I have always found it odd that with limitless choices of fantasy presented by the world of mudding that women often flock to the roles defined by society that limit women. Not everyone wants to play a great swordsperson, and that is completely valid, but even smart women who play smart characters seem to feel their strongest strengths are sexual. Why is this? Why do women choose to play an advisor to a strong male character, rather than be the strong character with an advisor? Why are great woman fighter characters often unbelievably petite and feminine or particularly masculine by way of speech patterns and bearing?

I suppose one could ask, the same questions about men. Why are male characters often tall and want to rescue every woman they see? But really, women are more interesting. Let’s concentrate on them.

How do we change this, if we even agree it is something which should be changed?

To change this, generally, I think society in general needs to change.

Oddly, though, I actually find that on the roleplaying games I run, we often get players who assume female roles that, thematically, shouldn't exactly be firebrands but turn out to be radically outside the social norm of the game. In a society where women mostly wear dresses and speak gently, we've got female characters who wear pants and talk tough.

We've also got the occasional male character who's either an antihero or an outright cad.

But we've also got the flirty girls and the guys who want to always be heroes.

I think it varies from game to game and depends upon the environment and attitudes fostered/encouraged by the staff and, more importantly, the abundance of players in a game.

Some of my characters have been "feminine" and some haven't. All have been female, in my current game. That's where I'm coming from, my point of personal reference. That said, I can identify a few players who do an outstanding job of playing *people* rather than *sexual beings.* I think the best way to go about supporting that, is to bring those players into the forefront, use them as examples of exemplary "non-stereotype" characters.

Unfortunately, new players to games that have male and female equal in social status, won't necessarily grasp that idea as seriously as it's intended. The female player will typically want her character to be gorgeous. Perfect curves, flawless skin, big boobs, silky shiny hair..all the makings of the typical what's her name on the Roger Rabbit movie.

It's fantasy, and in real life, women often look at models in magazines and think, "Oh but if only I could look like THAT..."

and in the MUD, they have that opportunity, by extension.

Men do the same with their bulky muscles and 6-pack abs in their male characters.

They want to become their notion of the "ideal" of their gender, for a few hours a day.

I don't really think there's a sure-fired solution to it, unless you impose rules like "people with pale skin in this game are to be considered mutants. Normal people in this game are ALL dark skinned." or "If your character has big boobs, she will be compared to the game equivalent of a cow and laughed out of town, because in THIS game, normal women are flat-chested." or "If your male character has 6-pack abs, it means he is a lowly commoner scum - and MUST be treated as such, because in THIS game, normal male characters are so emaciated and dehydrated that they exhibit the typical starvation-pot-belly."

It has to be reinforced by veteran players, and by staff members animating NPCs. If veterans and staffers fail to apply these consistently, without yielding to the "innocent newbie who doesn't know any better," then it will fail, and you end up back where you started.

This is an interesting topic even in regard to nonrp MuDs. I have seen male players degrade female players in a number of ways including insult, language, obscene and obnoxious 'rooms' and 'emotes', and even exclusion.

Sadly, it is difficult to monitor such behavior, particularily on larger games, and even more difficult to discipline.

How far is too far? When do you (or your admin) step in and say, "You've gone to far and that behavior is not acceptable here."?

Mudding is a reacreational thing, a job, even a habit for some people. Women and men can all do recreational things, have jobs, and habits. It just seems so obvious to me, treat them equally? I dont see a reason why there even has to be feminists now. I mean sure, back then women couldnt do lots that they can now. But things have changed, and are continuing to change. It's kinda shocking to me, to hear that women characters are being insulted in muds just because of their sex. Personally, I've never heard of such an instance until now.

Maybe the person insulting the character comes from a different culture, where women arent seen doing things the way they do here, or doing them at all? Muds are worldwide, more so now than ever before.

Immediately. And if it's not happening immediately, there are thousands of other muds to play. Time to go.

We've had the following in our rules for a long time:

"Sexual harassment is not tolerated."

Carrion Fields has no OOC channels (except a newbie help line), so there's rarely instances where players are targeted. (You usually don't know who is playing who anyway.) Like any rule, there's interpretation involved, and we're not out to lynch anyone who blows a kiss at a local lady.

As for drawing a line, we don't mind if a character is chauvinistic or otherwise has attitudes towards the other gender that wouldn't fly in a contemporary setting. The few times I've had to step in on matters like this have involved either:

1) A character repeatedly pressuring another character for sexual favors.

2) A character breaking role to try to harass the player about sexual issues.

In the first case, we don't want players becoming uncomfortable, and it's usually enough to just sit the aggressor down and explain that they need to cool off and plan other roleplaying. In the second case, we handle it like any other breach of role, like going OOC to threaten or curse out another character in a way that has no IC justification.

I've never had to deal with serious incidents, although over the years we've had a couple of sick puppies that needed to be removed from play for a while. Most of the time, it's basically overeager horny players desperate for attention or a relationship lead.

A lot of the beauty question goes into the fact that, let's face it, most of us want characters that look good for some reason or other, even if they don't ever roleplay any sexual interest.

In small to moderate doses this is relatively harmless unless your theme makes it more or less unrealistic for such 'beatiful' appearances. Besides, if 95% of people are beautiful then it'll have to be the RP skills that stand out rather than a character's ability to look uberhot (or however you say it in sarcastic leet).

If most of your characters go for looking hot and there's good quality not always sex RP to be had... I don't see much of a problem. From an standpoint of changing it as a player you can play a less than sexually desirable character

As for the other concerns: If the player is uncomfortable OOCly and says something to the player of the offending character, it needs to stop, and OOC harassment isn't cool either. - If it stays IC and the players are comfortable, I don't worry about it.

It's not an issue of being beautiful, it's an issue of being beautiful as 50% (or more) of your character concept.

I try to make my characters look cool, rather than actual sexual appeal. If it takes an eyeball, and a few fingers to make him worthwhile, so be it.

I myself never worry about making good-looking characters. I feel that homely looking folks are more interesting to play. But then again, I don't usually give that in depth of a look at my character's physique, I don't really care about attracting female characters because I'm always worried they're really dudes.

Same here. I tell that to people and most of em stop flirting with female characters afterwards.

Earthmother, I don't disagree with anything you said as an isolated statement, but I have another question for you. If you have a daughter (now, or in the future) will you raise her to believe she can be, and to want to be, the president, primeminister, despotic ruler, or the mistress to a president, prime minister, despotic ruler?

Me, I'd rather raise my daughter to be a doctor, than marry a doctor. And I want that for myself, and I want that for you, and your real or potential daughters.

First off, I have sons. I will never have a daughter: more children are, by my choice, not in the cards for my future. So the answer to your question will be about hypothetical daughters, or about future daughters-in-law.

I would absolutely encourage my daughters to do whatever they find fulfilling in life. If it is their OWN dream to be President, or a doctor, I would encourage them both emotionally and financially.

BUT... if their dream is to become a 'mommy' (i.e. a stay at home mother), or a nurse, or a model, or an actress, or any other 'womans job', I will encourage them to fulfill that dream with the same vehemence I would encourage them to be anything else.

My point here is that women do NOT have to BE in the most high positions of power, to have power.

When we, as women, act as if traditional womens' roles are something 'less than,' we are doing all women a disservice. If we consider the things that women have traditionally done as something they were forced into, or if we believe those roles are not important, that only reinforces the idea that women as a whole are somehow less important.

This is THE great fallacy of 70's feminism. It took me 3 years of women's studies courses to realize this underlying fallacy, at which point I dropped the minor. It has taken me 3 MORE years of being a stay-at-home-mom to STOP feeling bad about myself for being one. I had been indoctrinated to believe that if a woman doesn't go out and RULE THE WORLD, she is meaningless. I never expected to be a stay at home mom, and when my life worked out so that that's what I became, I fell into a deep depression, because I was 'just doing the mom thing', as if that is somehow a worthless, meaningless thing to do.

It isn't.

Neither is any other "woman's role."

So-called "feminists" often have an expectation of other women that is unrealistic. Not everyone can BE president, not every woman WANTS to be a doctor or a scientist. Many, MANY women value family and child-rearing as THE main focus of a certain time in their lives. Many women do not put their career 'first' in life. In my experience with women, they tend to put RELATIONSHIPS first in their life, whether they are romantic, parental, friendship, or community-oriented relationships.

What's sad to me is that you, Fifi, are 'limiting' what a woman 'should be' to her career choice. Women are more than that. That idea that 'the job is the person' is a very... MALE way of viewing the world.

As for, "would I encourage a daughter of mine to become the 'mistress' to a high powered person?" [paraphrased quote, not direct]

Not particularly, because I think that kind of relationship is emotionally destructive. BUT... would I tell my daughter to support her husband/S.O. in his career, should he choose political life? You bet your butt I would. If she *wanted* to be a pol's wife, and they made that decision together, and that's how they wanted to live their life, you're darned tooting I would encourage her to support him, because I would know that this daughter would have the ear of someone making policy. And, you know what? If my son(s) marry a woman who wants to be high-powered, I would encourage HIM to support HER just as much.

I don't believe in raising someone to marry someone for their position of power or their money, I believe in raising people to carve out their own way in the world. I believe in raising them to follow their own dreams. But I do not believe that high-powered jobs or positions are the only 'right' dreams to have. People should be allowed to have smaller dreams, and if they are my children, I only want them to follow through and do the best they can in whatever dream they pursue, be it the Presidency or parenthood.  

But I DO want my 'daughters' to have the RIGHT to become someone in a high position if they CHOOSE to do so. That is all that I ask, that the opportunities exist. I do not expect others to fulfill the opportunities, merely that any avenue is open to any person, should they choose to walk the path and make the sacrifices it takes to have what they want. As long as the opportunity exisits for women, I am content with that. If women choose not to take those opportunities, that is their own personal choice. There's room enough in the world for a lot of different ways of life.

I think perhaps your personal experiences make you particularly sensitive, and you are hearing only criticism. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with traditional women's roles. I am saying that if the idea of being a doctor makes a man an attractive mate, or the idea of having power is attractive then why limit yourself to a peripherary position instead of taking it? I think the being a mommy or a nurse is an exceptionally lofty goal, and I'd be proud to have my sons or daughters aspire to either. I'd feel I'd done something wrong if they aspired to being models. But that is a personal bias. I'd also be disapointed if my children male or female were attracted to power, but too lazy, manipulative or not sufficiently self confident enough to try to achieve their own, but instead used sex to acquire it second hand.

My experiences DO make me particularly sensitive to this issue, yes.

Am I hearing criticism? Yes. Your first post cites a 'problem' that may need 'fixed'. My assessment was that the 'problem' was what you say above, that people who use secondary pathways to power are not as good as people who do it in a primary way. I disagree that it is a problem, that's all I am trying to get at.

Your first post puts it like this:
So, I see you being critical of women who use sex, the obvious and easy way to power, to gain power. I do not find this to be a problem.

Why? Because, if it works, it works. If the woman has power via sexual means, she still has power. It was easily attained, in fact, someone else GAVE it to her, yet... she still HAS it. This is not fair, but life is not fair.

Now, you make some fine points here, to wit:
The key word to me in that, however, is "IF". IF your children were attracted to power. Not everyone is. I can understand your distaste for laziness, lack of self-confidence, and manipulative behavior. Sadly, these things are all parts of human nature. If you (or this forum) can come up with a way to make these things disappear from human existance, someone's getting a Nobel Prize, undoubtedly.

I understand, very well, how distasteful it is to see people in MU*s get advancement via only sexual means. I still don't see it as a pervasive problem. Only once have I seen a female advance *completely* beyond her own capacity through flirtation/sex. Most generally, men who are willing to give away power for sex in MU*s, don't have that much power to give. Men who have power are often wily enough to realize that some chick is 'playing' them for it, and they cut off the help/info/eq/whatever soon enough.

As far as the kind of children you intend to raise, and with what values, I wish you the best. Hopefully, your children will not use sex to attain power. But I guarantee you, *someone's* children will. And, as long as people keep falling for it, and letting their loins get in the way of their brains, then, I will defend a woman's right to utilize sex to gain power. It may not be pretty, but if it works, I'm not going to look down (too much) upon the woman who does it. It annoys me in the MU* world, but the guys who fall for it annoy me WAY more than the gals who use it.

*cheers quietly from the sidelines*

Such is the way of life... Earthmother hit it right on there.

Earthmother argues passionately and lucidly, but did she really hit it right on? Prostitution, cronism and synchophantism all work, they're all effective, and I suppose easy and fun for those involved, but is that what we want to encourage paople to aspire to?

I guess you got me, I do have a problem with it. But I don't think that makes me someone who doesn't value traditional faminine roles. I don't think gigglling and spreading one's legs are the best that women have to offer the human race, even if we throw in batting eyelashes and sultry voices. And I don't think that equating mothering, nursing etc, is fair to most mothers nannies, nurses, kindergarten teachers, and so forth.

I may need to re-read the thread but I think both of you are saying similar things. Teach your daughter she can do anything thing she wants and support her in her decision. The difference, to me, it seems is that one side is saying: your daughter can do anything. On the other: you daughter can do anything, as long as its not a "traditional woman's" job.

As a woman, I feel I can do whatever I want, but society will always have something to do say about it. For example, my male cousin joked about becoming a stripper. Everyone laughed and even thought he'd be good at it. I joked about the same thing, and everyone thought it'll be nasty. As long as it is treated in a professional matter (read: no sexual favors), isn't it the same exact job?

Well, to get a little bit back on topic. Like I said, in this world anyone can do what they want even if it is a traditional woman's role. Even those traditional roles are changing or evolving. What about the woman who wants to stay home with the kids. Some are doing it for various reasons. Some are homeschooling, some have a home business, while others have other reasons. I have nothing against that woman. Heck, there are guys staying home with the kids, too. So, is something wrong with that? I have nothing against models. Some of these models may also run their own modeling agency or other company. I have nothing against the women in adult films. Many of those woman are actually running the show (I watched something about that a while ago on HBO). Other woman have started huge businesses in what we could call woman's work: cooking, cleaning, beauty, etc.

I don't know, I wanted to be a veterinarian ever since I was a little girl. I also wanted to be a model. My grandmother supported me in both dreams. If I should have a daughter, I'll teach her to be a strong woman. I'll support her in whatever decision she should make in life. In the end, its her decision.

I am not saying anything but a traditional woman's role. Prostituting yourself is not the definition of a traditional woman's role.

Opps, Fifi, I'm sorry. I really wasn't focusing on prostitution. I was focusing on other things. For example, you have said that you didn't care for models. I just wanted to say that a woman could do more in that industry than just being a pretty face.

First, I want to say, I think it's wonderful that we can have a heated and passionate debate without bearing any personal rancor.

I've recently left the game I played for four years, but the it was evident on the game I played before, and I see it on the game on which I've recently begun. And women are not playing the mother role with depth and passion. While many women do play the ritual of seduction, procreation and reproduction, once they produce these imaginary offspring they do not blow any depth into their rp of mothering. They drag their offspring into smoky noisy taverns. Their children magically disappear when they want to run out and spar, or troll the bars for their next sperm donor. I'd love to see a woman on a mud scold her naughty rug rats as they interfere with her conducting her livlihood. I'd love to see them sacrifice for their children. I don't believe that lovely peasant girl A B and C can all afford private nurses. Why aren't any of these women running day care centers? Why aren't any of them stressed out about the magnitude of balancing their jobs as leathal warriors and the care of their children? The children born in muds seem to be more like a form of jewelry than small people that bring joy beyond their flawless cuteness, and bring worries and fatigue. The people playing mother roles are often not playing them realistically. But really this thread is about a different type of one dimensional rp.

More on point, I have trouble telling one honey voiced femme fatale from the next. This is a great pc concept: Ariana is a beautiful young woman from the poor side of town, who works hard to polish herself and use her sweet face to attract powerful men, and ensnare them in her invisible silken webs of intrigue so she can run the world through them.

The problem is with Ariana is that ninety percent of female pc's are Ariana. And less than one percent are: Mary, a woman from the poor part of town, who worked as a weaver until her fingers bled to pay to learn to read. She managed to get a job as an aide, where her sound judgement and hard work earned her a job as top administrator. She saved every penny she ever made and raised an army one warrior at a time, solidifying each man and woman to her through the sheer force of her personality and is now taking over the world.

I think that prostitution is a traditional woman's role that originates from societies where women are less valued than men.  I don't have any data to draw on, but perhaps I should do some research. Your question makes me wonder this: How common is prostitution in matriarchal societies vs. patriarchal?

Also, most of the prostitution in mud, is not money for sex. But the selling of one's very being including sex for second hand power.

I would also be happy to see more of the women who play these roles play them proudly. See them stand up and say, I slept my way to the top. Where there are men  willing to be manipulated by their penis, I am smart enough to profit. Instead most women who get ahead through sex deny they've done so, further emphasizing that what they do is shameful. If this is a role women insist on embracing (in spite of my very vocal protests) then let's embrace it without shame.

As for what roles I'd like to see women in, I'd like to see women in as many roles as they can imagine. And I'd like to see them imagine more than two. The man-like woman warrior and the woman who is a source of sexual desire first and hunter-gatherer-philosopher-weaver-warrior-mother second are both cliches. I want to see women not playing cliches. I want to see women who believe they don't need to flutter their lashes and stick out their perfect breasts for what they say to be interesting. Nor do I think they should have to remake themselves into men to be taken seriously.

Maybe I've missed it commented on earlier in the topic, however it seems to me the issues are stereotypical female characters, i.e., femme fatale, fainting flower, blushing beauty, man hating swordswoman, etc....

In the few roleplaying games I've taken an active part in, I found it disconcerting to find myself competing for rp time with other players (particularly males) when ravishing sexpots were roaming the land. On one game, it was like 75 percent of the women were possessed by drama-loving succubi while the other 25 percent were angry and resentful.
To make matters worse, very few of the males were put off by the behavior. All guys find the drama entertaining in rl? I doubt it.

I think at issue is this, in a "real world" scenerio, 75 percent of the women are not beautiful manipulative women, or helpless, or
drama queens.

The biggest problem with playing a "stereotype" in an rp mud is the lack of desire to give those characters flaws, issues, and real deep personalities. The very definition of a stereotype defies depth.

This isn't just a problem that female players face, but male players as well. I've seen white knights AND evil sorcerers who all imagined themselves to be darkly handsome and completely irresistable to women. Too many "perfect" characters and rp loses interest, depth, and story.

This isn't an argument saying there shouldn't be sexy women on rp games, women who stay home and raise children, or women who don't want to do anything but tend the gardens. At the same time this isn't an argument saying that all women in the game should be ravishing drama queens.
What it is saying is... flaws, not perfection, make the characters. RP is boring as #### when 75 percent of the game is playing the same type of character just with a different name. This is the number one reason I don't RP anymore on MuDs. Whereas at least on mushes, where characters are approved, you have a greater chance of meeting characters with depth, flaw, history, and personality.




Jeena

I think you sum up nicely what I was trying to get at, Jeena.