| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 28 Mar 2011 : 00:13:30
I've noticed a lot lately that there is a lot of sism against males in the Realms and the design of it. For one, most female goddess habe exclusively female clergy or are female dominated to where males are almost never seen. Some of those goddess: Eilistraee (I'm ashamed; quite hypocritical really), Lolth (well, at leastshe makes sense), Selune.
Sexism n the design: Nymps (from what I've seen) are only female (whenin rel life they are both genders), incubi, in an arti le from Dragon I've read, where these hideous male versions of the succubi, but they weren't "seducers". As well, Malcanthet's cult was again predominantly female and only females could get high ranks.
Sigh....... |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Icelander |
Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 22:10:18
As examples of this kind of thing, it is plausible that skilled artists or craftsmen might decide that their particular is better suited for people with particular reproductive organs or those having particular 'ethnic' identifiers.
This could translate into magical traditions or martial arts where students lacking the right genitalia or the properly attested bloodline (or at least an accident of genetics that allows them to pass for X) have a very hard time finding a teacher.
We see this in Thay, with pure Mulan blood officially being a requirement. Logic suggests that this ought to manifest quite often when skills take a long time to be passed on and the personal prejudices of a founder can be very influential in the culture that forms around the practise of something.
I've always wanted to see more attention paid to 'schools of magic', or the followers of certain traditions. All those who studied under a given sorceress or her students might cast their spells in a given manner, recognisable to others. The restrictions on mages might in some cases result from the metaphysics of magic, but more commonly, ought the be the result of how they were taught and the various forms of superstition hedging their art.
I believe that mages, as well as warriors, can be recognisably classified as practisioners of certain traditions that may as well be called magical schools or schools of martial arts. Some utilise more than one style, of course. They'll be less likely to be bound by superstition or to utilise ineffective but traditional methods.
Such schools are probably unlikely to have much game effects in D&D*, but are sources of potential entertaining rivalries, myths, legends, neat and little known spells, etc. Not to mention, some good old fashioned prejudice against practisioners of other schools. Or refusal to teach anyone of the wrong colour, speaking the wrong language, believing in the wrong gods or urinating in the wrong way.
*Though easily modelled in GURPS. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 21:59:53
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
There's no need for commentary like that either, trad. Each and every scribe is entitled to their own personal beliefs. It is not for either you or anyone to say who is ignorant and who isn't.
While I can agree that there is absolutely no need to label other scribes negatively, there is a corollary to the rule that everyone is entitled to their own opinions... but not their own facts.
We understand the Realms through our own experiences and learning, exclusively, of course, formed by our own world. When interpreting, filling out or changing to suit our (and our players') tastes the various cultures in the Realms; it is natural and in my opinion, quite useful, to look to the real world for inspiration and to judge if something is plausible or not. After all, if it happened, it's definitely plausible.
However, when we are not using examples of the real world, but rather a profoundly wrong understanding of something real, we may accidentally design an element of a culture that we believe to be plausible and consistent with other elements, but happens to be nothing of the kind. This may turn out okay, if the players and DM are actually fine with that level of plausibility, but it may also lead to the players losing interest in the DM's game. I know I have been turned off fiction, television or games by poor presentation of societies.
With that in mind, I don't think it's either off topic or in any way against the Code of Conduct to object to a scribe's stated opinion when his opinion is about matters of fact. Nor do I think it wrong to provide examples and arguments to support an opinion that runs contrary to those of other scribes.
Because while a scribe might choose to insert fictional societies into his Realms that resemble what bad scholarship has said about real societies, I think he ought to be able to do so in the knowledge that he's not using elements from real history. This doesn't mean that he shouldn't do it, but it's useful to know the difference between fiction, history and history as some people wished it was.
Directly on the subject of the Realms, we may well conclude that the dearth of examples for real societies where there was not profound prejudice and conflict between sub-cultures where individuals displayed tribal identification provides a reason to believe that 'us vs them' distinctions are innate to the human race and perhaps all self-aware and thinking beings.
This in turn ought to encourage us to think about in what other ways they manifest in societies where 'equality' between some groups that we recognise from our world appears to exist. It also suggests a lot of adventure ideas in a fantasy world, where 'us vs. them' distinctions can be drawn based on a lot of other factors than reproductive equipment and a few factors of external appearance. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 18:04:12
Perhaps we can bring this discussion back to the Realms? |
| Icelander |
Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 17:40:57
Yeah, in light of what information we do have about the culture of the Belgae and Celtae of Caesar's times, I find the claim about perfect equality there... odd.
Society was extremely bound by caste and class distinctions, with people who were born serfs never having any chance of improving their lot, not even with conspicious acts of heroism in exceptional circumstances. This contrasted even with Roman ideas of slavery.
Belgae kings, ruling by virtue of their ability to defeat all other claimants in physical combat, were not noted for the gender equality of the position. When political power is actually correlated with muscle mass, equality of the sexes does not result. Well, only in the sense that a man or woman of equal muscle mass might have the same chance of winning a duel*. Which is pretty meaningless, given that men have proportionally more muscle mass than women, tend to be larger and thus have even more, and finally, that testesterone helps in building up more muscle mass. It's 'equal' in the sense that a competition in peeing your name in the snow while standing would be equal.
*If we were to brush over the fact that women were not permitted to issue challenges there. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 02:21:11
Okay, I'm sorry, but I feel the need to point out, in case anyone was misled by mistaken comments made earlier about Celts and Native Americans, that men and women were not equal in those cultures, even though exceptions like Boudicca did exist. Also, neither group was a unified culture. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 01:17:30
I do believe Erik has properly captured the current scope of the problems that have long plagued this discussion scroll.
I see no need for further elaboration at the moment. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 18:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
Well, you can ignore rants, but Mods won't. The topic will be closed and that will be the end of it.
Perhaps, indeed.
Why all the negativity? Why do we have to jump on people the instant there's a negative comment? Is it because you feel attacked--because you read aggressive motives into something people say?
I want to state for the record that nothing I say here is aggressive or ever intended to be offensive. That would be bad form, unprofessional, and disrespectful--three things I try to avoid at all costs. I ask that everyone assume good will on the part of my posts, until I inform you toherwise.
We're all here to discuss something we share an affection for (the Realms) in an open, fair, and honest way. Anything less than that has no purpose being posted. Let the Mods sort out anything that might be abusive, rude, or offensive.
Cheers |
| Imp |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 17:31:57
Well, you can ignore rants, but Mods won't. The topic will be closed and that will be the end of it. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 16:28:15
It really, really bothers me when the reaction to the possibility or even probability of ignorant or abusive behaviour is the meek and preemptive curtailing of otherwise reasonable activities, because they might 'cause' ignorant and abusive people to behave badly. What causes people to act like entitled douchebags or paranoid delusionals with persecution complexes might be a lot of things, but the proximate cause of whatever they decide to take offence to isn't really the important part. If they can't find something to be offended over there, they'll find it somewhere else.
As a fictional device, factionalism, tribalism, parochalism and inter-group conflict are both widespread and effective. Discussion of their utility in the Realms, the extent to which some or others are present and how different gamers have approached the subject are valid, potentially usefl and interesting.
Why should the potential inability of others to seperate their personal beliefs from fictional themes, or even just to have conversations with people who think differently without taking it as a personal affront, affect the ability of reasonable adults to have an interesting discussion?
Just ignore the people who may become agitated, offensive, ranting or otherwise disturbed. It's the Internet. It's not as if they can physically foam over all over like they could on a public bus. They can't harm anyone while they are having a loudly tapped-out argument with the whispered voices in their heads, reading out distorted versions of the other posters contributions in which all their private demons are frolicking. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 16:08:32
I was going to just 'walk-away' from this scroll, and be smart for once.
But I'm neither 'un-opinionated', nor smart. 
The topic is a matter of perception. People's perceptions are clouded by their own experiences and what they are taught (and there may be a hint of genetics in there, but thats another argument altogether). This means that there is no 'right' and 'wrong' answer - what doesn't seem sexist to one person may seem very sexist (or racist, etc) to another. Everyone's 'hot button' is set at a different level, and set-off by different things.
For instance, I used to consider Archie Bunker (All in the Family) very sexist, and racist, and a slew of other bad things. I was young when I watched that show, but years later I watched the program in re-runs, and realized Archie was just ignorant. Meathead (Mike Stivic) was the REAL racist in that program. As I got older (and the world itself got smarter), my perspectives changed, even though the show didn't.
You're not going to be able to reset the bar on people's perspectives on an internet site - that takes YEARS of RW experience. Ergo, the topic itself is rather pointless, since its just a pile of kindling waiting for a match.
Just my 2 cents --- Cheers |
| Icelander |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 15:55:34
It is a good question.
I generally assume that the rich nations in the Heartlands and especially the trading nations with ocean access have priests of Chauntea and other popular gods who live alongside the people much of the time. Add various herbalists, wise (wo)men and hedge practisioners and you get a fairly good access to medicine that is somehow supernatural.*
I'd rate such assistance as being good, but not modern Sweden or Iceland good (we've had published stats of zero maternal mortality per 100,000). For those rich or powerful enough to have full-time priests of consequence attending their bedsite, I think that only a supernatural complication could cause any problems.
On the other hand, for an extremely poor nomadic people like the Taangan, I imagined that the maternal mortality rate matched real-world pre-industrial nomad pastoralists, pretty much. The shamans don't really appear to be that devoted to public health there and aren't many enough to make a difference on the macroscale.
Even Empresses there appear to die in childbirth. If the shamans could and would help anyone, it would seem that it should be the higher status people. I therefore concluded that being anyone other than the relative or client of a shaman with good herbalism skills sucked on the Taan, if you got sick or even just through a normal pregnacy.
*Herbalism in the Realms uses herbs that don't exist in the real world and have far more dramatically beneficial effects. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 15:29:38
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
Early in this thread (I don't remember who said this, I just read through the whole thing) mentioned that women would not have access to safe pregnancies. This isn't actually true. There are hedge wizards and minor priestlings everywhere, and there are contraceptive herbs for both genders so unwanted pregnancies would also be less common. I would bet there are less deaths-by-childbirth than there are in the modern real world, actually.
Not to disagree with you, really, just to discuss:
While it's clear that childbirth would be much safer in the Realms than some more realistic medieval-esque world, I don't know if it's quite as safe as childbirth in the RW (or, at least, in developed countries with ready access to modern medicine). Childbirth in such places is generally quite safe, with death in childbirth being very rare (i.e. low percentage) here in developed countries in the RW. (Not necessarily in less fortunate areas.)
And while there are lots of hedge wizards and priestlings in the Realms, as you say, that doesn't mean they're as qualified and skilled as our doctors, nurses, and midwives. What the Realms lacks is some kind of system of healthcare like we have in various states in the RW.
I've never got a really good handle on how "safe" childbirth is supposed to be in the Realms. Is "his mother died in childbirth" an extremely rare thing, or somewhat common? It's a good question.
Cheers
|
| Dennis |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 02:36:57
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by tradwitch1313
I've noticed a lot lately that there is a lot of sism against males in the Realms and the design of it. For one, most female goddess habe exclusively female clergy or are female dominated to where males are almost never seen. Some of those goddess: Eilistraee (I'm ashamed; quite hypocritical really), Lolth (well, at leastshe makes sense), Selune.
Sexism n the design: Nymps (from what I've seen) are only female (whenin rel life they are both genders), incubi, in an arti le from Dragon I've read, where these hideous male versions of the succubi, but they weren't "seducers". As well, Malcanthet's cult was again predominantly female and only females could get high ranks.
Sigh.......
I don't think so.
Look at the leaders of some the great nations/cities: Thay [Tam], Shade and Sembia [Telamont], Cormyr[Azoun], Luskan[the Captains/Arcane Brotherhood], Waterdeep [Lords, mostly males], Halruaa [Zalathorn], Chesenta [Tchazzar], Zhentil Keep [The Roach], Murghôm, [The Dragon Princes]. I would even say that most of the people who achieved greater prominence and status are males, Elminster, Khelben, Larloch, and Sammaster among them.
Those who occupy the highest echelon in their society tend to favor those of their own gender.
Moreover, writers may also have the tendency to lean towards their own gender, either consciously or subconsciously. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 02:02:04
Early in this thread (I don't remember who said this, I just read through the whole thing) mentioned that women would not have access to safe pregnancies. This isn't actually true. There are hedge wizards and minor priestlings everywhere, and there are contraceptive herbs for both genders so unwanted pregnancies would also be less common. I would bet there are less deaths-by-childbirth than there are in the modern real world, actually. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 01:08:41
quote:
Originally posted by Erendriel Durothil
That idea is no better than male chauvanism. All of thse things females gthrough are just natural-they make them no better or less than males. In the Reals, I believe Ed has said that there's no gender bias. In RR a LOT of Europe is more equal to genders (specifically northern and western Europe). Did you know Iceland is the most gender equal country in the world? I think if they have a changedance, it needs to be for boh geers as to get the feelings and views of the opposite sex( not stating that the genders habe different ideas about things, I just don't quite know how to put it into words).
I thank you for the kind words about my country.
I'll concur that we're in better shape than most of the world, but here, as well as elsewhere, parochial factionalism is busily erecting new barriers.
Every time equality or close to it is achieved for one group, the pendulum either shifts the other way in an overcompensatory attempt to 'correct past imbalances'* and/or new and more socially acceptable divisions of people are invented in order to preserve some form of tribalism. The need of humans** to create 'us vs. them' distinctions is so powerful that it has outlived family bands and tribes by millenia.
In actual fact, of course, any observable correlations in personality, communication skills, intelligence, cognition, emotions, etc. are either not reproducable by independent studies or they are so small as to be absolutely negated by individual variations between humans.
Saying that someone has to 'be a woman to understand women' is precisely as logical and rational as maintaining that someone has to have black hair to understand people with black hair. No one is ever able to directly experience what other people feel and how they think. But if someone is able to relate to another person, of any kind, the odds are that he can relate to another person of a different hair colour, 'race' or sex in the same way.
Most of the things that we think are worth drawing distinctions about are not, really. While it is slightly more likely that a random two women will exhibit a similar trend toward some personality traits than a woman or a man, the odds are still overwhelming that these people will be about as different from each other as they are alike, no matter their sex, 'race' or other group identifier. The correlation between individuals of the same sex is, in any case, usually less significant than actual traits that people self-select for, such as shared hobbies or tastes.
This means that two gamers (or football fans, or astrophysicists), who happen to be male and female, are probably likely to have more similarities than two randomly chosen females.
All of which goes to say that I'm very sceptical of any world, fantasy or otherwise, which doesn't have people classing each other into fairly arbitrary groups and then judging each other based on prejudice rather than evidence. I think that in order to minimise this behaviour, an almost endless parade of things have to go right and everyone concerned has to do their very best to rise above our stupid monkey natures, whereas any failure, at any point, will probably result in ugly things happening.
The best we can do today is a lot of self-identified groups who think that factionalism will promote equality, but at least in the better run states, we've mostly managed to prevent the various idiots on all sides from using the state's monopoly on violence to enforce their private beliefs. And this has taken us only five thousand years or so, of recorded history. If I were a cynic, I'd say that I was afraid that any state of affairs where the power of the state was not used with its full force by anyone who happened to be able to control it was an ephemeral phase, a dream too good to be true, and that we were already seeing cracks in our brief window of joy.
*The irrational idea that injustices against dead people may be rectified by subjecting people who weren't born yet to punishment.
**I think that this would apply to any intelligence that could be called 'people', actually, as I very much doubt that intelligence could evolve with societies and that societies of self-willed beings can exist without some form of relative status and authority, no matter what the basis. |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 09:57:55
quote:
Originally posted by Laerrigan
Mechanics-wise, I'd prefer not to have inherent ability differences between male and female humans; it just doesn't seem to serve any purpose except overcomplication.
Nor would I. What most would define as "Player Characters" are a group that is already outside the norm for their species/culture in general. If you browse across the Internet enough, though, you'll probably come across the "-4 Strength" concept.
Not all fiction follows this, of course. David Eddings' Elenium and Tamuli features the Atans. They're all about six or seven feet tall (some are eight feet), they all have what you'd call "perfect builds" in terms of muscular growth (think Superman for the men and Power Girl for the women), and they are all extremely good at killing people. The race is the result of centuries of selective breeding in order to be the best warriors around, and the women are in many cases exactly as capable and deadly as their male counterparts.
Their tactics revolve around their equipment just like a knight's tactics do, but where a knight uses his horse, armour and lance in a devastating charge for best effect in smashing a formation, the Atans use their entire bodies as their equipment (big people win more fights than little people, after all). They're almost living weapons. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 07:44:59
Trad,
It appears to me that your “generalization” is based on the FR novels you read that are predominantly “elfy” in nature. Elves are part of the Realms, but they aren’t the Realms. What happens to them and their deities can hardly be a basis for any generalized concept. Sexism, arguably, might be present among the elves, especially among the drow. But your OP seems to encompass the entire Realms. I read quite a number of FR novels, and I don’t think the issue of sexism is a common existence. Many authors tend to favor male protagonists, and even antagonists; however, they also include a sufficient number female characters who don significant roles. In the Twilight War, there’s Cale, Riven, Mags, Brennus, Rivalen; and Elyril, Mirabeta, Vara, and Shar herself. In the Haunted Lands, there’s Aoth, Tam, Nevron, Lauzoril; and Jhesri, Lallara, Tammith and Dmitra. In Crucible: The Trial of Cyric The Mad, there’s Malik, Cyric, Ohgma; and Mystra, Ruha, and Shar. And many other novels follow the same. Gender has rarely been an issue. Several nations in one way or another “promote” equality of sexes. Netheril’s elite faction, the archwizards, though mostly males, also had female members, Lady Polaris being the most notable.
Thay’s past zulkirs had always been a mixture of males and females. Cormyr’s prime defenders, the Wizards of War, had leaders of both sexes. Waterdeep’s Lords aren’t all males, nor all females.
If we notice that something exists in a nation or race, I say we should not be so quick to generalize that it does in the entire Realms. One’s prohibition may be another’s practice.
|
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 04:55:31
Laerrigan, trust you to drag me into this, lol! I say that as a prime example of an exceptionally small female, (I'm 5' even, and 95 lbs on my best day...) which in my case led to a bit of a Napoleon complex. (Okay, I'm NOT ashamed to admit it!) I tend to be something of an overachiever at times, often doing things that I probably should not for my size, just to show that I'm not "helpless" or incapable of doing something that anyone else I work with could do. There have been times when I did the work of two people, pushing myself to exhaustion, just because there was no one else available to do the work, and it had to get done. I will climb shelving to reach the high shelf myself rather than ask someone taller to get what I'm after, and I've developed a bit of a temper when dealing with overbearing folks of larger stature- because to me, size is NOT a reason to be pushing people around, and I've always tried to stand up for myself. (To the point that I scare my hubby when I get into it with someone twice my size- I've been known to make 6', 200 lb men back down, lol!) If anything, being "undersized" might be just as much a reason for someone of either sex to go into a profession that generally favors larger folks. That could be an interesting background starting point for PC's in the Realms. |
| Laerrigan |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 02:40:40
Oh, I know full well that such women exist, lol, and your notes on how they view/present themselves are right in keeping with the kind of details that I find interesting in the out-of-the-ordinary. My point is that they aren't the usual, standard, highest percentage, whatever. They're different from the norm (which is by no means a bad thing in itself), which tends to affect a person, for good or for ill or both or simply in neutral ways, whatever area of life the difference might be in. Personally, I'm intrigued to know how differences from the norm---in this case, physical stature and strength compared to one's sex, and it can include a very small man or unusually small woman---impact an individual's development, personality, view of world and self, socialization, etc. And a lack of apparent impact can be interesting as well, if it's understood that one might expect a more noticeable impact.
If there are flatly equal expectations for physical abilities between the sexes in a fantasy setting (and remember, I'm talking fluff, not crunch), it removes a potentially interesting aspect of characterization in removing that point of difference and how it's woven into who a person is in thought and action. If a gaming group doesn't want that charactering dimension to be a part of their Realms and would rather have a 6'3" beefcake woman to be every bit as standard as a man---hey, whatever floats their boat. I just personally feel it does remove a rich layer that could be mined. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 02:09:39
lol, Laerrigan, ye've not met some of the women I work with. Healthy specimens, athletic, a few are very serious bodybuilders. Some of these could easily bench twice my body weight. Some exaggerate their femininity, others are more macho than the guys (in fact, they seem stubbornly driven to always demonstrate they are manly, strong, tough, and physically equal/superior to men, much like Vasquez from Aliens). Most of them are simply strong (and a bit physically large) but otherwise behave just like any other woman, even feigning expected weakness when stroking male egos. Two of them are exceptionally tall, even with their smallish parents, probably for no reason other than genetic accident, diet, activity, and posture. Just sayin' that there's no special requirement to explain amazon-sized women (except perhaps steroids, lol). |
| Laerrigan |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 01:28:47
Mechanics-wise, I'd prefer not to have inherent ability differences between male and female humans; it just doesn't seem to serve any purpose except overcomplication. I do, however, like to work a character's unusual traits into his/her backstory and view of world and self. If a female human is given high Strength/Constitution and the player makes her 6'3" with huge beefy muscles that can throw men around like ragdolls, suspension of disbelief (as well as generation of a rounded character) does, to me, require some explanation of why. Is she of an ethnicity where women are simply that big and strong as the standard? If so, cool, but tell me how that has shaped their culture. Is she instead extremely unusual among her people, perhaps stared at, even made the butt of bad humor? Do her people revere her as their protector, even something divine? If she's the target of derision at home, is she belligerent in order to protect herself, or does she not care what people say (honestly or as a psychological defense), or is she shy and withdrawn despite being able to kick orcish butt in battle? Was she born a juggernaut or did she do a lot of deliberate muscle-building, and why? Does she consider herself feminine, masculine, something else? Is she fine with that view or does she have a self-image issue? Heck, does she use her Str/Con at all in her life's work, or has she chosen to pursue mainly mental paths, scholar or mage or politician or merchant? Or was she a happy mother/housewife whose family was killed and she's now out to wreak some serious vengeance?
A male character with the same high Str/Con, height, and muscly man-tossing ability doesn't inherently beg quite so much deep backstory-building around the factor of his size/strength; it's generally assumable that a beefy-strong man isn't as unusual, simply because of what we're used to seeing in the RW (whatever the biological or societal reasons for that RW status quo may or may not be, and whatever impact it may have on those who don't fit into it, it's simply what most of us are accustomed to as standard in our species and so it's more acceptable to the imagination without pause). |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 01 Apr 2011 : 00:32:52
Well said, Eldacar.
It's debatable how much biological divide exists between male and female humans (let alone males and females of any other race) in the Realms specifically, or fantasy in general. I think each world is entitled to be different from our own world, but it takes away from the verisimilitude of a work if the genders are equally capable biologically with all different tasks.
What do you guys think?
Cheers |
| Eldacar |
Posted - 31 Mar 2011 : 04:47:16
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think you can have varied gender roles and suitable tension between men and women without one gender thinking the other is fundamentally inferior to the other.
(I'm not replying to anybody specifically in the following post. I just noticed the quoted comment, and thought I'd give my perspective regarding the variance of gender roles.)
There are naturally going to be certain gender roles for which men are more suited, just like there are roles to which women are more suited. Pretty much any society should eventually develop this sort of divide. That isn't necessarily sexism in any form, though. It's simply a gender role developed through biology.
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/forces-army.htm
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/recruitmentCentre/supportAndDownloads/FAQs/WomenInDefence/#Domenandwomenhavetodothesamefitnesstests
http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/415th1/oldsite415/apft.htm
(I've used military sources largely because they came to mind first.)
The top link lists several physical fitness requirements for military service in various countries. Note the difference between male and female - it isn't necessarily large (some don't have it at all), but it is there. The bottom two links merely supplement the first, noting that there are different physical fitness requirements between genders (and age). I can corroborate it as well from my own experiences in sporting events, particularly those with a heightened focus on strenuous physical activity.
Anyway, men do tend to be built bigger and stronger on average (I think the quoted difference can reach as high as 40-50% depending on what source you're using). Exceptions exist on both sides of the divide, of course. However, this doesn't make men equal to women, it doesn't make women equal to men, it doesn't make women superior to men, and it doesn't make men superior to women. It just means that men are, on average, biologically more suited to some tasks, while women are biologically more suited to other tasks. In other words, it makes them different.
So to draw it back to the quoted post, there will naturally be differing gender roles between men and women, and the biology of the difference usually extends itself into society as a civilisation progresses. The implication of one side being inferior as a result of these differing roles, however, is generally a social or cultural invention, just like equality between the sexes is. |
| Aryalómë |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 22:17:52
I'm not only trying to mold a character's story, but to get answers as well. Sometimes my topics mght be a larger scheme. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 18:09:10
I have to disagree with you slightly, Arik. I think you can have Amazons and chivalry without sexism. There's no reason that a bunch of women can't decide to go form a woman-dominated society. These women would form their own society that is sexist, but that doesn't make the Realms a sexist place. And I've never understood why chivalry requires sexism. A man could lay his coat across mud for a woman to be nice, not because he thinks she is superior or inferior. I open doors for both men and women as a courtesy, and I don't believe it's an act of chivalry.
We need to discern the difference between sexism and sexual dimorphism. Even though males are inherently bigger and stronger than females, that does not necessarily lead to sexism.
On the flip side, I have said (and agree) that there are some areas in the Realms where sexism is present; Calimshan is the first place that comes to mind. You can have your Amazon warriors without the need for chivalry, I believe. Sexism as necessary to advance a story, but not traditional throughout the Realms.
That's my take, for what it's worth.
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I suspect what I mean by "sexist" is largely similar to your definition, ESdB. A perception or assumption of inequality, of preference and exclusion based only upon gender. A little sexism is required for entertaining fantasy: although our (idealized) modern cosmopolitan society serves well as a baseline we simply need to allow (some) sexism to exist in FR if we want our amazons and chivalry to have any special value.
I agree, some amount of sexism is programmed into our biology; in short, it's "natural" instinctive behaviour and must actually be deliberately un-learned (by each member of society) before it will disappear. The only way to absolutely remove all possible stigma of sexism from D&D would be to completely remove all reference to gender ... to make everybody and everything become completely gender neutral/undisclosed without any exception.
lmao, I love most of GRRMartin's stuff (invented Githyanki after all), though I'm inclined to think that he (along with Heinlein, and dare I say, Great Greenwood) exhibits a heavy dose of "dirty old man" in his later writings whenever given a chance. (FWIW, I totally plan to be a dirty old man myself. Maybe even a creepy one if I feel like it. I figure I'll have earned the right if I manage to survive that long.)
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 16:51:26
I suspect what I mean by "sexist" is largely similar to your definition, ESdB. A perception or assumption of inequality, of preference and exclusion based only upon gender. A little sexism is required for entertaining fantasy: although our (idealized) modern cosmopolitan society serves well as a baseline we simply need to allow (some) sexism to exist in FR if we want our amazons and chivalry to have any special value.
I agree, some amount of sexism is programmed into our biology; in short, it's "natural" instinctive behaviour and must actually be deliberately un-learned (by each member of society) before it will disappear. The only way to absolutely remove all possible stigma of sexism from D&D would be to completely remove all reference to gender ... to make everybody and everything become completely gender neutral/undisclosed without any exception.
lmao, I love most of GRRMartin's stuff (invented Githyanki after all), though I'm inclined to think that he (along with Heinlein, and dare I say, Great Greenwood) exhibits a heavy dose of "dirty old man" in his later writings whenever given a chance. (FWIW, I totally plan to be a dirty old man myself. Maybe even a creepy one if I feel like it. I figure I'll have earned the right if I manage to survive that long.) |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 16:10:02
@Quale and @Arik: I suppose it depends what we mean when we say "sexist." What do YOU guys mean?
I think you can have varied gender roles and suitable tension between men and women without one gender thinking the other is fundamentally inferior to the other. The blunt sexism inherent in Lolth-domninated drow culture (as well as the drow subcultures that react against it, particularly Vhaeraun-dominated subculture) strikes me as something of an aberration in an otherwise relatively gender-balanced culture.
Note that I didn't say FR is completely gender equal. That seems unlikely, simply because human (or demi/non-human) nature is driven by impulses that don't take high-level ethical reasoning into account. What I *am* claiming is that FR culture tends to be *more* sexually equal than the RW (which is really our best source of comparison), which I think equates to considerably less sexism than our deeply sexist RW culture.
FR is also considerably less inequal/sexist than many other fantasy settings, particularly George Martin's Westeros setting, for instance. The only setting I'm thinking of at the moment that seems *more* sex-balanced/sex-positive is Terre d'Ange from Jacqueline Carey's books, and that's only one nation amongst a much more sexist world. (That series is also distinctly about sex, sexual politics, and sex-positive vs. sex-negative.)
Cheers |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 11:40:24
True enough. Can't have chivalry or amazons in a world with global full gender equality ... plus I can't quite imagine the young men from a boring seaside village being especially fearful of longboats full of viking women intent on rape and pillage. Many of our assigned/traditional gender roles are arbitrary, even in fantasy settings, but taking them all away actually diminishes the possibilities.
A good question is what sort of sexism is seen by other major races. Elves are apparently completely indifferent towards gender, as are dwarves (even though they're more inclined to expound upon the most remarkable qualities possessed by their other gender). One hardly ever hears about orc, goblin, or monstrous women (outside of female-dominated creature types like banshees and medusae), but I'd think many of them would treat their females as base chattel. |
| Quale |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 10:49:58
I have that every human culture in the Realms is sexist in their own way, seems natural and more interesting. Traditional D&D take is not believable. |
| Lily M Green |
Posted - 30 Mar 2011 : 08:17:16
I'd like to add something here, and in doing so I have no desire to devalue the eloquent contributions already made by my fellow scribes, whose knowledge of the Realms is far greater than mine, and I hope it's not seen as such...
Each of you will have a different tale to tell about how you came to The Realms but for many, myself included, that (proper) introduction will have come by way of a CRPG. Some will never have gome any further than that, but others, like me, will have enjoyed the setting and wanted to know more about the world they've enjoyed adventuring in, but the one abiding sentiment I have taken away from that first introduction is pretty much the first thing you come across when you create your very first PC...
PARAPHRASED:
quote:
Males in The Realms can excel in any area they choose be it wizardary, thievery or the arts of war.
Females in The Realms are every inch the equal of their male counterparts and can excel in any profession they choose.
My reason for highlighting this? I believe it very succinctly sums up the general ethos of the world we've chosen to explore and it's only RW preconceptions that stop it from being whatever you want it to be.
I hope that makes sense?
*Scarpers* |
|
|
