Just so this topic can finally be put to bed, with a stake through its heart: All the people arguing that sexist imagery is no problem, that it doesn't effect you, that it's perfectly ok because so much of society condones it: you're wrong. Conclusively. Mathematically. Research study after research study has demonstrated that sexist imagery does, unequivocally, alter gender perceptions: Neurological studies demonstrate that sexist images objectifying women (and men) produce hostile, objectifying response in linguistic centers of the brain: www.princeton.edu/~mcikara/Cikara2011JOC... Statistical linguistics study demonstrating how gendered pronoun ("he") produces gendered response in audience: www.springerlink.com/content/t1v31844133... Psychological study demonstratin effect on body image of female audience subjected to sexualized/idealized stereotypical female images: psp.sagepub.com/content/25/8/1049.short Anthropological study demonstrating increased sexual aggression response and acceptance of sexual violence and stereotyping in audiences exposed to stereotypical sexualized imagery: www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/chewitt/Women... Quantitative study correlating sexist gaming imagery with stereotypically sexist thought: www.springerlink.com/content/d7667776258... Study of the prevalence of gender stereotyping in advertising imagery, and its role in shaping perceptions of relative political andpersonal power: springerlink3.metapress.com/content/h178... Consumer research demonstrating the effect of "idealized" body imagery on self-image and depression: guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jsc... Meta study reinforcing the findings that game spaces tend to "reinforce heterosexual male fantasies": dmitriwilliams.com/GameMethods.pdf
I could go on for several hundred more pages, if you like. This is all from the first two pages of a quick search.
This issue is not open for debate. You may take the position that you are just fine with D&D remaining an exclusionary game which reinforces traditional gender roles in its art. You may not argue that such art does not have an effect.
Well, if all that is true, then we have a serious problem. If the perceived sexism in D&D's art is so harmful, then its outright glorification and obsession with violence must be truly destructive.
By your logic, all combat in D&D should be removed, for it will make folks more violent. In fact, if I read the tone of your sources right, the violence in D&D would turn its players in psychopaths.
Furthermore, D&D allows one to have evil characters. I guess that will cause some of its players to become evil.
D&D is often about acquiring wealth and items, so it must make folks prone to greed and it must be a leading cause of hording disorders.
Since the main way to get more powerful is by killing things, and that getting more powerful in this manner is a main focus of the game (gaining levels), then not only will D&D foster violence, it turns folks into corrupt power mongers.
Now if you say the perceived sexism is bad, but the violence is OK, or not that big of a deal, then you get this situation:
It is perfectly OK to fantasize and depict a person taking a longsword (1d8 + Str Mod) and jamming it into a female villain's chest, as long as the skin on her chest isn't seen. Then, once dead, it is perfectly acceptable to strip her body to mug her of her valuables and even her clothes. Once stripped, some games are even cool with defiling her body by raising her as a zombie and/or trapping her soul to make items or gain powers. Then, once the party is all done gloating and reveling in the violence it has just perpetrated, they cheerfully anticipate the true reward of power their deed brought by asking the simple question that all gamers do, "So, how much XP do we get for that?" And then the DM rewards them by giving the party XP and having that event lead to another series of similar events.
So, you really want to go there? Because I can find hundreds of pages to support what I just mentioned above. Just as I can find links to studies that disprove your assumptions on sexism as well as disproving the hogwash I just typed up above.
The subject IS open to debate, as 40+ pages in this thread illustrates.
Taking out the offensive material does not exclude anyone other than those who demand that the product include that offensive material...and those are just the people who*should*be excluded from the hobby. And arguing that D&D art has, historically, been better than, say, Fatal or deviantart is not much of a defense. A cupcake is not as unhealthy as a cup of pure lard...but there's no way to argue that this makes either one "healthy."
To extend your analogy a little. Cupcakes sell in massive amounts. "Healthy" feeds stay unbought on the shelves.
That's not actually terribly accurate. Healthy food sells extremely well, especially factoring in it's generally higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor.
Yeah, I got annoyed last month when i went to the grocery store and they were out of U.S.D.A Certified Organic eggs. So I had to buy some normal eggs. Their shells were thin, they tasted of sulfur (even when scrambled) and I knew that they had 25% more cholesterol that organic eggs. It was just gross.
When you factor in your health care costs the tiny price increase for U.S.D.A Certified Organic (not to be confused with 'natural' products) is a steal...
There's definitely a big difference in eggs and meat. My local butcher stocks really good meat. Not super organic save the world stuff, but wheat fed, fairly low footprint, every cow checked for scary stuff and all their food checked for pesticides, etc, going beyond govt requirements. The sausages are all meat, no snout and such, etc, etc. you can taste the difference. Not only that, you can feel the difference when you switch over from crap discount grocery store food.
And even the stuff that is more noticeably expensive, flies off the shelves.
a person has to be really out of touch to think that people are avoiding healthy food in droves.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Taking out the offensive material does not exclude anyone other than those who demand that the product include that offensive material...and those are just the people who*should*be excluded from the hobby. And arguing that D&D art has, historically, been better than, say, Fatal or deviantart is not much of a defense. A cupcake is not as unhealthy as a cup of pure lard...but there's no way to argue that this makes either one "healthy."
To extend your analogy a little. Cupcakes sell in massive amounts. "Healthy" feeds stay unbought on the shelves.
That's not actually terribly accurate. Healthy food sells extremely well, especially factoring in it's generally higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor.
Which comes down to saying the customers don't want it. And our analogy again becomes that sex sells.
lol What? Those things have higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor because you can't get them via fast food as easily as junk food, without preservatives they don't last as long on a shelf, and making them costs more. In spite of those factors, people buy the crap out of them.
You're making no more sense than the person that tried to argue that healthy food outsells cupcakes, but they're comparing staple foods against luxury foods, which makes the argument completely dishonest.
Just stop. You're full of it, and we all know it.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Taking out the offensive material does not exclude anyone other than those who demand that the product include that offensive material...and those are just the people who*should*be excluded from the hobby. And arguing that D&D art has, historically, been better than, say, Fatal or deviantart is not much of a defense. A cupcake is not as unhealthy as a cup of pure lard...but there's no way to argue that this makes either one "healthy."
To extend your analogy a little. Cupcakes sell in massive amounts. "Healthy" feeds stay unbought on the shelves.
That's not actually terribly accurate. Healthy food sells extremely well, especially factoring in it's generally higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor.
Yeah, I got annoyed last month when i went to the grocery store and they were out of U.S.D.A Certified Organic eggs. So I had to buy some normal eggs. Their shells were thin, they tasted of sulfur (even when scrambled) and I knew that they had 25% more cholesterol that organic eggs. It was just gross.
When you factor in your health care costs the tiny price increase for U.S.D.A Certified Organic (not to be confused with 'natural' products) is a steal...
There's definitely a big difference in eggs and meat. My local butcher stocks really good meat. Not super organic save the world stuff, but wheat fed, fairly low footprint, every cow checked for scary stuff and all their food checked for pesticides, etc, going beyond govt requirements. The sausages are all meat, no snout and such, etc, etc. you can taste the difference. Not only that, you can feel the difference when you switch over from crap discount grocery store food.
And even the stuff that is more noticeably expensive, flies off the shelves.
a person has to be really out of touch to think that people are avoiding healthy food in droves.
I agree, though you should look into grass fed cows as wheat fed cows are working against nature, and can get infections...
Sadly I think somewhere I heard a quote that said if they went organic with cows the cost would only increase by like 25$ per cow, because you could get rid of all of the growth hormone costs and most if not all of the antibiotics and health care of the cows. The only major problem would be the land area needed to feed them which wouldn't be a problem either if we went to barren areas and revitalized them...
Taking out the offensive material does not exclude anyone other than those who demand that the product include that offensive material...and those are just the people who*should*be excluded from the hobby. And arguing that D&D art has, historically, been better than, say, Fatal or deviantart is not much of a defense. A cupcake is not as unhealthy as a cup of pure lard...but there's no way to argue that this makes either one "healthy."
To extend your analogy a little. Cupcakes sell in massive amounts. "Healthy" feeds stay unbought on the shelves.
That's not actually terribly accurate. Healthy food sells extremely well, especially factoring in it's generally higher cost, shorter storage life and lesser convenience factor.
Yeah, I got annoyed last month when i went to the grocery store and they were out of U.S.D.A Certified Organic eggs. So I had to buy some normal eggs. Their shells were thin, they tasted of sulfur (even when scrambled) and I knew that they had 25% more cholesterol that organic eggs. It was just gross.
When you factor in your health care costs the tiny price increase for U.S.D.A Certified Organic (not to be confused with 'natural' products) is a steal...
There's definitely a big difference in eggs and meat. My local butcher stocks really good meat. Not super organic save the world stuff, but wheat fed, fairly low footprint, every cow checked for scary stuff and all their food checked for pesticides, etc, going beyond govt requirements. The sausages are all meat, no snout and such, etc, etc. you can taste the difference. Not only that, you can feel the difference when you switch over from crap discount grocery store food.
And even the stuff that is more noticeably expensive, flies off the shelves.
a person has to be really out of touch to think that people are avoiding healthy food in droves.
I agree, though you should look into grass fed cows as wheat fed cows are working against nature, and can get infections...
Sadly I think somewhere I heard a quote that said if they went organic with cows the cost would only increase by like 25$ per cow, because you could get rid of all of the growth hormone costs and most if not all of the antibiotics and health care of the cows. The only major problem would be the land area needed to feed them which wouldn't be a problem either if we went to barren areas and revitalized them...
Actually they need to look into bison, IMO. They require similar amounts of food, or less, and have less fat per pound, and more meat per animal (fewer animals needed for the same production rate). Also, the meat tastes better. :P
And I mispoke, slightly, they're fed a combination of grass and grains (corn, when ground, is packed with nutrients, for instance. it's eating it whole that makes it worthless filler) to keep their diet steady throughout the year, and their diet is lower on drugs of any kind than most. Like I said, not world saving super organic, but much better than normal grocery stuff. And I'm not nuts enough about this stuff to go any further than that, unless it's at least mildly convenient, which in my town it isn't.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Just so this topic can finally be put to bed, with a stake through its heart: All the people arguing that sexist imagery is no problem, that it doesn't effect you, that it's perfectly ok because so much of society condones it: you're wrong. Conclusively. Mathematically. Research study after research study has demonstrated that sexist imagery does, unequivocally, alter gender perceptions: Neurological studies demonstrate that sexist images objectifying women (and men) produce hostile, objectifying response in linguistic centers of the brain: www.princeton.edu/~mcikara/Cikara2011JOC... Statistical linguistics study demonstrating how gendered pronoun ("he") produces gendered response in audience: www.springerlink.com/content/t1v31844133... Psychological study demonstratin effect on body image of female audience subjected to sexualized/idealized stereotypical female images: psp.sagepub.com/content/25/8/1049.short Anthropological study demonstrating increased sexual aggression response and acceptance of sexual violence and stereotyping in audiences exposed to stereotypical sexualized imagery: www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/chewitt/Women... Quantitative study correlating sexist gaming imagery with stereotypically sexist thought: www.springerlink.com/content/d7667776258... Study of the prevalence of gender stereotyping in advertising imagery, and its role in shaping perceptions of relative political andpersonal power: springerlink3.metapress.com/content/h178... Consumer research demonstrating the effect of "idealized" body imagery on self-image and depression: guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jsc... Meta study reinforcing the findings that game spaces tend to "reinforce heterosexual male fantasies": dmitriwilliams.com/GameMethods.pdf
I could go on for several hundred more pages, if you like. This is all from the first two pages of a quick search.
This issue is not open for debate. You may take the position that you are just fine with D&D remaining an exclusionary game which reinforces traditional gender roles in its art. You may not argue that such art does not have an effect.
Well, if all that is true, then we have a serious problem. If the perceived sexism in D&D's art is so harmful, then its outright glorification and obsession with violence must be truly destructive.
By your logic, all combat in D&D should be removed, for it will make folks more violent. In fact, if I read the tone of your sources right, the violence in D&D would turn its players in psychopaths.
Furthermore, D&D allows one to have evil characters. I guess that will cause some of its players to become evil.
D&D is often about acquiring wealth and items, so it must make folks prone to greed and it must be a leading cause of hording disorders.
Since the main way to get more powerful is by killing things, and that getting more powerful in this manner is a main focus of the game (gaining levels), then not only will D&D foster violence, it turns folks into corrupt power mongers.
Now if you say the perceived sexism is bad, but the violence is OK, or not that big of a deal, then you get this situation:
It is perfectly OK to fantasize and depict a person taking a longsword (1d8 + Str Mod) and jamming it into a female villain's chest, as long as the skin on her chest isn't seen. Then, once dead, it is perfectly acceptable to strip her body to mug her of her valuables and even her clothes. Once stripped, some games are even cool with defiling her body by raising her as a zombie and/or trapping her soul to make items or gain powers. Then, once the party is all done gloating and reveling in the violence it has just perpetrated, they cheerfully anticipate the true reward of power their deed brought by asking the simple question that all gamers do, "So, how much XP do we get for that?" And then the DM rewards them by giving the party XP and having that event lead to another series of similar events.
So, you really want to go there? Because I can find hundreds of pages to support what I just mentioned above. Just as I can find links to studies that disprove your assumptions on sexism as well as disproving the hogwash I just typed up above.
The subject IS open to debate, as 40+ pages in this thread illustrates.
Just to interject real quick, that's not how the brain works. It does not respond to all stimuli in the same way. The fact (and it is a fact) that sexist imagery has a direct impact on mindset does not, in fact, mean that violent imagery has a direct impact on mindset, nor that any such impact will be of similar intensity, type or share any other meaningful traits.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Sadly I think somewhere I heard a quote that said if they went organic with cows the cost would only increase by like 25$ per cow, because you could get rid of all of the growth hormone costs and most if not all of the antibiotics and health care of the cows.
People say all kinds of things, but factory farming works the way it does for a reason: either it produces lower cost per pound of product, or it produces a more appealing product that can be sold for more.
Just to interject real quick, that's not how the brain works. It does not respond to all stimuli in the same way. The fact (and it is a fact) that sexist imagery has a direct impact on mindset does not, in fact, mean that violent imagery has a direct impact on mindset, nor that any such impact will be of similar intensity, type or share any other meaningful traits.
You are correct, though I would say folks are affected differently by different stimuli.
Case in point: My mind does not respond to sexist imagery as strongly as it does to violence. That is probably why I am less "sensitive" to sexism than others are.
I personally find our society's condoning and even glorifying violence while demonizing sexuality and the human form a great hypocrisy. Obviously, not all agree with me (as this thread shows), but that is how I see it.
I was talking about the mythology and philosophy of this idea of 'business ethics' not any of the other stuff. Sorry I didn't make it clear. There is no such thing as business ethics.
That's a fascinating unsupported opinion. Of course there's such a thing as business ethics. It's frequently neglected and traduced, but that doesn't make it non-existent. How is your willingness to ignore it different from the willingness of corporate professionals to do so?
Simply mocking a relevant consideration as non-existent is counter-productive. Please don't.
Z.
Because if a corporate professional tries to follow business ethics practices (especially in a corporation) they will be fired when the company makes less mony than last quarter (it's literally a law that they have to increase profits each quarter, or be removed). Business ethics and profit are two entirely different things, and while someone can follow business ethics practices or not as they see fit, they either make profit or lose their positions. So one is optional and the other is not...
That's simply not true. There's no law that says that. There are general goals to increase profit and those are often the plan(and how the corporate world sometimes twists itself in knots to make the plan is not a good thing), but there are plenty of instances where people are ethical and that's the goal of the company.
You turn a blind eye to non-ethical behavior in a company and you often end up losing a lot of profits when it blows up in your face.
See the link I posted it talks about the laws that force profitability on corporations.
When a corporation turns a blind eye to non-ethical behavior, it is doing so because it thinks it can get away with it. The only restraint from every corporation everywhere from doing that is that they would lose profits if they did. Its a fear response, not a responsibility response...
No, the laws don't force that at all. The goal of a corporation is to attempt to maximize profits for their shareholders. Over the long-term. If something goes wrong in the short-term, such that the corporation goes bankrupt, that's not good for the shareholder. And ethical violations are the fast track for making that kind of thing happen.
The problem with unethical behavior in a company is that most companies have to keep records of various things. If you're doing something unethical, you have to figure out how to hide that behavior. Which means you need to sabotage how the company records things.
If one person can figure out how to break things to do unethical behavior for the 'good of the company', it is only a matter of time before someone with less scruples will use the same maneuver to do unethical behavior for the good of themselves. And that's when you end up with Enron-style messes.
Which is not the goal of any corporation or shareholder...
