Sexism

[Tuannon]

The ability to make other folk under estimate you is one of the most powerful non-code skills there is. Naturally if you play a lot of 'dual' roles it is sometimes refreshing to play a WYSWYG role.

I can attest that Ale Six did this well and many kudos for her on that score.

All right, fluffy stuff aside and back to the arguably misunderstood (on my part) point.. I think most serious military folk, male or female should be quickly adopting the mindset of 'Us' vs 'Them' attitude.

[Angela Christine]

I wonder if cutting down on some of the gender cues would cut down on sexism?  What if we just decided that reproductive function wasn't that important?



For example, the dark-haired, blue-eyed elf will often be assumed to be male.  You hardly ever see a male elf whose sdesc contains the word "male" or any dominantly male key words.  When is the last time you saw a male character with "bulging croched" in his sdesc?     But you also hardly ever see a female elf whose sdesc doesn't directly indicate that she is female.  Usually it is simply by including "female elf" but sometimes it might be something like "curvaceous elf" and most people will assume she is female because males are rarely described as being curvy.  That means that when the male elf talks, emotes or does any coded action everyone is reminded that he is an elf but when a female elf does the same things everyone is reminded that she is a female elf.  Male elves are elves, female elves are females.  

What if female characters also left off the gender tag, the way that male characters usually do?  You aren't the "female elf" the "buxom dwarf" or the "curvaceous mul" but instead are just an elf, dwarf or mul.  Don't be a half-giantess, be a half-giant.  Don't be a woman or man, be a human.  I'm not saying don't be buxom, curvaceous or even bulging-croched, just leave it out of the sdesc, so it isn't tossed out there as one of your character's most important characteristics every time you perform any coded actions.  Make it easier for other players to ignore what is in your pants at the times when it isn't important.  



 

Why is "mister" usually considered out of place but "miss" is ok?   If you want to show respect for a non-noble male all you have to work with is "sir".  If you want to show respect for a non-noble female you are left with the much weaker choices of: miss, madam, ma'am, or mam.  Why are they weaker choices?  Because both "madam" and "mistress" (the long form of miss) are titles in the sex trade.  I say we neuter "sir" and drop "madam/mistress" altogether.  You can call your boss sir regardless of whether it is a boy or a girl, especially in military clans.  Having all military officers use "sir" seems pretty common in science fiction.



Likewise, "Lady" is weaker than "Lord".  They should be equal, but they are not.  

Lord = member of the nobility who has a penis.
Lady = member of the nobility who has a vagina, or any person who has a vagina.

Lord is used mostly for noble men (and occasionally for gamers and goths that want to be particularly pretentious).  "Lady" can refer to any woman.  IRL you often hear the phrase "ladies and gentlemen" but hardly ever "ladies and lords" or "gentlewomen and gentlemen".  "Lady" has had all the nobility sucked right out of it, it has been demoted.  Queen is weaker than King, which is why Queen Elizabeth is married to a prince, not a king.  When one of her grandsons takes the throne he will be King, and his wife will be Queen, not Princess.  I'm not sure anything can be done about "Lady" except to make it completely off limits to all non-noble women.  You could easily drop the lord/lady prefix before "Templar".  And northern nobles could shift from being "Chosen Lord/Lady" to just being "Chosen".   But there is no obvious way for southern nobles to get their due rank without also having their naughty bits commented on.  So we have to keep calling them "Member of the Nobility who has a Penis Oash" and "Member of the Nobility who has a Vagina Borsail."    :roll:



* * *



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.

In our world women are more likely to consciously or unconsciously adopt infantile characteristics, possibly because female fertility is linked to youth much more than male fertility.  As youths both males and females may attempt to look older, because they want to be treated as adults rather than children.  In early adult hood that mostly stops.  Then a little further along in females start trying to appear younger, something that is fairly uncommon for males.  A 30 year old woman may try to look like a teenager, but a 30 year old man probably won't.  Some men even grow a beard specifically to avoid looking young.

When you see a smooth-skinned person giggling, try to remember that they are acting childish, not feminine.  A guy with boobs is feminine, a guy that giggles is just childish.  A chick with boobs is feminine, a chick that giggles is just childish.


Both men and women may adopt childish characteristics.  Being small, cute, smooth-skinned, big-eyed, playful, and generally looking young sends the message "I am helpless.  Protect me!  Take care of me!"  It is hard wired into mammals, to the point that mammals may even take care of members of other species if they display infantile characteristics.   On Earth women may be more likely to display infantile characteristics and try to get others to take care of them.  In Zalanthas there is no reason why it wouldn't happen equally with both sexes.  And there is no reason why either or male or female who gets treated as a pampered pet because of those apparently infantile characteristics can't actually be competent and deadly.  It is much more common for female than male PCs to attempt to look cute and helpless (sometimes doing so deliberately to gain advantage) but I think that is because of RL preconceptions leaking in.  Pretty boys should be as common as pretty girls.


Angela Christine

[Melody]

We could try not playing the stereotypical female roles.  If you make a burglar in hopes that you'll steal from a templar for the love of Tek don't become his fucking aide.  And if you're gonna use your sexuality/looks/delicacy to worm your way to the top don't complain about people calling you a whore.

Whereas I agree, I don't think it's the players who are playing the 'delicate, feminine' roles that are complaining. But rather some people who met one of those female characters, and then assume every female is like that, which doesn't go down well with the next female character. Personally, I often find sexism, if there's any, rather useful against the same people.

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 merely think that it's more of a problem with players over generalize than how females emote their roles, which isn't really a problem as it can be solved icly easily. Sometimes with grusome results.

[Quirk]

While getting rid of sexism on Zalanthas is a nice idea, it's just not going to work - at least, not in the way a number of people on this thread think it will. And here's why.

Even in a world without sexism, you're still going to have the rough/dainty divide. And everyone seems to have accepted this, and be okay with it. And they're right to be okay with it, because to someone doing hard, dangerous work, dainty looks pretty close to squeamish, and the last thing you want is the person who's supposedly got your back to be squeamish.

Now comes the kicker. Every human culture in the history of this planet has associated dainty with female, rough with male. This doesn't stop at looks. Typically feminine body language slides right into our "dainty" classification, typically masculine body language into "rough". Typically feminine habits of adornment are seen as dainty, the masculine lack of such are rough. This means that anyone who ornaments himself or herself too extravagantly for what's normal in the situation or is even a little dainty in body language is going to get stick from his or her fellow grunts.

And that's not the end of it. Men play dominance games. They jostle to be Alpha Male. Anyone who wants to hold the respect of male subordinates has to play those games too. (And yes, I'd classify Margaret Thatcher as a very pronounced Alpha Male). This again is helped by masculine body language; large exaggerated movements, taking up all the space, conveying assertiveness. Men treat personal space as territory, and lay claim to it by sprawling out. But it goes beyond body language.

There are two main threads to the Alpha Male contention, I think; one is intimidation, one is competition. The first is what comes into play before either is fully aware of the other's abilities; it's a test of assertiveness, of probing for weaknesses. A sergeant meeting a new recruit is quite possibly going to give him hell just to see how he reacts. And this is again where feminine instincts often fail, because conciliatory approaches are seen as submissive approaches, when what's needed to stake out territory is self-possession and sometimes even aggression.

Competition allows you to win respect over time. When it becomes apparent that yes, you really are that damn good, the pecking order shifts to accomodate this, and the more assertiveness you have to back this up, the more it shifts. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to be as perceptive as you'd like, and you may need to force the comparison home to ensure they're left in no doubt as to your superior abilities.

So, to come back to the original point: you can eradicate sexist phrases from people's speech, you can remove preconceptions about looks, but the unpleasant fact remains that if a female wants to fit right in with a group of combatants straight off, she has to act like a male to do so. And that's the only way it can be unless we completely rewrite the fundamentals of human social interaction. (Before someone suggests this: No, that's never going to work.) Worse than this, if you want to rise quickly and gain power in a group without "sleeping your way to the top", you have to play the dominance games and effectively be a man in a woman's body.

Also, to throw in a little agreement with ShaLeah, even eradicating preconceptions isn't helped at all by having plenty of PC females who live up to those preconceptions.

Told you I was back...

[John]

"F-Me PCs"  While I think that Sanvean covered this in the last thread, so "tastefully" dedicated to F-me PCs, I still think that mindset is still there with our players.

Agreed. Combatting the mindset has made for interesting character ideas as well for me (both female and male. Yes, I am a gender bender So watch out for me if you don't like mudsexing with males playing females :twisted:)

"Jihea and Lirathu"

I do think it a shame that the staff didn't take advantage of the opportunity to go against the "women don't do combat" stereotype with the Orders.

I've noticed that primarily on Armageddon there isn't much sexism.

There is one form of sexism that no-one has brought up. The sexism that favours women. When I was a newbie I tried out playing a woman. It was boring thanks to the playerbase. Where I received little help before, I was inundated with help. The game became easy and boring So for a long while I stayed away from playing women. I'm glad to say that after a recent foray into the female role, I almost didn't see this behaviour. I do see it from time to time with the occassional player. But I'm confident they'll eventually learn.

GET AN ACCOUNT NAME!

*ahem*

if everyone was the same, what would there be to attract a mate, or similar things?

Like all those homosexuals who just have absolutely no sexual attraction to anyone The sexes can be equal (and the same) without causing sexual attraction to dissapear.

The male/female physiology is structurally different.  However women can grow just as strong, be just as pigheaded, or stink just as much if they put their minds to it.

Err..... They don't have to put their mind to it, just as men don't.

Do you think we have women haters on this board?

I'm male, and I'm a misogynist.

What we're telling you, as a matter of staff policy is that sexism doesn't exist on Zalanthas[/b].  We're not saying "in general it doesn't happen," we're saying "it doesn't exist."

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for clearing it up

Why don't the men wear the rings and trinkets

I know I don't because I don't have enough 'sid when playing males

:arrow: Would men and women still want privacy from the opposite sex when going to the bathroom?

IMO no. I feel that's backed up by the public urinals in Allanak and the fact that there is only one Byn latrine

:arrow: Would men and women still want privacy from the opposite sex when changing clothes?

No, and I back that up with the fact that there's only one barracks in every single clan. Sure you can hop under covers or hide against a wall. But eventually people will see something (ESPECIALLY if a noble walks in while you're in the middle of dressing) and the stigma will go away.

Having said that, when not going to the bathroom or getting dressed (the latter only occuring in designated areas), most civilized places discourage public nudity (Tuluk and Allanak).

There is a difference in male and female and so it's only natural, on some level, that differences in how each other is treated takes place.

That's an extremely dangerous road to go down. I won't say it's wrong (until you've said how you treat them differently) but I will say it's dangerous and very easily leads to sexism. I do treat everyone I'm not sexually attracted to, the same. How I treat people I'm sexually attracted to depends on how attracted I am. And no, I'm not attracted to every single female I see

How do we, as players, move ourselves beyond this?

To a degree I don't think we should. If you're attracted to someone, IMO you treat them differently. But you don't assume all women are weak and need protecting. You might be protective of the person you have feelings for, but that isn't every single opposite-sex PC you see.

The point is just because someone is womanly or feminine and doesn't want to RP scratching their crotch and spitting doesn't mean they can't be respected or codedly kick butt.  If someone is being petty treat them like their petty sure, but I think woman still can be and should be allowed to be feminine but strong.

Actually I disagree. If you want to act like a weak Earth woman then that will affect how I act towards you. I'll react the same regardless of if your man or woman, but I will react a certain way, if you behave a certain way. If you want to get respect amongst a group of groin-scratchers you'd better scratch that groin. And if you are a fighter that doesn't have a single scar. Then that will affect how I act towards you.

it's because I want her to be seen as "delicately feminine." That doesn't mean she can't kick your ass from Tuluk to Allanak and back.

Actually my characters will think it does. If anyone (regardless of gender) acts in such a manner, I will draw assumptions onto your fighting prowess. You want me to think you're tough? Act tough. I personally see giggling (no matter who does it) as a manner for the physically weak. Batting your eyelashes to get your own way means that it is a tool you're more use to then using your fists and muscles, which means your not as good with using them. I'd personally be suspect of any tough person batting their eyelashes. If you want to attract someone, show off those muscles you developed as easily as my man did.

Can we say, though, that woman on Zalanthas do have a tendancy toss their hair, giggle, and wear more fine clothes and jewelry than men, yet aren't discriminated against?  Can we say that a female Byn sergeants kick just as much ass as any male sergeant, yet spend more time on average cleaning their armor?  Can we say that women like to talk about feelings more than men but that doesn't affect how good a leader one is?  Can we say that in monogamous relationships with children, men tend to take the providor role while the women manage the home, and not have people look down at her for a lack of a formal employment?

IMO, no. Can women and men behave differently? Sure. But, IMO, they don't behave in those manners. And no, I don't know how they can act differently.

You don't have to like everyone but a person doesn't have to be masculine to be respected or fit in. That is sexist to say that they must behave like a man to get respect

That hasn't been said. They're saying that they have to behave in a particular manner to be respected.

Part of the problem is (as someone pointed out) RL men have been tough and RL women have been physically weak (gross generalisation). So in-game people that act tough, must act like RL men. People in-game that act physically weak, must act as RL women. I can see why people would have a problem with that, but I don't want your "ooh! I broke a nail" <whatever> to be as respected as my "There's some kank piss in this? Who cares" <whatever>, without having to constantly prove it.

The place where the "no sexism" clause comes in is, I won't assume you're physically weak just because you're a woman. I'll assume it if you behave in a particular manner.

That's the point of the thread, to remind people not to have that kind of disposition that you don't have to be masculine to get respect.

If you define masculine as acting tough, and everyone agrees with you (including the staff), then the "no sexism" crowd has just lost a supporter. Fortunately it seems very few people agree with you

Man on Zalanthas can play frilly guys and do work if they want to.

As someone who quite often plays "frilly guys", I never expect to be respected by Byn-types.

My point is that just because a woman doesn't have a masculine appearance or attitude doesn't mean she isn't as strong is a man.

As an IRL weak male and often an in-game weak male, I just have to disagree with this so much (if you define "one of the guys" to be one of the fighters).

In the Wheel of Time novels and a few others, women have the upper hand in the world.

*snicker*

The author actually tried to create a world where the sexes were equal Not equal as in Armageddon, but equal overall (as in the amount of places where women had the upper hand was balanced out by the amount of places where the men had the upper hand. Or the men have the upper hand in certain situations while the women have the upper hand in other situations).

Even in Zalanthan history there appears to be sexism. How many of the figureheads of the timeline are female?

Again that's RW seepage into GW. Just because the staff and players and haven't been perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Or good emoting.  EVERYONE knows that good emotes means great mudsex!

Err... wouldn't it? What is mudsex? Emoting out sex. I'd be surprised if someone suddenly became a terrible emoter while mudsexing (then again, I'd think they were typing one-handed and never mud sex with them again  :shock:)

Why would anyone's char find a dainty person attractive in Zalanthas?

They want someone they can physically overpower? I've had many characters (female heterosexuals, homosexual males, bisexual males and heterosexual males*) who preferred dainty people. It's a physiology type I am sometimes attracted to. Just as sometimes I'm attracted to fat people. While other times I'm attracted to masculine people.

For example, the dark-haired, blue-eyed elf will often be assumed to be male.

All of my dwarves are female and have no indication in their sdesc. Take that you assuming players :twisted:

When is the last time you saw a male character with "bulging croched" in his sdesc?  

Main descs should have things that are easily seen when clothed. The fact is breasts are more easily seen then penises when clothed. So therefore breasts are much more likely to appear in sdescs then penises.

Why is "mister" usually considered out of place but "miss" is ok?

I don't have a problem with either.

Why are they weaker choices?  Because both "madam" and "mistress" (the long form of miss) are titles in the sex trade.  I say we neuter "sir" and drop "madam/mistress" altogether.

No thanks I hated it in Star Trek when "sir" was used to refer to women. I'd sit there and say "Did you by any chance miss her two large breasts?" (As all Star Trek women were large breasted )

Lady = member of the nobility who has a vagina, or any person who has a vagina.

Not in Zalanthas it isn't :twisted: (If you do it and I feel it's an OOC slip that you rarely make I'll ignore it though).

Giggling isn't something that females do, it is something that children do.

Thankyou!

Told you I was back...

Glad to have you back

* I figure there's enough gender-bender males playing bi/homo women

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

NOTE: I play non-sexist characters, in my personal opinion. No matter what I as a player feel like, I try very hard to have my characters assume the Armageddon Experience. In no way is my opinion as stated below a reflection of my role-playing style, as I am one who believes that documentation should be followed. I fully support the staff in their decisions, even if I personally disagree with them.

Take the following for what it is worth, an opinion.

The struggle to eliminate sexism from Armageddon is stupid. This policy of no sexism no matter what makes no sense at all. We have racism in the world, blatant and pushed racism, and to push a no sexism view in the face of that is ... fool-hardy, to say the least.

I have always been for equality as a whole, and I always will be, but to pretend that there is no difference between men and women is insane. The two sexes are simply not the same. In Zalanthas, I understand that men and women have the same potential, both physically and mentally, and i fully support that and even push that. But despite that, there are still going to be differences emotionally and from time to time biologically.

Women have periods, emotional swings because of biological functions, not the least of those menopause, tender breasts from childbearing, lacating nipples from birthing, a swollen gut from pregnancy, a general need to squat when pissing, and I am sure I am missing other things.

Men have erections when aroused, more physical body hair, more body odor problems, more testosterone, the growing chance for inability to perform sexually as they grow older, the inability to provide a baby with food from their own body, and the chance to have all of their reproductive organs scrapped or chafed if not gathered in properly. I am missing things about men that are different too, but mainly because I can't think of them all.

The point of it all is that men and women are different. It matters little what anyone decrees or pushes, they simply are. To tell me it's wrong ICly for someone to not be able to dislike men because they are men, or to not be able to think a women can do or can't do something a man can or can't do, or to not be able to sterotype the opposite sex, when we dislike elves because they are elves or won't hire a dwarf because they are a dwarf, or assume that all muls dance with insanity or are beasts. It makes no bleeding sense, even in the grand scheme of things.

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.

For example, whore should apply to men and women alike, and there should be no disdain in it for anyone to be called a whore, a prefectly fine way to make a living. However, a particular character may not like women whores, or male whores, but be fine with the other, perhaps because a male whore killed his father, or reversed.  Perhaps he caught ticks from one sex or the other or perhaps his mother was one, and she was a bitch. The point is, why should that be a no-no? It's a perfectly logical reason to hate a whore and use the word as an insult, yet we can't do that, because there is no sexism in Zalanthas, and this is sexism.

Perhaps your female warrior is protective of all males because she doesn't think they can do what she can. She's not met a single one who can hold their own with her in a battle, but she's seen the women in the unit fight, and they all bust ass, generally men's asses. So she tucks men in the back of a fight, and herds her chicks forward. She looks at all men, even those not in her unit or company, as weaker than women, because to her they are. She's got proof, to her. The female warrior could just as easily be a male, and the sexes reversed. The point is, that's sexism, and yet it's very much in character, but can't be condoned because there is no sexism on Zalanthas.

Saying sexism doesn't exist or can't exist, rather, fails for those examples above and many more. Saying sexism is unusual, on the other hand, is much more of an accurate statement.

There is almost no sexism on Zalanthas.[/u]

[Halaster]

There is almost no sexism on Zalanthas.[/u]

I wholeheartedly agree with that approach, even though it goes against what other staff members say.  To say sexism doesn't exist is simply not true, because it does exist, because players do it.  I'm not saying they should, but they do.  As this thread has clearly shown, people do sexist things in the game.  They don't mean to - it's usally an honest mistake with RL bleeding in.  Most players, like myself, when they realize they're doing it, will stop.  I just don't always realize I'm doing something that's based on preconceptions of a gender.

I don't believe that makes me hopelessly sexist in RL, either.  In RL people treat men and women differently, because that's just a fact of life.  We bend reality to play this game, however, and have setup an entirely different world.  Is it "sad", as one poster said?  No.  It's fact.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

In the Wheel of Time novels and a few others, women have the upper hand in the world.

*snicker*

The author actually tried to create a world where the sexes were equal Not equal as in Armageddon, but equal overall (as in the amount of places where women had the upper hand was balanced out by the amount of places where the men had the upper hand. Or the men have the upper hand in certain situations while the women have the upper hand in other situations).

I understand that, but the point I really failed to make there was that despite his best efforts, there is still a bleeding image. In his world, there is an image of women being in power, no matter what he intended. In other words, he failed, as we do now.

There is no way to defeat sexism. Whether we as players agree or don't agree to try, we can never take it out, and that is a fact, and I think that the unsuing and constant battle to do so only intensifies the awareness that there even is sexism. In all honesty, I  hardly ever really notice it in-game, unless I just read one of these threads. Maybe it's because I am innured to it in RL, but I sorta doubt that's it.

The reason, I think, that I don't notice it, is that it exists only for people who go out of their way to attract it, and in that case, it is deserved. Additionally, the more we try to erase it, the more we will feel like playing this game is a flaming chore, rather than a joy.

Get rid of the DOES NOT EXIST state of mind and adopt the ALMOST DOESN"T EXIST state of mind. It will ease nearly everybody's minds about the entire thing.

DISCLAIMER: In no way should this post be considered a stab at the staff for the policies they have created. Instead, it is a stab at the policy itself, which I strongly suggest you play by while it stands as it does.

DISCLAIMER #2: The reason I post these disclaimers on these sorts of posts is because invariably, either a member of staff, or a player, both with good intentions most probably, will berrate me for voicing an opinion seemingly aimed at the staff's actions, and which seemingly espouses something akin to, if not like to, rebellion. I wish to make it clear, especially to newbies who may not yet be familiar with my style of conversing and might take it the wrong way, that I encourage organized community change, not reckless individual rebellion.

[John]

There is almost no sexism on Zalanthas.[/u]

The same way that there was almost no focusless dwarves at one point in Armageddon's history. Just because players bring in their OOC views doesn't mean they should. The staff have said there is to be no sexism. If you (not you 7DV, but you in the general sense) do bring sexism into the game, you're breaking the staff's rules and may (or may not, depending on the situation) have it be a point against you.

To tell me it's wrong ICly for someone to not be able to dislike men because they are men, or to not be able to think a women can do or can't do something a man can or can't do......when we dislike elves because they are elves or won't hire a dwarf because they are a dwarf, or assume that all muls dance with insanity or are beasts. It makes no bleeding sense, even in the grand scheme of things.

Makes perfect sense to me. RL women don't want to have to suffer discrimination in-game. The RL muls, elves and dwarves (as in people who are of a different race to homo sapiens) are welcome to write into the mud and complain though. I imagine if enough did, saying how they felt discriminated against, that the staff would change their policy to be more inclusive.

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.

Why not push a third option "There should be no sexism on Zalanthas and any player who deliberately does so is going against the rules of the mud and might be docked Karma for doing so"? Or you know, we can just get rid of the "no focusless dwarves" rule and just have the staff encourage dwarves to have focuses.

It's a perfectly logical reason to hate a whore and use the word as an insult, yet we can't do that, because there is no sexism in Zalanthas, and this is sexism.

A) No it isn't. Although if you only hate whores of gender <X> then it is.
B) It's perfectly logical for my character to rape yours. But unless I have your consent, I can't. The staff have OOC rules that limit what we can do in order for players to be able to enjoy the game the most.

Get rid of the DOES NOT EXIST state of mind and adopt the ALMOST DOESN"T EXIST state of mind.

No. Not unless the staff make a policy change, and even then I'll only grudgingly accept it.

In no way should this post be considered a stab at the staff for the policies they have created. Instead, it is a stab at the policy itself, which I strongly suggest you play by while it stands as it does.

Understood. My post also wasn't a stab at how you play or you personally

[Anonymous kank with wings]

It will never end. Just a constant attack on all channels.  :x

Why not just take Arm a step further into fantasy and replace the genders with a single, sexless being called the Fnord. Babie Fnords can be delivered by blackrobed templars with little wings. Problem solved for ever.

I will now go and vent my ire by driving aggressively on the highway.

[Morrolan]

Whew!  We're somewhere on page six!  And I read the whole damn thing.

Until recently, I was teaching Intro to Cultural Anthropology at a community college.  Teaching the chapter on gender was always a nightmare.

Explaining the difference between Sex (biological) and Gender (cultural) would ofter be about as effective as stopping a freight train with a feather.  And I'm not talking about combatting sexist assumptions, only about pointing it out.

Many, many, many of the things that we classify as "natural" under "sex" are really part of "gender."  And the confusion comes because things that we learn through our culture are experienced as "natural" to us.

In our culture, it is often assumed that if something is "cultural" it is therefore not as real as something that is "biological."  To this I say, "When we move something out of the category of physical science and into the realm of culture, we have simply moved it from the most powerful force in the universe to the second most powerful force in the universe."

That being said, my characters in general tend to be heterosexual and male.  And they are protecttive of their possible mates, if those mates need taking care of.  Once, long ago, one of my characters had a relationship with a Byn lieutenant.  I'll tell you, he never once made the assumption that she couldn't take care of herself.  Some of my male characters have served under female leaders.  He never made the assumption that he could do the job better, unless he could.

In the game, we don't have to deal with biology, or even with most of culture.  We don't have to deal with pheremones, or subtle physical cues.  All we have is the text.  If we are making sexist assumptions, we are bringing them from our own beliefs and thoughts.  Even if there is a biological difference, the biology of Armageddon is "The Code," which is clearly non-sexist.

Morrolan

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Code does not cover real differences between men and women. If it did, then we could draw all sorts of conclusions based on the results of the code. Since it doesn't, we have to base the uncoded on reality.

To counter your argument further, Morrolan, you could apply the same precepts to sweating as you do to no biological differences. It's not coded, yet you know perfectly well that standing still under the hot sun in the middle of the desert will bring sweat to your skin, even if it's not much. It's not coded, but it's a fact. It's not coded, but we know perfectly well that a woman is designed to be a caretaker of children, if for no other fact than a woman has the ability to feed a child healthy substances from their bodies, without mutation or some other odd thing. Whether it is coded or not, it is true, yet to look at a woman as a caretaker by nature is looked upon as sexism, and it is, this sterotype, yet it can not be argued against.

If the Code did encompass what are only realistic biological functions for a male and a female, the argument against any sexism existing in Zalanthas would have even less to hold on to.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

And I don't ever want to hear any sort of argument for sexless again. That is ... no.

Even though I am sure that was a joke.

[Intrepid]

Is it "sad", as one poster said?  No.  It's fact.

Not to mince words here, Halaster, but: Facts can be sad.

Part of the problem is, and I realize I keep coming back to this--but only because
it's a trainwreck everyone keeps politely ignoring, is that a frilly man is still going
to get the benefit of the doubt far more than a frilly woman.  In a dangerous world
like Zalanthas, where death is coming for you from any direction (even that frilly
direction to your immediate northwest that you've dismissed), the notion that a
woman constantly has to prove herself in areas where a man is blithely accepted
is at the very core of what sexism actually is.  Why does a woman in the Byn have
to kick everyone's asses to be accepted when the man doesn't, to continue an
example provided earlier in the thread?  If the ladder to climb to respect or even
acceptance is longer to get to the same place for a woman than it is a man, then
it is a failing of the players projecting a sexist attitude, not some duty to the female
player to actually climb farther, faster and better to prove herself; if I have to
something like that, I didn't prove myself your equal, I proved myself your superior.

In the end, it has nothing to do with roughness or daintiness or grabbing your crotch
like an 80s hair band lead singer.  Those have to do with upbringing, and just because
the Byn made it fashionable to do does not mean that everyone acts like a pig; it's
a misconception that makes me wonder if maybe the Byn is fast becoming a
poor choice for newbies, as we seem to have people thinking that all of Armageddon
espouses their views solely or they're not really part of the game (to quote one
particular fanatic from a month or two ago).

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I do not agree that men are accepted in dangerous situations any more than a women is. I do not see it, you understand. Maybe I'll play a woman after this, to fully understand things from all angles.

I personally think that many of you grasp at straws to embody the opinions you've had of situations that often were only one-time or happenstance. Now, every time your woman or man encounters difficulty or opinions, it's for the same reason in your mind, even when you can not understand why it is occuring from any standpoint but your own.

Should you term being upset that another character slept her/his way to the top while you had to fight for your position sexism? Yes, under the current standard. But why? It's illogical to call this disallowed sexism. You should be pissed that you had to work harder for your position than that scullywag, and that scullywag should be ahead of you if she/he pleased the boss more. If the boss liked action more than sex, you would be ahead of that scullywag. It's logical, it's not unfiar sexism, yet now it seems as though sleeping your way to the top is looked down upon as caving in to sexism, when it should not be looked upon as anything other than using your available assets.

Are you telling me that you dare tell me that my character can't care for a dainty woman more than a tough woman because you think it's sexism? No, no, no. You can't tell me what I like or what my character should like ... that goes against the entire air of the game. You can't tell me why I like a certain thing. I just do.

There are so many things which fall under sexism, that are not hinderances to roleplay, the conflict we all love, and has nothing whatsoever to do with making women warriors weak or male aides incapable, that it's impossible to mention them all or give examples of them all.

Likewise, it's impossible to take sexism out of the game. It's equally impossible to deny sexism its proper place in Zalanthan interaction.

Sexism almost does not exist in Zalanthas.

It's not a Western view of the world. It is a pillar of logic.

And John, comparing Rape and Sexism seems ... off, just a tad.

[Morrolan]

It's not coded, but we know perfectly well that a woman is designed to be a caretaker of children, if for no other fact than a woman has the ability to feed a child healthy substances from their bodies, without mutation or some other odd thing. Whether it is coded or not, it is true, yet to look at a woman as a caretaker by nature is looked upon as sexism, and it is, this sterotype, yet it can not be argued against.

Many people take this argument farther, to say that therefore a woman who does not bear and raise children is not fulfilling her biological purpose/fulfilling the Will of God/pick your reductionist theory and is therefore less of a woman.

I know perfectly well that bearing children is one possible role women can accept that men cannot.  I also know that this is a role most common in intensive agricultural societies, and limited in other cultures.  It is not a woman's natural role as a caretaker that creates sexism; it is differential access to resources such as food production, training, and freedom of travel.

A woman might be "designed" to be a bearer of children, but I strongly believe that to go from this assumption to the assumption that all women are therefore harnessed to this one goal is the worst form of reductionism.  A man might be "designed" to be a provider/protector, but to assume that this is the only true "manliness" is the same form of reductionism.

And I will state that I am unequivocally against such reductionisms as overly simplistic: they do not recognize the variation within the categories of male and female.  (This probably makes me a good liberal.)  As a culture, the West is not far from the assumption that such beliefs are the only gender norms...not more than 150 years at most, and in many cases not at all.

Morrolan

[Halaster]

Why does a woman in the Byn have to kick everyone's asses to be accepted when the man doesn't, to continue an example provided earlier in the thread?

I played twice in the Byn as a man, and neither time was I blindly accepted.  I had to 'prove' myself to the others.  So did the women around me.  So, is your example actually something that has happened?  I don't know, maybe it has, which is why I ask because my personal experience was the opposite (and I've oddly heard a lot of people saying that in this thread).

[Anonymous kank with wings]

is that a frilly man is still going
to get the benefit of the doubt far more than a frilly woman.

The frilly man without status will be an object of derision, picked on until he dies or toughens up. The frilly woman will still be valued for her ability to bear and raise children. Who has it better?

[Anonymous kank with wings]

GET AN ACCOUNT NAME!

Why should I? Just to be like you?

What the hell difference does it make, having a "name" doesn't change my opinion.

[Bebop]

Just because women are made for bearing children because of their physical make up, it does not mean that by Zalanthas rules women can not be equal to men.  This is a fantasy game, and it's designed for fun and to give women an equal chance.  I think despite what you may believe about women and their physical capabilities in the real world, you should dismiss them while playing because in Zalanthas, I woman has the same physical capabilities as a male.  Like I mentioned before the only thing that would make you different is your genitals pretty much, and it just so happens that in Zalanthas, women are also the one that bear children.  I don't know about all of you but I'm glad it's that way.  But who knows what's possibly with magick. *snicker*

[Intrepid]

I played twice in the Byn as a man, and neither time was I blindly accepted.  I had to 'prove' myself to the others.  So did the women around me.  So, is your example actually something that has happened?  I don't know, maybe it has, which is why I ask because my personal experience was the opposite (and I've oddly heard a lot of people saying that in this thread).

I've never played in the Byn, but this has happened to me twice: Once in a human
noble house (I was not playing a noble and was not frilly) and another time in an
elven clan, if you can imagine that.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

This is sexism.

But, the woman. She has a use, even though most likely she's not up to bearing children in the first place, thus eliminating her usefulness biologically.

The man has no use biologically in the first place. However, he may be prized as a boy-toy for some burly women interested in dominating him, or by some man with the same desire.

However, if they play smartly, they both are equally useful, for biological use has no bearing on self-created use. They could become a spy, a hidden bomb, a dagger in intimate privacy, so forth and so on...

Both would be subject to derision by some elements and to addoration by others.

There would be sexism.

It would be completely in character.

But it is not something currently supported by policy.

[Anonymous kank with wings]

The man has no use biologically in the first place.

Absolutely wrong, because women cannot have children without men.

[Intrepid]

The frilly man without status will be an object of derision, picked on until he dies or toughens up. The frilly woman will still be valued for her ability to bear and raise children. Who has it better?

Again, I'm not talking about derision based on class differences; I have no problems
with people being classist or racist.  I'm referring to the fact that I've seen situations
where two individuals with almost no differences except gender were treated
vastly different.  It's sexism, whether it's acknowledged or not.

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?  This is yet
another example of how I think our playerbase, as a result of sexism seeping into
the game from the real world, is developing an inability to full enjoy the setting as
it's been designed.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The man has no use biologically in the first place.

Absolutely wrong, because women cannot have children without men.

I'm going to assume that frilly meant feminine, yeh? If it did, my point stands. If it didn't, I stand aside.

If it did, he's not going to have children any way. She might. And Intrepid is right about this particular thing. But only this one.