, or giving her severe punishment as a result of the action (Bozzok's greatsword through her sternum comes to mind) It feels weird congratulating him for that, but in practice she really is 'one of the guys', gendered implications of that phrase notwithstanding. While women in this comic are underrepresented, the women shown certainly aren't being kept away from the action because of their supposed delicate feminine constitutions. ("I'm a goddamn baby-making, life-taking MACHINE!")

Ouch, this one hurts because it's so true. It stems, I think, from what I posted in a previous comment: that non-straight sexualities and non-cis gender identities need a "reason" to exist in the narrative, and therefore they need to be constantly justifying their existence to the audience.

It goes back to the idea of heteronormativity and LGBTQ+ people being the Other. Straightness and cis-gendered identities are the norm, and their inclusion is not only accepted without question, but expected. Anything else? It needs to have a reason to exist in the narrative. Straight/cis privilege at its finest.

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? A well-meaning writer starts their work, and develops complex, likable characters, but because heteronormativity is accepted as the cultural norm all the good parts end up going to straight white males while the minorities get token roles.

[SowZ]

It is, actually. I am a gender deconstructivist. I support the destruction of gender (understood as "all that cultural baggage we pile onto biological sex") and the vision of gender as exclusively cosmetic, with no cultural or psychological baggage. Of course, I understand my position is controversial, and I don't expect anybody to share it or agree. I bring it up because yes, you've encapsulated my preferences exactly. An essentially genderless world would make me squee with glee. Which is, funny enough, the basic premise of D&D when it says that gender is purely cosmetic.



That's probably because she's not a gender deconstructivist. I'm a feminist ally myself, but that doesn't mean other feminists and I see eye to eye on everything. There are things we simply agree to disagree.



I consider that a matter of personal preference. Some people prefer to see those issues addressed and overcome, as you indicate. Others (like me) would rather see fiction where such issues don't exist at all, in order to give us an inspiration to strive for, or an ideal to pursue, or simply to enjoy the novelty of not being treated like crap by society. That sort of thing has a value of its own.

Of course, a lot of fiction, even fantastical fiction like fantasy, sci-fi, post apocalyptic, etc. isn't written to show an ideal world. But it is written to be a window through which we can see our own world and cultures, often critiquing certain aspects of that culture.

[Shadowknight12]

That's where we disagree. The fantasy genre has not been invented out of nothing, it's rooted in a mix of traditions. A classical dragon in a fantasy story is waaaaay more "natural" in that context than, say, an alien in a flying saucer would be.

Indeed, we disagree. Just because something was doesn't mean it needs to continue being. I do not support determinism. I reject it at every turn. If you are a determinist, that's fine, I do not mind, but I will never be satisfied with that as a rationale for why something is or must be.

Yes, but with the nuance that it's only the ridiculous things (like, for example, those enormous, unfathomably heavy, intelligent lizards flying around on a wing and a prayer) that are already super well documented and accepted as a component of fantasy tradition that are getting a pass on "feeling natural". The ridiculous things that don't happen to already be in that category (or at least close enough) would be just that, ridiculous.

Elves, dragons, magic are among those select few things that are OK because they've already been accepted as part of the genre for a long time. Yes, I know that you'll probably think it sucks that most authors don't get out of that box, but stories are made for readers, and readers aren't impervious to cultural influences, so... if there's no particular in-story reason to make your world go against the expected/accepted on a given minor story point, I can totally understand that an author will generally choose what's "natural".

May I reiterate again that I find it quite deplorable that social progressiveness needs a narrative reason, while patriarchal views, heteronormativity, racial erasure, ableism, classism and all those things get a free pass because of cultural inertia?

Equality and representation do not need narrative reasons. I think I speak for all LGBTQ+ people when I assure you that we do not need justification for our existences. If straight people do not need to justify their straightness narratively, neither should any other sexuality. If cis people need not justify themselves narratively, neither should any other form of gender identity.

That is the kind of thinking that begets tokenism. The idea that if we're going to include a woman or LGBT+ person, or a person of colour, then it must be for a reason, and it must fit the audience's expectations (because goodness forfend we challenge audience expectations, particularly in the name of social progress!).

I was just reacting to your assumption that you could. I actually think it's pretty unlikely either one of us could blind the other -- that's a pretty high threshold. But just like you, I'm always up for that :) And even if it's not exactly blinding, it will most definitely still be of interest!

Well, I already PM'd a few people, so I'll send you a copy, if you're interested. Though I want it on record that I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Agreed, but most authors won't want to risk changing it for no reason. Cultural products are intended for an audience... Sure, fantasy humans could perfectly be an oviparous species in any given fantasy story, but if any author has ever considered the idea, it's likely that he/she has concluded that the number of "How stupid!" audience reactions would certainly outweigh the number of "Wow, really original, how cool!" audience reactions, and so that the risk would definitely not be worth the possible benefits -- and the really-out-of-the-box-yet-with-little-added-story-value idea got dismissed.

Ah, yes, I see that one very often too, the "gotta make money" rationale.

Firstly, I would like to point out that just as it's very arbitrary to say "this is realistic and that is unrealistic" in a fantasy story, it's just as arbitrary to say "this is an acceptable risk, that isn't" when discussing creative endeavours.

Also, I quite resent the implication that my status as an LGBTQ+ person is somehow a "really out of the box with little added story value". Congratulations for upholding heteronormativity and repeatedly painting LGBTQ+ people (and gender equality) as unnatural, I guess. Having said that, yes, being LGBTQ+, a person of colour, or having an even gender ratio is not going to add much to a story on its own (outside social progressiveness and inclusion). That's the point I'm trying to make. LGBTQ+ people don't need to prove anything. We don't need to be held to higher standards than straight/cis people. We don't need to be rigorously examined while straightness and cis-genderedness is assumed as the default and is given an unquestioned free pass.

Added the first two (the figures came up somewhat different on Excel; I might go through and check with a fine-toothed comb later but the differences are negligible and I'm not THAT obsessive compulsive). My problem with the last ratio is that would probably have more to do with how many irrelevant characters I added, as well as how I classified character. More of a figure about me than the comic.

Ah, I see. I did round up or down the numbers, but never more than 1%. Point taken on the last one, whether someone is irrelevant or not (and from what pool) is very subjective.

Regarding the benevolent sexism, that's where I have to give the Giant credit. He never shies away from throwing Haley into the action, or giving her severe punishment as a result of the action (Bozzok's greatsword through her sternum comes to mind) It feels weird congratulating him for that, but in practice she really is 'one of the guys', gendered implications of that phrase notwithstanding. While women in this comic are underrepresented, the women shown certainly aren't being kept away from the action because of their supposed delicate feminine constitutions. ("I'm a goddamn baby-making, life-taking MACHINE!")

Oh, I couldn't agree more. And not just Kazumi herself, there are plenty of female soldiers in the Azure and elven armies and the Cliffport police, and almost all the adventuring parties we've seen have had at least one woman getting into the fray. I completely agree with your take on Haley, it was very nice to see her get into plenty of scrapes and fight her way out of them with the same endurance, bravery and tenacity as Roy or O-Chul.

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? A well-meaning writer starts their work, and develops complex, likable characters, but because heteronormativity is accepted as the cultural norm all the good parts end up going to straight white males while the minorities get token roles.

Exactly. The women are the love interest, the child, the mother or the crone, the LGBTQ+ people are the sassy sidekick, the sob story or the villain that makes straight people uncomfortable, the people of colour are the sassy sidekick, the scary villain or the other type of sob story, and so on and so forth for the rest of the marginalised groups and their token stereotypes.

And it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy too, because white straight men write about white straight men, so white straight men feel empowered to write their own stories, while other groups do not feel empowered or represented (or might even feel disempowered) and so they do not feel inspired to write their own stories, which keeps the white straight men empowered and the marginalised groups marginalised. This also dovetails nicely into the "it's not my fault, I gotta make money!" rationale, where writers say that they have to write about straight white men because that's their main demographic, and marginalised groups have no interest in breaking into a market that does not care about them in the slightest, while the market doesn't care about them because they don't exist in significant numbers.

Add in a hefty dose of cultural inertia and you have a self-perpetuating machine of marginalisation that needs nobody to direct it or maintain it, as it goes on and on by the inertia of its own product.

Of course, a lot of fiction, even fantastical fiction like fantasy, sci-fi, post apocalyptic, etc. isn't written to show an ideal world. But it is written to be a window through which we can see our own world and cultures, often critiquing certain aspects of that culture.

Yes, that is quite true. But there's also speculative fiction, where we examine what might happen, and speculate about the potential, the limitations, the virtues, strengths, flaws and weaknesses of humanity. That can be just as educational as a critique.

[SowZ]

Indeed, we disagree. Just because something was doesn't mean it needs to continue being. I do not support determinism. I reject it at every turn. If you are a determinist, that's fine, I do not mind, but I will never be satisfied with that as a rationale for why something is or must be.



May I reiterate again that I find it quite deplorable that social progressiveness needs a narrative reason, while patriarchal views, heteronormativity, racial erasure, ableism, classism and all those things get a free pass because of cultural inertia?

Equality and representation do not need narrative reasons. I think I speak for all LGBTQ+ people when I assure you that we do not need justification for our existences. If straight people do not need to justify their straightness narratively, neither should any other sexuality. If cis people need not justify themselves narratively, neither should any other form of gender identity.

That is the kind of thinking that begets tokenism. The idea that if we're going to include a woman or LGBT+ person, or a person of colour, then it must be for a reason, and it must fit the audience's expectations (because goodness forfend we challenge audience expectations, particularly in the name of social progress!).



Well, I already PM'd a few people, so I'll send you a copy, if you're interested. Though I want it on record that I'm not trying to convince you of anything.



Ah, yes, I see that one very often too, the "gotta make money" rationale.

Firstly, I would like to point out that just as it's very arbitrary to say "this is realistic and that is unrealistic" in a fantasy story, it's just as arbitrary to say "this is an acceptable risk, that isn't" when discussing creative endeavours.

Also, I quite resent the implication that my status as an LGBTQ+ person is somehow a "really out of the box with little added story value". Congratulations for upholding heteronormativity and repeatedly painting LGBTQ+ people (and gender equality) as unnatural, I guess. Having said that, yes, being LGBTQ+, a person of colour, or having an even gender ratio is not going to add much to a story on its own (outside social progressiveness and inclusion). That's the point I'm trying to make. LGBTQ+ people don't need to prove anything. We don't need to be held to higher standards than straight/cis people. We don't need to be rigorously examined while straightness and cis-genderedness is assumed as the default and is given an unquestioned free pass.



Ah, I see. I did round up or down the numbers, but never more than 1%. Point taken on the last one, whether someone is irrelevant or not (and from what pool) is very subjective.



Oh, I couldn't agree more. And not just Kazumi herself, there are plenty of female soldiers in the Azure and elven armies and the Cliffport police, and almost all the adventuring parties we've seen have had at least one woman getting into the fray. I completely agree with your take on Haley, it was very nice to see her get into plenty of scrapes and fight her way out of them with the same endurance, bravery and tenacity as Roy or O-Chul.



Exactly. The women are the love interest, the child, the mother or the crone, the LGBTQ+ people are the sassy sidekick, the sob story or the villain that makes straight people uncomfortable, the people of colour are the sassy sidekick, the scary villain or the other type of sob story, and so on and so forth for the rest of the marginalised groups and their token stereotypes.

And it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy too, because white straight men write about white straight men, so white straight men feel empowered to write their own stories, while other groups do not feel empowered or represented (or might even feel disempowered) and so they do not feel inspired to write their own stories, which keeps the white straight men empowered and the marginalised groups marginalised. This also dovetails nicely into the "it's not my fault, I gotta make money!" rationale, where writers say that they have to write about straight white men because that's their main demographic, and marginalised groups have no interest in breaking into a market that does not care about them in the slightest, while the market doesn't care about them because they don't exist in significant numbers.

Add in a hefty dose of cultural inertia and you have a self-perpetuating machine of marginalisation that needs nobody to direct it or maintain it, as it goes on and on by the inertia of its own product.



Yes, that is quite true. But there's also speculative fiction, where we examine what might happen, and speculate about the potential, the limitations, the virtues, strengths, flaws and weaknesses of humanity. That can be just as educational as a critique.

Absolutely. Both are perfectly fine. But I've also heard, though not in this thread, people say things like, "Why have sexism in stories? Why have X in your stories? You can create any sort of world you like?" My point is that it isn't sexist to create a sexist world. Or replace sexism with any fault.

[jere7my]

We have historical fiction for that. And academic textbooks. And history books. And contemporary fiction. The list goes on. Fantasy and Sci-Fi are the two main genres were we can explore worlds where such things do not exist. I find it quite tiresome to see the patriarchy in genres where it would be perfectly believable to replace it with any other form of sociological construct.

Personal taste aside, speculative fiction set in patriarchal settings can be hugely important for social progress. It's hard to overstate the significance of The Handmaid's Tale, for instance.

[Shadowknight12]

Absolutely. Both are perfectly fine. But I've also heard, though not in this thread, people say things like, "Why have sexism in stories? Why have X in your stories? You can create any sort of world you like?" My point is that it isn't sexist to create a sexist world. Or replace sexism with any fault.

It actually highly depends on the reasons behind the inclusion of sexism and all the other isms and phobias. If they are included because the author agrees with them, then yes, obviously, it's sexist (or whatever the appropriate ist applies). If the author includes them to critique them or denounce them, then they obviously aren't (and the same goes for authors who are writing historical fiction or the like, and whose worlds are implied to be exactly like ours, with no magic, dragons or the like).

But if the isms are included mindlessly? Because of cultural inertia? Then we get into a murky area as to whether perpetuating sexism without thinking is in itself sexist or not. I personally think it is, though I don't consider it worthy of condemnation or scorn. People can do harmful things out of ignorance, and unwittingly perpetuating sexism is one of them. That said, I think that the proper response to someone who does that is not aggression or condemnation, but trying to educate them, and letting them make the choice for themselves if they wish to take that into consideration for their future works.

Personal taste aside, speculative fiction set in patriarchal settings can be hugely important for social progress. It's hard to overstate the significance of The Handmaid's Tale, for instance.

Point taken, of course.

[blauregen]

This also dovetails nicely into the "it's not my fault, I gotta make money!" rationale, where writers say that they have to write about straight white men because that's their main demographic, and marginalised groups have no interest in breaking into a market that does not care about them in the slightest, while the market doesn't care about them because they don't exist in significant numbers.

This may actually have some justification and attached mechanism, according to this.