She’s just not that into you.
Oreo is so Big!
*facepalm* Glad I never experienced this.
Aww hell yeah. More Counter-Monkey! o/
Huh. Intro took me by surprise. Sets the mood nicely, I think!
WHAT IS THAT SONG?
The Bard’s Song is a great opening tune for this, cool stuff.
Definitely. Blind Guardian is perfect for occassions like that, with them being such big fantasy geeks to begin with :) Even though it is the Van Canto version.
I like the original version, but I think Van Canto did a fantastic rendition of the tune.
Yeah, great choice as a intro! At first I thought I left my WMP running…
I’m liking this intro.
Oh god, it seems like Counter Monkey has gained more than “simple blog with a name” and has taken on a persona of a show.
And what a great intro too
Reminds me of that one time we lost a player (permanently). Succubus got him and not only did we not revive him but also made an epitaph on his tombstone something along the lines of:
“First he Came.
Then he left.
May his soul rest in Peace…
or whatever her name was.”
Good times. ;] (he got it coming for a few sessions anyway but… i’m not the one to tell RPG stories on this website ;p)
Wow… I’ve played D&D for… well into a decade and none of this sound familiar… hell half my group has almost always been female players. And when we play up any sort of sexuality its always done for comedic purposes.
this happened to me as well in my friends the only thing is my character (with 7 wisdom mind you) still is going for her even though she stole his wallet
This is why you’re single!
You said you expected these Mr. Spoon.
I think it’s more a matter of self projection than anything else, really.
It’s a joke he made on Twitter. I’m surprised no one has called me a “stupid troll” yet.
I don’t have any tales of evil women, but this reminds me of when the fighter in our party (who had a charisma of 19 and an intelligence of 4 or 6 fyi) was close to being seduced by this big beefy blacksmith of a woman in exchange for a discount on his purchases. And this was before we had even set out on our first quest mind you! The last thing we needed was a fighter with a broken pelvis for christ’s sake.
Note to self, make the dude following them around the trap.
I initially read that as “make the dude following them around a trap”, then I thought, “yes, best trap of all”.
That is done constantly but it’s just another guy stabbing you in the back and wouldn’t be memorable to most people since it happens so often. Seriously don’t try to tell me your RPG sessions involve nothing but evil women,I find it hard to believe.
Most NPCs in D&D are evil or trying to ruin you in some way, it’s just taken as offensive or stereotypical when it’s a female doing this. How many female bandits would you normal face? Don’t orcs resemble all the negative traits (dare I say sterotypes) of masculinity?
That’s the nature of the double standard, friend. Any remote hint of misogyny in today’s culture is immediately sniffed out, and whistles are blown. Misandry? A-OK! :D
It doesn’t mean we should just accept it. We can change the way people think about these issues. Ignorant ideas such as “men don’t have as much emotion as women” are constantly used as justification to damage men in a number of ways.
Depends on the orcs really, Orcs embody numerous stereotypes, from Black people to the Soccer Hooligans.
Soccer Hooligans? What?
Look you can overcomplicate this if you want. Orcs are based on the stereotypes of “untamed foreigners” (or “black people” if that makes it easier for you to understand) which are the negative masculine traits. Cold calculation, pride, no love and easy to anger and always prone to physical violence. Let’s not forget they are completely dumb.
If you don’t see how these are traits constantly assigned to men, I have no idea where you have been living.
The whole “Women are the Devil” mentality is age-old in storytelling, and it honestly does boil down to the fact that throughout history, most of the storytellers are men. And you can tell they’re men.
Early this year I did a whole paper on this very topic for Tales from 1001 Nights, telling how in stories throughout the ages, from virtually every culture, women play the roll of either the victim, or the villain. And you read these stories, and it’s just merciless. The women will seduce you, betray you, sell you out, or even if they are genuinely good, they’re still nothing but trouble because they’ll still indirectly get you hurt or killed if you try to help them.
In many stories, especially where infidelity is concerned, you can see that the person who wrote these stories is just pouring out their bitter frustrations and angers out on women, and the generalizations are really that old. Hell, I bet it started way back with cavemen the moment a male found another male’s lice in his wife’s teeth (Stone Age soap opera, heh).
And I’m sure it’s a safe assumption that most D&D games are told by men, so they’ll fall into the same pit traps without realizing it. I’m curious to see if any women DMs are watching this video and have their own stories and perspectives to share on this.
“The women will seduce you, betray you, sell you out”
Well, isn’t that true? It was for me, at least until my current GF…but the day may come.
That’s why the mentality has held up for so long. There is truth to it. Of course, men do the same damn thing, even within the same story, but since they are the ones writing the stories, they’re the good guys. Not their fault.
Oh, double standards, you so silly.
There is truth to it, yes, but the problem comes when the only two things women get to be are victims or villains. That’s literally like having black characters only end up being either robbers and gangstas or some lesser version of Martin Luther King Jr. You can bet we as a country would run screaming and kicking if we even saw a work that was as overt as that, never mind that it’s almost every work written by a man.
I have to say that’s about the fairest answer I’ve seen come out of this when it concerns women characters in games. Usually when I see this discussion attempted feminists flood the comments and either get the video taken down or the comments turn into a shouting match between them and MRAs. Being an MRA myself, I saw the title for this video and I predicted a shit storm to blow through. Thankfully your reply was the first I saw and I’m glad it was. Instead of yelling “MISOGYNY!” or griping about “teh patriarchy” or both you presented a fair argument. While I can say that I have that I’ve read books where either the main character was a woman or a heroic supporting character (Skullduggery Pleasant, Monster Hunter Incorporated, Nekropolis, The Night Side series, the Dark Tower series, King Slayer series to name a few) women do have a track record for being either of what you said, victims or villains, mostly victims. I will have to disagree with you on that they’re in every work written by men, as the titles I listed were written by men and they were portrayed rather favorably. Its usually writers who are terrible at their chosen profession (read: Twilight series, Fifty Shades of Grey/Twilight Fanfic, The guy who did Aragorn, Teen Novels and such) where usually the girl is put in that role out of her own stupidity (see: Bella Swan) because the writer doesn’t know how to fucking write, haha. Anywho, thanks for keeping this classy and not stooping to shaming tactics or shouting down the opposition
Yes it’s wrong to say “women will lie and betray you” because men do the same thing. Yet it’s not wrong to call “rape” a gender specific issue or even a “sexism” issue when women have raped men in brutal ways sometimes ending in murder.
Yeah double standards, they exist and I don’t complain about them until I see others doing the same.Fact is men usually impose with physical violence, women with psychic (psychological, mental) violence. This isn’t always the case, it’s a general rule.
Not all of these stories are written by men yet you feel it’s ok to say that men are the reason women get a bad reputation in these stories, that’s a pretty generalized statement and you know well that if I said the same but with the gender rolls reversed, I would be accused of sexism.
I know people may see this and feel like “oh this old thing again” but that’s exactly how I feel about this “yeah men always portray women as evil creatures” thing.
No, it isn’t. Not outside a pretty blind generalisation, anyway. It’s like saying “driving a car will kill you.” It might, but not because it’s an inescapable death sentence, and instead simply because each situation is different, just like each woman is different.
To a good storyteller, there should be no such thing as “women,” because each female character should be a character of her own, not one faceless unit to be lumped in with a whole homogenous mass. That’s the whole problem with this mentality – each woman has her own personality, morality, hopes and dreams just like any man has. They’re not all the same, thus a character simply defined by “being a woman” is a character badly written.
Yes no writer should ever make generalizations based on gender, race, or social status.
Hp lovecraft was horrible with this and that’s why there is absolutely no merit in his work.
Look you may have some good points but art doesn’t have “rules” and most great works are remembered because they have at least some level of truth to them, the fact is there are differences between men and women. Yes there are different kinds of women and men but when you know enough people you can start to see that even with their differences it’s easy to categorize people.
When you know about 10 guys who, every time they speak, seem to be quoting action movies or suspense flicks and about 10 women who seem to be pretending to live in a drama or romance movie, it becomes difficult to buy your concept that every person is a unique snowlfake, just like it’s hard to buy the nonsense that the entertainment we immerse ourselves in has no effect on who we are or how we act whatsoever, which is another assumption I see tossed around.
There is plenty of truth in what’s being said here, there are better ways to write women, but it’s not by writing every women as you would a man, that just proves you respect women, but still don’t understand them. That’s why every female character in American video games or “edgy” movies seems to be a tomboy. It’s not just in female charecters, feminine qualities (not the same as “Female qualities”) seem to be avoided in most entertainment.
Woah, absolutely no merit to his work as a whole? No need for hyperbole. Just because he can’t write a character it doesn’t mean that the other story elements he wrote suddenly don’t count.
The problem I have with your second point is that the example can be attributed to their interests and experiences just as much as their gender, you can’t quote a movie if you didn’t watch or hear about it, and you can’t pretend to be in a drama if you don’t like it in the first place. Fantasy characters are a great way to break the mold here because you aren’t restricted by their gender roles. Though it is true that simply being a flip isn’t witty or good writing on it’s own, not focusing on a character’s gender traits isn’t automatically a bad thing.
Backstory and origin are much like the different colors you use for a painting. Sure, one color can be used as the base that almost all things in the painting are composed of, but that color doesn’t have to be gender, and suggesting that it has to be in some way is, (honestly) a Nature vs Nurture argument in disguise, which I doubt we want to start discussing.
And finally, the characters I create are generally projections of myself in some way, shape, or form. I personally don’t hold too much stock in the importance of my gender or race, a hefty privilege I know, so you can see why I simply view these traits as flavor rather than behavioral modifiers.
You used the word hyperbole, look it the fuck up. Look up sarcasm too.
I never said not focusing on gender traits is a bad thing, I said gender traits exist and that bashing any artist that examines or uses them is ignorant..
You can pretend to not hold any importance to your gender, race, or social status but what you refuse to understand is that all three of those things relate to your upbringing and who you are as a person. If you write every charecter like you, every person you write for that is nothing like you in terms of gender, social status, or race won’t be very “real” kind of like how video games like to portray female characters as men with boobs. GOW 3 is a good example of this.
Hmmm, somehow I didn’t quite pick up on the sarcasm in the first paragraph. I’ll go punish myself for that later, but first…
Gender traits DO exist, that much we agree on. However what’s more interesting, a character who embraces or is ignorant of these traits and then proceeds to play them straight, or a character who acknowledges these traits and then willingly tries to play against the grain of them?
You’re suggesting a bit of a slippery slope. Ideally people make characters that are exceptional in at least some way, if that way is simply how they’re the exception from the typical traits assigned by race or gender then it can be done well. For instance the traits can still be there just not very prominent, perhaps the character actively tries to suppress or deny them. On the other hand the character can develop through how they are treated by others as though they have these traits.
I suppose I just find the idea of a character who overcomes the physical more interesting, simply personal taste even. Though I think it’s insulting to character complexity to draw too heavily from one source. A character should have a reason to take so much stock in their gender or racial identity, not just naturally assume a role.
(On a side note, GOW refers to God of War, Gears refers to Gears of War. Someone pointed that out to me when I used it like that.)
That’s all interesting but I’m not saying one is more interesting or better than the other, I am saying that the person’s original assertion that a “good writer” won’t have “female characters” just characters is ignorant. He’s saying the writer shouldn’t acknowledge that gender traits and roles exist. He didn’t say a good writer writes women that fight against them, he basically said write women as if they were men.
The examples you give all rely on the fact that gender traits and social roles DO exist and are therefore worth having in literature. His ignorant description of a “good writer” is why I brought up HP lovecraft. There are no “bad writers” or “good writers” just writers who were received in different ways by the public or forgotten completely.
Anyone, such as Malid (the guy we are replying to) that thinks writing or creating fiction requires a strict formula and rules has no hope of creating art.
I agree pretty much completely. Honestly it is probably due in large part to my inexperience or lack of a female view point.
Thanks for the conversation though, cheers.
BTW I never implied that a fictional character must always follow gender traits or roles, as you seem to be implying, I said pretending these traits and roles don’t exist is silly.
Alfred Lord Tennyson. That is all.
Honestly, the way I figure, it’s a subversion of the whole “save the princess” trope. That theme has existed for so long, someone got the idea “Maybe Princess Peach is evil,” to trip them up.
This does not sound familiar. The wizard was killed by the Lich-Controlled Darstine. And I honestly thought she would be the Scorpion Queen. Since her face was familiar to Garret when he had this flash when looking at her, seeing a scaled face.
Reminds me of the first story in VHS, what you’re talking about.
I’m curious now, did you record this after knowing our characters? Seems awfully coincidental… :)
I’ve never had that problem. One of my characters got a VD while ‘going undercover’ by patronizing a whorehouse that the bad guy owned and was using as a way stop while traveling and we were trying to keep an eye on him. But that’s about it.
Damn failed fort saves.
Man, I wish I had spoony’s address. I’d order him a pizza. This one’s amazing.
Just make sure it’s not a Peter Piper pizza…
I actually think that’d be hilariously ironic. XD lol total troll move too.
Interesting that you mention a good Succubus. They actually had one of those in Planescape: Torment. She was a lawful good cleric.
They are actually scarier then you make them sound since they don’t need to have sex with you to drain you. All it takes is a kiss. As far as falling in love, I remember there was a module where the main villain was a succubus and she could fall in love with a player if they had high enough charisma where she’d try to kill the rest of the party and keep that character as a pet basically.
But it is kinda scary how even putting aside the Succubus, how many monsters in the monster books appear as beautiful women to trick people. The worst probably being the Mud Woman, which was a mud monster that would lure men in and then smother them.
I have two different D&D groups, one all guys and one all women. Let me tell you, it is like night and day playing with them. And we have one guy in our group who is exactly the guy from the Dead Ale Wives sketch. Any inn we go to, “Are there any girls here? Cause if there are, I wanna do them!” Seriously, every time.
I’ve read a lot of published modules and I’ve seen this happen more then I’d like. Though I will say that it seems to be something more prevalent in older Dungeons and Dragons then more recent entries. I always chalked it up to a sense of self-validation. The idea of women don’t want to date me, well they must be evil bitches. So I’m going to make all the women in my world murderous and evil so validate my opinion.
It’s like when a guy hits on a girl at a bar and she turns him down. He’ll turn to his friends and say, “Oh, she must be a lesbian.” to make himself feel better about getting shot down. I always felt the misogyny in early D&D (and to a large extent gaming) culture at large.
I play with a group that was all-girl except for the DM. He almost exploded out of frustration because we wanted to explore the town and surrounding area (generally goof off) as opposed to going on the quest he had planned out. He ‘recommended’ another DM after we had finished his campaign, probably because we drove him batty.
lol…you guys would be my favorite kind of group. I’d love to have more people like you in my current group. I tried running a campaign recently where I had an over-arcing plot, but almost the entirety of the adventure would be driven by the players exploration and desires. My DMing style is that if the party wants to go explore the town and surrounding countryside, then by the gods, I’ll put something out there for you guys to check out.
For example, say you want a magic sword (the home-brew world I was running in was very low magic, so magic items would only be had by either the extremely wealthy or dungeons). I would have the party research where such an item could be obtained, then send them off to go get it. Unfortunately, if didn’t really work out to well, the group kind of fell apart. And my other group would likely just refuse to play cause they hate that kind of stuff.
I had a similar issue when I was in an all-female Pathfinder group. We were very focused, but still made time for fun. The DM didn’t really understand our style of play, which was a shame, but we found one who really meshes with us well. I think our Bard would make a great DM someday, if she wanted to try it out.
I’ve been the only chick in a group, too. It’s NOT fun. I hate being made to feel like the ‘other’. I just want to play the damn game!
Why can’t you be my players?
I feel like we have a lot in common.
I would say something about this, but everyone else who replied to you shares my view, so I’ll do this instead:
（ ^_^）o自自o（^_^ ）
Cheers! Have fun exploring the city!
Speaking of early edition D&D, I find it hilarious how some people chalk the lower STR etc to misogyny while actually it pretty accurately describes the differences in male and female physiology.
Well, yes, but it’s much, much simpler to just give women and men cosmetic changes only, so people can play whatever they want without sucking at the game.
Of course at this point you then have to describe a medieval society with modern social mores. And then someone want to be gay, etc.
Personally I’ve never experienced this, but I’ve only played with my friends who aren’t retarded douchenozzles.
i knew it..i knew that they’re coming from HELL…i’ve been telling my sister to go back there but she never listens to me…
i swear i didnt copy your comment dude :-|
i knew it..i knew that women are coming from HELL..i’ve been telling to my wife to go back there but she never listens to me…
To the embarrassment of my roommate, I squeed when I heard “Bard’s Song” begin playing. That is one of the first songs I can remember actually enjoying.
Either you were introduced to Blind Guardian extremely early in life, you were shown no good music at all, or you were disappointed by the hoards of decent music existing outside of power metal.
And it’s not even that I dislike power metal (though I tend to shy away from a lot of it, I like certain bands – Firewind, Sabaton, Dark Empire, 3 Inches of Blood…), it’s just that I was exposed to a lot of stuff as a youngster. My first live show was Rammstein when I was 5 years old, but that same person (my dad) also showed me a lot of punk and a bit of early metal, while my mom exposed me to funk. Being from Washington automatically exposed me to grunge and alternative, which was… variable in quality.
I suppose it’s just difficult for me to conceive of a person disliking a lot of music before hearing Blind Guardian because I had heard tons of stuff I liked before Blind Guardian, ranging from jazz (yay Charles Mingus!) to thrash metal.
I’m a desperate loser in real life.Everytime i roleplay my characters NEVER refuse a chance to fuck, as result “-Dude, your girlfriend is a succubus. -I dont care, i’m getting in that room and i wont get out until i get laid!”.There was a time that the DM wass screwing with me so often that i made a character just to fuck those traps into submission….by god i played weird games!
God, I lost a sorcerer to the “helpful woman is actually evil’ trope. Our guide for a dungeon was a woman in robes that everyone was suspicious of, but had to help because who else would? Turns out she was a medusa who turned my character to stone. Never bothered to find an anti-magic zone, so dead he was.
Listening to Counter Monkey has helped me so much with roleplaying.
It gave me a new perspective on how to approach actually playing a character and has made it so much more fun. I’m still a bit stiff at it, but much better than before.
You’re looking and doing good lately Spoony. I don’t know what it is. It’s almost as if you’ve leveled up.
Reminds me of the most awkward character introduction I’ve ever had.
so we were running a fantasy campaign in an original setting our GM came up with. My first character had been killed in an encounter and i had just finished rolling up my new character, who was a swashbuckling ship captain. A friend of mine, who was a fellow PC, was playing a race we called “grey skins” who were kinda mysterious and we didn’t know a lot about them. one thing we learned about them since we had someone playing one was that they did not reproduce sexually, if at all, so they had no genitalia.
More to the point he was in the middle of a fight, with the thing that killed my last character actually, in an alchemist’s store. During the fight my friend got low on HP so he wanted to grab a health potion off the shelf. Our Gm said he didn’t have time during the fight to actually look for a specific potion, so he decided to take his chances and grab a random potion and drink it. He didn’t notice any effects immediately, so we assumed it was something unrelated. He killed the monster and that was about when my new character ran into the shop in order to join the fight.
My new character entered seeing a female version of my friend’s grey skin character. (he played a male so it was obviously a gender change potion he downed) As any good swashbuckler does, he began to hit on the attractive and exotic looking female. Another thing about the grey skins was that since they didn’t have sex, they were also pretty much oblivious to any sort of sexual advance. My character being the smooth sailor he was told him/ her that he was curious about grey skins and he wanted some “anatomy lessons”. Not realizing i was hitting on her, she agreed and fallowed me back to my ship.
So after some very awkward out of game banter, i eventually made my “bid move” only to discover the lack of genitalia that my new character was not aware of. After a few hours of awkward standing, he turned back into a man.
I’m proud to say the few campaigns I’ve run I’ve managed to subvert or avoid the trope. One campaign had a witch as one of the kings advisers who would be blushing around burly men and while not pretty had a “adorkable librarian thing” going on. Of course everyone had eyes on her as she was super helpful. Actual plot was the villain the paladin king had killed to take his thrown had imprinted on his soul and took over his body as he slept. When the castle was sacked from the inside by hobgoblins they all went looking for her with eyes out for blood. They find her sobbing of the castle treasurer who I just hadn’t got around to mentioning was her husband.
Other major female was a duchess of the former paladin kings party, a sorceress in a “mood dress” which changed colors with the obvious. The bard of the same group would hit on her to see if he could get her dress as red as her face without being punched/zapped. Although the whole group was fun to write. Other two were a barbarian who hated being a duke due to the formal wear and a drunk monk who used broke bear mugs as fist weapons.
Sadly the section I never had to the chance to reach was the dukes being aware of the possession, but being aware that the paladin was the only one who could hold the kingdom together in the post overthrow turmoil. Dealing with the ramifications of their choice during the civil war. The couldn’t even tell him as he would kill himself instantly if he knew he was the only thing holding the former big bad to this world.
I think I have this problem irl, I don’t trust women who claim to like me… Or at least not their word :(
I have the same problem. My other problem is, all my friends are women.
Its alright to be wary of women these days the last couple of generations of women have been brought up with a “you can have it all” mentality, but to be all out paranoid of them is bad for you, mental health wise. It will turn you into a very bitter person and hurt any relationship (romantic or otherwise) you have in the future. I speak from experience, since that level of paranoia has done just that, ruined them. There are plenty of women out there who don’t buy into the mentality up above, who are trust worthy and all in all good people.
If there is any example of the damage that you will do to yourself, its this: Look at feminists. Most of them are bitter hateful people that are constantly distrustful of men to the point of claiming all men are rapists in waiting, even going as far as directing this at little boys. Their bigotry is born out of severe paranoia of the opposite sex and has left many of them depressed and alone.
Its good to guard yourself, but its also good to build a report with women, see what they are like in real life interaction with them. pay attention to the things they do and say. No different than what you’d do with a man in building a friendship with him
Most feminists are not hateful. They are just people. You probably won’t even know about their thoughts on the matter until you talk to them. Remember that although we are all represented by caricatures, we are humans, first and foremost.
Exactly. “Feminism” just refers to people who think women should have the same rights as men. It’s often caricatured in the media, as so many good things are, to only present the absurd and negative extremes.
bullshit. Maybe some self proclaimed feminists trully believe that but it’s called “feminism” not equalism.
These people show no interest in female murders or rapist being shown leniency because of their gender, they are only interested when they feel their group is being treated unfairly. I have nothing against that, but let’s not pretend it’s about gender equality any more than the black panthers are about racial equality.
I have a feeling that you’re an MRA, yes? If so by all means, I wouldn’t mind having some one to discuss these issues with
Don’t know what “MRA” is but I see you quickly resort to labeling me or lumping me in with some group of people. It’s pathetic how quickly people lump themselves and others into these silly groups rather than choosing to be individuals.
I didn’t label, I asked. A simple yes or no would suffice. MRA = Men’s Rights Activist/Advocate. I thought you may have been judging by the things that you wrote. Though I am curious of the hostile behavior.
Hostile behavior? Maybe you are just reading my comments in a hostile manner since I’m not hostile while typing them.
You’re right, whats represented in the media is a caricature of feminism. That being its about equality and such. I’m sure it was at some point. But the reality of the matter is that it isn’t now, nor has it been since the 1900′s. I can produce a plethora of quotes from feminist icons such as Andrea Dworkin, Naomi Wolf and other feminists who have blatantly expressed their hatred of men, to the point of casually talking about committing genocide on the male half of the population or at the very least expressed a want to enact violence on innocent men (see: FemitheistReborn on YT).
Go to radfemhub or look up the Agent Orange Files, that catalogue a long history of bigoted discussion about men, reducing them to nothing more than mindless beasts that love to rape and murder for fun, when the opposite is true. And that’s not touching on the discussion of baby and little boys, such as castrating them, or referring to them as “Rapists in waiting” or “Lil’ future rapists”. Or the fact that the people having thesediscussions are public officials, community organizers, social workers. Its like being a public official back the days right after the civil rights movement and being a racists in private.
Feminism is a dogmatic ideology based on hatred and gender supremacy. It operates on “Patriarchy Theory”, claiming that since the dawn of man, males have been at work conspiring against women to keep them down. If this mode of thinking is applied, that means that anything a woman does is not her decision, that it is the product of men influencing her, so nothing she does is her responsibility, effectively infantilizing her. I personally think that the average woman is as smart as the average man, and to suggest that she is like a fallen leaf, completely subject to the wind (men) I would think would be insulting to a woman.
It certainly insults me, since it implies that my father, myself and the good men who make up my family and friends are violent control freaks who like to subject other human beings to their will, and it certainly insults me when it concerns the women in my family, all of whom don’t subscribe to feminism and its hate speech, since it insults their intelligence and even though some of them have experienced bad relationships with men, the idea of generalizing all men by comparing them to the few bad ones is absurd.
And lets expand on “”Feminism” just refers to people who think women should have the same rights as men”. One of the earliest “feminist” or “feminist-like” groups were the Suffragettes or what they would be come to be known as, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). In public narrative, such as how it is presented by the BBC, they were a group of women who fought a valiant struggle to secure their right to vote, which they did. History books on the other hand present a very different story though.
The group was headed by Emmeline Pankhurst and her eldest daughter Christabel Pankhurst. Both were upper class women from wealthy families, who advocated not for the right to vote for all women, but for women of their status. See back then, it was true, the right to vote was only held my men. Wealthy, land owning men, which made up the 2% of the population then. The rest however, weren’t. This included both women AND men of the middle and lower class. These “Proto-Feminists” were just as elitist as their male counterparts and received a very large and active opposition against them.
To subdue this opposition they resorted to intimidation, violence (by proxy) and arson. Two of those traits are still present today: intimidation and violence. Arin Prizzy, a self proclaimed feminist and the creator of the world’s first women shelter, began looking into men who have been abused in the same manner and had plans to establish a shelter for them as well as publish a book on the issue. Feminists constantly threatened her with physical violence to her and her family for actually seeking a legitimate egalitarian goal, to the point they called in bomb threats to her house. When it was all said and done, she and her family had to leave their country, England, and go into exile for 15 years, for fear of what might happen them. Last week, Warren Farrell was to speak on the issue of men in our present culture, the problems they face and the solutions that can be implemented to rectify them. Feminists arrived and protested the talk, blocking the entrance and harassing the people who were attending it, calling the men rape supporters and the women gender traitors. They attacked police soon after they arrived and then got angry when they were arrested.
The most damning of all though is Valerie Solanas, a radical feminist and sociopath, author of the S.C.U.M. manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men). She was so ingrained with bigoted hatred that when she stalked Andy Warhaul and demanded that he make a movie about her book. And what did she do when he refused? She shot him and nearly killed him. After it was all said and done he was left both physically and mentally scarred from the Ordeal, which was reflected in his work from their on out.
Feminism has a long history of hatred, bigotry and violence under its belt and to say that its about equality is not only incorrect, its ignorant of its actual motives: Female supremacy. Just like Male supremacy would be wrong, so is this, since it marginalizes and outright demonizes men. And the worst part is that its already become apart of our society. Look on tv or the internet right now. In commercials men, (especially Fathers) are presented as idiotic, mentally inept dumbasses that are completely perplexed by almost anything, from medicine, to food to technology. In shows, men (Especially heterosexual white men) are almost always portrayed as rapists, child molesters, murderers and domestic abusers. Hell you might as well throw on “tries to exterminate the jews” while your at it.
Feminism isn’t about equality. Its about supremacy. Just like the Black Panthers, just like the KKK, just like Al Qaeda. Its fueled by bigotry and masquerades as a human rights movement
Then what shall we call people who believe that women should have the same rights as men? I don’t hate anyone, nor do I believe that any group is worth more than another. I think that the reductionist view that categorizes all men as beastly is ridiculous, and I’ve long held the dopey father and helpless husband stereotypes as offensive. Every human is different. I very much appreciate your civility in this issue.
Not a problem, I practice debating the topic, not the person. Debating the person leads to people getting angry, throwing around personal attacks, straw man arguments and such. It just gets messy after a bit. The people you speak of would be humanists or egalitarians. All humans, regardless of their gender, should have rights, as it should be. The problem is that we ingrain our gender into almost everything. Like estrogen and testosterone. Both are inanimate chemicals that both sexes possess. But as time has gone on, we’ve assigned them genders. Testosterone is synonymous with being male and aggression, when in all actuality it makes people fair minded, happy and confident. Estrogen is synonymous with being female and nice, when it actually plays a key role in causing anger in the brain. Now is that a dig against women? No, not at all. When anger occurs in the brain it is because of estrogen being released. Testosterone is released to calm things down. Its simple chemistry, which is gender neutral.
I digress. I had the opportunity to join a humanist movement, one that recognized all peoples of varying faiths and ethnicities and gave both genders equal attention to the issues they have, then I’d join it in a heart beat. But there isn’t, so I’m resigned to join the Men’s Rights Movement, since it seeks to reverse the negative image of men that feminism has pushed, have fatherhood recognized as just as valid as motherhood and grant reproductive right s to men, particularly in the form of the male pill, something feminism, or more aptly the N.O.W. has slapped down several times now.
I’m glad that I haven’t come across as hateful, since that’s not what I intended. There is a lot of anger in the MRM, justified anger, but anger all the same and some people have a hard time with tempering that anger and being civil. Please don’t be too harsh on them. The anger you may find is wrong yes, and I don’t condone it, but it comes from a very dark and painful place. Usually involving divorce or a false accusation of some sort. I’m not defending lashing out, just merely explaining it so that their behavior doesn’t come across as something from out of nowhere.
And one last thing. I’m guessing you identify as Feminists? As Driscol said, its called Feminism, not egalitarianism. Even if you are a moderate feminist, please examine that if you identify as one that you subscribe to patriarchy theory, which dictates that all men are bad essentially. Your husband, you siblings, your father, you friends. Anyone you know who is male is bad. If it said the exact same thing about blacks or mexicans or gays (it sort of does concerning gay males) then it would recognized as hateful. I’m for human rights of all people, regardless of race or gender or sexual preference. I can’t think of a time feminism has said the same without somehow saying masculinity is bad.
Also thanks for being civil as well. I’ve run into a fair amount of people who have identified as feminist and have immediately resorted to personal attacks, shaming tactics and outright threats of violence or have called for it, usually involving my genitalia and a sharp object -_- Thank you for your civility in all of this
I will tell you that there is “Feminism” and feminism. There are bad apples in every bunch. People who worship God may believe in being kind to everyone, and others may believe in killing everyone who doesn’t choose to convert to their religion.
Everything I have heard about feminism from actual feminists (note: in University) is that feminism is about having equality for both genders. They discuss not only double standards for women but also for men, talking about how men cannot do many things women can because it’s against their gender standard and that is bad as well. This type of Feminist is simply interested in making everyone equivalent. The problem is, at this stage in the game, most of the problems in our society are just ingrained in our thinking/media and we absorb it. I would never believe that men are terrible or bad people. I do believe that women aren’t always treated as human beings. I do believe most people, at some time or another, aren’t always treated as human beings. I will do what I can to help those people, including men. Real feminists realize it’s not men’s fault. I’m sure the first founding feminists probably did (and who knows, it may have been more their fault then) but it’s not the same now. Similarly to how everyone is a little bit racist now (due to social prejudice that we inherent, even black people are slightly prejudiced– I know, I am black and I am prejudiced towards my own kind and myself, as I don’t like identifying with the type and can’t really explain why other than what my image of a “black” person is) but back in the past, people were actually taking action to enslave black people, which made them more at fault. In the past, men actively tried to keep women down, which I’m sure is why they were more rabid and hated men (similar to how a lot of black people hated white people when they were slaves). Nowadays, we know it’s not necessarily anyone’s fault for having the idea that women are sexual objects and etc. because that’s what society tells us and that’s what we’ve been taught. We have to unteach ourselves, just like we would in school, because that idea is not correct.
As for your thing about all men being rapists– no, that is definitely not true. But I am happy that there is finally advertisement out there directed towards men instead of towards women. Just like you would tell people to say no to drugs, you tell men to say no to rape. I wasn’t gonna do drugs at any point in my life, but them reminding me to say no isn’t telling me “WE THINK YOU DO DRUGS AND ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON, SO STOP.” Similarly, telling men to say no to rape is the same thing. You probably weren’t going to do it anyways, but it’s a reminder, and for those who don’t know that it’s not okay to do this (and trust me, I have legitimately met men who don’t fucking know it’s not okay to do certain shit to me if I tell them not to) then they NEED to know instead of having society tell women “Don’t go out alone at night and say no!” That’s like targeting the victim of an alcoholic parent and telling them “Try not to get your parents angry at you and stay at your friend’s house!” It’s not a woman’s problem that she may get raped, so instead of telling us how to avoid it, they should tell people to stop doing it.
Essentially, I’m saying that, yes, some feminists may see feminism as beating men down. I consider them feminazis, not true feminists. True feminists want no just equivalency for our gender, but for all people. There are bad apples in every single bunch that take any idea to the Nth degree, just as I’m sure there are men who are MRAs who believe that all women are evil and deserve to die (whether or not you’ve met them), just as there are people who believe all (insert race or religion here) deserve to die. That does not and should not define the group. Just because some terrorists attacked the WTC does not mean all people of their race/religion/country are terrorists and should be treated the same. Overgeneralization is bad.
Any attempt to gain rights is marked by violence. Anywhere. You can literally look it up and find violence and death in almost any struggle for equal rights. It’s not right, mind, but people are violent.
And I agree with you. Most men are portrayed as vapid, dumb, or inattentive fathers, immature, overly sexual, unintelligent fratboy college students, and etc. etc. etc. I agree, these are bad and should not define all men on TV because it is leading to a very negative stereotype for fathers (and it has already done some damage in impressionable young heads).
But I am reminded of a quote I read somewhere. I do not think that this is what your doing, but it makes a good point, so I ask that you excuse the inflammatory style that it was written in and look past to its ideas:
“if a guy starts saying what you are doing is reverse sexist, he is obviously threatened by what you are doing. he’s threatened because he thinks there are only two ways to be: powerful or powerless. he assumes you asserting you rights is a way to take power away from him. he assumes you wanna “switch places” with him. he knows you get treated like shit & he knows he gets advantages from your imposed inferiority. he’s fearing REVENGE, girlfriend. his fear of “reverse sexism” is basically an admitation on his part that he knows you get treated like shit & does not want to switch places with you.”
I have talked with many of my guyfriends about this and for some reason this is always what their idea of feminism is– that we want to “switch places” and become the powerful while they become the powerless. When I ask, “Do you think women should have equal rights?” They say yes, but when I ask “Are you a feminist” they say no. According to the state of (rational) feminists right now, feminism just means wanting women to have equal rights, so technically they ARE feminists. But because the media (and probably many overzealous but not-actually-paying-attention-to-what-is-happening-within-the-group feminists in the past) have painted this rabid, man-hating, women-supremacist idea of feminist, many people do not want to associate themselves with the label (myself included, until I actually took a class from an actual feminist and saw how fairly and equally and non-blamingly, from both sides, they addressed the issue).
As the other girl said, thank you for being very civil. It is interesting to talk about the topic in a complete fashion without having someone cut you off or assume they know what you are saying in advance. (or cuss you out.)
Greetings! Apologies for my absence, I’ve a few developments in the last few days and haven’t been able to respond to you. Also, I thought I would take the time to read your post(s) a few times over, so I could get a good feel from where you are coming from. The reason being is because it touches on a few things that I suppose you could say “touched a nerve”.
In addressing your experience with true feminists, that is, real feminists aren’t rabid man hating ogres, allow me to introduce you to Girl Writes What: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-OcTSeVcs . She is an MRA that has a long running series on YT about feminism and the problems that men face today. While her words are blunt, I believe her message concerning the topic of “true feminists” is sound and is best served with flowery language taken out, language that I use on principle out of etiquette. As for my take on all of this: Those men that you spoke to, who deny being feminist and dislike it vehemently are not feminists. Not even on a technicality. I would liken them to humanists (I don’t know them personally so I am just guessing) if anything. Just because they believe women should have rights doesn’t make them feminists.
A feminist subscribes to patriarchy theory, which dictates that men are oppressive. And it is a flawed theory at that, since it confuses an oligarchy, which is a form of leadership held by a small group of individuals of higher social status such as wealth or military power (something that we actually have and have had for centuries all over the world) with patriarchy, which literally translates to “The Rule of Fathers”, which isn’t inherently oppressive, it depends on the culture, such as the time of the Greeks or Romans, where women were ACTUALLY oppressed and actively, back then they weren’t eve seen as citizens, much less people. They were servants and slaves, birth machines and property with no real option out of that life that males of their status had, eve as slaves, since male slaves could either work for their freedom of buy it.
In almost all other cultures, women were taken care of. they were never made to go to war, they were never made to work, though most did out of want to help the families they formed with men, such as farming families. Men on the other hand HAVE had to fight, kill and die for what they had. Take the right to vote. Pankhurst would campaign that if women got the right to vote, they would join in the armed forces as base personnel, nurses, etc. When they got that right for all women before the war was over, after using intimidation violence and arson, they suddenly forgot all about what they promised. But whats worse, men still didn’t have universal suffrage at that time, at which point WW1 was in full gear. Only wealthy men and all women did. They got their political franchise afterwards, for their service in the war. Think about that for a moment: Men had to die by the millions just for the right to vote, many of those men the suffragettes shamed into enlisting. Women were given the right to vote, without fear of violence or death. Does that seem fair to you?
By name alone, feminism isn’t for equality. If it were, it would have done away with the name altogether and would be a human rights movement in its truest form recognizing that all people, men and women have issues they need addressed. But instead it keeps its name, and its constant message is that of “women’s equality”. It has no interest in equality in the sexes, just women’s. Take the subject of sexual violence or more specifically, rape. I had been wondering when the topic would come about and wasn’t sure exactly how to address it without letting my anger on the matter get the better of me and making a fool of myself. When rape is ever discussed, it is always of the same narrative: Male perpetrators Female victims. That’s it. This is a narrative that has been placed into our society BY FEMINISM and it is going to take decades to reverse.
Its going to take decades to reverse the idea that men have a “rape switch” that can be triggered at anytime, as Greg Laden so elegantly put it. Its going to take decades to reverse the fear of men that feminism has placed in women with articles such as “Schrodinger’s Rapist” or the “He’s a rape supporter if” check list. Its going to take decades to erase the notion that ONLY men rape. All of this, is the doing of Feminism.
On college campus all over the western world, signs like this:
Are being made and are pointing a finger at men and MEN ALONE, that they rape. Not they might rape, not that only bad men rape. MEN. And when you support advertising like that, you are supporting a mind set that male sexuality is bad. That it is violent and that it is wrong. And no, the message of “Don’t get raped” shouldn’t be used like that, you’re right. A message of learning to protect yourself is what should be pushed, EVEN THOUGH men are more likely than women to have ANY kind of violence enacted on them, INCLUDING RAPE. But if we are going to use the message of “Don’t Rape” it should be directed at EVERYONE, men and women. Women are just as capable of being a sexual predator as men are, and in that respect, we do live in a rape culture. Specifically, men do.
As it stands right now, its estimated that women make up at least 25% of the population of sexual predators in the states, but even then, those numbers are meaningless due to under reporting. The under reporting is a direct effect of the fact that hardly ANYONE takes the idea of a woman being a sexual predator seriously. More often than not, a man who reports his rape to the police is laughed at and thrown out. And if they do investigate it, he is actively emasculated. And for feminists to claim that women live in a rape culture is not just wrong, is down right sick. When a woman is raped, she is comforted and healed. She is lifted up and given as much care and support she needs. When a man is raped, its a joke. Especially if it takes place in prison, an environment where more men are raped EVERY YEAR than women are in two.
Erections aren’t voluntary, they are reactionary, which is why erectile dysfunction exists. The women who are pursued for their crimes (which damn rare) all say that he was asking for it because he was hard. Sound familiar? This isn’t even touching upon the boys who are molested by older women and told that their rape or molestation wasn’t that big of a deal, to man up, they just became an adult or they’re patted on the head and told that it was a good thing. I don’t believe I have to tell you of the mental damage that can cause, and I can attest at first hand what it can do to your psyche.
More testimony of this can be found here: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/female-sex-offenders/50b3e38002a76052c60000c8
Again: When you support the message of “Remember fellas, don’t RAPE”, you are supporting a mind set that male sexuality is BAD and that only men commit crimes of this nature. But again, if we are to use this message, then women need to be included too, since THAT is what equality is, taking the good and the bad together. A second message though should also be used: “Ladies, don’t lie about him”. False rape accusations are on the rise now more than ever and have destroyed hundreds of lives. Innocent men go to jail for things they didn’t do, Such as the story of Brian Banks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLTqym2Zjpo) who was accused of rape and locked up for 5 years and was labeled as a sex offender for 5 more years until he was exonerated. 5 years of his life. GONE. And 5 more where he was a pariah because people are more than willing to believe that he did, based solely on the idea that ALL MEN RAPE because of rape hysteria, something that feminism has pushed for years now. Guilty until proven innocent, another aspect of a rape culture. It has sent dozens of men to jail and ruined the lives of dozens more in this year alone or worse: http://thesun.mobi/thescottishsun/news/4671526/Paperboy-is-innocent-victim-of-a-vigilante.html?mob=1
But if that isn’t good enough, then think of the actual female rape victims. When a woman lies about rape, she hurts the validity of actual rape victims. Example: You have a population of 10 men and 10 women. Out of those men, one rapes one woman. Now, we have out of the 20 people, 1 rapist and 1 rape victim. But, three women come forward to the police: the actual victim and 2 women who are lying. We have 3 women claiming to be raped, but only one is telling the truth. When the claims of those 2 women are discovered to be unfounded, then the woman who was ACTUALLY raped is going to be under more scrutiny than what she would have been had they not lied and the chances of the man that raped her getting away with it go up.
So if we are going to be equal, then these messages, that are disparaging to both genders should be pushed. Since if we are going to shame half the population for their sexuality, then the other half should be fair game as well. If not, then the subject should be treated with the caution and seriousness that it warrants: That rape is a crime that any human can commit, man and woman, and that the victims of both should be healed and cared for, regardless of their gender. And that just because a person of either gender commits it, that does not mean that all members of their respective gender do it as well. That there are bad people, men and women and they prey upon almost anyone.
Concerning the “Don’t get raped” message I don’t know of anytime that has been in the public narrative, but in regards to it, women should be given a message of learning to protect themselves. From the time when I was a boy, that message has been hammered into me (along with “Rape is bad”, because believe it or not, society actually does care about teaching boys that) along with all of the other boys I knew and that message has been reinforced all the way up until I became a man. I don’t live in fear of the world because of what might happen, but I know that there are bad people out there and they will hurt me. This needs to be taught to our girls, all the way until they become women. Not this current message of women should live in fear of walking down the street that is taught now-a-days.
As for the there being MRAs who are of the mind that women are insurmountably flawed, that they are she demons that are the bane of men’s existence? You’re right, they exist. They’re called MGTOW (Men going their own way). They believe female nature is inherently flawed and that men should have nothing to do with them. They are bitter, angry men who believe in total exclusion of women in their lives and if they had their way, women would be excluded from all aspects of society They are no better than feminists, in fact they are practically a mirror image of them. So in that respect, you are right, there are extremists in the Men’s Rights Movement.
The difference between Feminism and the MRM is that we police our idiots. We don’t allow them to write books or go on TV and promote bigotry We don’t give them money so they can carry out their bigotry and we certainly don’t allow them to get elected to PUBLIC OFFICES so they can write their bigotry into legislation. You may not like this, but I would go as far as to say that you aren’t the true feminist here. I have read your comments, and you come off as intelligent and friendly. You understand that men have their problems and don’t right them off as whining or counter with lines like “Wut about the menz?”. You understand that men aren’t all rapists (for the most part) and from what I can see, you advocate the equality for everyone. And most of all, you don’t call for violence or violence by proxy. You actually care for others, not just those of your own gender.
I’m sorry if I’ve come off as angry, I didn’t mean to. I meant to be forceful, but when you start writing and you get a rhythm going its hard to stop and take stock of how you sound while you talk. The subject of sexual violence is a touchy subject for me, being a victim of it myself. Its effected my relationships with women, my family and society at large. Being able to over come it and use it as a fuel to help my fellow human beings took me a very long time to accomplish and has needed exorbitant amounts of will power to keep it from turning me bitter and becoming like the guys at MGTOW. Its one of the key reasons why I am an MRA, why I fight feminism and promote human rights as well as accountability for everyone. As I’ve said before, if I could join a movement that was for all people, not just a certain gender or race or religion, I would.
Because at the end of the day, I believe men and women were never to be at each other’s throats like this. We’re meant to compliment each other, be with each other. Work together, be happy (for the most part) with each other. Not having to fight with one another. Its a terrible thing that its gotten to the point that we can’t come together as a people or a species or the children of god or whatever you believe in or whats comfortable for you. We just keep fighting with each other and fucking it up for our kids, the one’s that really lose the most out of this.
Thank you again for being polite and civil in all of this. At the very least you’ve shown me a courtesy that isn’t returned to me most of the time and I commend you for it.
(Before you start– this is a long post. I’M SORRY! I got a bit carried away…)
Thank you very much for your reply. It was very in-depth, and you didn’t come off as angry at all. I agree with you about almost everything that you said, with only one exception.
It occurs to me that maybe, what you say is feminism is feminism, or at least was feminism. In thinking about the class I have taken at University, I realized that perhaps feminism is attempting to undergo a transformation. I definitely believe at one time it was about all men being bad and oppressing women and women should rise up against them and all that jazz. However, I wonder if the current feminists aren’t trying to change that. All the classes I have taken took a huge emphasis on the entire struggle, focusing on double standards of both types (we did discuss the double-standard regarding rape towards men, how it’s mostly played for comedy especially in the media (no one has ever heard of a show/movie/book taking it seriously and treating it as they would treat it if it were a woman)). My class never taught the message that men are bad, or that women are terribly, terribly victimized and no one respects us or anything like that. Perhaps it was just my teacher, but she provided an extremely level-headed approach that was also incredibly balanced, and included a bunch of different angles on the issues, including not just a male or female view but also a homosexual and transsexual view.
Is it possible for a concept to transform over time? I believe so. While feminism may have been based on oppression (and may still be based on oppression) I think it’s moving to a more intelligent and balanced position. Hence why I consider myself a true feminist. If that doesn’t work, then a “new” feminist. Just as libertarians in America generally, when trying to go for policies, stray from the true definition of libertarianism, I believe feminism is separating from its hate-all-men roots.
I definitely agree with you with everything you said about rape. I also believe the reason rape is focused more on women as victims is because it’s much more safe to do so in this society. Men being victims of rape is an idea that makes people uncomfortable, because it doesn’t agree with our idea of men as “strong” and “masculine” and “dominant.” Hence why it’s often used for humor, and why men who actually stand up and say they are raped are often made to feel ashamed. People just don’t know how to feel about it, which leads to a lot of them looking another way or telling them to just deal with it because they’re men. (Anyways, it’s clear you understand all of the double standards about male rape so I need not continue talking about it.) I agree that we should target both demographics in both cases. Although statistically more men rape than women rape, I also believe that number is likely incredibly skewed. If all men reported when they were raped, it would probably be more equal.
What I meant by bringing up that advertisement was that it’s important to target people who actually do the thing. The advertisements weren’t saying things like “don’t chase down that woman and rape her.” They were saying things like “she was drunk, and I chose not to do anything” and stuff such as that. On my campus, this is a HUGE deal, because our frats here purposefully throw parties to get freshman girls drunk and have sex with them at the beginning of the years. And because it happens to almost every girl (several that I know, one being my sister), the girls don’t report it because it doesn’t seem like a big deal, and the guys don’t think of it as rape just because she was drunk. Now, this is likely not how it happens elsewhere in the world. But on my campus, out in the middle of nowhere Kansas, it’s typical for a lot of guys and girls who come from small towns where ideas don’t get circulated very often to consider this type of treatment as normal. There’s also a great degree of racism for the same reason. A guy in my class was talking about why he was late to class and said that someone double-parked. Despite not seeing the person, he described them as a “fucking asian” who double-parked because “asians can’t drive.” (I don’t even want to go into how wrong that is.)
The reason the advertisements I think are great is because they don’t say “all men are animals” but they actually were positive things that said “I don’t do this because I care about my girl” and “She said no, so I stopped” and stuff such as that. A lot of the guys on my campus aren’t aware of things like the fact that just because you have sex with a girl once doesn’t mean you can continue to do so even if she doesn’t want it. That’s not a comment about men, but more of a comment about the culture that I live in and where these guys grew up. Hence why the ads are important. They don’t say things like “Don’t rape, you uncontrollable beast!” Essentially the ads portrayed men as very noble, caring individuals who took care of those that they loved. Those types of ads would make the guys on my campus who weren’t aware that what they were doing could be considered as rape stop and rethink their ideas about it. (We could go into how that in itself is troubling because the fact that the guys were portrayed well and is an anomaly means that they’re generally always considered rapists in ads about rape, but let’s not.)
I do understand what you’re saying about male sexuality and how it is so frequently– or actually almost always– shameful. My boyfriend has a kind of complex about it, partially because he was raised by the church and his family never spoke to him about sex, so he cannot disconnect the idea of sin and shamefulness from it. Everything he sees confirms the fact that men are these lustful, lascivious beings who just want to have sex with everything on legs and that male sexuality is almost inherently harmful to women. It has taken him a long time to come to terms with his sexuality is a healthy, normal, good thing, and he still isn’t there yet. So I completely understand what you’re talking about with that. That’s part of the reason shows where women are portrayed as sexual objects disgusts me. It’s because it also assumes that men only view women as sexual objects, and it implies that they cannot view women as anything other than that, which implies that men are defined by their sexuality, and that that sexuality is uncontrollable and lustful and nondiscriminatory, among a host of other things. I think we need to work on both sides of the argument, but I think most people feel that they can only do one thing at a time. It’s much easier to focus on one side at a time. Hence feminists and MRAs. I agree that feminism may paint a bad picture of men (although as I’ve said I believe it’s moving in a better direction), and I hope I’m not assuming anything when I say that MRAs can paint a bad picture of women as well (such as that all feminists hate men, or those MGTOW you were talking about who think women… well… inherently suck). It’s true that feminism does, and it may be true that a lot of feminists do hate or have hated men, but that does not justify a blanket statement such as all men are bad or all feminists hate men and want them to be unequal.
If MRAs are here to repair the damage done by the misrepresentation of men by feminists and feminists are here to repair the damage done by how women were allowed to be treated in the past because of our society, then I can see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to work together.
The reason I say most feminists probably aren’t the feminists you have met is that anyone who goes onto a website and says “But what about teh menzzz?!” Is someone who hasn’t taken a goddamn class about feminism in their lives. The idea of feminism in the popular culture is that men are bad and oppress us. The idea of feminism I have encountered by learning from people who actually believe in the ideology is that society kind of screws everyone over (men, women, members of the LGBT) and that that needs to be fixed.
We’re all in this society together, and any shit that we have to deal with now in regards to stigmas and stereotypes about our different genders and sexes are all of our faults. A man is not an island. No one person or thing caused what we’re facing today.
Furthermore, about your talking of women who claim to be raped but aren’t. I wholeheartedly and 100% agree with you. Women who do this are absolutely despicable. I hate that women do this. I cannot believe that women do this. I do not think there is ever any type of circumstance that could ever even give a woman even a tenth of a reason to do this.
Yet the whole “guilty until proven innocent” thing is both true and false. I know women who were raped and went to court, had evidence, and yet the guy still walked free. (This is, however, as I pointed out, in the middle of the country where I live. The ideas here are still very old-fashioned, and lots of types of rape aren’t considered actually rape. Of course, the situation is even worse for men because of this.) Yet I know for a fact that men who are accused of rape are immediately suspected and tarnished because of it. A friend of mine was accused of rape in high school and almost all of his friends backed off from him. I admit, even I had to take a long time to talk myself out of doubting him, and I couldn’t entirely do it. He was innocent and the girl was lying. Thankfully, he didn’t go to jail, but the stigma never entirely left. Even after he graduated I heard people say that he had sexually assaulted this girl, despite the fact that he never did so. I think it’s a situation that is a lose-lose from either angle. The whole thing needs to be reevaluated and approached extremely logically, like any other crime, and one must assess the evidence and judge from that whether one is or isn’t guilty. Unfortunately, our law system doesn’t generally work like that.
As for domestic violence and the fact that women are consistently thought of as victims and not as people who helped instigate, this is also extremely valid. And of course, the idea that women can’t contribute comes from the idea that women are always victims, or that women aren’t actually strong enough to cause any type of harm to men, or that men are strong enough to handle all types of conflict, or that men are inherently violent beasts constantly on the verge of violence. Probably a combination of all of them. You see how the bad ideas about women contribute and help along the bad ideas about men, and vice versa? Hence why I believe feminists and MRAs are probably after the same thing. But moving on from that, I know 100% what you’re talking about with this double-standard. I knew one girl in high school who turned every guy she dated into a possessive monster. I don’t know why or how. One of those guys was a friend of mine. Not a close friend, but a friend. He’s one of the nicest guys I know– he still is. She did something to him, but I don’t know what, and he was horrible. He went back to normal when they broke up. I didn’t understand how that was possible, and I admit, I judged him for it. I bought into the idea that some men are only acceptable in company and once in a relationship try to possess and abuse the girl. (There are men like this out there, of course, but not all men who are in abusive relationships are like this, and definitely not ALL men are like this). A few years later I began to understand how she could have had that effect on him when my boyfriend was in an abusive relationship (before our relationship, back when I was his best friend). He and she both contributed to the abuse. Their ways of arguing did not flow well. She would manipulate him emotionally (telling him she would commit suicide if they broke up, and one time pretending she actually had attempted it, another time lying about being pregnant despite them having had no sexual contact, and since he knows nothing about the cause and effects of sex because his parents didn’t talk to him, he believed her) and dug into his self-worth, telling him how much of a monster he was and how she was the only girl who would put up with him. She would hit him. She would sexually molest him even when he told her he didn’t want it and he didn’t like it– but of course, because he learned about sex from the church he didn’t really know what was going on and that it was wrong and that what she was doing could be considered a crime. And because he is a man, even to this day, he is extremely reluctant to call it sexual molestation because he sees it as “weak.” She did all this to him, and he was no better. He also hit her. He also verbally abused her. He didn’t sexually abuse her, but he did just as much harm to her as she did to him. I know for a fact that he is not a monster. I know for a fact it was all circumstantial, and that she pushed him and he pushed her in return, causing the eventual abuse. I know for a fact that anyone she tells this story to automatically hates him (we had some friends that overlapped). I know for a fact that they change their opinion once they get to know him. I know for a fact that if she were to go for charges, he would be in a lot of trouble despite the fact that she was equally as abusive to him, despite the fact that she too bit his cheek hard enough to break skin and hurt him and molested him and abused him. I know this. I had to watch this stuff happening. Of course, as a guy, he believed that he was a monster. She told him he was the evil, abusive man, and she was the innocent victim, and he believed her because that double-standard is what we are taught is true by our society. He wouldn’t go for help because going for help is seen as weak. I didn’t find out about the extent of the abuse until years later, even though I was there and saw it all happening at the time. Even now it fills me with an almost indescribable rage and regret, a sort of feeling of wanting to tear open the time continuum and go into the past to try and help more than I know I would have ever been able to. Even now it fills me with dread for what could have happened, and would could possibly still happen if she should choose to pursue some type of legal action. So I understand these double-standards, more than most would guess. That is why they are wrong and deserve to be fixed and abolished. We corrected the fact that abuse against woman wasn’t seen as wrong, but we overcorrected to the point that we’ve forgotten that women, too, can abuse. We must correct it. As a feminist, I want equality for women, not favoritism.
About those pictures on the college campus– those are disgusting. Those women claim to be feminists? Is this the feminism you speak of? No wonder you think the way you do. This is what I’m talking about when I say “true” feminists and “fake” ones. These people aren’t true feminists. True feminists would never say to kill your rapist or that thing about cat calling. It’s true that nice guys rape (if considered from the angle that I’ve been talking about, about guys who just do not consider some things to be rape despite the fact that it is) but such a sign is incredibly accusatory and misleading and not the way to bring up that idea. It honestly makes me sick.
About that video that you posted– might I suggest using a different one next time? That one was so patronizing and borderline hateful that I had a hard time listening to it with an open mind. It treats me, as a “true feminist,” as a child who does not know better. Just because she does not agree with me, does not mean that she has the right to disrespect me and others of my thinking. Moving on.
She argues that the “humanistic feminism” I know is not taught in university classes– yet that is where I learned my “humanistic feminism.” That is where I learned feminism is, as I’ve been saying, changing. I have said before and I will say again, I agree that a lot of “feminism” is messed up. However, I will say that people are trying to change that idea. Telling one to give up and call myself something else just because my ideas don’t mesh with the idea of feminism as it is currently perceived is not okay. What is a feminist? A feminism is, by definition, “a social movement whose goal is to eliminate the oppression of women in all forms.” That is what I am, no? You would argue I am not a feminist, and I can understand why you argue that, but you cannot say that I am not a person who wants to eliminate the oppression of women in all forms, as that is what I am and what I intend to do. I am also a person who wants to eliminate the oppression of men in all forms, and races and religions in all forms. But that does not exclude me from being a feminist. To say that I am stupid and am not an actual feminist just because I’m not a bigot like some other feminists are is ignorant. If I am a person who wants to eliminate the oppression of all women, I am a feminist. The end.
Now. About her arguments of people wanting to use eugenics and the horrible, horrible things being postulated and the idea that if I go with the idea of feminism, I am supporting those ideas– no. No, that is not correct.
As a feminist, I do not have to prescribe to everything that people who call themselves feminists do. I do not have to support the legislation and the double-standards that many so-called feminists put though. I do not have to and I will never support feminist measures that harm men. I am a feminist, which by definition means I am for the equality of the sexes, or at the very least for the equal rights of women. “Feminist” does not mean “person who blindly follows others of the same label.” “Feminist” does not mean “person who hates all men and wants them dead.” Feminist does not mean someone whose ideas are reflective of the whole.
If there can be democrats and republicans whose ideas differ from those of their collective– if there can be Tea Party republicans who other republicans deem crazy– if there can be Westboro Baptist Churches who nigh all other Churches condemn– if there can be democrats who believe in pro-life and democrats who believe in pro-choice, republicans who believe in removing all forms of Medicare and Medicaid and food stamps and governmental forms of assistance and republicans who do not– then by the Gods, there can be a feminist who believes that women and men deserve equality and rights and fights on behalf of both of them while still being a feminist.
By believing this group of “humanistic feminists” to not be feminists, you are doing nothing but destroying the validity of what anyone who considers themselves a feminist has to offer to the table. No wonder you believe that feminism is all evil, with all the women hating and wanting to kill men, if you automatically assume that any person who calls themselves a feminist and is actually reasonable isn’t a feminist! That does nothing but inherently make feminism a lower from of social movement, a lower form of an idea, one that does not deserve to be heard because “all of those people are crazy.” That is prejudice and discrimination. I’m not trying accusing you of doing this, mind, but following the logic to its conclusion. Do you see what I’m saying? That’s like all the people I’ve met in my life who think that all black people are gangstas and talk about that in front of me, and when I say, “Actually, I am black, and I do not act like that,” they tell me, “Oh, but you’re not actually BLACK.” I’m sorry, but I AM actually black, and I do not inherently act like a gansta because I am human. Just because I am part of this category called “black people” and “feminist” does not mean I inherently operate like your stereotype of “black people” or “feminist” does. The solution to that is NOT to tell me that I am not a “black person” or a “feminist.” The solution to that is to ADJUST your ideas of what a black person and a feminist can be. The solution to that is to open your mind and accept that people can be different. Black people can be different. Feminists can be different. Just because I’m not crazy doesn’t make me any less of a feminist.
Okay. I did get a little bit heated there. None of that is your fault. Most of that is because of the infuriatingly disrespectful way the woman in the video spoke. It is very nice of her to tell us beforehand that if we get upset we need to put our “big girl panties” on, because that just allows her to dismiss any of our qualms to what she says that is actually disrespectful under an umbrella of “well I’m right, you’re wrong, and you’re just too immature to accept it.” It seems somewhat… well, plain dumb for her to be talking about feminists who are against equality and to then patronize any feminists who are FOR equality. To me it seems to be hitting yourself in the foot to decry that feminists hate all men and don’t want to like them and then to tell feminists that don’t think that way that they must not be real feminists and are, in fact, dumb children for believing they are. What was her goal? Was it to actually help men by teaching about the ways that feminism hasn’t been good for equality and helping feminists become aware of this so they can rectify it, or was it for her to further prove that she is right and smarter than everyone else and all feminists deserve to be hated, judged, and ignored by driving a huge wedge between feminists and all reasonable forms of a logical human being?
Feminism CAN change for the better and for equality, but you will never see it or notice it if all of the people who are making attempts to change the way it currently operates aren’t feminists to you. If we are for the non-oppression of women (by women, by men, by society, oppression by whom doesn’t matter) then we are feminists. If wanting to eliminate the oppression of men makes me an MRA, then I am an MRA as well as a feminist.
The definition of feminism is not “someone who wants to stop the oppression of women by a patriarchal society/by men.” It’s just “someone who wants to stop the oppression of women.” Period.
Hence why those friends of mine are technically feminists.
I looked online, in my textbooks. I have found no official source that defines feminism as what you said, as an organization against patriarchal oppression/men. In fact, that #1 thing that pops up now is not even about social equality for women. The VERY FIRST definition of feminism, and I quote, is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”. Not women, but the sexes.
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is “an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women”.
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.
Equality of the sexes.
I, again, am sorry this was so long. I understand what you went through in being emotional about discussing rape, and about having things in my post that upset you. I, too, was overcome with indignation at that woman’s video and a combination of emotions while discussing my boyfriend’s past.
This whole discussion is amusing to me, a little. You and I clearly believe in the same things. We believe in equality for all, am I correct? Yet we’re discussing– some might even say arguing– about… what? We’re arguing about the definition of feminist. We’re not arguing about whether women are oppressed, or men are oppressed, whether some of the methods are good our bad. We’re in agreement on almost every single thing we’ve talked about– except a definition. Except a label.
This is probably where humanity goes wrong. If I had never said I was a feminist, if you had never said anything about MRAs and feminism, would we be talking about this? Or would we have tipped our hats to each other and gone on our separate ways? Would we have, in some alternate universe, worked together on the goals we share?
You are also clearly intelligent, caring, well-read, well-informed, and are aiming for a “humanistic” goal of equality for all and caring for all. We agree with all of the same goals about non-oppression for men and women– people, really. So what exactly are we doing, arguing about something so stupid as what label it falls under?
I say, my friend, you and I are both idiots. xD
…Lol. I suppose you are right. While I can’t speak for your school specifically, I have looked up the gender studies/women’s studies of schools around the country, in Canada and such, and their curriculum is still highly misandric, in regards to female to male relations, like the idea of sex is rape unless the woman and only the woman initiates it out of her own free will and isn’t coerced into it (essentially flirting and foreplay is attempted rape to these people). That said:
I really do hope that feminism is going in another direction, the same direction that the MRM is going, so that we can meet at an impasse, stop arguing about all of this, kiss, make up and get to making little social movement babies. That and actually pay attention to the fuck nuts that perpetuate these things (the oligarchy I spoke of). I’m very much in favor of the idea of social engineering to better control a population, and what better way to do this than to exploit petty differences between us (“Hey, he wants to club you to death with his cock”, “Hey, her pussy wants to devour everything good in your life”, lol). But then that would lead us to discussion such as planned fallibility, human nature, politics, philosophy and oh no I’ve gone crossed…
That and I don’t want to come off as a conspiracy theorist (looks at jars of what may be yellow cake or possibly just mattress cushion) ’cause I’m not >_>
I’m surprised that I had this discussion with you truth be told. Almost every feminist that I’ve talked to has been hateful about the subject, tries to derail it or level personal attacks at me, again, usually with a remark that they hope I become a eunuch -_- And the ones that do acknowledge that men have issues, they always try to tie it to patriarchy. I’m surprised that I had a coherent conversation for once with a feminist. Its very refreshing. And reassuring. There are some feminists in the MRM. Christina H. Sommers, Arin Prizzy. They are both self proclaimed feminists and yet advocate, and quite passionately the equal treatment of men and boys. I suppose the reason being as to why I am against feminism so much is the NAFALT fallacy. Its a new term coined by the MRM as “Not All Feminists Are Like That”. The reason for using it is because my experiences with feminists (excluding you) are the norm with most MRAs and that feminists like yourself, Prizzy or Sommers are very few in number, that its just easier to go in with the mind set that they are all man haters unless they explicitly say and do otherwise.
And even then its hard to trust them consisitantly, since they still operate under the banner of feminism. I mean, you have to admit, the name is pretty exclusive to men. FEMinism. Its in the name. Then again, the same can be said about the MRM, since in no small terms it too is explicitly exclusive to women. Men’s Rights Movement. Or masculinism if you want to get really technical about it, loathe as I am to associate with that name (MGTOW fucked it up for the rest of us) which is funny, since taking the title of MRA is worse because a lot of feminists make wild claims about them, such as Danielle Sanduh, who said we advocate incest (dafuq?) and use it like a racial slur, haha. I digress, in the end arguing over this is pointless since feminism has loads of men in it and the MRM has loads of women in it, Such as Girl Writes What, who is one of our biggest contributers.
Speaking of which, please don’t be too hard on her, the monologue she read was actually written by another of our very prominent members, John The Other. He has 2 decades on me (I’m 23) and hes been at this a LOT longer than I have. And I don’t doubt that it has embittered him throughout it all. He has a tendency (an effective one though) to use his tongue like Ivy’s whip sword. He is a good man, an advocate of non-violence and human rights for all peoples. I’ll let him explain himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FfjZ7fp8yY .
But back to GWW. She is a wonderful woman who as I said earlier has a long running series on youtube. I really recommend watching her stuff, its very good and its being used in high schools and colleges in Canada and the states now, which is very exciting to hear (for me at least, haha). Hell she’s the one that helped me through the deprogramming process with her videos, since when you become an MRA, a lot of social norms you didn’t question before suddenly are very prejudice to you. It raises a lot of conflicting emotions in you, tears down you preconceptions of the sexes and makes you angry when you realize that in society’s eye, your safety, mental health, physical health, education and bodily autonomy isn’t even on the bottom of the totem pole, its on the ground. Which is why I’m glad I’m the first MRA you ever had a conversation with.
When I first started out, I was angry. Hell I was more than angry, I was infuriated. Learning that the lives of myself, my father, the men of my family, my friends, was completely meaningless. That we’re only good as chattel or for war. That we aren’t even recognized as being the essential other half needed for reproduction and that our roles as parents didn’t mean jack. That our genetic make up, our Y chromosome is seen in many circles as a defective X chromosome, and are subsequently referred to as walking abominations or incomplete females. I can’t sit here and lie and say that I was more than anti-feminist at this point, I was a full on woman hating machine. It brought up old emotions from my own ordeal with molestation, very dark emotions. And even today, to some small extent, I am still wary of women, for fear of accusations or predators. A lot of MRAs take a very long time to leave this mind set, and some don’t, completely swearing off women altogether and join MGTOW. I consider myself lucky that it only took me a few months to recover from it all.
And had you met any of these guys who are first starting out, I couldn’t imagine what they’d say to you. Something very similar and as vicious as any RadFem I would surmise. But as I said to Pin Up earlier, they don’t know what they are doing. They are in a very dark place, with a lot of pain and heart ache in it. Thankfully the MRM does as much as it can to rehabilitate them and teach them to temper that anger and use it against those that advocate bigotry, not innocent people. A big inspiration to us is MLK (I know, I know, prototypical white person talking about how much they just LOOOOOOOOVE MLK) with regards to aggressive non-violent protesting and spreading his message. He operated in a quiet anger, but channeled it into something good and just with great dignity. We try to emulate that as much as possible. We slip up here and there, but we make no excuses for our mistakes and we always reign in those who’d try and subvert us and turn us into a hate group. Usually those guys advocate violence and they are perma banned after wards.
I think if we could achieve this:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/43trg.jpg
Things would be better honestly. No hefting of undue accusations, no pursuit of dominance and doing away with gender roles and empowering sex roles (I,e: men like these, women like those and there’s nothing wring with that). If we could stop waving our genitals around like badges of honor then we could get somewhere, haha
*And you say you’re long winded, Pfft ‘:)
Also, I would like to again say thank you for being willing to participate in this discussion. I have only ever heard of an MRA and have never before met one or gotten to talk about the ideas behing it. This has been very educational, and I have learned a lot both about your ideas and points and things about myself, including reevaluating certain beliefs I had that were too general and seeing that I have been a bit slacking on my usual intent to approach a situation from every perspective. I have a great respect for you and your ideas. I agree– women and men are meant to complement each other, work together and be happy with each other. Just like the rest of humanity. Thank you for talking with me. At least for once, a discussion on the internet did not go to waste. I have learned from this. Thank you for that.
According to urban dictionary, that was not really applicable. I think I will back out with this pathetic attempt at having the last word. I am in no mood for this.
Did you just use an acapella cover of The Bard’s Song as the official intro to Counter Monkeys?
Spoony, you are my God now.
Specifically, it’s the Van Canto version.
Glad to see you expanding on CM, and looking good Spoony One!
These vlogs have gotten me back into D&D, I must play right the fuck now. Sweet intro too.
If I was the DM & the players didn’t know better, I’d stick them with a rather convincing transvestite.
I love the bitter bitches, too. They get shit DONE.
Heh. Never had any DMs pull that on me. Funny thing:
When training horses, if you always take a horse to work when you go into the pasture with a halter or bridle, they’ll know you’re coming to make them work and some will shy away because of that.
But if you randomly go and pet them while carrying a bridle and don’t always work them when you put a bridle on them, they won’t know if you really are going to work them or not.
The same principle applies to people.
This is interesting. I just finished an encounter as DM where the female companion, who is very important, was just incinerated by a fire archon. Now I could possibly turn her evil, while we finish the task, or I could stay the course and keep telling the group one of them is a rogue agent of chaos.
Oh, the many possibilities!
I’ve used this in Exalted.
oh god what was that voice
Reminds me of about a month ago where my bard taught the female paladin how to “exorcise demons” in the bed room. We rolled endurance checks and of course I failed, but i did win the diplomacy check to get there.
Both male players of course but why? because it was worth the story to tell later.
That turned into a fairly interesting topic, actually- i wasn’t sure how in depth you were going, but I have to say I liked the idea of the “succubus in angsty love” angle. Also, I like the new intro! However, this could sound like a bit of a buzzkill, but I think it could be a funny subplot to have the more realistic twist of the girl getting overly attached to the guy after hooking up, and following him around when he doesn’t want her to, or maybe she gets pregnant and he gets stuck with the baby? I admit I’m immature enough for that to be a way I’d troll with female NPC’s if I were the DM…
I’m gonna be honest, I’m baffled. There are guys that want their GM to start roleplaying sex with them? With everyone else watching? I mean, as a fetish, I can see it, but you’re saying this is a trap EVERYONE falls into, which is…I mean, really?
But let’s ignore that for a sec. Even if every RPG player DOES have that fetish, what makes them think the GM is going to indulge them? Why would the GM be comfortable with that?
It gets worse. I’ve seen a larping group whose leader actively promoted roleplaying sex in LARPs through touching each other’s arm (the higher the more serious the sex gets). Then they made LARPs based on Midsummer Night’s Dream… Yikes. Though I didn’t have any unpleasant experiances due to that (I never took part), I felt uncomfortable with the mere idea.
The reason advisers have such a bad reputation is because throughout history leaders of powerful factions tended to have some friends in common, so after the fighting was over they would turn to their friends then point out their closest adviser and say “It’s all his fucking fault he tricked me. Hack him to pieces!” So never be a kings number one guy, people will hate you and when the time comes the king will personally sell you out
Interesting psychological study there. I guess that explains F.A.T.A.L.
I’ve never noticed this trend about women NPCs, honestly. Whether that’s because I’m just that obvious or if my group never did it, I’m not sure.
Oh, one thing a GM can do to put the kebosh on PCs constantly trying to hookup (and derailing the adventure) is to introduce STDs. It works wonders to get players to stop hitting on anything with genitalia.
Oh why did you have to invoke that name and remind me of that sick lunacy?
FATAL is basically the Aristocrats joke, but made into a role-playing game.
Err… And how often do men serve similiar role? Not necessarily as a sexual object, but as THEY ARE EVIL role? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender
If you’re asking how often men are villains, I’m pretty sure the answer is obviously “all the time.”
If you’re asking the more interesting question, “how often are there unknown men who seem good and turn out bad,” the answer is… occasionally. Usually in much different circumstances – for example, the trusted advisor turning traitor (Loghain from DA:O, as an example) or the childhood acquaintance/friend/counterpart turning evil (Lex Luthor in Smallville) are both more common than finding friendly male bartenders who come onto female characters and turn out to be incubi during coitus.
I think it would be very interesting for a female PC to end up in bed with a seemingly friendly male character (and draw attention to it the same way that Spoony suggested for female characters!) who either ended up just harmless or was in fact a spy/incubus/thief/assassin/whatever. Nothing like a good ol’ gender inversion.
I’m sure had the bard in our group continued (well, been able to continue–we’ve been trapped in a prison for about 3 months real-time, at least a week game-time) to pursue our bar maid, he would eventually had his face melted off. Because she’s a black half-dragon.
Snape is totally an “evil advisor that’s actually good” Rowling likes to play around with tropes like that (reference Ron and Hermione), so it doesn’t really surprise me she’d do that with Snape too!
Eh, less of the standard “evil chancellor” trope and more like “evil appearance and demeanor, ultimately good guy.”
Even though I haven’t listened to Blind Guardian since I was 16 years old. I instantly recognized the song within a second. I don’t D&D but music is my thing.
I’ve only played play-by-post games, but so far nearly all my characters have been female (I’m a guy, btw) and the sort I find attractive.
Here’s the thing, though; what most find attractive I find unattractive, while what I find attractive most people find bizarre or even a source of nightmare fuel. As a result the sexuality of my characters are underplayed while they themselves are really inhuman (sometimes even Lovecraftian). XD
Anyway, great Counter Monkey, Spoony, and I’m loving the intro.
Well, Spoony, I’m going to have to bill you for this time. Maybe next week we should talk about your mother.
Me and a couple of my mates have recently started getting into rollplaying, with a swedish game called Eon. To kind of give ourself some experience with the mechanics and stuff, we put my character, Maven, in the Song of Ice and Fire universe, during the tourney to celebrate Joffrey’s name day. My character, being pretty much a mix of a 20th level monk and best swordsman in the world, defeated his first opponent with his fist. Joffrey did not take kindly to that, took Maven’s sword, and sent him against four of his kingsguard, whom he throws off the wall.
After the tourney, Littlefinger takes an interest in Maven, and he is to stay in the castle over the night. And in his room, he finds a woman. “Complimentary of Littlefinger”. I didn’t feel any warning bells, oddly enough I just thought that it was pretty much a bribe, and Maven, being the rogue he is, took it.
After a very short lovemaking session, she draws a dagger, misses, and grapples Maven with her legs. That is, she wrapped her legs around his head. Almost broke his neck, too. Thankfully, he breaks out of her grip and manages to knock her out, but not before a guard had been killed in the crossfire.
The story ends with my character being dragged off to prison for killing a castle guard, and raping a poor woman until she passed out. Though, he did break out, drowning his cellmate in the excrement bucket.
If you’re playing D&D this can be alleviated by a Paladin or a Spell, especially a Succubus. But the rule of thumb we play by is NEVER trust ANY npc, period. Always have a contingency plan in case things go south. This is mostly due to the fact that all of our group as dm’s are evil bastards that like to screw with the players, it’s just more to what degree we do so. Also if you play an evil campaign, remember the nature of evil is to screw everybody else, so don’t expect them to last long.
I accline to disagree with you on that one. Evil campaigns don’t last long if the players are playing what i call “the stupid evil” a character that is evil and goes out of it’s way to be so. For instance, stabbing another PC in the back for no reason, stealing stuff from PC’s and being genuinely unhelpful. This will never go well in the long run. You can play an evil character without tearing the game apart. For instance, the Lawful/Neutral Evil wizard/sorceror/rogue may not care for the Lawful Good Paladin/Fighter/Cleric. But this individual is inherently useful to him, wether by drawing fire, healing magic or any other means this character is a useful ally, and unless comprimising his own Ultimate agenda, will aid/fight with/help the other character. And unless this character is of the “Stupid Evil” he will know that any crime he commits infront of the Lawful Good characters will cause problems, so he will only commit them when he is absoloutly convinced that he can get away with it. I was playing a Lawful Evil Fighter, and it never caused any direct problems
Also, the guy you’re working for? He’s either evil or going to get killed in front of you
Meh, it’s roleplaying. In fiction the guys always go for the femme fatale. Name one movie where the trope is subverted *non-ironically* and the guy looks the hot seductress up and down and goes “nope, you look like trouble…” and the movie ends there. The story doesn’t work if players just walk away from trouble.
Is it sexist that “women have to kill by deception and manipulation” and “men kill by face-on violence”? Probably, but not only is it adhering to standards presented both by the genre, and fiction in general – it’s also a case of “truth in television” where poison is, statistically speaking, a murder weapon used by women rather than men.
And it’s more sexist to have totally helpless “damsels in distress” than women who have the strength of character to actually influence the game world, even if it is by using sexuality or manipulation as a weapon.
Expecting female characters in RPGs not to be hot is like expecting someone to role a “peasant who doesn’t do anything” character.
The problem with women in fiction is that in most cases they’re not treated like human beings. It might be sexist if women ONLY killed by deception and manipulation because they weren’t smart/couldn’t EVER be strong enough to kill face-on, but if it’s just a matter of preference, then that’s completely fine!
However, when every woman in the story is either evil or a damsel, that’s unfair. That’s ruling out the possibility of a woman as, say, someone who joins the party. As Spoony pointed out, if they do join the party it’s normally only to back-stab them later. Women in D&D hardly ever just join the party to help out because it’s the right thing to do or suits their motivations.
As for being hot…. ehhhh? It’s more of a reflection of our society saying “If you’re not sexually desirable as a woman then you are essentially worthless because no one wants to have anything to do with you” than anything about fiction in particular. It’s normal to have men be ugly but still integral to the plot or helpful or harmful to the story in some way, but I’ve never once heard of a woman (in any form of fiction) who is ugly (and stays that way, mind) who ever affects the actual plot.
Don’t get me wrong I agree with most of your point I get board of any fiction where the female characters exist to be evil or the victim and only that. I wasn’t fully aware of this thing though in D and D because I have a dm that likes to fight stereotypes to the point where we heard a scream in the darkness… and it was a lost little girl.
As for the last part it might just be because I am very well read but I can think of some examples of ugly or not conventionally attractive woman in fiction.
A book series called Mortal Engines had a horribly scared girl in it (who was the female lead) but I never read the whole series to know if she stayed that way (seems likely though).
Brienne in song of ice and Fire was pretty major. There was a Dragon rider’s of pern book written about a girl who wanted to be a bard and pointed out that she wasn’t conventionally attractive (accounts of how she looked varied between characters though so I wouldn’t say ugly) just a fantastic song writer.
Wicker kind of suggested the female lead was at least not conventionally attractive as the two boys who liked her were ether interested in power (she was a powerful witch) or fell in love with her due to basically imprinting.
But consider how many times you’ve run into a woman who wasn’t considered a love interest? I mean, you say the female lead wasn’t conventionally attractive but still had two men who loved her… Sounds scarily similar to Twilight (that’s not a slam on your book, but just pointing out trends in general). Edward was attracted to her cause of her power of blocking other people’s power and Jacob imprinted on her egg and thought he loved her.
And I said just ugly. Not scarred, as scarring in books doesn’t quite count because of the “cool factor”, and I didn’t say “not conventionally attractive” because I have read tons of books where they say, “She’s not conventionally attractive and no one loves her because of it” but she’s actually Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice or a red-headed green-eyed tall beauty. Sure, not conventionally attractive, but that’s not ugly. And scarred doesn’t count because she could have been pretty despite, before, or even because of the scars. I have never seen a female character described as “Actually kind of ugly” if she was supposed to be part of the main plot who didn’t either eventually get it reversed somehow (even if not permanent) or get it made into major character-driving thing (i.e. “I’m not pretty, so I have to find other ways to be useful unlike the rest of stupid bumbling pretty vapid blonde womenkind”).
I don’t doubt that there definitely are books out there that do this, but I have yet to read one not written by a woman, and I have yet to read one… period. It helps to be aware of this, though, and be able to combat it.
First I should have stated this before but I used the word conventionally because these were books I don’t know what a character looks like and also because everyone has something that is attractive about them but I’m very upbeat about these things and also do a lot of live drawing so I notice a lot about people’s looks.
Wicker is a before twilight but similar book (same sort of 12 year old fantasy) . You’re not offending me by pointing it out. It has those elements yes but the guy who’s basically Edward they point out he’s creepy and they develop past that (the series stayed more for early teens but did develop some interesting things). I skimmed over a lot of the character development just to point it out but unlike Bella the main character messes up a lot, that said I always liked one of the side books more the character in that one (I think she is called Alice) is similarly ordinary looking character dealing with the choice of ignore your abilities and go insane or learn to control magic (which when you read the books and knew how much she was terrified of the magic users you understood why this choice was hard). She’s also dealing with the loss of her mother who chose to go insane.
Though thing is… I didn’t say this because I wasn’t really thinking about it (I was more pointing out characters that aren’t pretty) but Morgan the character I was talking about… The book is from memory less about “woe is me I am not pretty! Watch me be awesome without it and have fifty guys love me” and more about identity. Morgan’s adopted and comes from a very dark line of magic family (which she discovered later). She’s also raised to be very religious and as she starts to discover her blood relatives she uses magic to get close to them and find a place she belongs (while she isn’t hated by her family for it they don’t understand and fear it). The fact she’s not attractive in the conventional sense (this could be over analysis on my part though but with how the book points out that she’s called the family’s “Nightingale”) seemed more a way to show her isolation. Also it’s interesting that you mention the blond because her friend is the rich, blond character who on a later read when I discovered the early books in a library again (and have never found them since) is almost feeding of her friend’s low self esteem for her own selfish reasons. Then again I could just be over analysing the book and looking at it from things that did happen to me and things that happened to those around me.
Also I feel a bit like you put words in my mouth about the scarred character. I didn’t say it was cool what I got from how the book portrayed it… well that it was horrific (referred to as a broken mirror at one point since it’s a book for younger ages I don’t think they wanted to be to graphic) and since she had to then fend for herself (it’s a post apocalypse story) she became a very bitter person.
I’m sorry to put words in your mouth. What I meant by that is that generally in fiction we view scarring as an awesome thing used to show how badass characters are, and they rarely deal with people’s reactions to getting scarred in reality. Consider Squall Leonhart the anime Star Driver (where a scar gives him the power to fight in a robot) just to name a few (do not watch Star Driver. It is everything I hate about anime). If the story treated it realistically, then that is a great thing.
Also, those books actually sound like they’re written very well. I hope that more of books like this come out in the future, where all characters are treated like actual people who are balanced and rounded and not just there to fill out societal stereotypes. It’s taken a while, but we’re getting there.
Nah it’s cool
Also I know star driver my reaction was basically…. “that happened”
“There was a Dragon rider’s of pern book written about a girl who wanted to be a bard…”
You’re talking about Menolly! She’s the star of the Harper Hall Trilogy.
Its not a man’s looks that are paid attention to though (or at least, they are paid attention to but not as much as a woman’s looks) its his utility as a producer. A producer of physical ability, a producer of income, a producer of security. His attractiveness is almost directly proportionate to to his utility. Its why ugly or old men can get hot girls if they are either strong and fit or are wealthy (ex: Hugh Hefner) .
There are two matters at hand here: Hypergamy theory and Male disposability. Hypergamy is the social act of marrying up. It states that females of our species are naturally attracted to males of higher social standing, since they are healthier and with better resources and will help produce healthy children and present them with the means for those children to live long enough to reach adulthood. Physical attributes do play a (small) role, since attractiveness denotes the state of the potential mate’s health.
There is nothing wrong with this, since its no different for a male to seek out a physically attractive female because, again, it denotes their state of health. A lot of social contract are being made here. The female goes with the male for his resources and the security he gives in exchange for access to her body to produce children. Add in the human element (human emotion and desires) and loves takes place, bonding the two.
The problem arises when Hypergamy is corrupted by human greed and it becomes gold digging. Gold digging can lead to the bad traits of a woman discussed up above and contributes male disposability or more exactly as explained in Briffault’s Law: “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”
Add on’s to this include: “Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.”
“Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit”
“A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male”
These are all the traits of the bad women that join the party. I can’t nor do I want to sit here and say that these bad traits should be applied to all women, as that would be just as bad as applying the title of potential rapist on all men, when both gold digger and rapist make up a very small minority of the population (despite what college campus’ say about men).
I understand what you’re saying, and it’s applicable in a very scientific way of looking at human behaviors. But look again at what you were saying and notice you never talked about a woman not being in relation to men. That’s the root of the problem. A woman who is unattractive is not part of the plot because she is seen as having no value towards men who may be invested in her because of that beauty. You didn’t say that men could be attracted to ugly women who were really intelligent or had money of their own to attract men, you just said men go after women who are attractive because it’s biologically driven. That is true, but men and women are far more than just the result of their biological wiring. Similarly, we cannot know how much of men being attractive to younger women is because of their wiring (younger/more beautiful woman = more fertile) and how much is because society says these women are worth more than the others, so you should go after them. (There are many cases in real life of ugly women making the most highly-prized prostitutes, to the point where men would simply pay for the honor of being able to talk to them and would skip the sex altogether, and cases of youth-based beauty not being what men find attractive.)
I briefly covered that men and women are more than biological wiring
“Add in the human element (human emotion and desires) and love takes place, bonding the two”
That is why Hypergamy theory is just that, a theory. It doesn’t take into account the individual’s decision making process, from both the male and female perspective. Male disposability is an entire conversation unto itself, one for another day I’d wager. As to a woman’s relevance to a plot based on her appearance…eh, I’d say its hit and miss to be frank. It is true that this is something that has taken place in stories, at the same time I have read stories where the woman’s looks played no part what so ever.
Take Shotgun-Susy from the night-side series. This woman is kind of attractive, but she’s more average than anything. Any physical beauty that she has is further diminished by the fact that, as a bounty hunter, she has sustained extensive physical damage to her body, being heavily scarred all over with half of her face being torn off and her eye being lost in the process at one point. She recovers, but the eye is gone completely and hes left with a fair amount of scar-tissue after wards.
And even still she’s a well respected character and the main love interest for the main character, to the point that she’s a main character in her own right. As for men being attracted only to attractive women, that’s partially true. There are men out there that look for more than just looks, that look for personality above all, looking for women who are significantly older than them and some that are gold diggers in their own right as well. Its hard to believe but its true. But at the end of the day though, the rule proves over the exception, since they are in the very small minority of men.
Here’s is an interesting thought for you to chew on though: The issue of physical beauty that may women have a problem with, specifically what your worth is equivalent to you attractiveness, is something that is reinforced by other WOMEN more than men. In my experience, as well as the experiences of other men that I have talked to about this issue, a woman’s attractiveness stays fairly the same in the course of knowing her, and only increases as time goes on. Even in old age, men still love their wives and believe to be beautiful, wrinkles and all. This attitude is something that I feel myself and something that many of the men in my life as well as men I have talked to in passing feel.
More over, I have observed that it is women that judge each other’s worth based on their appearance, since a woman’s apparent worth to a man seems to be dictated by how attractive she is to him, which at the end of the day is subjective to his preferences, which could be anything. but women seem to be the culprits when it comes to dictating what a woman should and shouldn’t look like. Could it be possible that the issue of what a woman SHOULD look like be learned behavior from women? For me, that seems to be the case, since the women that do subject other women to this are very shallow and generally unpleasant people, the men who do this as well are mirror image: very shallow and unpleasant people.
Its just something to think about, since I believe that this problem shouldn’t be level on men alone. Almost anything in life is a two way street, and this is no different
I am not asserting in any way that this is an issue leveled on women by men. No, quite the contrary. I do not even believe it is women who level this on other women. I believe it is more the media and society that levels in on women, because it gets into our brains and we don’t even know that we’re doing it. I am unsure of where you got the idea that I was saying men are to blame, as I never did say that and tend to stay away from blaming entirely. Rather, there is just a problem, and it should be fixed. The emphasis on women’s looks is seen all over in the media, and from that we learn our behavior, which we pass on to our children, and so on and so forth.
There are many women who judge other women based on appearance, yes, but I wouldn’t say we judge their worth. I would say based on how they dress and take care of themselves we make inferences about them and decide whether we want to associate with them. (For example– a girl dressed out in goth is not necessarily someone I’d immediately want to associate with, as I wouldn’t think we would have a lot in common. I have the same aversion to guys who dress goth.)
I’m not saying this is right– rather, this is an example of stereotyping and prejudice– but we all do it, and to some extent you can make inferences about people’s personalities by the way they dress and take care of themselves (like whether they consider their appearance to be of importance, if they like to be rebellious, if they are probably more conservative because they’re dressed incredibly modestly, etc).
I’ve never judged a woman based only on her attractiveness, nor do I know other women who do. I can imagine some who do who are exactly what you describe– shallow and unpleasant people– and there are definitely some women who perpetuate the myth that all you are is your attractiveness. At the same time, there are some men who do so, too. It’s not a case of man or woman, like I’ve been saying, it’s a case of society in general. Most people aren’t as shallow as the media, but some people are. and some people have inaccurate beliefs and perpetuate them. All we can do is raise awareness of inaccurate or unserving beliefs and attempt to address them.
At the end of the day its generalization in general. The minorities of society exhibit bad behavior and instead of handling it like you would a child trying to sneak past you with a cookie after you told them no, their behavior is put on display for all to see. The problem is that when that is done, people start to think their behavior is good. Also, I apologize, I must have misread what you wrote.
The whole choosing the way you say things make me think of something that happened when I was DMing for the first time.
There was a dirty, tattered cloak I had in this one storage room that had an inside pocket with a small bag of gold inside. I had a chest in the room and the cloak was among other stuff so I figured a good enough spot check and they’d notice it but they might dismiss it because it was kind of nasty and shredded.
Anyway, the dwarf puts it on so I tell him he feels this bulge near his chest. But he misinterprets what I meant (aka feels the full pocket now that he’s wearing the cloak). He panics throws the cloak off, and slashes it in half. I’m kind of bewildered at this point so I think I said something along the lines of “gold flies everywhere”. So you know he thought there was some trap or small creature inside trying to attack him.
I debated to repeating this, but having something cute and harmless be sleeping in the pocket. But never got around to it. so yeah, how you say things matters.
What a horrendously misogynyst trope.
Its good to hear about your progress out of this sort of thinking, though. Kudos!
-yes, women watch this site too
If you don’t know why this always happens, I will tell you. It happens, in the immortal words of Yahtzee, “because the nerd is a tiresomely predictable creature to whom the promise of boobies is like a bacon sandwich to a starving wolf.”
Yahtzee is funny but knows nothing about “nerd” culture. I’m a nerd and I have the internet and therefore no reason to care about “boobies” in a game, especially one dependent on my own imagination. What would I do if it did turn me on? Would I jack off right there during the d&d session? No, it’s just silly. Yahtzee is great for comedy but if you think anything he says is insightful, you should listen closer. The guy praised SR2 but then bashed SR3 for having the same issues the second had. I don’t hate him or disagree with him for this, it’s because he realized that hating on a game even when he admits he likes it is what people want and expect. When he talks about “nerds” he talks about cliches, not real people.
a) Just because you don’t fit a stereotype that doesn’t mean it isn’t based on anything.
b) Yahtzee doesn’t often try to be insightful due to the fact that he’s a COMEDIAN. He’s making fun of the stereotype, he himself being a nerd.
c) If you want to be insightful about his remark, sit and think about how women are portrayed in video games, what their portrayal is supposed to incite in the player, who would enjoy that kind of portrayal, and think about for whom such characters ( or “characters” as is often the case) are created. For men who respect women as intelligent, independent people. For women? Or for wolves looking for bacon sandwiches.
He is not a nerd and if you think he is you might as well call every celebrity ever a nerd because they mostly claim to play games and d&d. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but I can’t take him seriously as a gamer or “Reviewer” when he admits to having a gamer play a game just to tell him if it’s good or bad as a game.
Your “c” statement makes no sense. If you are creating characters based on what you feel a very stereotypical and non existent audience would want, you have lost any merit as an artist.
The characters you create should be people, not “for” people. They can be realistic or unreal, archetypes of some kind, but you don’t just say “what do people like” because you end up with shit like twilight or superman.
You think he’s not a nerd? Uh… Have you not seen the novel he wrote that takes place entirely within the world of a video game, playing off every trope that games and their culture have?
Oh god I forgot simply playing and talking about video games now makes you a “nerd” which means pretty much everyone is a nerd now.
Or do you mean because he wrote a book and you think books are for nerds? Seriously the “nerd” thing makes no sense anymore, it use to refer to a person that obsessed with fringe or non mainstream or “campy” entertainment like comics use to be considered, star trek, and how video games use to be viewed. Now simply playing games does not make you a nerd. Pretty much everyone plays games on their phones now.
Ohh, my bad – you’re one of -those- nerds. Sorry dude, but it’s not like your sacred temple is being ransacked – shit is just becoming mainstream now. Games are mainstream (fastest-growing entertainment industry), comics are mainstream (comic book movies are continually coming out and making money), Star Trek and Star Wars are mainstream, and even D&D is mainstream.
I get that you want to claim some special snowflake state of being, but the “nerd” isn’t it, not anymore. You know why? We fucking grew up, and now we’re the ones determining what’s mainstream. It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t meet your specific qualifications for what you consider “nerdy”.
Yahtzee wrote a book that takes place entirely within a computer world – which sounds sort of similar to other “nerdy” things, doesn’t it? Ever heard of “Reboot”? Or should I go more mainstream and mention “Tron” instead?
Get off your high horse and quit being a fucking hipster, you’re making the rest of us look bad. No one’s trying to steal your interests, they’re -sharing- them. Somewhere along the way of formerly “nerdy” interests becoming mainstream, a large subsect of nerds gained a ridiculous sense of entitlement, while the rest of us rejoiced that we get to see the things we love enjoying previously unknown success and being loved by tons of others. Trust me, joining in will make your life a lot better than sitting in the back claiming they’re “not real nerds”.
I remember watching the Season 2 LoL World Championships. To say that E-Sports is a term -at all- is thrilling to me. Granted I have major issues with people who exist within competitive gaming communities, but when you really look at it, it’s like our own weird version of jocks.
Point is that somewhere in the middle there was a fully orchestrated interlude where they played the champion select music. Complete with a light show. I saw a stadium packed full of people. We had a Super Bowl and a halftime show to go with it.
It’s amazing to me. The integration into the mainstream isn’t something to be feared, but celebrated.
“You mean I can like the things I like and -not- be a socially ostracized outcast who’s identified with the one guy down the street that lives in his basement and plays with little kids’ toys? My image isn’t automatically some horrendously overweight, pasty dude with broken glasses and an ambiguously stained shirt? Hot damn, nerds are more and more like normal people every day!”
It’s cool being part of an intimate group that only you and a few other people understand. I get that part. But having what I feel makes me -me- be socially accepted and, moreover, popular is just fantastic. It’s like the world is finally saying you don’t have to have muscles or be a pretty asshole to be cool. That’s something to goddamn well celebrate in my opinion.
I have to concur with Driscol, none of what you said in you c statement made sense. First, lets address “How women are portrayed in video games”. If I may refer you to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZueOCLGt1tw&feature=plcp
Expanding on that: Look at the recent scandals surrounding Hit man absolution and Tomb Raider. In the trailer for Hit man, 47 was seen duking it out with assassins who were armed with assault rifles, rocket launchers and other various deadly weapons. These assassins were all women. Instead of noting that these assassins got in some good hits and nearly killed him with ambush tactics, numbers and fire power, 47 just barely being able to fight back and take them down, instead there was public out cry that the trailer promoted violence against women.
I the New Tomb Raider trailer, Croft was seen experiencing actual pain, put in human situations of isolation, danger and violence. Instead of praising it for bringing the character to reality, portraying her as vulnerable and strong (just like men can be) in a human sense and taking her from being seen as cartoonishly proportioned, pulling off acrobatics that defy gravity and would break her spine considering her bust size and the physics, there was public outcry that the trailer promoted violence against women.
There seems to be a theme running in here.
In response to your latter question on whom the characters are created for. Again, I have to agree with Driscol. Characters aren’t made for specific people unless they are made by those people. RPGs display this trait almost exclusively. DA: Origins is a good example.
I have a question myself, pertaining to the latter half of you question. While I know its rude to answer a question with another, I feel this is a pertinent question to ask: Why should women be respected?
Or more aptly, Why should women be respected just because they are women? I see this a lot on women’s studies/gender studies, On slut walk protest signs, on feminists protest signs (which are kind of the same) that women should be respected. Why? last time I checked respect was something given to people based on their merits, their deeds. Such as MLK, he is respected because he led non-violent revolution in pursuit of the human rights of blacks. A very worthy goal that more than earns respect.
But that respect wasn’t given because he was black. It was given because of his deeds, of his achievements. So again I ask:
Why should women be given respect simply for being women?
Do you really think that women would arrange protests just because they are not automatically respected for simply being women? They are protesting against the opposite, even if western culture has improved on this there is still a lot of disrespect against women for simply being women. Important jobs and positions are still considered man-jobs. Say medical doctor or CEO and almost everyone pictures a man in a suit. Say secretary or nurse and most people picture a woman. This is not anyone’s individual fault, it is the results of growing up in this culture, and change is coming, however slowly, because we realize that this way of looking at things is wrong and we try to overcome it. It will not be totally overcome however, just by taking control of it. It will be overcome when a new generation is born who is not indoctrinated by it, just by growing up.
So yeah, this society instinctively view women as not quite as good as men and not as deserving of respect. The protests are about respecting women, not every individual woman.
They want their chance of getting respect for what they do, and not just be ok “for a woman”.
Wow name calling, that will prove your point alright. Yup I must be an angry nerd if I don’t wish to see further retardation of the language. Kid, get a life, stop assuming you know people.
Hey dipshit, I don’t fear or hate the “mainstream” I just hate when words are misused to the point where they lose meaning, like the word ironic for example. Call me a nerd, hipsters, whatever pops into that empty little pop culture addicted head of yours, you are only digging yourself into a hole.
A bunch of morons trying to figure out why some assholes somewhere murdered a bunch of people, then people go on about their lives, harassing and bullying strangers online or offline. Enjoy your pitiful little existence.
“A bunch of morons trying to figure out why some assholes somewhere murdered a bunch of people…”
I don’t see how murder is at all relevent to this argument.
Reminds me of an old Werewolf: The Apocalypse scenario. The Storyteller asked me to half play/half npc (as in: I was a killable npc that had some side missions) a Black Spiral Dancer. And yes, we were aware that you aren’t supposed to play one of those due to..reasons.. but then again the GM had an idea but needed someone to plot with. I made as many mistakes as it was possible without outright telling them – I’m an enemy! Get to work and kill me!
And no, the GM wasn’t helping me. He actually rolled a few times on Sense Wyrm (a skill both players had and no one thought on using it on a suspicious looking, unknown person) for the other npcs with..bad results.
But still those five dots in Appearance made their work – sadly the men thought with their other heads :|
Well. Women quite often are the Devil, but after playing for a few years in different settings and systems and with different people (both male and female) I think the fault lays with players? I mean, we understand the ban of meta-gaming and the idea of staying in character but when the chick is outright telling lies all you need to do is think!
For the paranoia!!!
Once I had a Call of Cuthulhu game where the party investigated an asylum…on an island durning a storm of which an accident had happened resulting in the death of a deliver worker…
The group is escorted everywhere each hall way has multiply locked door and the staff is not happy about the situation…
Patients were acting strange Staffers were all missing body parts (fingers arms tongue in one case.) The head doctors office was filled with a strange skull collection. Numerous books in the library involved witch hunting. A strange sickness had claimed the lives of everyone in the women’s ward of the asylum two weeks prior. The group knew something was up.
So when night fell they captured and tortured to death an orderly to find out whats up … the problem was nothing Mythos related or even illegal was going on, they had just committed murder in the first because of paranoia.
They were detained and arrested best TPK ever ^_^
Just a quick annoying question…
What if the party is mainly female? Would the “all women are evil trope” still be applicable?
Excluding the party, I would say. After all, if you’re playing a character (regardless of whether that character is male or female) you’re going to see them as a human and play them as such, as opposed to a stereotype. When you’re not playing as your own character and instead as a character/plot device you tend to see them as less than human (regardless of gender) and play into stereotypes more.
Wow, another Blind Guardian Song, awesome!
as always, great Counter Monkey video. I was actually tempted to do something involving a succubus, but I was going to change it to something more interesting like she Succubus has some artifact or something that the party needs so they have to negotiate with her. Interesting idea, anyone?
On another note, not all my female characters would be backstabbing assholes. I made an NPC adventuring party lead by a female half-dragon who’s friendly and enjoys chatting with other adventurers about their stories.
what would your culture be?
I can actually explain this one. Let me first make this into an easier to explain example. Let’s say you walk home from work every night, and on your walk home you cross the street at 34th & Vine. One night you get mugged right or you get hit by a car at that intersection. Now you either avoid that intersection or you’re very, very cautious every time you cross the street there. This is because, even if it’s the middle of the day, you’re remember that one time in the back of your mind. Now, transpose this to a male/female interaction. You’ll always remember that one girl that fucked you up hard. I know that sound a bit weird, but I once knew a female DM that did the inverse of this to us all the time. She had a less than ideal ex-boyfriend. After her girlfriend dumped her, you couldn’t trust anyone that came across the party. The tl;dr of it is, you learn to project the anger and fear of pain onto similar situations and similar people. Basically, you’ll always remember that one time.
27:12 “A woman approaches you and it turns out to be a trap.” Spoony’s RPGs taking place in Bangkok?
well i never had that cause i remember one player at the table in warhammer seduced a girl in a town fair and get her into his bed and she wasnt a spy or sucubus just a town girl
maybe our gm is gentle about sucubuss and spy
Unless you’re playing in the Forgotten Reals where 90% of female NPCs are God mode Mary Sues.
We only have one player in our group that chases anything female, and I managed to cure his advances with a “trap” of my own. But, hey, it ain’t gay if it’s an elf, right?
I once did this with one of my players. He was a cleric of olidimmarra, which is really hard to spell and a chaotic neutral deity, but he’d not been acting so chaotic lately, and i told him that he’d best try to balance things out. Then I had this princess offer herself freely as reward for rescuing him. He debated taking her up on the offer for a full five minutes, and eventually flipped a coin. He figured that if he did sleep with her, I’d give him vd. In fact, This particular princess wasn’t actually a princess. It was the main villain of the campaign, who he hadn’t met yet, and he was a lich to boot. The coin came up tails though, so he politley declined.
My group actually made it a challenge for the DM to turn around or avoid as many stereotypes as possible. (we change DM from time to time, to keep things interesting)
So we had a lot of funny situations and rarely get the “classics”.
But I remember that one male succubi…it wasn’t pretty.
A male succubus is called an incubus.
thanks for reminding me, it’s been a while since I had a reason to write about one.
My tactic as a player is to just blatantly play along, ignore all paranoia and avert common stereotypes.
For example, the character I play in one of our Shadowrun groups is somebody who most of our players and the GM would probably describe as the stereotypical orc: he is rude, he drinks pretty much constantly, he hits on anything that has breasts, he likes violence, he has a poor, anarchistic lifestyle.
What they don’t know is, that he does it all pretty much just to keep up appearances. Sure he seems to be straight up in conversations, but when the situation calls for it, he bluffs like a motherfucker. Yeah, he is always trying to flirt up women, but actually he has this girl that he really likes and cares about and would never even consider doing anything serious with anybody else.
On the other hand, there are traits that he actually plays straight, like his knack for gore and violence or his anarchistic ideology. Maybe I’ll actually surprise some of the other players and the GM someday, which will then hopefully make the game more interesting and fun for everybody involved. In the meantime I can play out the cliché and be absolutely cheesy about it, which is a lot of fun too.
The “I carefully open the door” thing is something I actively avoid as well. If there is a door, I open it. If the GM asks how I want to open it I go “How do you open a fucking door? I stand in front of it, turn the knob and fling the door open. Duh.”
If we want to observe a corporate facility, I don’t hide in a dark corner of an abandoned building, I make a fire in some trash can in some adjacent alley, pretending to be some homeless guy getting ready for the night.
Last time we found the corpse of a contact in his living room, in front of a table with a flask of whiskey and two glasses on it. The glass in front of him was half empty, the other one still full. Everybody in the group was totally freaking out because, obviously, the whiskey had to be poisoned (although it was already established that our contact was shot O_o). I walked up to the table, swiped the flask, took a savouring sniff out of it and took a drink, going “Sweet, booze!” Everybody else was already facepalming and the magician cast a spell to check on my health while I stood there, enjoying my whiskey. The information he got from the spell was “affected by a mild poison”, but at this point me and the GM were grinning so much, that everybody immediately knew that it was just normal, high quality whiskey, having it’s normal, high quality effects on my character. I knew that it was a risky thing to do, but for the sake of fun and avoiding metagaming, I did it anyway. I was daring the GM to fuck with me, but I was doing it so blatantly that he let it slide for the sake of freaking out everybody else at the table.
Bottom line: don’t be paranoid, don’t metagame and most importantly: enjoy the game. A good GM won’t punish you for it, at least not in a way that would seriously harm your character. Instead, he will fuck you over when you least expect it and THAT will actually be awesome.
the opening theme is fucking awesome spoony :D is there a whole song?
A DMing trick I started using to avoid this problem was to plan out what I wanted any given NPC’s function to be, and then literally flip a coin for their gender.
It’s funny, the group I used to play in as a teenager never had that happen as far as I recall, not in the games that I DMed anyway. In fact, I remember a bunch of the characters finding some girlfriends about halfway through the character.
I guess it might have something to do with the fact that we were a bunch of dorky Mormon kids, or something, but hearing that this happens all the time is a little weird for me. xD
That reminds me, I still haven’t gotten around to translating my female, paladin D&D PC into a Pathfinder NPC; a semi-retired, ex-adventurer who opened up a tavern and who’d be willing to aid new adventurers so long as they stay on the right side of law and order (would disguising her clothes via a glammered armor go against the paladin code of conduct?).
I certainly don’t want her to be a DMPC, just a.. mama bear, of sorts. If the players help out a bit, they can nab themselves a base of operations of sorts.
Good episode, great examples. And, it’s a small detail, but Noah – thank you for pointing out there are plenty of counterexamples out there.
Although I must say – you alternate between saying “it happens so often and EVERYONE KEEPS FALLING FOR THAT!” and pointing out how cliché these things are. I think part of the reason some players “fall for it” is because they are hoping (against hope) it will not be the cliché variant. Because honestly – when my dwarf warrior/badass gunslinger/awesome hacker (pick one, depending on the game and setting) meets a woman who’s interested in him, why would he NOT pick her up?
As for why this happens – for one thing, RPGs are about dangerous stuff. They are primarily centred around danger and conflict. You don’t describe everything in detail, so if you do describe something – it’s meaningful. And meaningful usually means “dangerous”. I try to introduce more mundane, more “normal” scenes into my campaigns precisely for that reason. The excitement of the game comes from overcoming obstacles, but (at least to me) the immersion comes from actually playing a convincing hero. And part of being a hero is danger, but part of it is the fun between adventures/missions/whatever. And, in more heroic and less cynical campaigns, part of it is being treated like a hero, I feel. So, women are OBVIOUSLY interested in the badass, handsome, strong swordsman who has slain a dozen trolls. A friendly farmer’s wife OBVIOUSLY treats the characters to a humble, yet delicious (or, as the case may be, horrid) meal.
As for why women are always this sort of trap, there’s one more layer beyond “RPG is about danger”. I feel that in modern media, women really ARE, more often than not, reduced to being objects of interest rather than characters in their own right. In most movies or novels, especially the more adventure-oriented, women are either a) a love interest, b) a damsel in distress, or c) a trap. This goes double for fantasy. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that in moderation, but I think the truth is, most D&D players are not that imaginative and they stick with the sexist approach that is “a woman is either a sex object, a helpless victim, a two-faced threat, or a combination of two or more of these”.
So, in a way, “giving” the players a genuinely interested woman – if that’s all that is ever done – is only marginally better than making them all evil temptresses. Been there, done that as a GM. But nowadays I try to introduce female characters that just, well, happen to be female, and otherwise they are just like any other well-thought-out NPC. If you can have an NPC be randomly an elf without making him a tree-hugger, or a merchant without his sole defining trait being “greedy”, you can have a female character that has a sex life, but not necessarily one that the party must be well aware of.
Oops, got rambly. Anyway. Again, great CM episode! As usual, thanks for pointing out the obvious (kinda), but in an entertaining and insightful manner.
Yea well anything on lifetime seems to involve all men being bad, so don’t feel so bad about doing it.
But then there are channels like life time where in all the movies the villain is a bad guy. Or in almost every movie ever where the bad guy is a bad guy. I don’t really see it as any more sexist than anything else.
Quite interesting, iv’e never really thought of the portraial of female characters in rpg’s. I was the only player that played a female character, and i think i pretty much played her as i would have a male character. An axe-weilding maniac that just loved to fight. About the playing against types, iv’e beeen dming a ðathfinder group with what the players dubbed as the “friendly necromancer” a shodowy cripple that mysteriously became the mayor of a town that should have been demolished in barbarian raids, and the players were sent to investigate, and eventually they discovered he had contracts given out to people so that he could utilize their corpses for manual labour, and defence of the town.
One of the most fun games of path I played was as a Calistrian Prostitute. It was to ruin a bad DM’s Game, But I still had to whore her up over what was called for. So I get what you’re saying.
This is why I love roleplaying online in forums. Your character can hit on another character and another player’s character and since no one is in person then it isn’t creepy. In fact in my experience, the guy plays female characters SOOO well that I swear I forget he’s male.
God dammit. Back to the Future has been following me around all week.
Keeping your players from seducing every female NPC you throw at them is easy when the only female voice you can do is Pepperpot.
Ok, so I’ve been waiting for a new episode of Counter Monkey for a while now, even rewatching the older ones for a second time because I found them to be really really entertaining… and now the new one opens up with Van Canto’s version of the “Bard’s Song”. Freakin’ epic, kudos for that! Just had to add this comment, due to the pure awesomeness of that alone. Keep up the good work… and now let me check that video. Cheers from Vienna, Austria!
I’ve only written a few short adventures, but the only female NPC that I’ve made so far was actually more of a hero than most of my players. I had to make it that way to compensate for my players not seeing how ridiculous it is for EVERY PC to be chaotic-neutral. Literally all of them. One of them wanted to be chaotic-evil, and didn’t get why I wouldn’t let him.
I’m the type of dood who automatically likes any character better if they’re female, though. The only thing stopping me from making any female D&D characters is the fact that all of my friends would take the fun out of it by trying to make passes at her and shit.
But all of my video game RPG characters are ladies. I just love the idea of a lady hero. Incidentally, I’ve never had a girlfriend, so take all this for what it’s you think worth.
Whenever this happens, I give an in-game warning to the character in question. I never outright stop them.
I have so far saved exactly 0 lives in this manner.
This is so freaking true, basically a whole campaign I was in was based on characters like these…
Every single woman was a vampirewitchchaos spawn ecc. ecc….
We even came to a point that our characters began to fall for the avances just to see what kind of hellspawn it was !
Oh by the way I really like the intro and hope you manage to find the time to improve it !
I think it mainly stems from the fact that when it comes to betrayal and/or violence, we have been culturally wired to believe that man is worse than women, so then DM’s use female villains because no-one really expects it (yet again, we’re wired)
You know, the reason why players often fall for this kind of trick is because there are DM’s who play it straight, and there are one’s who don’t. Some DM’s have a crapsack world where everyone who’s nice to you (Men and Women) are actually bad guys who want to end you. And then other DM’s don’t use these cliches. Some never lure you in traps and just let you fight fair. And good DM’s can do both. It’s just how characters naturally would behave. Some people would betray you and some wouldn’t. It a matter of recognising people’s nature. Thats something you can do outside of gaming as well. Some games even have skills for that. And thats one skill you can brilliantly roleplay. For example, my group once came to a town where we were invited by the innkeeper to come into the room. They offered us their hospitality and we accepted thankfully(if I had smelled the trap, i would have done it anyway because my character, who was kind of naive, wouldn’t have). And then I began to talk to the people. Like starting a real conversation. I began to ask about their daily lives and if they had problems and if we could help them. And I came over to them as that symphatethic that they suddenly stopped us from eating, admitting it was poisoned and that they had been tasked to do it by the bad guy. Suddenly we knew who the bad guy was and we had the town on our side.
Because if your acting the way your character would act, not the way the player would act because of paranoia, a fair DM will accept that that’s just the way your character is. For Example. A knight or paladin will not turn down a maidens plea for help, even if the player himself smells a trap. And honestly, everyone who calls himself a “hero”, or at least one with good OR rightous alignment should act this way.
I think part of the problem with noticing that the characters you make are male or female is that you can’t look at something so personally identifiable as gender as a minor character trait, (It’s probably why most of my female characters read a lot like male characters, or asexual even).
It’s really easy for a DM to go through the description of a character or villain and glance over their race or skin color, which is normal as these elements don’t really reflect on the story teller’s, or the audience’s, personal experience. The problem is the moment you state a gender we naturally start to draw connotations on this one trait.
A character’s gender alone shouldn’t immediately spring a red flag that you aren’t being fair or open minded, their actions should be played against stereotype and not the gender itself. I think calling foul on the characters you stated in the video is simply being overly critical about the characters, calling foul on the blank-slate female character who almost always betrays you is fair game though.
I know all the cliches and so called common experiences of roleplaying games but its funny how seldom my experiences have matched up with them. I’ve long been aware of this trope but the closest its ever come to happening to me in a game (that I know of) was a Talia Al’ Ghul type situation. And we’re talking about sympathetic comic book Talia, not movie Talia. I can’t claim any credit for this as I never write the adventures for my group. Now, do my group’s adventures pass the Bechdel Test? Not that often but thats not a fair test for a tabletop rpg campaign.
Oh yeah, we did have a seven deadly sins themed dungeon and naturally lust was personified by a succubus. But really thats it.
I admit that the ‘all women are evil’ trope is annoying and tried. I haven’t as yet met a woman who admits that not all men are cold abusive cheating rapists; any day now…
Spoony, this logic is applicable in real life. A beautiful woman will not come up to you with no reason (unless you’re Brad Pitt of course.).
Nonsense. I would hang out with Spoony because he’s hilarious and attractive. I’d expect nothing out of such an encounter, save for having a nice time with good company. I’ve made lots of good friends just by going up to people (at cons and whatnot) and introducing myself! I’m not shy, and it’s really hard to find other nerds or gamers in my area, so I always make the first ‘move’, so to speak.
That last line is what proves the guy right. It’s fine to enjoy your own life but you have to understand that “enjoying your own life” by getting interested and involved in “nerd guys” will seem selfish and “back stabby” when you eventually ditch that guy or explain to him that you never liked him “in that way” when you find something better.
Nothing wrong with it, but it helps to see how your actions can look and feel to others.
I don’t typically enter into platonic friendships without the mutual understanding that it shall remain platonic. I don’t seek out just ‘nerd guys’, it’s ‘nerds’ in general, ie : people with whom I have a lot in common. People of the opposite sex can hang out together without there being any inkling of romance whatsoever.
Most of my friends are men, and I’ve been with the same gaming group for about 8 years now, and we’re the best of friends. Some of them are married, some are single, some are gay, whatever. It doesn’t matter. They’re my friends, and it’s a totally platonic friendship. If a guy didn’t want to be friends because he only wanted to sleep with me, he’s the selfish one, not me. I don’t ditch people, but I’ve had guys who refuse to continue to even talk to me after I tell them I’m not interested in a sexual relationship. It goes both ways. If a person can’t maintain a platonic, honest friendship without the promise of eventual sex, even when it was never once implied that it would happen, that person has a LOT of growing up to do.
You clearly don’t understand and perhaps never will understand that you knowing a relationship is non romantic doesn’t mean the guy knows this and it’s still possible for you to hurt him through this. No I am not saying this is wrong, just think about it next time you talk about that guy that totally broke that poor girls heart.
And seriously, fuck off with that sexist bullshit. “If a man wants to be a friend just to sleep with me” no seriously, fuck off. That’s like me saying women only get close to you because they want your money, it’s ignorant and annoying. No it’s not sex that I am talking about, I am talking about one of these guys being hurt because he falls for you. Apparently “love” is a concept you equalize with sex so we have nothing to discuss here. Enjoy your shallow plastic existence.
I never once said that all men go into friendships with the expectation of sex, but I’ve certainly encountered men who do, just as I’m sure you’ve encountered women who only want to get close to you in order to have free run of your resources. It’s crappy behavior, no matter the sex of the person, but I didn’t say that it was the norm.
How do you figure I equate love with sex? I’m genuinely curious as to how you gleaned that from anything I’d previously written. There are many different types of love, and I love all of my friends. I’ve been in a committed, monogamous relationship for several years with a man who is also my best friend. As for male friends not knowing where they stand with me when we’re just getting to know one another, I simply tell them that I only want to have a friendship with them. I would expect the same thing if I were to befriend someone: tell me what you’re looking for, and we can move on from there. If feelings change, and a person starts to fall for another, then it needs to be discussed openly and honestly. There’s no need to assume that the other person knows what’s going on. That never works out well. I would like to think that honesty is the basis of any friendship, and just to ditch someone without a word is just silly.
Indeed that was bad form for Driscol. You debate the topic. Not the person. And you certainly don’t throw in personal attacks to boot. It lessens the legitimacy of what you say and makes you look bad. I agree with some of he things both of you have said, but for Driscol, its best to avoid doing that when you are debating someone.
If you have a problem with something I have done, try addressing me directly rather than talking about me in the third person, Kevin.
I “debate the person” because the topic involves people. Your slogan is nice and catchy but holds no real meaning. It’s like saying it’s ok to talk about medicine but you can’t mention the subject of health. It’s an arbitrary restriction on a conversation.
I figure you equate love with sex because I pretty much said one of these guys might fall in love with you and you say something like “if he is only after me for sex he’s a jerk” as if that’s the same thing.
You clearly don’t understand and as I said, will never understand if you think it’s easy for every guy or even most guys to be honest with a person they are secretly in love with about their feelings. It doesn’t work that way, we weren’t all born the sociopaths unfeeling charismatic vampires that women seem to picture as the ideal man. Some of us get scared of being ridiculed or losing the person altogether.
You seem to be under this assumption that you know all your friends completely. You may know yourself (although few people truly do) but never assume to know another person. You see their surface, you hear their words, but you never know what’s inside that person.
I did address you directly. I don’t see how it could have been misconstrued as otherwise but oh well. To reiterate: When debating someone you debate the topic, it is a fundamental point of civil discourse. And again, you do not resort to personal attacks on the person you are debating. You hurt the legitimacy of you side of the argument and make it hard for others listening to take you seriously.
I agree with a lot of what you say, that things are not as cut and dry as pin up views things to be. But looking at pin up, she is an attractive, shapely woman who likes nerdy stuff and comes across as friendly and some what approachable. And no doubt there are a handful of scum bag steves out there that would love to plow her and run, just like there is a handful of kardashians out there that would fuck you and rip you off while you sleep. Human nature is a two way street, no matter the gender.
Both of you make legitimate arguments, but you have been hostile throughout, leveling insults and assumptions at her simply because she thought a guy who’s in it for the sex is a jerk, which is the same thing that makes a woman in it for the money a gold digger. She’s been polite to me and everyone else around here when discussing this. You’re the only one that seems to have a chip on their shoulder and shoving it in other’s faces.
Civil discourse this does not make.
“Indeed that was bad form for Driscol.”
Maybe Kevin just doesn’t understand what I mean when I say “directly address me” if he thinks that is a good example of doing so.
I love that you accuse us of “leveling assumptions” when you assume there is any hostility here.
Look, you can tell me the “right way to debate” but I don’t care. It’s silly to say we can’t discuss the human element in a conversation about people. We can’t “debate the topic, not the person” when the topic is the person and people in general.
Your comments seem to have no substance. Your not saying anything, just talking down to me as if you have something to teach me. It’s not hostility you are sensing from me, it’s humanity. Unlike you I don’t try to hide mind or pretend it’s not there, try it sometime.
Whether or not the guy “knows” a relationship is meant to remain platonic is irrelevant. If he’s hurt by the fact that a woman (who has never showed romantic interest in him) starts dating someone, it’s his own damn fault for having unrealistic expectations from his friendship.
Most interpersonal relationships we form throughout our lives will be non-romantic and will not include sex. Expecting otherwise just because he wants to is the man’s problem, not the woman’s.
Did I say it’s her fault? Maybe a guy shouldn’t be blamed for breaking a woman’s heart then, yet he is. Keep your double standards, keep your hatred, I have mine well placed.
Again, I never said anything about sex. Keep putting words in my mouth you worthless piece of shit, keep lying to try to discredit what is just my personal opinion, I simply don’t care. Your pond scum, nothing more. You serve nothing.
You implied that a woman would be hurting a man due to his not knowing that their interpersonal relationship is non-romantic. That translates to “it being her fault” in my book.
Also, I did not say you had said anything about sex. I included it because it is a common term found in these discussions and fits many people’s definition of what a “romantic” relationship entails. Additionally, I’d like to point out that who is to blame for “breaking the other person’s heart” within a relationship is pointless.
Have fun with your hatred, I’m sure your penchant of starting the name-calling as soon as an uncomfortable truth is revealed will get you far in life. Much like your practice of putting words in people’s mouths will in no way show you to be a hypocrite when talking about double standards.
I friggen owned one! My tenth level Black Guard asked for a raven for a fiendish servant and gets a Succubus instead. I never touched her but many of my unknowing companions did. You don’t even want to know how that ends.
Seems like they should do an old school PC game approach, design an engine to simulate how the situation could work instead of feeling compelled to always resolve it in the most dramatic way possible.
I love the theme! Van Canto version of Bard’s Song. Perfect!
Awwww, don’t tell all this to my current LoTR character – there’s this gorgeous, lovely High elf bard lady, who even he’ll admit is probably a bit out of his league (being a regular Sindarin elf), but they’ve chatted a few times and a guy can hope, right? Right…?!
Reminds me of one time when we met a woman injured on the
road and we helped her out. I was like ten at the time and I just started
reading Arthurian legend and was being a paladin in the spirit of Galahad.
Anyway three of the guys older than me kept hitting on this injured woman,
whose leg was broken so she couldn’t run… yeah things got uncomfortable so me
and one other player defended her from them….when we finally got where she
wanted to take us she turned out to be a a bronze dragon. She had fought off
some thieves trying to raid her den and they injured her. She was grateful to
me and the other player who also defended her, gave us stuff….the ones who tried
to sexually assault her got eaten XD.
aah yes the succubus trap i was hit with that twice it was actaully kind of funny both time bacause of the why my characters where, the first time was with my first character a dragonborn fighter named richter, and the thing about him was that his backstory was that he was stolen as a hatchling by some drow and was raised pretty much in a cage to be a gladiator and when he excaped he spent most of his time indulging in thing he couldnt before, drinking, eating nice food, sleeping with women and it didnt really matter how attractive they were if they spread there leggs for him he’d jump right on it and one of the few time he actually hooked up with an attractive women it was a succubus, my character was raised in a cage and the battle areana he wasnt very smart so he fell for it like a sack of bricks, anyway they went to a room and as soon as they got there she shut the door locked it and reveiled her true form, yeah i know succubus dont do that but thats the way the dm was he would put as in positions ware we’d have to deal with an enemy solo and i’m sure thats what he wanted and at that instent most people would draw there swords and do battle but not my character ooh he would do it any other time he loved fighting but he would never miss out on a chance to nock heels, so instead of fighting her, richter was like “baby it dosnt matter what your form is, lets to this” rips off his chainmail and lunges at her dick first, the dm went easy on me because i was still pretty new to dnd so he let me roll a check to see if i survive the indever and how much damage i would take from it, and i lucked out and rolled a 20 so the dm was like “the next day you wake up unharmed and in a good mood, you put your clothes back on and as you leave the room you look back to see the succubus on the bed naked and with a content smile on her face” i was fucking cheering with joy that not only did i survive but also came out of it without a scratch, the second time was with my currant character solomon a tiefling bard/warlord hybrid this guy had high charisma and intelgents, and he saw himself as a swave ladies man and loved using his inteligents and charisma to seduce women it was like a sport for him, the greater the challenge the greater the appeal, so the dm tries the succubus trap on me again this time me as a player saw through it but the way my characters was he would miss this kind of chance so i had to play along but this time my character was smart enough to see through it as well and again because of the way my character was he didnt fight her, to him this was the ultimate challange the ultimate game, he was going to try and seduce a demon of lust, to make her fall for him and not the otherway around, so they get in a seduce off and the whole time the scene form austin powers with austin and the fembots was playing in my head, unfortunatly i failed this time but the little compitition held her off long enough for the others to find me and keep her from sucking me dry. i found thim to be amusing at the time.
We actually had normal women in our campaign… one of our party members took ranks in seduction, and he bedded a few bar wenches. Of course, he was a bit of a jerk, so most times these little trysts ended with him getting a large slap mark on his face.
Not that there wasn’t the occasional siren-like demon trying to get him to walk into the water.
Evil Women Counter Monkey on my birthday. Thanks for the gift spoony!
I have literally never seen this happen.
Oooooh… sexism, homophobia, and transphobia in one comment at about 9:30. Peace I’m out.
It doesn’t ALWAYS happen. In my L5R game, a young serving girl at the tea house was flirting with the Crane Clan samurai, and she wasn’t a succubus, hag, or Samara after a haircut. She was just a brainwashed agent of an evil conspiricy who murders people in their sleep.
Oh man, I AM that character who’s constantly hitting on the opposite gender npcs.
Our last gaming session ended up like this-
DM: He bids you farewell and walks away from you.
Me: I check out his ass.
DM: ….He’s wearing a robe, you CAN’T check out his ass.
Me: Bullshit I can’t *Rolls a 20*
DM: … sonova…FINE you succeed in oogling the rear of my once dignified npc, can we PLEASE MOVE ON?
Yup… Just like The Bard’s Tale. No, not the old ones, I’m talking about the comedic, hack’n'slash game that came out in 2004. I loved how that game messed around with those expectations, and accentuated it everytime to remind you how stupid cliches are.
Props for the Blind Guardian intro. And the rest as well.
The one and only time I played D&D, the GM had our party get approached by a bunch of “amazingly hot” women.
I was playing an elf who was so damn old he actually *looked* old, and he wasn’t very nice. So when we were asked to roll to see if anyone saw through it IC, and I got a *20*, my guy… didn’t say a thing and just went along with it.
When his vampire-demon-thing attacked him and I rolled another 20 on fending her off (I shit you not, it was amazing), she ran out of the room in demon-monster-thing form and my guy chased after her with his pants around his ankles yelling that they weren’t done yet.
When you’re that old and wrinkly, you take what you can get.
I was never invited back. XD
“Omg, this betrayal feels so good around my dick, gurl”
I did this to my friend the day before this video came out. I did it because the dude never RPed that good unless there is sex or some kind of fight…na just sex. So i did his to him, and now his character is dead.
You’re a mean DM. I bet it’d be fun to play in one of your games, but man. YOU are the devil.
With my long time DM, he once traumatized me with a Mimic. Since then, every time we find a treasure chest, I yell out MIMIC
My DM almost never do it anymore, but once in a while, if a new player joined the group (and they always play the dashing rogue) he’ll throw it on to trap that new player.
Is this really a loathing of women? I mean I’ve heard that the way many women murder is through poison. Being physically the weaker sex and all it isn’t feasible for a female bad guy to run head to head against a party of male fighters unless she’s especially strong. Secrecy and subterfuge just seems to be a role better suited for an evil women.
This is more about the point brought up in the latter half, but I saw a guy invert it really well where the “evil adviser” was just as evil as he looked, but it turned out that his apathy and selfishness were all the reasons he had not to betray the king.
When you think about it, that makes a ton of sense. there is this guy swimming in wealth and influence, but he does not have to do the heavy lifting, or face the music.
And if there is a Coup? Every king needs an adviser. Just smile at your new boss and ask if he needs a tour of the castle.
Go out to the alley, but ask cleric to pull out Trevor Belmont technique and cast hydro storm of holy water xD
Can garnetee it isn’t just thing with guy gamers. My girlfriend dm’s a few groups I’m in, one of which she’s gone ahead and thrown a pleasure devil at us that we were idiots and made deals with(and the exalted good druid slept with but that’s another story.) She also planned to have us run into a Succubus to mess with the party but due to a near tpk think that plan has gone.
In the rich tapestry of your life, this video might be your masterpiece. Or at least your best performance. On a thematic and subtextual level, you just tied together the female conflict that has been so prevalent in so much of your life and work. Real life women, ex-girlfriends, controversial conflicts on twitter, even Twilight, a cornerstone of charting your long term relationship through good and bad times gets referenced. Whether knowingly or not, you have shown in this video a fascinating move for evolution of your soul, understanding of yourself and women and an attempt to help yourself and others become better and more successful people.
Thanks for everything,
Actually have this happening in a game right now. The party has been petitioned for help by a “beautiful elven maiden” (actually a Nymph) and we agreed and as soon as the DM got up from the table I look at the group and go, “She’s going to try and kill us you know.” The whole group goes, “Yeah.” in this kind of resigned sigh. So none of us are under any delusions here but like Spoony said, are we here to play D&D or not?
I like the intro you made Spoonyo!
I think he really is reading too deep into the female villain twist. I don’t have as varied an experience with the gaming community, but I know fiction, and how it gets written.
The point of the female villain twist is that it IS a twist.
It’s a painfully overdone twist, but people keep using it because it’s fairly well ingrained that the Big Bad is supposed to be a dude. A bad GUY.
It’s been done to death, but subconsciously people tend to think like Spoony did with Galadriel. “But what if the chick. . . is the villain! They’ve seen it a hundred times before, but they’ll totally never see this coming. I R sooo smrt”
Sometimes this works, other times it really does come off as rather misogynistic.
Secondly, the “Is it a trap or not” twist with the cornbread.
If you do this, fuck you. It isn’t fun, it isn’t role playing, it’s bullshit.
Role playing is where the characters try to understand the NPC’s motivations. This is making the players try to guess what sort of asshole the DM feels like being today.
Either it’s an obnoxiously pointless waste of time, or it’s a stupidly obvious, and unfair trap. No middle ground. Hence bullshit.
If this is your idea of tension then you have failed as a DM.
The general association of women with malevolence is an ancient vicious cycle (Society treats women like shit who then treat their kids like shit who then treat women like shit). Most primitive societies genuinely fear women for being witches and you wouldn’t believe how brutally mothers have treated their own children throughout human history, really… it’s horrendous. Keep in mind that we’re all descendants such people, the effect lingers.
Uh yeah and sometimes the women is being played by a women lol. Me and some friends where rolling out a tourney with characters generated specifically for it. One of the players was a women and she made a debutant with no fighting skill whatsoever. Everyone was puzzled as to how she was going to win the contest without entering the fight. She stayed in the audience and made goo goo eyes at the Knight with full-plate armor that was winning all his fights. Knight wins the tourney. She enters his tent. Stabs him in his sleep. Wins by default and leaves with the purse of gold he won before anyone knew what had happened.
Yes, but when you know enough people WITHOUT knowing their gender – as is the case with Internet communications – sooner or later you will realise that you really can’t tell women apart from men. Sure, you can tell SOME women apart from SOME men when they fit their respective gender roles, but if you spend a decade or so with friends you only know online, you’ll end up seeing that men and women come in a lot more varieties than Hollywood would have you believe they do. It may not be common in the “real” world, but it’s common enough in environments where culture, upbringing and peer pressure don’t apply.
Of course, the Internet isn’t quite ready to accept that, as the ridiculous “fake nerd girls” thing is clear evidence to, but it’s getting there. More and more men are getting used to women not acting how they’re supposed to act and not liking what they’re supposed to act. Hell, look at Spoony’s own friend in his New Moon Part 2 review. People like that exist, and actually including them in fictional worlds makes them richer for it.
And I never claimed women should be written as the same characters as men. That misses my point completely. Each person is unique, and each person should be written uniquely. If you catch yourself writing a scene and asking “what would a woman do?” you’re already doing it wrong. A woman wouldn’t “do” anything, because a woman isn’t measurable or definable. The question you should be asking is “what would this character do, based on her established personality and history?”
There’s nothing wrong with writing cliché “evil” women and cliché “dumb” guys if it makes sense for the characters that fill these roles. It’s only ever wrong if you somehow equate a gender with the clichés it comes with as if that were the only case possible, and then fill your fictional world with instances of those clichés.
Write women as you would write men – as characters first.
I have to disagree with you on your point about writing people, friend. Your argument basically takes the – to paraphrase what someone else said – “everyone’s their own unique little snowflake” stance on the matter. It’s true to a degree; it’s undeniable that a person is shaped by his/her own unique experiences. But it’s also undeniable that every group has its own tendencies, which, I might add, are the basis for all stereotypes. We all have biologically programmed responses to specific stimuli, and naturally since men and women are wired differently from a biological POV, each will have a *tendency* to act and think differently in certain situations.
Not that I’m trying to be offensive with this example, but think about what *typically* happens when confronted with physical harm. In general, women tend to crumple and cry when they are injured (a naturally programmed “flight” response, which I am not criticizing), whereas men tend to go berserk and strike back at whatever inflicted harm upon them, to the death if need be (a “fight” response, also programmed). Is this not the norm? That’s not to say there aren’t pussy men or rough-and-tumble women, but it kind of cuts a hole in your reservations about the writing process, since men and women really *are* different at a base level and thus, are generally inclined to approach a situation differently than the other.
In short, for a writer to ask “what would a man/woman do?” is a completely fair question, and I find your assertion that any writer who asks said question is “doing it wrong” to be a bit of an indicator that you probably aren’t a writer yourself, or if nothing else, a bit elitist.
Being a writer entails putting oneself in the mindset of others. Certainly, there are some writers who overdo it – hell, Stephanie Meyer can’t write women OR men – but that’s just the sign of a poor writer, not a flawed method.
I am a writer, actually. I don’t say this to throw my weight around, but more to explain why I’m so hung up on this.
And I still don’t believe that men and women are as “pre-programmed” as you believe. Not based on the people I know in person, at least. I’m not an American, and so I live in frankly quite a different culture, so that’s probably why we’re seeing different things. And I can freely admit that men tend to act differently from women, but I’d put that down to peer pressure and cultural influence more so than biology. A scientist once said “we evolved a large brain with which we make decisions,” and I truly do believe this. In my experience, people who want it are fully capable of self-determination. I just happen to prefer writing stories where more people want to.
If you want to write a gritty, hyper-realistic story, then yes, you probably can get away with this kind of cliché treatment of men and women. It may correspond better to the real life of certain cultures. I just happen to believe it makes for a poorer story and it reduces characters into stereotypes that take away from the artistry that would normally be put into them.
The crux of the problem is whether or not you believe men and women inherently act differently, and I simply don’t. Not in my experience. Not when you get right down to their actual personalities and past their pretensions. And as a writer, one should be judging characters based on their heart of hearts, not based on how they would appear to others. We create them, we define them, we know everything about them. We should know who they want to be, not just who they appear to be.
Besides, playing to type gets boring after a while.
I get the feeling that, outside scandinavia, there aren’t that many female pnp players. I have only once run into a succubus, and she became the ach-enemy of one of the other players, a female one.
So, aren’t there that much female players? or is it just me?
Interestingly, I was just playing Baldur’s Gate 2 (decade+ old spoilers) and the guy you rescue from the dungeon does turn out to be the traitor. A geased traitor who had no real choice in the matter, but regardless. Now granted that’s not the same thing as sitting around a tabletop, and I’ve seen what Spoony’s talking about IRL often enough, but.
As for tabletop gaming, I agree. Keep sexuality off the table. I mean if it’s a matter of a PC romancing an NPC, fine, within limits, but none of the cross-party stuff. Few people are comfortable with it and fewer still would actually manage to do it well. And yes, I know there’s a difference between romance and sex, but let’s be honest here.
And as for Anna’s comment when it comes to making an NPC a “person”, that’s fine and all but frankly most groups aren’t there to sit there and talk to NPCs all night. It’s D&D. I mean if that’s what your group is into, that’s great, but I’d argue the average group doesn’t care (at all) if Blacksmith Bob is a single father, likes contemporary Thayan jazz, and has relationship issues after his wife was eaten by ogres on their wedding night.
I’m gonna say something that might be taken as offensive. Please read this understanding I’m trying to be instructive and to call this out, not to make y’all feel upset, though it might have that effect.
What you’ve hit right here is a very deep seated problem, and you might be a little in over your head here, but I’m glad you’re bringing it up. What you are hitting is the same reason why anime women have huge boobs, why the woman who has sex first always dies in a horror movie, why women in movies suffer damsel in distress syndrome and tend to become less bad-ass as the story progresses, why most women in media that are ‘bad-ass’ tend to act more masculine, why rape jokes are okay to tell, why a woman wearing pants is fine but a man wearing a dress is a subject for ridicule and why females that are villains or anti-heroes are often more sexual while those that are heroes are generally chaste. This has a name, and it is internalized misogyny, and it is not unique to gamers, or even to men, and it is generally neither intentional nor conscious.
This isn’t to say that everyone hates women in some personal manner, but rather that our very society, the sum of everyone’s experiences just walking around, essentially brainwashes everyone, even women themselves, into seeing women either as sexual objects or as objects of hatred. Consider an old advertisement that used to come up on the right hand bar of your site, the one with the women with the huge boobs. I forget what it said, maybe something about getting women? Ask yourself “why was that there? What does ‘getting laid’ have to do with my site’s content? Why does the woman in the picture have massive, back-breaking D cups and assume that is what every man here finds sexy? Why are there no adverts showing up of brawny bare-chested guys? Why do we only see her upper torso? Why would anyone wear that ridiculous anime outfit that shows massive cleavage and why is it on that advertisement?”
Or heck, look at what happened to Samus in ‘The Other M,’ how as soon as they started to write dialogue for a strong female character that didn’t turn her into a guy with boobs or a sexless robot they made her one of the worst female heroes in gaming overnight.
I’m probably not doing this subject enough justice, but keep it in mind the next time you play a game with a woman in it, and see how many you can count that aren’t witches, wenches or princesses in some form or another.
Hmmm a fair point Jesse. I’m glad you didn’t just point the finger at men tho, which you could have done all too easily. My own way to resolve these issues in my game is a bit like Spooney said at the end of his presentation above. I do it all, I put int the stereotypes cos that what players expect but I also try to break stereotypes when I can. I try not to put my hate on one group because I’m not a bigot, I hate everyone equally! In my view its not women or men that are evil but the entire human race…
I agree with you, and I’m surprised you think this could be taken as offensive. Well, I know it *is* for some people, but not enough to warrant an apologetic disclaimer ;)
An even more interesting side of this is that in fiction, even if there is a “self-made” career fighter action girl type heroine, she almost always is a relative to some man who is in power. I.E. She is the daughter of the village chief/princess/the sister/childhood friend of the main hero/was taught by the most awesome martial artist dude and is his apprentice. There’s almost no case of just “woman joins party! Wants to help just cause! Is related to no one special BUT does have family!”
And just try finding a woman in general who isn’t the love interest of someone.
I believe that this is true for any woman NPC in the game. She is there completely as a lure of some kind. I don’t think that it applies to women player characters (weather played by a girl or not)
My story on this as a lady player and DM. I actually rarely use female NPC in a game. If i do they are either the “damsel in distress” or i play them as i would my own PC.
But when I was playing I had a male DM who would always have the sexy, alluring lady in the bar. Then one of the male PC’s would respond to her flirting and take her back to their room. It would never be a succubus or assassain. (Or anything you would normally expect in this scenario) In the morning the guy would wake up to discover that the “Lady” was actually a guy. No matter how scantily clad she had been.
reminds me of the incident with the half dragon. my half-elf range took the sucubus’ head off with an arrow. but yeah, the party rescued her and she wanted to thank the half-dragon fighter and stuck her claws into his back, prompting him to charge through the thin wooden wall with her in front of him. The other fighter then tried to pull her off him and rolled like a 2 so all he did was cause more damage to the half-dragon and then my ranger character just spun around and rolled a 20 to shoot the sucubus and confirmed the critical and finished off the sucubus by arrow decpitation.
The source of the rampant distrust of women is simple and damn near inherent to being a heterosexual man/boy its because our fundamental instinct to and drive to seek intimacy with a woman in one form or another makes us vulnerable to them in a way we simply are not to men. We invariably realize as much eventually and yet what can we do? To suppress that underlying instinct is literally denying pursuit of the deepest intimacies from which we can derive some of the greatest fulfillment life has to offer us so we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. That much can’t really be helped you just can’t open yourself up to someone without giving them the power to plunge the proverbial and the literal dagger into you at the same time and its hard to be entirely comfortable with that especially since we all know someone who’s been so betrayed, have been betrayed ourselves, or hell had the temptation to so betray ourselves if not even flat out have engaged in such an intimate betrayal. And its incredibly easy to externalize all that internal conflict and frustration upon women in general because even a single example of that kind of betrayal at the hands of a makes for an easily accessible means of validating as much for those inclined to do so. Honestly enough I’d say role-playing to that trope is probably a relatively healthy way to vent such frustrations through catharsis though you arguably could get much the same venting by playing against type to ridiculous degree too,
Wow, based on the comments, that was way less offensive than I was expecting (pretty insightful at points, in fact). My gaming group is actually pretty evenly split along gender lines, and we switch off DM duties every couple of years or so, so we’ve had both male and female DMs over the years. Thinking back to most of our stuff, we tend to have male antagonists most of the time (with a few exceptions), but we also skew toward antagonists that are opposed to the party not necessarily because they are evil, but due to just conflicting motives or misunderstandings.
A character in one of my campaigns got himself captured by a demon cult (on purpose), and during the imprisonment, the demon cultists brought him a peach pie. There was nothing wrong with this pie at all, but the player basically let his character starve and take temporary con damage because he refused to eat it (they were bloodletting him at the time, so they just thought they should try and keep their walking bloodbank running.) We still make fun of him for this.
But yeah, switching up expectations is a wonderful thing and fantastic advice for DMs of all kinds.
I’ve never experienced this trope as player or DM but I will say this: If I was DMing a player character who constantly chats up random people in seedy establishments they will sooner or later meet a thief, kidnapper, sadist, psychopath, spy or demon. Just because that stuff gets old sooo fast and, well, what do you expect? There’s always people who prey on morons and you bet they will be in places rich, stupid adventurers get very, very drunk. Case in point: Every casino in Las Vegas.
Ok, I’ll say it, I hate the intro. Yes, I’m that guy…
Nice intro. But just doesn’t have the ooomph that song by the refreshments (I think…) has. You know the break me song. It just doesn’t have the balls (to use the parlance of our times).
But hey, that’s only what this guy thinks. So far seems like everyone else likes it. So to each his own.
I think it’s only fair to point out it’s really the type of player that is the horndog. And by this I mean Bards and Thieves are sleazy little man-whores. When was the last time you heard of someone playing a horny wizard? I rest my case.
Ulric Ulric Ulric…, go to the whore… Ulric Ulric Ulric… go to the whore
Ill get thy booty!
Dude, I’ve totally got a good idea for your next Counter Monkey segment, if you haven’t already thought of it. And I know you MUST have one or two stories to tell about this: Wasted Wishes. :D
Twice have I used prominent female NPCs in my RPG-campaigns, both cases involving infiltration of an enemy base. The first NPC was of the villainous sort, who pretended to be assisting the players while in reality she was both a mole and the villain’s daughter. Because I run very story-heavy campaigns, all of the players except one realised that she would inevitably betray them when the time was right in the narrative. They played along because they knew it would get them closer to the villain’s headquarters. Only that one player was absolutely heartbroken when the sweet innocent young girl turned out to be a heartless villain.
The second time I used this type of character, she actually was truly a good person. She was under the villain’s thrall and unable to prevent him from hurting innocents, so she agreed to assist the players. The villain was a robotics expert and it turned out that the woman was one of his robots, that had gained both sentience and a strong conscience. The players succeeded in defeating the villain with the gynoid’s help, but she was broken beyond repair. The same player as before (but with a new character) had fallen in love with her and was heartbroken by her death.
Damn, even in D&D there are womens that would kill you by the dick?
It’s very easy to explain why women are always evil. One video explains it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY6Y7OkkUHw
My last DnD character who had an irrational fear of beautiful women… so I was safe.
Or maybe just write female characters like you do male characters?
Decent intro, though my group has never used the ‘women are evil’ line before… To some extent its because my group would see it coming a mile away, to some extent it is because one of our most frequent ST’s doesn’t like to pull things like that. But it really doesn’t come up that much for my group. Then again we didn’t really start till 06, it could be something younger, more modern groups don’t experience as much because we don’t really have an issue with females.
We’ve all had gf (or bf’s for the female players) and gotten laid it was never really a ‘thing’ in highschool or at our university. *shrug*
This was completely foreign to me but I guess that’s because straight dudes are always in the minority in my games.
OMG. I am so happy to hear Van Canto!
Hey, this was a really thoughtful self analysis, Spoony. Not a lot of people are willing to look that objectively like that. Cool :)
Spooney, mate, I have a lot of respect for you as someone that asks himself ‘why do i do the things i do?’ its the most important question you can ever ask in my opinion. Far more important than science’s search for answers from the world. Now almost everything you’ve said in your Counter Monkey series has been information i’ve ran across myself as a role player, ive been a role player for about 24 years so ive seen a lot. This one is also true, i’ve been both a victim and a villain in this regard. I do have to say tho that this is not a problem for just gamers, its a sickness i see all the way through society on every level and its never going to stop. Both men and women buy into these stereotypes and perpetuate them. That being said I personally think the Counter Monkey stuff is some of your best work, ever! I find it useful to hear some of my own feelings and thoughts, experiences, echoed in your voice helps me to think and consciously recognize what exactly they are! Keep it up man.
I berate DMs for putting creatures like succubi in their games and getting haughty if your PC gives in to their charms. Let’s face it: if you aren’t a fucking mage or ranger, how would you know about them? Also, wouldn’t natural selection weed out the horndogs in society?
To go along with, aid, protect, or trust a female has been bred into men for thousands of years. In fact, in those situations where I proclaim, “I dont trust this b****, Im gonna stab/blast/shoot her first sign of anything funny.” I get labeled an evil bastard. Its the same reason why a woman can punch and kick a man all day, but as soon as he starts to defend himself (in anyway), every man in the area descend upon him like hungry wolves.
Its equally funny when I (as a DM) present helpful, or normal female npcs, the group starts to think “succubus” or “thief” right away! sigh…
For the record Spoony I have made the adviser scenario you mentioned where the King was a nice and humble man and the adviser had slick back black hair and a soul patch and even talked in a sinister manner and at the end the adviser was the good guy and the king was evil i really messed with the plays and they were impressed.
Funnily enough I’ve been running a Robin Hood based campaign in which the assassin was a male prisoner, though he was intending to lead the players into an ambush instead of killing them in their sleep.
In fact my villains have almost exclusively been male in my games, with the very odd exception. Might actually make the players even more paranoid if I do start using women.
This said my first ever D&D game I got suckered by a shapeshifter posing as a panicked female villager.
I always found this kind of mentality intriguing, and while I don’t usually play female characters, ones I do create I try to subvert the stereotype, so to speak, which, because it differs from the sexualised norm of women in RPGs, made them more suspicious.
I’m currently working on a campaign where there’s a female NPC that is a major character. This video gave me some good tips on how I can do it.
You have an intro now!
Also, why does D&D hate women npcs? o.o
When it comes to using a woman as a villain, for a male DM, it’s generally done as it’s easier for a dude to come up with more complex characters in a simple manner. The thought process is easy when not only the players are dudes, but their characters are as well. It leads to characters being able to be duped more easily. It also seems more lively when using a woman for an antagonist in any story, as most times when using a male NPC, things get really cliched and really easy to just figure out what’s happening plot-wise from the player point of view. That goes for many games out there from what I’ve seen.
Some friends I used to play with would typically use males as their villains, at least the one’s that draw heavily on the more cliche’d video games or stories they enjoy, even movies. Why? They thought those would make for a good campaign in D&D. Some things would be different, but overall…it was really just annoying when I could point out everything without a thought of, “Oh shit, I didn’t see that coming”, as I’d much prefer to as a player. That’s not the same for many others I’ve played with that would DM, they usually kept it nice and exciting – Switching things up, making the players have moral dilemmas, giving us reasons to question everything that comes our ways no matter how far we get, and in many more ways than I want to type to here.
So, Spoony and fans wondering why people choose to make females evil, I hope this helps. Some dudes could just be venting, or they could be doing the above. I’m a bit too tired to really go in-depth here, so this will have to do.
So how does that work if you have gay characters?
Totally glad you brought up this topic, because I knew exactly what you’re talking about, and it’s something that I’ve actually been thinking about myself, and it’s nice to hear your viewpoint on it. I do think it’s a really complex issue, and it’s not something that people are usually open to talk about, and I honestly think it has a big part in giving Roleplaying kind of the bad rap that it gets sometimes. It’s hard to say with complete certainty where people are coming from with this kind of thing, but I’d honestly say it could be any of the reasons you mentioned.
I should start by saying that the majority of D&D games I’ve been in were almost exclusively with male PCs. I can remember only 1 or 2 games where there were female players, and those games didn’t last very long.
1.I’ll come down on behalf of the DM for the first one, and say many of them might just be putting female villains to “spice it up”, or add variety. Most of the time, when I’ve played, the huge majority of enemies seem to be male (male barbarians or soldiers, or ), and even a lot of the monsters are these giant, musclebound powerhouses, and have traits that are seen as typically masculine, so at times, combat seems to be devoid of female presence. So, the DM decides to put in a female villain or enemy, just to round out the encounters with something a little different for once. And again, this could also be why the women often use spells or deception, rather than brute force – because a lot of enemies you encounter ARE just going to try and smash you up, and the DM wants to try something new.
2.As you mentioned, the DM could also be trying to throw them off, because there are some male players who react exactly as you mentioned – when the slightest chance that their player could get laid comes up, they will completely drop their guard to try and make it happen. The DM realizes this, and uses an attractive woman as a trap. It’s kind of a cheap shot, but hey, like you said, some players will intentionally “fall for it” just to advance the plot or have something interesting, so when done right, it can be just another party hook.
3.Unfortunately, sometimes you find yourself in a game with someone who really does seem to have the mentality that all women are “evil”, and it permeates into the game. I guess that’s one of the things about roleplaying – sometimes you find yourself in games with some strange folk with serious issues, and they use the game as a way to act out on these feelings. Maybe I’ve just been in games with some shitty people, but it’s really shocking to me how often I’ve been in, or heard about games where first timers immediately set out to try and rape someone. I remember telling one of my ex-co workers that I played D&D, and he told me about a game that a friend of his was in where the only thing the party did was raid villages so they could rape everyone. Even if they don’t actually make their players do it, it’s kind of uncanny how often some guys will start throwing out rape ideas. Usually these are the kind of guys you don’t invite back for more games. Maybe people like this are just naturally drawn to roleplaying because they see it as a way to act out their strange fantasies? Or maybe they just aren’t taking the game seriously and are trying to be assholes? Or maybe they are just revealing their deep seeded hatred for women? It’s almost impossible to say for sure, and it’s not really the kind of thing you confront someone about. So most of the time in this situation, you’re just sitting there what kind of people you’re getting involved with. But I do think this type of thing could be the reason why a lot of people have a kind of negative view towards roleplaying in general.
4.One other thing I’ve seen that’s kind of strange, but has happened on a few rare occasions – sometimes I’ll find myself in games where there are literally no female characters. I actually pointed it out to the DM once, and suggested that he incorporate some female characters into the game just to mix it up a little, even suggesting that I roll up a female PC and he outright refused, saying there would not be any women in the game. I’m not entirely sure if he just felt uncomfortable trying to portray female characters, or if he was worried that it would cause trouble with the party. In hindsight, maybe he was smart to do so.
Just my two cents, a very deep and sometimes disturbing topic, but definitely one worth addressing. Keep up the good work Spoony!
Huh, haven’t had this come up in any of my sessions. My main group is 50/50 male-to-female players. Would be fun to do something to subvert this trope for the group im gm:ing. Being feminist AND nerd sometimes leads to interesting discussions.
Good video, Spoony. Thanks.
I know that intro music is
Blind Guardian – The Bards Song In the forest but what version it is
What’s funny is I listen to the Something Awful Let’s Play for D&D4e, where it’s just the most cracked out session with probably the world’s nicest DM ever…and even the female player character…as played by a female…is a terrible whiny bitch that serves a Dark God (IC for both, OOC also for the former) and wants to turn the party into a bunch of liches … despite being a Shardmind.
So … yeah this video was interesting.
This reminds me of one of my first D&D campaigns. I was playing a paladin, and came across an injured woman on the side of the road. Of course I went to help the woman, and she turned out to be an illusion that covered a void hole as a trap. Mind you this was 30 seconds into the game. This DM was a real ass.
It might just be the headline, Spoony, but it’s VERY true :P
Still a better story than twilight
Actually I remember my last campaign where my brother played a female paladin and my character had great fun annoying with sexual temptation (crazy bard, what are you gonna do?). That bard made me so mad that I had to make him leave the campaign and make a new character. I don’t like doing that, it’s bad for the game.
That’s why all the male characters that I roll are always either gay or don’t have reproductive organs. It keeps them safe from devil-women, and lets them focus on adventure.
Well for me, I am a female gamer and I play a lot of D&D girls. My girl are never evil and they are actually very kind. I cannot play evil characters and I have started D&D since I was a teen. I am actually rather surprised that people think that all girls are evil in gaming. It just is crazy because I sometimes have males be evil and double cross you. I actually have that sort of complex in real life, it is sort of insane.
Today’s Pathfinder session:
-Meet beautiful women (4) on the side of the road who invite us back to their cabin.
-I immediately say she must be a succubus (OOC) and we follow them back to the cabin.
-She tries to Dominate me (I’m a Monk so yeah good luck with that)
-She dies (because I hit about as hard as our Barbarian and don’t like mental magic) and Sorcerer identifies her as… A SUCCUBUS DUN DUN DUN!!!!!
So yeah Spoony knows exactly what he’s talkin’ ’bout if anyone had any doubts.
Huh, I’ve had a few women in my games as NPC’s and some of them have gotten it on with the players. But with the exception of the Drowess, didn’t have any of them being evil. *shrugs* So yeah not really disagreeing because I’m sure this is true in some ways, just not for every gamer I guess?
My kitten is really digging Spoony’s handmovements. It’s adorable. On topic, I love the idea of screwing with the players’ heads. Making them see things that aren’t there. It creates a much better tension than just telling them straight what’s up.99999999999ö-
I was in a D&D game one time, and the DM had a female character trying to help us in the fight we were in and at first I was pretty sketchy as well, cause I know the tricks Spoony mentioned. To my surprise she actually wasn’t any kind of spy or demon or witch or anything. So what is the catch? She was a ranged attacker that shot into combat and threw weapons and failed EVERY one of the rolls and ended up hitting us with every single attack…. Even when female characters in D&D aren’t monsters they are still evil as hell. Haha, just thought I would share a funny story.
One point of order, Spoontok. This isn’t just a matter of Guy GM/DM’s pulling this stunt.
My GM for a Mechwarrior RPG campaign 2 years running had our lance’s contact when we first landed on Terra for a diplomatic/covert up be a woman, who ended up not only -not- being our intended contact, but some high ranking noblewoman who essentially hijacked 4 veterans and their entire careers for her own little cloak and dagger operation. Turns out it was to save her sister, but thanks to that bitch our characters ended up a hair’s breath from the firing squad a good half dozen times..
Edit: if it wasn’t painfully clear, the GM for said campign herself was a woman.
I’m familiar with this stereotype, but I’ve rarely seen it happen. I have seduced plenty of barmaids in my time as The Bard. Only once did the woman try to kill me. I fascinated her with my bardic accordion skills and then shoved a hunting knife into her skull. No more came from it.
i was an adventurer like you, but then i took an arrow in the knee. now i serve the jarl as his advisor
Another great video. I’m going to slowly come up with either a really awesome character or really awesome game out of these (I’ve never ran a game before). And I have to say that I haven’t much run into the women are evil in DnD, but mainly because I’ve been in groups where I’m not the only woman. Well, in the last 4+ years. I think the first group I was in I was the only one, and I was hit on, and being well, young I just sort of pushed everyone off. Now I wish I had had a lot more fun with it. Man, I must be awesome to game with you~
I loved this video, very well-done.
Oh, except one thing: can you PLEASE not use phrases like “No homo”? It was strange and more than a little upsetting to hear a homophobic comment tossed into a rant about avoiding misogynistic stereotypes.
i never cast my npcs in alignment purely based on what they are
More than anything I think it’s probably a product of people going for the old, quick female cliche for characters that they are either evil or a damsel in distress. Writing fully characterized females is difficult for everyone because we’re not used to writing them without resorting to tropes.
And really, if you either have to have a perfect paragon or an evil seductress, most people will go for the evil character if only because the perfect character is considered boring.
You called yourself a story-teller, aren’t you a Bard?
I fell into a trap like this once, but it was more so that I was playing to my character rather than I didn’t see it coming. Unless a guy is clearly suspicious like a guy in a hood at the park who seems to know an AWFUL LOT about what I’m doing and says he can help! Yeah fuck that.
Still someone offers me food or a good time and they seem perfectly normal, depending on the character, I’ll go along with it! Although in the game I was apart of it was my character was an amazing cook, and would be the only one serving food. XD
It is just a bit of division between out of character logic, knowing your DM may be planning to fuck you over, and your character’s logic.
In another game my character KNEW he was walking into a trap, due to the information he had and, he literally was saying “I know what you’re doing, I really don’t fucking care. I’m not going to fight so just do what you’re going to do”, and the person kept playing innocent. Then they sprung the trap. It was kind of hilarious because he was going “Yeah, I know, good job.” He almost died from it, but he was able to smooth talk his way into not being shot in the face. XD
So how does this work with gay or female characters? Are they save or are men from hell too when it suits the DM?
I tried to play a Bi Vampire once… sadly that game fell apart. But that would be good information for next time. :D
It’s really, really sad, also pathetic, that so many GMs resort to this. I mean, I’ve been roleplaying off and on for about a decade now, and yeah, this has been a problem– stupid GMs who don’t know how to write female characters even if their life depended on it.
It’s the old Madonna or Whore complex. Either you’re innocent virgins who are victims that need to be saved, whose purity cannot be questioned… or they’re whores who will fuck you and kill you or betray you in the worst ways. Can’t be anything in between. A not-insubstantial minority of men suffer from this even today, and it causes problems both on and off the tabletop– many relationships are ruined by this attitude.
Hint to GMs: Women are no more two dimensional, bland and boring personalities than men.
But Gay males are ok, right?! j-just asking.<_<… Guys?
Actually, the “fear of women” idea is a very old one. In a lot of the George MacDonald, Tolkien, Lewis, etc. works, as well as in a lot of very old literature, women are often either goddesses or temptresses/demons. In the Hero’s Journey, women usually fill one of those two roles. My wife and I study literature and love fantasy, and we can’t help but notice that …
One of my players actually asked to play as the succubus. I ran it through a couple of other GM’s to see if they thought it was legal, and they all said okay, so my younger brother is now playing the evil vampire-like chick. Of course, he only wanted this so he could get that nice shiny “suck peoples souls out by touching them” ability. I’m not sure if I should really be encouraging him to start min-maxing when he hasn’t even hit puberty yet.
I’ve never had a succubus or similar event in my campaign. But I did like the way DM of the Rings handled the player who tries to sleep with every NPC
“You and I were roommates in college. This is seriously creepy. I’m not roleplaying a woman you’re hitting on.”
“You’re always riding us for not roleplaying more. So now I’m trying to roleplay, ok?”
“Sigh. Okay.. She gives in.”
“You mean we-”
“Wow, really? So do I role…”
“Nope. All done now.”
“So… did I like…”
“Yes, it was lots of fun.”
“Now I need you to role a fortitude save.”
“Are you serious?”
“Let’s just say you might wanna find a discreet cleric in the next 1d6 hours.”
Our DM has this forest that was once housed an Elven hall, but has since fallen to chaos. We have had people lose there skin and have the animated skin follow the survivors back and kill the rest of the party, or bodies of the dead that come back of there own accord. The list of stuff goes on. We got so paranoid of this forest we couldn’t travel within a mile of the place.
Anyway, a city we where staying at fell under siege by a nation to the north and we where assigned to take the cities most prized possessions and request for aid to the dwarven mountain homes to the north east.
They can only teleport us to a spot 2 miles outside the woods which would put us on the opposite side of the invading army. So we spend two days navigating around the outskirts of this forest, occasionally seeing a dragon or two that are heading towards the siege lines flying over head.
So we are paranoid as is just by being near this forest, not to mention the dragons, when suddenly we crest a hill and see a lone figure riding atop a wagon in the distance. We stop in our tracks and start getting our stories straight. We decide to go ahead and apouch the figure, who is traveling slower than we are, and should he ask us where we are headed we would tell him “we where headed to Freetown” a town on the opposite side of the dwarven mountain homes that was offering land for home steading and was also requesting aid in quelling the plainsmen uprisings.
Total legit cover story, figure it wouldn’t even prompt a detect lies check. So we get up to this guy, and he is quite old, has a cloak made of hundreds of patches with symbols of different cities and taverns on them, or crests of kings. He’s playing a lute, he says hello, asks where we are going, tells us about his journey, asks us if we will be staying at the tavern at the next town and if we want to join him.
All really nice and friendly, totally not creepy at all.
So naturally we are all paranoid to the point we are shaking. My fighter has his hand hovering over his sword the entire time we are walking with the guy.The wizard is trying to re prep spells or was looking for scrolls of hold person or something. The rouge is poisoning his blades.
We get to the tavern unhindered the people there seem to know him, we get to drinking and sing songing. Finally every one eases up and has a good time. With the bard and we get a lot of good info out of him. He drank the dwarf under the table and our wizard, druid, and him farie fired the dawrfs beard, tuned it pink, and dolled him up.
At the end of the game we actually got points for NOT killing him, cause even the DM was worried we would flip out and stab him in his sleep. He apparently was level 20 and more than likely would have turned our lvl 8 characters inside out.
If you had any stories about anyone playing a Planar Shepherd I would love to hear them.
Actually, the vizier thing was done back in 1994 by SSI, and they even added a small twist.
In Al-Qadim: The Genie’s Curse, you find out that not everything is kosher in the royal palace, so:
1: You’re approached by the resistance, that tell you about the vizier being a badguy.
2: You collect evidence of him being all shady.
3: You take this to the sultan or the vizier.
If you took it to the sultan, game over. You’re thrown in the dungeon. If you go to the vizier, he explains everything. The twist in comparison to the scenario suggested by Spoony is that the sultan isn’t evil by choice, but because he’s being controlled by other people (I believe it was an efreet, and the “resistance” was involved too).
A pretty fun game, all in all. The mechanics are more like an old Zelda game than anything else related to AD&D, but the story is fun, and it’s easy to get into.
Your PC needs his precious bodily fluids!
That’s some deep Psychohistory.
Ironically, every female character I’ve ever played was good, noble, and actually pretty badass.
…And also clerics, but hey, they didn’t stay in the back! They fought!
its not a fear of women but a trust in them that get you killed men think deep down they can’t actually hurt them its not true but we still think that.
Your DMing style severely reminds me of the cowboy making the girl dance…with bullets.
A thought popped into my head when I listened to this. Does anything like this ever happen with a female horndog? There are girls who chase timber like it’s a bacon sandwitch, wonder if that ever gets them into some kind of adventure….
Edit Alternate title; Beware the Nice ones….?
The old DOS SSI D&D game “Al-Quadim: The Genie’s Curse” had a bit of that last part. At one point you’re trying to figure out something going on in the kingdom and everything is pointing to the vizier underminding the caliph (kinda synonymous with the position of a duke or baron to a king). But as you try to expose the vizier, you end up finding that the adviser is the one sane person in this, and the caliph is trying to control the djinn to, you guessed it, take over the world.
well if you look at our history women were actually like this most of the time, always cunning smart yet flirty creatures. most of them WERE ready too backstab you at the chance. i think that its really based off of what history taught us. cause alot of inspiration comes from that,much less how its always said that history repeats itself.
I was playing 2ND Edition, I was in a desert playing as a swashbuckler when I met a young lady who turned out to be a lamia:-( I didn’t get a save, but I did get 11 minutes of wisdom drain.
We were playing a game of Dark Ages, and it had gotten wierd a long time before this, and I mean really wierd. Like, naked fighting with an ogre.
We rescued a character from a really inexplicable jail cell in a cave, I learned to just not question this DM, he made it up as he went along, and shit made no sense. But when we rescued him from the jail cell an ogre of some sort showed up, and took exception to us freeing what I expect was dinner. The character we had just freed had a grudge against him, so he grabbed two pointy bones and charged the ogre alone. Stark fucking naked. He ran at the ogre and, catching him off guard, sank both bones into the ogres sack. Yes, he stabbed the ogre in the junk. As the ogre his his knees I beheaded him with a bastard sword I’d stolen from a Guard Captain. And that’s not the wierdest thing…
A little later that night we came to a small town and decided to check out the tavern. We hadn’t been there more than a few minutes when two outrageously attractive females make their way over to me and start running their fingers through my hair, rubbing my shoulders, and generally wanting my dick. I’m not really that attractive, although I do have really nice hair; but that’s beyond the point.
These two girls had been with me for a few minutes, and having seen this video previously, I knew what was up, our DM had no sense of subtlety. I called my friend to take one of them, even if they were regualr girls, I could tell I didn’t have it in me to take both of them, and knowing for a fact they were demons of some sort, I knew I’d need the backup. So we went upstairs, and his girl was pretty into him, and he was paying me absolutely no attention. And that would have been fine, until I started screaming. There was a reason for the screaming. As it turned out, the DM said rool for dodge. So I rolled. I rolled very low. He then informs me that the girl I’m with, has suddenly bent me over and tied me to the bed, and that she has a penis. A very large one.
I started screaming, just as my friends girl bit him on the neck, although I assume she finished him off, and left, flicking a gold peice at him as she went. He thankfully runs off the tranny nature spirit, which is what she turned out to be, before she anally raped my character. And the bitch stole my money. I had seen the DM’s Secret Weapon video as well, and did not give a shit. I had 500 gold, freshly raided. I chased that bitch out of the town, as our rogue, who had been following her after she saw the commotion in the tavern, watched her vanish into a tree. I started trying to chop the fucker down.
The DM informed me that it wouldn’t do any good, as our rougue found my money pouch hanging from a branch on a nearby tree. Five gold was missing. I decided my anal virginity was worth 5 gold.
ink it’s because of a slight sexisum. Woman on average have been seen (Less in past years) As weaker than men. Therefore you’d expect them to be saved, not to kill. Its kinda the dm’s way of punishing sexisum, atleast it is in my games.
I’ve only ever rolled up three D&D characters, mainly because I only played for a year or so before I was forced to quit by other commitments. the most successful was the one who was technically a thief but I played to be an assassin. He picked locks and climbed walls but wasn’t interested in property and I played him SO paranoid. To the point that I would specify that every time he bought a drink he would buy a bottle and he would check the bottle hadn’t been tampered with. He was also a really weird mix of chatty and silent, which sounds weird but what he would do was walk into a place become best friends with the barman ring all of the gossip out of the place and then sit in the corner and watch people in case he could find something interesting.
Along with not making females evil you can also have it were not every monster and demon is evil.
The creatures literally made out of evil stuff?
They are evil.That’s just how they work.
Being made out of raw evil is not the same thing as having a vagina, and therefore, while complaining that one is always evil, is not the same thing as complaining that the other is always evil.
remember in the original demons where fallen angels also succubus and incubus need to feed on souls to survive so they aren’t really evil just like a tiger or a T. Rex it kills because it needs to we see it as evil because they are killing humans and that instantly makes them evil because killing humans is seen as evil because we are supposed to be at the top of the food chain unless said human is evil. Oh and sure but is there a skill called seduction not sure never played but heard about it in The movie Gamers 2 dorkness rising
First of all, I’m going to assume you’re talking about Dungeons and Dragons, and not Gamers 2.
So, what you’re saying is that a bunch of angels CHOSE to fall to hell and become utterly dependent on eating mortal souls?
And because of their CHOICE, their CHOICES don’t matter?
That’s utterly idiotic.
Also, that’s totally NOT how it works in the D&D mythos, unless they changed it for 4e. (And if they did, don’t worry, they’ll change it right the fuck back for next. Because who wants a stable mythos anyway?)
YEah in gamers 2 dorkness rising the guy who was playing the bard had seduction skill points and basically seduced everything in sight I know the movie was a parody second Succubuses are demons that is a fact not sure if that’s true in d&d but in christian theology succubuses aren’t random monsters they are demons second don’t think when an angel falls it gets to choose what type of demon it becomes since you know there are hundreds of types of demons also some sucubusses are born not all were originally angels in fact wouldn’t be suprised if all sucubuses and incubuses are a subspecies of demon. Oh and yes choice matters but most creatures have what is called survival instinct and they will do what is necessary to survive again sucubuses and incubi need need to feed on human souls to survive so they would do so.
We’re talking about D&D here, not Christianity.
They have different mythical backgrounds.
And yes, they *do* get a choice. What do you think the Erinyes are? (Hint: They’re fallen archons/angels.)
Succubi are not fallen in D&D though, they’re created out of the souls of the rapacious, lusting evil dead.
Demons (Succubi and Incubi goes under this) do not need to eat. They do not need to sleep. They just like causing misery and pain.
Spoony wasn’t discussing christian mythology, but D&D. So again, unless they changed it from 4e, Succubi and Incubi both, are evil things made out of evil, who do evil. They are ALWAYS EVIL ALL THE TIME.
Killing them is good.
k well this discussion was started 9 days ago or rather that’s when I became apart of it so I’m done also fun fact since Arthurian legend was made after Christianity become a dominant power in the world merlin’s original origins is he is the child of an incubus since Christians back then said all forms of magic are evil and come from hell. to get back though to the original argument made the reason he warns all women are from hell(not literally) is it is the simplest trap since everyone wants to be the knight in shining armor(if your a guy) save the woman and possibly get “rewarded”. I have never played d&d but tip if I ever did and I was DM if you meet orphaned children kill them cause god knows they will turn out to be some hellish monster in disguise since again your not expecting it
Women are natural liars. They really aren’t born with a sense of conscience. They have to develop it at a rate much slower than men. Moreover and this is why the previous statement is accurate, there’s a pretty large albeit subjective difference between expectations between men and women. When you draw women as a “prize” you tend to give them the chance to utilize deception for their own wiles. Thereby, you’re basically encouraging deception.
The problem isn’t that men have trouble with women. It’s that ‘those’ men have trouble dealing with “deception”. The real problem is that it’s natural. Impressing your parents by acting childish is a natural way to develop that kind of behavior and it really doesn’t get much better as she gets older. For men it doesn’t tend to go this way.
So, when you have men who have trouble trusting women, they’re just showing a lack of knowledge of women and deception. They naturally feel like women are dangerous, and yes, they are. They’re more dangerous than any snake in the world.
It’s not necessarily criticism by the way. I’m not writing like that. I’m saying, you’re giving these men an opportunity to underestimate women. Doing that, of course they’re going to become victim to any woman, whether she be good or bad. If she’s ‘good’, you may end up happily married. But, if she’s ‘bad’, you’re going to lose something important to you one way or the other. That’s the unpleasantness of life and especially women.
Of course men can be this way, although it’s “extremely” rare. Most men don’t get an opportunity to develop this. Of course, anyone good looking would have some experience with this.
The word is “deception”. If you have a man who has trouble with women, it’s because he has never practiced “deception”.
Easiest way to avoid the inevitable seduction and betrayal of your character… Play a gay or celibate character.
Well I play d&d and I’m a woman, and my character is a woman. I’m not evil but I get what you’re saying. I think because I’m a woman who plays d&d I write a lot of women who have good intentions