Sexism

Started by Bebop, June 14, 2006, 02:08:19 PM

Quote from: "Marauder Moe"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?

Attraction is not the same as sexism necessarily.  Let me ask you this: If this character
was homosexual, would he be treating a male he was attracted to differently?  It
sounds like he would, in his case.
Proud Owner of her Very Own Delirium.

Ya' know -

It's really much simpler then this IMO.

Armageddon is a game.  That game policy is that in Zalanthas, while men or women might have different physical make up they have the same physical capabilities aside from child bearing. The point is don't treat a woman or man different simply because of their sex.

Treat them petty if they are petty.
Treat them frilly if they are frilly.

But don't baby a woman because she is simply a woman.  And don't assume things like because a woman has big breasts she is not a legitimate character.

There's really no need for rules or sociatal debates because it has nothing to do with the real world.  This is Zalanthas we're talking about.  And codedly men and woman have equal capabilities on Zalanthas.  I assume this isn't changing.  Therefore, since the code already enforces this, as players I believe we should be reinforcing this and checking sexism at the door.  Like I stated I have seen many examples of sexism IG and I am hoping people will become more self aware, because as a woman that enjoys playing rowdy combat characters I'm tired of seeing it.  It -is- there and I hope people will start checking these attitudes becuase REGARDLESS about our real world differences, or sociatal traits or even whether a woman wants to be have certain traits or a man wants to wear a skirt they should have the option to do so without automatically being judged on an OOC level.

Quote from: "LoD"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.

If it hasn't been in since as long as you've been playing, it was added in shortly
after.  I realize you have a misplaced pride in how long you've been playing, rather
than realizing it is, in fact, just an amount of time in itself, but some of us have been
playing nearly as long--some longer.  When I first came to the game, the rule was
already in place.  It is a rule that has been in place for a very long time.  Of course,
I do realize it can be changed.  I seriously doubt anyone is naive in thinking that
the chances of it being changed are slim to none, however.

Quote from: "LoD"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.

I believe that the people feeling under attack are behaving as they do because many
of the viewpoints from the very beginning of the responses have indicated a base
approval for sexism outside the game as well.  Yes, there is a group of people who
find it insulting.  It would be naive to expect otherwise.

Quote from: "LoD"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 don't believe many of the assumptions you're claiming for every poster on this
thread to be the case, LoD.  And nothing you've stated thus far indicates that you
yourself believe it either.  Your flaming aside, criticizing me for an assumption based
on an assumption is, in itself, hypocrisy.

Quote from: "LoD"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.

Actually, my post was a general comment as well.  I don't suppose you are the only
one allowed to post in such a fashion on this forum, but if you are, please advise me.
In other words: Your perceived implications are incorrect.

Quote from: "LoD"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."

Actually, my responses have been an effort to point out that, despite the tangents on
why sexism is occurring in game, and why people think it should, for as long as the
rule is in place, it should not be an aspect in game.  Also, if you wish to be respected,
you should probably be more respectful of others.  I've never seen you display the
respect you're requesting.  Perhaps you should stop worrying about how long you've
been playing the game in comparison to everyone else and just respect them for being
fellow players.

Quote from: "LoD"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.

If you've seen multiple posts, then you should also note that the majority of them
have been in response to posts that responded to me.  This is a dialogue, LoD, and
I am well within my rights to continue said dialoge for as long as both I and the
other posters are interested in continuing it.  Your attempt to troll me is not going
negate this fact in the slightest.
Proud Owner of her Very Own Delirium.

Quote from: "Bebop"Armageddon is a game.  That game policy is that in Zalanthas, while men or women might have different physical make up they have the same physical capabilities aside from child bearing. The point is don't treat a woman or man different simply because of their sex.

Treat them petty if they are petty.
Treat them frilly if they are frilly.

But don't baby a woman because she is simply a woman.  And don't assume things like because a woman has big breasts she is not a legitimate character.

I tried to explain this to LoD and many others, but he saw fit to have an explosion
about it.
Proud Owner of her Very Own Delirium.

Quote from: "LoD"
Quote from: "Intrepid"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.

Actually as Xygax posted it's Staff Policy that IG there is no sexism and it would be as rare as an elf riding a kank.  If you wanted to have an elf riding a kank I think it would be so rare it would require staff approval, so I would guess the same would be expected if you intended to have your character see woman as the lesser sex.

This is because this is a game, and I would assume that the staff are trying to give woman a fair environment to play in and enjoy equal as the males.  I don't see how you could find that unfair and I'm sure you can still have fun with the game without immediately judging someone for the simple fact that they are a woman.  It really is SIMPLE - because like I said, it doesn't matter about earthly rules.  This is Zalanhas we play in an according to Zalanthas laws of nature, society whatever - women are equal.  As well an OOC level it's staff policy, it's not optional because the Staff I'm guessing doesn't want it to become the norm for women to be treated as the lesser sex IG.

If you would like to play a character that sees women as the lesser sex maybe you should e-mail the staff and app it.

Quote from: "LoD"Here's one of the problems with saying there is no sexism on Zalanthas.

SNIP
Here is the problem with a logical arguement as to why sexism could exist.

I believe that it was decided that sexism didn't exist on Zalanthas for OOC reasons and not IC reasons.  Therefore, the statement made by the staff that sexism does not exist on Zalanthas is a policy statement, not a statement in regards to the gameworld.

The reason for this policy is because of playabililty.  No player should be required to play a male character in order to have fun.  No player should be required to play a male character to gain entrance to a certain clan (unfortunately this is not entirely the case) or to rise in rank within a clan.  No player should see their character disrespected, disregarded, or ignored just because they are not playing a male character.

By no means should this policy be reversed.
Back from a long retirement

Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"The reason for this policy is because of playabililty.  No player should be required to play a male character in order to have fun.  No player should be required to play a male character to gain entrance to a certain clan (unfortunately this is not entirely the case) or to rise in rank within a clan.  No player should see their character disrespected, disregarded, or ignored just because they are not playing a male character.

If that is the case, that the policy is in place because of playability reasons as you've stated here, then I completely agree.

My arguements, and those of some of the other posts, have been in response to a belief that someone was stating there was a realistic way sexism could not exist in an environment like Zalanthas.  I don't see any realistic way that it could NOT exist.  However, if the entire arguement is purely about playability and having an equal opportunity to have fun -- I can't fault anyone for that.

And, Bebop, good grief -- would you stop assuming I want to play someone treating women as the lesser sex!  I don't want to special app anything of the kind.

Now go kill some scrabs so I can cook us dinner.

-LoD

Uhg.  Nine pages?  My God.

To begin, I am a female.  I also push for the rights of "the little people."  I also didn't read this entire thread, because well.. its nine pages.  And that seems just a little absurd for a topic like this where there can't possibly be a discussion of development (in my opinion).  But, I will give my opinion (because I like to have my 2 cents in, too).

I support the 'no sexism' rule as far as playability goes -- I shouldn't have to repeat anything from the quote above, it said it all perfectly.  However, I don't see what the problem is with sexist actually existing within individuals in Zalanthas.

Armageddon isn't Earth, but its a cooking pot of all sorts of mindsets, from the psychotically self-absorbed to the meagerly loyal.  I don't see why a player should be punished for playing a PC who is a flat-ass-out sexist.  If you take this away, why don't you take away the ability to play a racist, or a disregarding social climber who spits on beggars?  If I can ICly hate a person who has brown eyes simply because they have brown eyes, I should also be able to hate them based on their gender.

So, stupid IC shit like, "I'm tired of your womanly chatter" upsets some people.  Well, the argument that I can't use the word 'F-me' in an OOC medium about an IC character obviously OOCly designed for fucking upsets me.  So there.

Prejudice is a beautiful roleplaying hook, in my opinion.  No reason to dampen it, so long as people OOCly remember its an IC quirk to a PC, and that, by some twist of fate, advancement in no playable faction in the game is based on gender.  Let the female templar hear that sexist Bynner make a stupid-ass comment.

Gender roles can exist without becoming a straight-jacket.  Binary gender has never been universally accepted on Earth, and there is even less reason for it to be accepted on Zalanthas.


Quote from: "LoD"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.  

There is no safe place, and there hasn't been for a long time.

You have a good point overall, but I don't think gender roles would become nearly as as extreme as you indicate.

Most villages smaller than Red Storm don't have good walls or defensive fortifications.  While your offensive force is off fighting the good fight, you can't leave your village defenseless.  Tribes control small territories with porous boarders.  While Tribe A's men are off warring with or raiding Tribe B, the back door is wide open for Tribe C.  Tribe B's aggression may even have been a feint, to lure away your warriors so that their Tribe C allies could swoop in and carry off all of your portable goods, possibly including children and any helpless women.


Given how dangerous the wild is, it wouldn't make sense to deny combat training to any healthy adult.  If your women are helpless homemakers then they become a commodity, any other tribe can carry them off and use them as breeding stock.   Moo.   While stealing women has been fairly common on Earth, I like to think that buff Zalanthan women would be too much trouble to abduct.  Unless you are willing to maim them, or take them to the city to sell, they simply won't stay abducted.  Stealing children may be worthwhile, but stealing women won't be.



The highest risk activities could be primarily assigned to expendable men: raiding parties, big game hunting, and long-distance trading.

Moderate risk activities could be assigned to healthy women:  combat training focusing on defending the village, the children and the herds from raiders, and small game hunting and gathering.

Low risk activities assigned to the aged, the very young,  the physically disadvantaged (could include pregnant women/new mothers), and those temperamentally or physically unsuited to violent activities:  childcare, domestic duties, gardening, animal care, lore keeping, crafting, the arts, and healing.





Most men might focus on the high-risk/high-glory style of hunting like hunting wild boars, where a bunch of guys run up to dangerous wild animal and poke it with spears.  Or the even more high-risk/high-glory activity of hunting other intelligent species in raiding parties.  While this group would be primarily young men (80-90%) it would also include those females who are by temperament particularly aggressive and action oriented.  What are sometimes called manly hearted women.  http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/univ/manly.html  http://collections.ic.gc.ca/SaskIndian/a89mar15.htm


Most female hunters might focus on opportunistic hunting of small game, primarily using distance weapons.  While you are out gathering roots and berries you are going to spot small game, you might as well know how to shoot it.  Knowing how to use weapons well enough to hunt small game also means that you know how to use them well enough to prevent yourself from becoming prey, which is important.  It also means that the people in this group will usually come home with something every day.  If you don't find berries you find lizards, if you don't find birds you find roots, the important thing is that you are bringing home food every day that you go out.  And of course knowing how to use bows or slings will come in handy if you have to protect your village from invaders.  This will rarely be an all-female group: some men will be temperamentally unsuited to the aggressive activities in the male-dominated hunting/raiding parties and prefer the type of hunting and gathering done by this group, and some will simply prefer the company of a mixed-sex group to that of a sausage fest.  Depending on what else is going on, this group might be 25-50% male.


The homebody group that rarely travel out of sight of the camp/village will be dominantly female, but by no means exclusively so.  Those men that survived in the high-risk group long enough to become old or crippled will be here.  As will be men who are by temperament more suited to activities that take place at the camp.  Some guys are just cut out to be Mr. Mom.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit  http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Hijra_%28India%29



Women in the aggressive group and men in the homebody group can still reproduce, so no loss there.  The aggressive women would move primarily into the middle group for most of their pregnancy, and might not restrict themselves to the village or camp until the 1/4 of the pregnancy.  Some will settle down with the baby, but some won't and within a month after delivery (bearing in mind that a Zalanthan month is 1/3 of a year) may well have moved back into the middle group, leaving the infant in the care of those who enjoy childcare, there are plenty of boobs to go around.  Within a year be back with the aggressive group.   They may choose to reproduce fewer times than women in the other two groups, but most will probably choose to have one or two babies, because everybody likes the idea of leaving descendants.

Assuming that they have made the intellectual connection between sex and reproduction (not a huge leap, but not an automatic one either) even the homosexual members of the tribe can reproduce, assuming that most homosexuals are capable of performing sexually with a member of the opposite sex (given the number of homosexuals in our world who get married and have children before coming out, this isn't too far-fetched).



I can accept gender trends, but extremely restrictive gender roles seem unlikely (and also not fun).



Angela Christine
Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with."     Henry S. Haskins

I don't think anyone at all (including me) argues about the disclusion of restrictive gender roles at all. I would be disappointed to see that sort of thing rear its head.

But I (and some other folks) feel like the staff-enforced-and-supported guidelines of no gender roles at all are somewhat ... unrealistic. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but I can personally say that sometimes, it has taken a nice pause for me to decide what my character might say, just because I am trying to stay within the lines of decorum.

That is my contention, and I think nearly everybody else's who speaks up against the does not exist rule. If I, as a character, make a smartass comment about how this woman must be on the rag, it is not acceptable, despite the obvious fact that documentation does nothing to discredit that women get emotional around their period. It is not acceptable, but it is a fact, sexism or not. It's a conversation starter, a reality, but I am wrong, as a PC.

I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of discouraging real sexism, through IC example and OOC documentation. It is the concept of saying that I am playing my character wrong if he says or believes the smallest gender-specific thing that is not, I feel, in the best interest of the game.

Please do not assume that I mean anything at all more than I present here. There is no underlying meaning. I am a very straight-forward person, and I always will be, to my detriment, or for my advantage. I willingly admit when I am wrong if I can see that I am.

So far, there has been nothing besides hardball policy to convince me that the current state of things are for the best.
Wynning since October 25, 2008.

Quote from: Ami on November 23, 2010, 03:40:39 PM
>craft newbie into good player

You accidentally snap newbie into useless pieces.


Discord:The7DeadlyVenomz#3870

Men are from Jihae and women are from Lirathu, in any world. ;)
Amor Fati

I didn't say "no gender roles" I said "no sexism."  There's a difference.

Sexism is discrimination based on gender.  That's all it is.  It isn't anything more than that.  Some of the discussion I'm reading here takes sexism beyond what it is and talks about cultural diversity.  Cultural diversity can exist without there being any sexism.

If the following situation occurred:

PC A is getting a report from PC B

PC B says something and then adds their own insights.

PC A thinks, "Well, that can't be right because PC B is...."

That would be any sort of ISM - discrimination based on what PC B is.  Be that male, female, elf, dwarf, magicker, or whatever.  

Sexism happens when someone discriminates based on gender.  

In Armageddon sexism should not happen because there is no culture of one gender being weaker than the other.  Not to mention there are other species to discriminate against.  Will there be characters who hate the other gender?  Probably.  

Why?  Because they may have had individual bad experiences with the other gender.  The man who was slaughtered and ridiculed by a woman in combat.  The girl who had a man destroy her life socially.  Is that sexism... now that is an interesting question and I would have to say yes.  So, let me rephrase, sexism should be rare and isolated to individuals based on personal and extreme experiences to develop - and it is unlikely to blossom to full scale sexism but rather an intense personal vendetta against a certain person or even a family.

Another question is it sexist that I automatically used a man in a fighting example and a female in a social example?  You can reverse the two if that makes you feel happy.  It doesn't matter either way - they are both valid.

Is it sexist to say that women are being catty?  (quirri fight)  You know what, I don't think it is.  I think that is just describing a fight between two women who have their claws out.  Much the same what you can say two guys are bashing heads like duskhorn.  IE, engaged in a pointless chest pounding display.

There are matriarchies in the game and patriarchies.  There are whatever the term would be for no gender-specific-led organizations.  Where the leaders take the form of individuals of best merit regardless of gender.  In other words - in Armageddon we see all sorts.  You can have all of these different cultural societies without having sexism.  Sexism is discrimination based on gender.  A matriarchy can exist without sexism.  A patriarchy can exist without sexism.  Having such a diverse range of cultures allows people to explore all sorts of roles and experiences.  It is a good thing.

Is it sexist to question a female recruit opinion's and instantly believe a male recruit?  All things being equal in the reputation of each recruit then yes, that is sexist.  But if the female recruit has created a history of suspicion for whatever reason then no, that is not sexist.  Or if the male recruit has a history of being unreliable or lying then calling him into suspect and believing the female over the male isn't sexism either.  

I like this thread because is gets us to think for a moment.  Are we bringing over real life perceptions into the game world?  This also includes going too far and classifying some things that aren't sexism as sexism.  Was it sexist to hold the door open for someone?  No.  If you hold the door open for everyone it isn't sexist to hold the door open for a woman.

It should be clear to everyone that women and men are different.  You know the adage, men are from Mars and women are from Venus.  In every culture I've looked at men and women are different - even in warrior cultures where women fight alongside the men.  Differences are okay and fine.  Sexism is discrimination based on gender.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"And John, comparing Rape and Sexism seems ... off, just a tad.
I'm not saying sexism is as bad as rape. Just that they can both hinder the enjoyment of the game so policies limiting them have been made.

Quote from: "Anonymous kank with wings"Why should I? Just to be like you?

What the hell difference does it make, having a "name" doesn't change my opinion.
Err... you seem really angry in your last few posts, kank. It was merely meant in a humurous manner. Sorry if I offended or angered.

Quote from: "Ritley"Even in Zalanthas these differences cannot be tossed aside.
Actually they can be. "They're tossed aside." See how easy that was? I do find it amazing you're willing to allow the existence of giant ants (which are scientifically impossible, unless you have some creative thinking) but bring up points against the existence of men and women being physically and socially equal. You're not willing to apply that same suspension of belief or creative thinking.

Here's a fact:
The majority of female players and a small minority of male players wouldn't enjoy the game as much if sexism was allowed.

It is in our power (each of us as individuals) to make the game more enjoyable for most of the female players. Shouldn't we do that? Who cares Gorilla J if you can enjoy being discriminated against because of your gender. The majority of the female players can't. And who cares 7DV if we can't get 100% of the playerbase being non-discriminatory, shouldn't we at least try?

I find it amazing that people will think up all these points against gender equality in the game, when that simple fact will remain unchanged. If you're doing it for simple discussion, that's fine. But a lot of people would use those points to say "so let's do away with 100% gender equality."

Quote from: "LoD"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.
Whilever Sanvean is on staff I feel it safe to say that the no sexism policy will not be changed. If/When Sanvean ever leaves, then I'll grant you there is a possibility.

Quote from: "John"
Quote from: "Anonymous kank with wings"Why should I? Just to be like you?

What the hell difference does it make, having a "name" doesn't change my opinion.
Err... you seem really angry in your last few posts, kank. It was merely meant in a humurous manner. Sorry if I offended or angered.

I'm not angry!!!!  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x

:wink:

I really don't want to get involved in this thread.

But gosh darnit, I just can't pass up a good argument.

Did ya read Sanvean's article about women in gaming?  Do ya grok the reasons why chicks don't like to admit to being chicks while playing games? Can ya imagine why females don't line up in the same way that males do to play D&D where a midieval-esque setting maintains staunch threads of patrimony?

Zalanthas is an escape from reality, and the point of being an escape from reality is being DIFFERENT from reality.  What you know and do in real life may or may not be represented in Zalanthas at all.

Your assumption that all women are hormonal and, therefore irrational, may not be true on Zalanthas. The assumption that all men think with their winkies may similarly not be true on Zalanthas. Humans may not follow the same genetic predispositions. If you get skrewed by someone on Zalanthas, chances are that the item between their legs is the very last thing you would think about IC when you chose to be bitter about it later.

Just because you, oocly, have a problem with the other gender -- whether that is a lack of comprehension, coping skills, or a mentally impressed stereotype -- does not mean that there are good reasons for your character to manifest those.

Now, outside of ALL of the above, here... Do any of you sincerely think that the stand about "we don't want sexism in our game" is going to change when so many people (including prominent staff members) have spoken against it? Why is this even a point of debate? What does having sexism (in lieu of not having it) add to the game?

Hal's angle on the subject is an interesting one though:

Given this restriction that won't be going away anytime soon, what are some ways to overcome out built-in "isms" and improve our own play?  How do we reconcile BEING sexist with playing members of a society that has no such notions?  And are there inconsistencies in the game world that break this policy when they shouldn't?

I hope that's where this discussion goes from here on out.

-- X

I haven't been playing very long so my game world knowledge is limited. But what I've seen, I don't think there's been any sexism created by the game itself. But I do think there are existing mechanics that promote sexism, things that emphasize real world stereotypes. Like the whole Jihae vs. Lirathan templars. Sure the Lirathans run the city, but they are non-military. Just like the stereotypical females in civilized society (with a couple of exceptions in certain countries). Jihaens are specifically military, and even more, specifically combat (as opposed to "merely" non-com officers) just like stereotypical men in civilized society (with a couple of exceptions in certain tribal cultures).

I've seen that armor in shops are very masculine looking. I haven't ever seen a tembo-hide gorget with delicate flowers burnished into the leather and I haven't yet seen a crossbow with intricate filegree depicting fleurs di lis on the handhold. Most of the silk clothing and accessories though are decidedly feminine-appearing, the words used to describe them the same kinds of words you'd see describing womens' garb in a romance novel.

I've seen a lot of kanks, and if I remember right they're all male. Are all the mounts male? Are there any female inixes or kanks? If not, why not? What about other critters, the non-playable creatures that people hunt? Do they all have both male and females among them? Only certain species? If so, why?

Most of the NPC soldiers that I've seen, with very few exceptions are male. Why is that? Every half-giant soldier NPC I've seen has been male.

This is just my observation and I remind you that my experience is very limited. But as a newcomer to the game, this limited experience is all I have to go by. And if I were the kind of lass who'd be influenced by these things I would definitely think that the game allows, supports, and in some ways even promotes IC sexism. Which is fine by me, doesn't bother me at all. Except, the staff is saying it isn't so. So I can understand confusion and misinterpretation.

L. Stanson
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

Quote from: "Lizzie"
I've seen that armor in shops are very masculine looking. I haven't ever seen a tembo-hide gorget with delicate flowers burnished into the leather and I haven't yet seen a crossbow with intricate filegree depicting fleurs di lis on the handhold. Most of the silk clothing and accessories though are decidedly feminine-appearing, the words used to describe them the same kinds of words you'd see describing womens' garb in a romance novel.

Masculine/Feminine according to whose standards? Who says flowers are girly? Who says the characteristics of the armor are masculine? Who says that the silks you see are feminine? This is an OOC perception. But I'll admit you do have a point.

Quote from: "Lizzie"
I've seen a lot of kanks, and if I remember right they're all male. Are all the mounts male? Are there any female inixes or kanks? If not, why not?

Kanks are basically giant ants. They're the ultimate herdbeast because of the hide mentality. The males are the drones. Patriarchy or Matriarchy does not necessarily equate sexism...

And I've seen female lizard mounts.

Quote from: "Lizzie"Most of the NPC soldiers that I've seen, with very few exceptions are male. Why is that? Every half-giant soldier NPC I've seen has been male.

This one I can't really dispute except to say that this standard does not hold in all House Guards, at least. I will admit that you have some of a point that some of the building has been influenced by some RL norms.

Girlish and mannish according to stereotypical real-world social norms. That was my point. That these stereotypes are real-world and have been brought into the game, by the game, and makes it very easy for players to add their own stereotypes to the mix. If the game does it, then it must be okay right? But it isn't right according to the staff. Except that the game is built that way and new players who observe this for themselves will get mixed signals and make decisions based on those mixed signals.

If the game makes armor look masculine according to real-world stereotypes and "fine clothing and accessories" are described with feminine overtones according to real-world stereotypes, then a player who's lived with these real-world stereotypes will come to the conclusion that it's the same in the game; that men are the protectors and women are the nurturers. Even if the policy says otherwise, the game itself is making this statement even though it's a subtle statement.

Hope that clears it up for you!

L. Stanson
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

Butting in for a sec here.
Re the kanks - they're mostly males because when we create npcs, it defaults to male gender, and unless we specifically think to fix it...well, they stay male.  It isn't because of any IC reasons, heh.  Many "monster" npcs are male for that reason.
-Ash

I see these threads a few times every year it seems. Though I don't feel like reading over the ten pages it's generated thus far. I'll chime in.

Being a strong, proud man, I'm all for sexism. There is nothing wrong with having an Alpha male concept. Considering the game world is mainly ruled by men, whether staff likes to admit it or not, it WILL exist, and will continue exist, even if it's deemed "bad roleplay". So as you can see I am all for sexism towards females by males, and I'm all for sexism towards males by females in power (especially if they are strong females). I'm all over sexism towards anyone pretty much, it's a developed personality trait if you've seen nothing but strong <insert gender here> in your lifetime, dominating.

So that's just how I feel and have always felt about it. Sexism=good.
"A man's reputation is what other people think of him; his character is what he really is."

Quote from: "ashyom"Butting in for a sec here.
Re the kanks - they're mostly males because when we create npcs, it defaults to male gender, and unless we specifically think to fix it...well, they stay male.  It isn't because of any IC reasons, heh.  Many "monster" npcs are male for that reason.
-Ash

Yeah, let us have our illusions about the kanks, at least! ;)

Here's the thing.  People are arguing with all sorts of different definitions of sexism.  We were talking about this on the IDB and Eris came up with about the most useful statement I've seen so far.

QuoteThe main point, though ... is that sexism broadly construed as a devaluation of women (not just differential treatment of women and men) is not a cultural feature on the game.

It's not a matter of men and women being constructed differently.  It's not a matter of who bears the children.  It's not a matter of who is stronger, or smarter, or more nurturing.   It's that men and women are valued equally in the game.  They can both rise to positions of leadership, they can inherit property, and on and on.  

What does that mean in theory?  Things like the following:
    Being as ready to assume a male leader slept his way to power as a female one.
    Knowing that a female Byn sergeant has as strong a chance of kicking your butt as that male one.
    Not marking women as outside the norm (AC touches on this) linguistically.

If you notice places where you think this needs to be addressed, feel free to post something in the submissions forum.  I'd be glad to see more female soldiers, or half giants, or whatever.  When I'm building, I try to keep a 50/50 ratio, but there's over a decade's worth of building here and I'm sure we're skewed.

Seriously, are we done beating this horse yet?  I'm pretty sure it's dead.