Sexism

[Anonymous kank with wings]

As for the ability to bear and raise children: So what?  That takes nothing, quite
frankly.  Both in rl and on Armageddon, idiots can and will get knocked up every day.
In cities with at least 400,000 people each, who cares if you have the ability to
add one more mouth to feed in the middle of a decaying, dying world?  

You care, or at least your genes which are trying to procreate, do.

It may take 30 seconds to get a woman knocked up but it takes a huge investment of time and resources to raise a kid. Even if you as a male aren't willing to provide parental care for the child, the woman most likely will. In a primitive society, right away her own life is at risk. It's only in modern times that women don't face a significant chance of death during childbirth. Even if this isn't true in Zalanthas, it is of huge value to your genetic material that the woman will raise your child.

[bloodfromstone]

I have honestly never seen anyone be accepted immediately by a military clan. Generally, they beat you, laugh at you, and belittle you as much as they can, male or female, good fighter or bad. When it does happen, I imagine there could be an slew of reasons beyond one person having ovaries and the other person not. While sexism does happen IG occasionally, I think it is important to not look for it in every situation in which characters are treated differently.

[Intrepid]

You care, or at least your genes which are trying to procreate, do.

The drive to have children is far more societal and far less instinctual than we're
willing to give credit to.  It's bs that getting a woman pregnant makes you a man,
and just as bad that becoming pregnant makes you a woman.  Human are not as
instinctual as we think we are.  We just have a collection of societal mores that make
us think we are.

It may take 30 seconds to get a woman knocked up but it takes a huge investment of time and resources to raise a kid. Even if you as a male aren't willing to provide parental care for the child, the woman most likely will. In a primitive society, right away her own life is at risk. It's only in modern times that women don't face a significant chance of death during childbirth. Even if this isn't true in Zalanthas, it is of huge value to your genetic material that the woman will raise your child.

And those very facts are exactly why having children shouldn't be considered some
be-all end-all gift to the world.  You're replacing a functioning member of society with
a weak and helpless lump of flesh that, for all you know, could end up being a mage
or mindbender or mutant.  Yuck.  No thanks.  Even selling the prospective child into
slavery does not make back the money you put into raising them.

I have honestly never seen anyone be accepted immediately by a military clan. Generally, they beat you, laugh at you, and belittle you as much as they can, male or female, good fighter or bad. When it does happen, I imagine there could be an slew of reasons beyond one person having ovaries and the other person not. While sexism does happen IG occasionally, I think it is important to not look for it in every situation in which characters are treated differently.

I was stating that there is a difference between what a woman has to do to be
accepted and what a man has to do to be accepted.

[Lazloth]

The drive to have children is far more societal and far less instinctual than we're willing to give credit to.

Societal??  The primary, if not only, genetic instruction that anything living has is to reproduce.
Take the social bit out of the equation and you have strictly reproduction and recombination.

(Sorry, haven't been following thread - but that one quote stuck out.)

[Intrepid]

Societal??  The primary, if not only, genetic instruction that anything living has is to reproduce.
Take the social bit out of the equation and you have strictly reproduction and recombination.

(Sorry, haven't been following thread - but that one quote stuck out.)

That's just it though, Laz--we have sex for mostly recreational purposes.  Couples
trying to start a family are usually doing so consciously.  The rest are accidents
from not utilizing protection.  There's nothing instinctual about these situations.

Animals do have a drive to reproduce, yes.  Animals also have a mating season.  We
do not.

[Cale_Knight]

There's nothing instinctual about these situations.

Animals do have a drive to reproduce, yes.  Animals also have a mating season.  We
do not.

I would definitely say that the desire to have sex is instinctual. The only difference between us and animals is that we have the ability to supress those instinctual desires.

Call it the heat of passion, call it horniness, call it whatever you want, but humans have the same drive to reproduce as animals do.

[skeetdaddle]

7DV wrote:

I think it's far better for us to abandon the there is no sexism on Zalanthas, and instead push forward the there is almost no sexism on Zalanthas instead. Encourage people to not be sexist, but don't say there is none and there will be none tolerated. Make the point poiant that sexism is stupid for multiple reasons, but don't say it doesn't exist.

I think this is a terrible idea. I like the way the policy currently stands, and find this statement to be an attempt at using semantics to make sexism okay. Consider this: speeding is illegal. Speed limit signs are posted everywhere. Yet there are, and always will be, people who speed. Same with stealing. Same with a dozen other things. Why do we need to say there is almost no sexism in game when that is already the case? The rule is that there is supposed to be absolutely no sexism, and yet it still happens anyway. To say that there is almost no sexism in game is just one step closer to condoning it. Leave it the way it is, 'cause it's still gonna happen anyway, and at least it discourages the most outright blatant cases.

[Intrepid]

I would definitely say that the desire to have sex is instinctual. The only difference between us and animals is that we have the ability to supress those instinctual desires.

Call it the heat of passion, call it horniness, call it whatever you want, but humans have the same drive to reproduce as animals do.

That's not instinct.  That's an urge brought on by chemical reactions in the body.  We
actually have a number of differences from animals.  One of them is our apparent
lack of instincts and another is our ability to override our emotional drive when it's
needed (not counting a few individual exceptions, of course).  Horniness is no more
an instinct than my wanting a fruity pop from the fridge.

[Angela Christine]

I think it is worth noting that many qualities perceived to be feminine are actually infantile.  Giggling isn't something that females do, it is something that children do.  Smooth skin isn't something females have, it is something children have.  Females aren't helpless, children are helpless.  Females don't need to be protected, children need to be protected.

Depends on which culture you are talking about, I suppose. I'm aware of at least two cultures that perceive those characteristics as feminine. However, the game might be different, don't know enough yet.

I'm not talking about culture, I'm talking about biology.  

Children do have smooth skin, smooth as a baby's bottom.  Adult females may have smooth skin, they may also have rough skin, oily skin, pimply skin, leathery skin or wrinkled skin.  Time and hormones are nasty things.  All the skin cream in the world won't give you back the practically perfect skin possessed by nearly every 5 year old.

I suppose giggling is cultural, though babies seem to coo and giggle without knowing much about culture.

Children are helpless and in need of protection, that is biological.  When adult females are helpless and in need of protection it is mostly cultural.  And there is no compelling reason for Zalanthan cultures to have adopted the idea that females are helpless, since even the minor differences in strength seen between male and female humans on Earth don't exist in Zalanthas.  For a relatively short period of time immediately before and after giving birth a woman may be in a particularly vulnerable condition, but unless "breeder" is her main function and she is kept run down by popping out new babies every year, most of the time she will be as physically competent as the menfolk.

* * *


It wouldn't bother me at all if males and females were coded as different but equal.  Give all the males +1 Strength, -1 Wisdom, and give all the females +1 Endurance and -1 Strength, or whatever different-but-equal stat modifications from the norm seems appropriate.  My only concern would be 1) that they are statistically equal modifications, because it's a game and games should be fair, and 2) that both males and females get modified off a theoretical norm, because making either males or female be "normal" and the other sex modified from that norm would be . . . basically wrong, both male and female are equally normal states.


But they aren't coded differently.  In terms of both averages and ranges, males and females are coded identically.  Males and females have the same range and the same average strength.   Males and females have the same range and the same average height and weight.  Males and females have the same life expectancy.  If male and female PCs don't equally fill out those ranges, that is an anomaly leaking into the system from the real world.  A Zalanthan woman is just as likely as a Zalanthan man to be 6'2", or 5'3".  It is an alien world.  

Given the conditions that exist, there is no reason for there to be generalized sexism.   Women who are pregnant or nursing may be treated differently from people who are not pregnant, but all people who are not pregnant are treated the same.  The condition that warrants the special attention is pregnancy itself, not the ability to become pregnant.

[Anonymous kank with wings]

...

Okay, go ahead and believe that. And when you have no kids, your DNA will be supplanted by people who have the genes that drive them to do so. And thus the selfish gene propagates.

Hosta la vista, baby.

[Intrepid]

Okay, go ahead and believe that. And when you have no kids, your DNA will be supplanted by people who have the genes that drive them to do so. And thus the selfish gene propagates.

Hosta la vista, baby.

Good.  Let them worry about bloating, stretch marks, sore ribs, strange cravings,
morning sickness, permanent hormonal changes, gassiness and labor pains.

[Ritley]

Physically men and woman would be different due to their hormones, even in Zalanthas. Men have testostryom (spelt wrong) and womans have estrogen, and another chemical which I have forgotten. Testostryome helps muscle growth, which is how men are usually stronger than woman. But woman usually have other benefits which they get from their hormones. Even in Zalanthas these differences cannot be tossed aside. If woman had the same amount of testostyome as men, then they wouldn't have been born woman. Period.

[Halaster]

find this statement to be an attempt at using semantics to make sexism okay.

I can't think of another way to put this:  You're wrong.

In your indignation at his different opinion, you are blinding yourself to the fact his motives are not, in fact, devious.  If you read what he wrote without the desire to lynch him, you'll notice that the spirit of what he's trying to accomplish isn't one of being able to get away with blatant sexism and holding down women.  Rather, he is attempting to offer a suggestion that has actual consequences for behavior that would be outside of the societal norm.

I agree with the notion that to say something doesn't exist or is flat-out impossible is naive and unrealstic, most of the time.  In this case, especially.  In Real Life we can try and say that baby-killing goes against society, is anti-cultural, and shouldn't happen.  But it does.  Of course, those who do it are screwed in the head, and suffer greatly for it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The same, IMO, is true of sexism on Zalanthas.  The vast, vast majority of people do not care if someone is a man or woman with regards to promotion, ability, status or the like.  They do not think that women talking is any less important than men.  Or that two women fighthing is any less than two men.  That doesn't mean that it's impossible for those who do think that way to simply not exist.  It just means that they'll suffer greatly for their beliefs if they voice them.

[LauraMars]

Physically men and woman would be different due to their hormones, even in Zalanthas. Men have testostryom (spelt wrong) and womans have estrogen, and another chemical which I have forgotten. Testostryome helps muscle growth, which is how men are usually stronger than woman. But woman usually have other benefits which they get from their hormones. Even in Zalanthas these differences cannot be tossed aside. If woman had the same amount of testostyome as men, then they wouldn't have been born woman. Period.

Except you don't know anything about Zalanthan hormones.  Zalanthan humans aren't exact replicas of earth humans.  They are bipedals, but for all we know, sprite could be running through the veins of both male and female in equal measure, instead of "testostryome" and estrogen.  Obey your thirst.

[Intrepid]

Even in Zalanthas these differences cannot be tossed aside.

Actually, these differences can be tossed aside, and you're being asked to everytime
you make a pc on this mud.  If you make excuses to not even try to suspend
your rl opinions on in-game situations, you are incorrectly roleplaying.

Period.  End of story.  It is policy.

[Cale_Knight]

Horniness is no more
an instinct than my wanting a fruity pop from the fridge.

I know that Wikipedia is hardly a paragon of scientific citation, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct pretty clearly defines sexual drive as a human instinct, and references both Freud and modern psychoanalysts.

[skeetdaddle]

Halaster wrote:

If you read what he wrote without the desire to lynch him, you'll notice that the spirit of what he's trying to accomplish isn't one of being able to get away with blatant sexism and holding down women. Rather, he is attempting to offer a suggestion that has actual consequences for behavior that would be outside of the societal norm.

Perhaps his spirit, but not others necessarily. I've seen enough of my fellow human beings to realize that certain people (not saying 7DV necessarily) would use such a semantics change to just be outright sexist (i.e. themselves). The suggestion probably wasn't meant to do such, but that's exactly what would happen. I was merely trying to point out that this is how it is already (almost no sexism), and that changing the phrasing would (while perhaps providing a meager amount of added roleplay ability for those truly wishing to play the exception to the rule) only encourage a more sexist (and for many an uncomfortable) atmosphere in game.

[LoD]

Here's one of the problems with saying there is no sexism on Zalanthas.

Why is there sexism at all?  Because of gender roles.  What defines gender roles?  Social values for one, but also the biological differences between men and women.  And one of those key biological differences is the ability to bear children.  If the land was peaceful, then you might achieve a society where there is no need to decide who must go to war and who must stay behind to ensure the tribe's survival.  On Zalanthas, however, there is no such luxury.

There will come a time when the tribe must fight, either to increase its territory or defend it.  People will die in the process, and regardless of the fact that both the men and women are able and ready to fight, those able to bear children are more valuable to the tribe alive.  While I'm sure women -would- go to fight, the tribe must surely must understand that having the bulk of the women and a few men stay behind would be imperative to the future of the tribe.

And so two "social values: come about from this very simple concept:

:arrow: Women should be protected because they are the future of the tribe.
:arrow: Men are expendable, thus the better choice for high risk jobs.

Let's say that you have 20 men and 20 women as part of the tribe and there is a war.   Most would say that the first 80% of those going off to fight should be the men -- because if the war leaves you with 4 women and 20 men, your tribe's population is going to take a huge dip.

If you have 4 men and 20 women, then procreation would allow for the tribe to live on with multiple births.  Logic would then tell most that, for the good of the tribe's survival, the women should stay somewhere safe while the men fight the war -- even in a world where the woman is just as capable as the man.  

Couldn't this arrangement and mindset eventually foster the belief that "men are the warriors" for a reason OTHER than physical ability?  And couldn't a woman be told that she was not allowed to fight because she must stay alive to bear children and ensure the tribe's survival?  I'm not saying that females should be excluded, but that the survival of a tribe could very well depend upon them NOT fighting and surviving.

Might they not opt to favor male warriors over females simply because they can afford to lose the males?

If so, then consider a natural progression of logic.  Men fight more than women, and so they train more often.  Since they train more often, they become more adept at similar tasks such as hunting.  When men are out fighting and hunting, then what tasks are left to be done by those men and women left behind?  Cooking, cleaning, building, skinning, sewing, tanning, and other related tasks.

After generations and generations, isn't it possible that this progression of events and actions would create a situation in which men and women have assumed gender roles?  And if those gender roles have been defined by tens or hundreds of years, might not some degree of sexism exist with regards to the job of a "woman" or a "man".  Perhaps not in a civilization such as Allanak or Tuluk, but in smaller vilalges and communities in the desert whom depend upon such critical decisions for survival.

Note: People seem to believe that simply because they argue a point, that they prefer sexism to be part of the game and that they've either played a sexist cahracter or suffered at the hands of a successful female character.  None of these are true for me.  I debate because blanket statements like, "There is no sexism in Zalanthas" need to be validated and these points merit discussion.  Especially for clarification to new players and old on how societies exactly have survived without placing an emphasis on protecting the child bearing sex of a species.

-LoD

[Medena]

Having a stated policy that sexism does not exist in Zalanthas is a mechanism for achieving an ideal and it is irrelevant whether or not it is absolutely true at the present. If we dilute the stated policy by making it "there is almost no sexism" we also dilute our ideal and render any chance of attaining a sexism-free world impossible.  If we had no players bringing in real world attitudes, it would, in fact, be a statement of truth.

[jcarter]

I would definitely say that the desire to have sex is instinctual. The only difference between us and animals is that we have the ability to supress those instinctual desires.

Call it the heat of passion, call it horniness, call it whatever you want, but humans have the same drive to reproduce as animals do.

That's not instinct.  That's an urge brought on by chemical reactions in the body.  We
actually have a number of differences from animals.  One of them is our apparent
lack of instincts and another is our ability to override our emotional drive when it's
needed (not counting a few individual exceptions, of course).  Horniness is no more
an instinct than my wanting a fruity pop from the fridge.

Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined. Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overridden by intelligence, which is creative and hence far more versatile. Since instincts take generations to adapt, an intermediate position, or basis for action, is served by memory, which provides individually stored successful reactions built upon experience. The particular actions performed may be influenced by learning, environment and natural principles. Generally, the term instinct is not used to describe an existing condition or established state.

...

Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning.

Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: altruism, disgust, face perception, and language acquisitions.

Other Sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behaviour present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This notion is present in many introductory textbooks (Sociology: An Introduction, Ian Robertson, Worth Publishers, 1989), but is still hotly debated.

[Intrepid]

I know that Wikipedia is hardly a paragon of scientific citation, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct pretty clearly defines sexual drive as a human instinct, and references both Freud and modern psychoanalysts.

First off, if I wanted to be mean, I can actually go in and rewrite anything on most
wikis as they're not actually protected from outside editing.  Hence, the information
on most of those pages is, imo, suspect at best and whim at worst.

Next...I don't place much stock in a womanizing coke addict from the Victorian
era, personally.  Sorry, I know a lot of people like Freud.  I've just never really
agreed with most of his theories and I believe he attributed way too much of the
human condition to Id and subconscious.

[Intrepid]

Here's one of the problems with saying there is no sexism on Zalanthas.

Here's your primary mistake, and the one that sets the stage for the rest of your
very lengthy post.  It doesn't matter whether you have a problem with it, it doesn't
matter how much you rationalize it or how many examples you try to bring in to
cover your rear, it's still against the setting rules.  Ie, it never developed on Arm, no
matter how much you argue otherwise, and it's never going to.  It simply is the
equivalent of riding a horse across the desert in full platemail.  It is not a part of
the setting.

As your for closing comment, if it was, in fact, direct toward me, then you misfired.  I
believe that, while there are in fact, individuals who are sexist players on our game,
my main criticism is that people are lazy and would rather not even try to play the
correct setting material.  I would have more respect for someone who tried and
failed to play according to Armageddon's non-sexist societal regimen than someone
who spent all day on the boards rationalizing why they shouldn't have to even try
to play the game as it was designed.

[Jherlen]

There are obviously exceptions to nearly anything. I don't think "there is no sexism" is a mandate as strong as "elves don't ride kanks" or "dwarves have no hair". On the other hand, people seem to willfully and blatantly ignore the fact that there is no sexism and get away with it.

Sure you can argue that tribes might value and protect females over the males due to childbirthing. But then most of us are playing in large cities, not small tribes of 40 people. Big military organisations like the Houses and the Byn aren't starved for recruits (at least not ICly) and don't need to breed new members, so they should be treating female members the same way male members are treated. The women aren't there to have kids for the House, they're there to fight, and since they have exactly the same physical potential as men do, there's no reason to treat them differently. That's the main issue with this debate.

I think for the sake of new people trying to understand the world, the line should be drawn at "There is no sexism, treat men and women equally always". Experienced players are free to debate semantics and whatifs and how certain things may apply to obscure areas of the game, but I'd rather present newbies with a clear, definitive guideline.

[Marauder Moe]

Freud was a looney.  He didn't really even believe that women were truly concious.  (Yes, I've read some of Freud's works, in the original German no less)

Anyway, as I've said, must cultural/societal gender roles inherently come with sexism?  Can't we say that men have a tendancy to act some ways, women have a tendency to act other ways, but none of these tendencies effect anything truly important, like leadership or combat?  Can't we say that sometimes there are men that act like women in some ways and women who act like men in some ways, but that's ok too?

*shrug*

For the most part, I think people are pretty good about no sexism in Zalanthas.  Occaisionally I see someone slip up with a sexist (though not usually maliciously so) phrase, but seldom truly innapropriate constant discrimination from veteran players.

Some of my own characters did treat female employees/subordinates differently than male employees/subordinates, though.  Not because of sexism but rather because he had a chance, or at least a desire, to get it on with the females.  Is that wrong?

[LoD]

Here's your primary mistake.

I've made no mistake.  I've stated an opinion.

Secondly, this "No Sexism in Armageddon" is not a rule that has stood since I've been playing the game.  It is something that has been later added, and, ultimately, can be revised if the powers that be so choose.  To say anything is final is naive.

As your for closing comment, if it was, in fact, direct toward me, then you misfired.

It wasn't meant for you, since obviously many of the male posters have exhibited similar feelings of attack from the female posters on their ideas simply because we don't agree.  The game policy requires that we adhere in game, but it doesn't say anything about our right to voice our objections and/or pursue topics in an effort to understand how everyone can better follow the desires environment for which the rules were set.

However, since you insist on dogging these threads like some kind of coyote intent on getting first nibble at every scrap of information you don't agree with, let me say that I find your tone and assumptions disappointing.  You're obviously well spoken, and to make so many incorrect assumptions about someone's intentions, their RP, or their assumed disregard for game policy is ignorant and rude.

I've made no mention that I do not adhere to game policy when playing a character, yet you respond my post with the implication that -I- am one of those lazy people who does not.  I've made no mention that I've exhibited sexist behavior in game, yet you imply that I'm attempting to "cover my rear".  You imply that I am trying to rationalize why players (like me) shouldn't even have to try to play the game as it was designed, yet you don't even know me.

If you have some pertinent examples of how I have done any of the things you've accused me of, then feel free to send me a PM.  If not, then I politely ask you to respect the fact that people (including other Imms) have strong opinions on this subject, and that you furthermore allow these points to be considered without swarming over them with your damning tongue saying the same thing, "Whatever you say has no meaning.  Sanvean said X, and that's how it's going to be."

I've read your arguement already, in multiple posts.  This is the first time you've read this arguement from me.  If you have nothing new to contribute, then please have some respect for some of the other posters.

-LoD