Topic: Racism and Sexism in Shadow World

[MisterK]

Not to mention Iylari almost everywhere. After all, Atlas II explicitly states that "while they consider themselves inherently superior to all other races, the Loari are certainly not above trading with them.", which is racism any way you twist it. It might not be violent racism, but nothing smacks more of supremacism than looking down at other races as "lesser beings". I guess that imperial britain (minus most of the military imperialism) would be a fairly good analogy, especially in the way the Loari treat the less civilised races (such as the Shuluri they trade with in Malqanar, or the Shay in Rulaash). And if the analogy is accurate, then it certainly is a key tenet of the setting.

I can understand that it makes some people uneasy (though I wonder how they can play in any published fantasy settings since all of them are, explicitly or implicitly, quite plagued with one or more -ism, inherited from either traditional fantasy writing or our real-life medieval examples, european, asian or otherwise). But, in my opinion, it is all the more important to be very clear about it and be explicit about the societal consequences of those biases - after all, if someone wants to remove the offending -ism, they have to care about the corresponding societal impacts as well.

Speaking of Iylar, let's talk about the founding of Namar Tol, to say nothing of its political structure.  The island was inhabited by Erlin who had a choice between displacement and entering service as the first Plebians.  The Patrician families say that the Erlini voluntarily entered service because they're moved by the obvious superiority of the Loar, but that's straight up colonialist narrative.  Not far from the Verdant Tower, an island of Erline tell a very different tale...

Agreed, and I think we could dig up a number of similar tales in other places as well. I don't really buy the "erlini are content to let the Iylari handle the worldly stuff" explanation that is waved as a justification for Iylari monopolising the upper class as is the case in Namar-Tol, Lys, the Vashaan Domains, the Empire of a Thousand Dawns, Remiraith and was probably the case in Urulan. And that's for elves only - Laan/Zori have a similar track record in Jaiman (with the migration of the Shay people from Emer during the expansion of the rule of the Masters of Emer), and in Emer both during the expansion of the Masters of Emer (who used the Laan might to spread their dominion) and during the expansion of the Emerian Empire (once again with a Laan backbone, simply because the Aldari were so damn few).
Even the Duranaki have that racial supremacist trait (which makes sense when you look at their origins).

But, as distasteful as it is, it drives the geopolitical aspects of the world. The Namari racial bias, coupled with their limited population, makes them natural at long-distance "trade enclave" colonialism, which is what the East India Company would have done if there had been fewer british soldiers and gunships to back its thirst for resources and riches. The bias, all by itself, explains much of the way the Namari interact with the rest of the world both as individuals and as a political entity. And how they interact with the Emerian Laan is forever tainted by the deal they had to strike when the Emerian Empire expanded during the early Third Era. The Namari played the long game, but they remember because some of them were there.

I also think that the "long view" and the associated memories are essential traits of the Iylari mind. The short-lived races think the Emerian Empire is the stuff of legend, long buried under the rubble of more recent wars and catastrophes. But some of the Namari were there when it happened. And when they see humans, especially Laan, they see the people knowked at their door and basically told them to submit, or else. People they had fought alongside during the Great Wars. If you link the capability to forgive with the death of those who fought wars, then the elves never forgive. Their natural supremacist bias is aggravated by the weight of history, because it affected them directly.

Having racism in the world is, in my opinion, an essential part of the setting, and if you play geopolitically canon or near-canon Shadow World, I think it is important to stress those biases on the players, if only to make them understand that they *can* take the high road but they cannot expect that view to be widely shared. And I have the same ppoint of view on other biases that are described in the setting (sexism, homophobia...): expect most people to be racist, sexist and homophobes, because it is the societal norm. Having a different point of view might not trigger outright hostility or rejection, but at best, the character will be viewed with either curiosity ("he has weird ideas"), condescendance ("really, the folly of youth"), or suspicion ("that's the kind of ideas that erode the core values of our great kingdom").

[MisterK]

Personally, I don't think they are needed* for this to happen. In a world where a woman can walk up and go all, "Take this you jerk-faces!" Then blast them with a fireball, the fact that they menstruate and can have kids would be less inhibiting. (And lets be honest here: the reason these things 'hold women back' are not because of any mental or physical effects they cause, but because of men perceiving they effect women. Women have been kicking butt with them all through human history, without them being able to toss fireballs, call forth an earthquake or heal a room full of people with a few words.) In a world where women can do all that, and there are female-aspected gods to look up to, I believe their would be less sexism. (Not none, just way less.)

Let's talk about female-aspected gods as role models : the main Orhanic female-aspected gods are Valris (knowledge and wisdom), Eissa (death), Oriana (love, female fertility, beauty) and Iloura (nature, "mother earth"-like deity). The core domains of the goddesses closely mirror those typically found in standard antique polytheistic religions - and those were not known as providing gender-equal role models, even with the existence of such figures as Athena Nike (Laia in the Orhanian pantheon ?) and Artemis. The head of the pantheon is still a male figure, the main aspects of trade, craft and war are still male figures as well. In fact, one courld argue that the only truly powerful female-aspected role model is Orgiana, and we all know how widely accepted her worship is.

And the argument that women can blast a sexist pig's demeanor with a fireball argument does not hold - in the real world, women were perfectly capable to wield a sharp blade and stick it where it hurt (so they basically had the same potential), but it led them nowhere. Because the social construct is not based on potential, rather on who controls access to the potential and who writes the laws governing its use. And, with the notable exception of Sarnak and the possible exception of some elven nations, those who write the laws and control access to power are the men. Who just have to institute the child-bearing capability as "a sacred gift" to make sure that the women are excluded from the down-and-dirty brawl for power struggle (put them on a pedestal, then ensure that they cannot step down from it).

But one of the main aspects of sexist bias is recognition of lineage: it is far easier and reliable to draw lineage through the female line. Yet most cultures, both in our real world and on Kulthea, draw lineage through the male line - ensuring that the role that really matters is that of the "man of the house". And all the fireballs, or blades, in the world would not change that, except in radical cases such as Sarnak, where the hierarchy of genders is simply reversed.

I think the way to handle the "lack of detail" in such places is to go with the results of the initial social interaction check (or, in old D&D terms: npc reaction check). How good, or bad the check result is, determines possible prejudices of the npc, and/or the locals in general. It can also help you determine that npcs background. If they end up hating elves, lets say, then they could originally be from an area/people you know that hate elves. Now, you got some depth to the npc, just from a single roll. It makes sense for the pc's fumble to be explained off as the npc just happens to one of the few who, "don't take kindly to their [the pcs] types mix'n with goodly-folk." ;-)

To each their own, of course, but I don't like it, because it means that you are basing an entire population's point of view and the impacts it has on society on the roll of a die. I would rather do the reverse : know the biases beforehand, and assign modifiers as necessary... and manage exceptions as plot points (after all, if everyone around is an "everyday racist", meeting someone who is *not* is sure to attract attention). But go to Sarnak and have the men do the talking ? You're going nowhere, and no die roll will change that.

[Jenkyna]

Women have been kicking butt with them all through human history, without them being able to toss fireballs, call forth an earthquake or heal a room full of people with a few words.)

While it is true that I can think of examples of women warriors in Celtic culture, Japanese culture, or La Pucelle d'Orléans - Jeanne d'Arc, it really isn't as simple as "prejudice" explaining the majority of limitations on a woman's life in the middle ages.

As far as rates of death in childbirth, no one knows quite for certain just how high they were. There is an interesting discussion on Quora on the subject, but even within that the percentages given vary wildly.

In addition to death rates in birth:

They had no infant formula, baby bottles, or breast pumps until the 20th century, which made the mother the only food source for her babies. If the mother died in birth, you had to find another woman willing to breastfeed someone else's kid until it was weaned, or else it just starved to death.

With no birth control a woman could potentially be almost perpetually pregnant until she either died from it, or made it to menopause. Barring infant mortality she's potentially feeding 2 or more of her own babies at a time, day and night, as often as they got hungry. Some women had enough nursing children that they had to employ a wet nurse to help with the feeding.

There was no automated household until the 20th century, so all the washing for those infants was done by hand.

And yes, unless she was a princess in a castle, she worked at her husband's business on top of all the mom stuff too.

I'm not trying to diminish the role of sexism in the middle ages here, or downplay the modern risks and effort it takes to be a mom. In feudal Japan the women trained with polearms to defend their villages from raiders when the men were off at war, they fought Samurai and won, so yes women were capable of kicking butt if given a chance. It's just that medicine, contraception, baby bottles, disposable diapers, and other modern conveniences, were transformative for women.

but because of men perceiving they effect women

The time they needed to spend on family probably held women back far more effectively than sexism. A man could devote half the day to his trade, but a woman might only be able to devote a fraction of that time to learning her husband's trade. Even if that woman was more talented at the trade than her husband, as I am sure many of them were, she wouldn't have the time investment needed to catch up to him in skill.

Let's talk about female-aspected gods as role models : the main Orhanic female-aspected gods are Valris (knowledge and wisdom), Eissa (death), Oriana (love, female fertility, beauty) and Iloura (nature, "mother earth"-like deity).

Somewhat off topic, but since heterosexism was mentioned earlier, I tend to view Oriana as a patron to all lovers, and not just male / female relationships. The text could really be read either way, but I felt that this fit the setting better. Eissa could also been seen as a patron to women who choose to stand on their own.

I think one of the things that sets ShadowWorld apart is that it doesn't try to force itself to be PG13 in the official material. I know there are other modern settings that embrace subjects some folks find uncomfortable, but I don't think any of the major 80s fantasy settings really confronted these subjects quite as openly. All the Satanic Panic stuff with D&D is sort of ironic given that the TSR settings were pretty tame by comparison. Terry's evil characters aren't cartoonish in their evil acts.

[MisterK]

Let's talk about female-aspected gods as role models : the main Orhanic female-aspected gods are Valris (knowledge and wisdom), Eissa (death), Oriana (love, female fertility, beauty) and Iloura (nature, "mother earth"-like deity).

Somewhat off topic, but since heterosexism was mentioned earlier, I tend to view Oriana as a patron to all lovers, and not just male / female relationships. The text could really be read either way, but I felt that this fit the setting better. Eissa could also been seen as a patron to women who choose to stand on their own.

You could have Jaysek in this role as well - if I remember well, the twins have a large following in the Komaren, which is incidentally the unofficial homeland for the Sherikaan.
But I concur that Oriana would be a patron for all lovers, not merely heteronormative ones. The thing is, however, the actual message depends more on the clergy than on the goddess herself, and the voice of the clergy is fairly culture-dependent. I would expect the clergy of Oriana in such lands as Rhakhaan and Saralis, for instance, to have a message that, at least in public, caters more to the traditional beliefs of the people.

I think one of the things that sets ShadowWorld apart is that it doesn't try to force itself to be PG13 in the official material. I know there are other modern settings that embrace subjects some folks find uncomfortable, but I don't think any of the major 80s fantasy settings really confronted these subjects quite as openly. All the Satanic Panic stuff with D&D is sort of ironic given that the TSR settings were pretty tame by comparison. Terry's evil characters aren't cartoonish in their evil acts.

Agreed. I think Terry strikes a nice balance between pulling punches and making those issues the main argument of the setting. What I miss (I can recreate it, but having it would make things easier... and would probably improve overall consistency of the setting) are the explicit causal effects (direct or indirect) between biases and societal aspects - more generally, the explict causal effects between imbalances (psychological, economical, geographical, or otherwise) and societal aspects. For instance, trying to come up with a global trade map that works (who produces what, who exports what where) and their causal relations (why is something imported while it could theoretically be produced locally ? How do kingdoms deal with having to rely on imports for some critical resources, such as grain, oil, or iron ore ?) is next to impossible given the lack of relevant information. In preindustrial times, most wars are waged over either religious or economical issues, and while we have a number of clear examples of the former (namely, Vajaar and the Lankan Empire), it is very difficult to have a clear enough picture of the latter.

[jdale]

Women have been kicking butt with them all through human history, without them being able to toss fireballs, call forth an earthquake or heal a room full of people with a few words.)

While it is true that I can think of examples of women warriors in Celtic culture, Japanese culture, or La Pucelle d'Orléans - Jeanne d'Arc, it really isn't as simple as "prejudice" explaining the majority of limitations on a woman's life in the middle ages.

You make important points, but it's also worth noting that Jeanna d'Arc was burned at the stake for crimes including dressing as a man. The fact that she did so at least in part to avoid rape magnifies the point about sexism rather than removing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Cross-dressing_charge

I would say sexism is not the whole story, but it certainly is an important part of the story.

[Jenkyna]

I would expect the clergy of Oriana in such lands as Rhakhaan and Saralis, for instance, to have a message that, at least in public, caters more to the traditional beliefs of the people.

That is a very good point. ShadowWorld is still very different than say Tanya Huff's 'Quarters' series in which homosexuality was accepted as normal at all levels of society. I will say that the Emperor's violent reaction to his son's orientation seems to be portrayed as abnormal even within the more conservative culture of Rhakhaan.

That actually makes me think of an interesting question. How would homosexuality be viewed in Sarnak?

For example, it could be openly tolerated or encouraged among women, but viewed as unacceptable in men due to their role as the "reproducers." Alternatively it could be tolerated in men, but not in women. For the men who seek to overthrow the current order in Sarnak, attitudes towards homosexuality could add a strong element of moral outrage to the hostility they have for the political order.

Another one might be: Would a man's body be perceived as his closest female relative's property; to which she ha a right to make free with, or to barter away for a trade alliance?

For instance, trying to come up with a global trade map that works (who produces what, who exports what where) and their causal relations (why is something imported while it could theoretically be produced locally ? How do kingdoms deal with having to rely on imports for some critical resources, such as grain, oil, or iron ore ?) is next to impossible given the lack of relevant information.

As a bit of an aside to the main discussion; I get what you are saying here. I had a similar issue with the two-dimensional nature of space maps in Traveller. To be fair it's a game, and the jump mechanic was intended as a simulation for space travel. It does have a mechanic that can make jump routes more complex than just distance. What I didn't like about it was the impact it had on culture design. For example Star A is 1 parsec away from Star B on an X,Y coordinate map, but 20 parsecs from Star B on an X,Y,Z coordinate map. That has a drastic impact on trade routes, and when you look at it that way it opens up a lot of good questions about Star B if it takes 20 jumps to get there.

Why do people live there? Why do merchants go there? A star way out in the boonies won't have the same facilities as one in the hub of the region, and it's less defensible. If the people who live there have a valuable resource that makes it worthwhile for traders to come, then it's worthwhile for raiders too. What kind of people choose such a life? How does the hardship affect them? How do they view outsiders as a result of the raiding? How does the remoteness impact the law level outside of the spaceports extrality zone?

You make important points, but it's also worth noting that Jeanna d'Arc was burned at the stake for crimes including dressing as a man. The fact that she did so at least in part to avoid rape magnifies the point about sexism rather than removing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Cross-dressing_charge

I would say sexism is not the whole story, but it certainly is an important part of the story.

Again, I am not trying to dispute that sexism existed. What I think is different is that in today's world women can excel as doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, or politicians, because they have the time to pursue those vocations and master them. If someone today says "a woman can't succeed at X profession because women are too ____" we can more readily perceive that as false and sexist, but I am not sure you could make the same distinction as readily 150+ years ago, because the reproductive burden imposed on women by biology was much more onerous. Even today, pregnancy / childbirth is one of the top killers of women who are of reproductive age. Sorry I know I am being a bit repetitive here, but I can't stress enough that childbirth is hard.

I haven't read much about sexism in the medieval period, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that it had the same exact ideological talking points as sexism today. For example, the prevalence of women in the workplace today means women are competing with men for jobs. That in turn results in men pushing back on the very idea of women in the workplace. We see that idea play out in racial prejudice all the time.

Back in the medieval period I get the impression superstition played an out-sized role in sexism. To give an example: Even through the 1800s, doctors couldn't directly examine a woman's anatomy for fear that doing so would transform them into wanton harlots. This substantially limited the medical care a woman could receive, and it's just absurd. Today we hear a lot about "a woman's place being in the home", but I never hear people say that "a trip to the gynecologist will turn women into nymphomaniacs, so let's go outlaw screening for cervical cancer."

What I do think is an idea that is consistent going back into biblical times, is the idea that being female is shameful. That's something that has been consistent in western culture for millennia.   

There is also the idea of women as property of their male relatives, and limitations on the holding of power or wealth except through a man. Those aspects of sexism were imposed as opposed to being a biological distinction between the sexes, and undoubtedly that was all about control of power. 

On the subject of Jeanne d'Arc I would make two observations.

The biblical clothing law that was used as a pretext for her execution applied to men as well. It stems from a passage in the bible that forbade both men and women from cross-dressing.

As far as rape in prison goes, that's still a big problem today in both men's and women's prisons. My guess would be that it was a problem for men in prisons back then too. I am sure women had it a lot worse in that respect, both inside of prison and outside.

As far as the role of all of that in ShadowWorld, I think the setting is by it's nature very different because it's history lacks the fiercely patriarchal religious underpinnings prevalent in the history of our own western world. Religious law is impossible to change, because to modify it means accepting that God is flawed and his Word contains errors. With Orhan it's a polytheistic system with a pantheon of male and female deities, each holding dominion in their own area. One could potentially modify the hierarchy of the ShadowWorld pantheon to alter something that MisterK touched on, which is the patriarchal nature of the pantheon.

As I understand it the hierarchy of the Greek Pantheon is an organization imposed largely by modern scholars, and the reality is that individual Greek Gods were tied to sovereign city states e.g. Athena being tied to Athens. Athena herself is variously portrayed as daughter of Zeus, one of the Titans, as an equal to Zeus, and in some cases as a more powerful goddess than Zeus. Her origins may well predate Greece and go back to Ethiopia.

Although the ShadowWorld text does name Kuor as the King God, it also points out that the relationships between the gods is loose, and the gods are most often apart from each other with only occasional mental contact. In my mind this opens the possibility that the "official" relationship between the Lords of Orhan is a construct imposed by churches as opposed to an actual pecking order on Orhan. You could treat Kuor as First Speaker on a council as opposed to a King. A city might worship Valris, and not even recognize the existence of Kuor. This in turn would affect social norms, and structures within a culture.

For the record I would hesitate to alter major points of canon, but it could easily be used to fill in gaps where the books leave off, and assist in fleshing out cultures that are named but not detailed.

One thing that I do think really differs with ShadowWorld is the idea that being female is a source of shame, or that a woman can't own property or wield power openly. It's there in some cultures, but it's not the dominant global outlook.

Another point, women seem to have equal access to medical care in ShadowWorld for the most part, and can themselves be medical caregivers i.e. the Sisters of Eissa. Men can be great Fortune Tellers.

[RandalThor]

Again, I am not trying to dispute that sexism existed. What I think is different is that in today's world women can excel as doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, or politicians, because they have the time to pursue those vocations and master them. If someone today says "a woman can't succeed at X profession because women are too ____" we can more readily perceive that as false and sexist, but I am not sure you could make the same distinction as readily 150+ years ago, because the reproductive burden imposed on women by biology was much more onerous. Even today, pregnancy / childbirth is one of the top killers of women who are of reproductive age. Sorry I know I am being a bit repetitive here, but I can't stress enough that childbirth is hard.

I would never be one to say that childbirth was not hard. That it didn't involve some serious dangers, and yes, those dangers were greater many years ago. But, I don't believe it was the deterrent to women's rights that you think it was. Women have been bearing children since the beginning and have been performing various chores, many of them quite taxing, at the same time. When I say, "Woman have been kicking a$$" I don't generally mean fighting, but sometimes, yeah, they do.

On the topic of modern medicine being "transformative": not sure where anyone said it wasn't, but damn-skippy it sure is. Not only for women, but it has definitely made child birth much less dangerous. Thankfully. I don't know the numbers either, but even the smallest decrease is great.

I don't entirely agree with MisterK's statement about "women were perfectly capable to wield a sharp blade and stick it where it hurt (so they basically had the same potential)." Sorry, but in the fighting arena men are just more capable. With everything else being equal, if you take 100 women and have them fight 100 men, the men will win way more than they lose. This does not demean the capabilities of women in any way in my book. The ability to fight should be classified as the least important of all abilities. But unfortunately men historically have not thought that way and I do think it contributed greatly to women being forced into the second-class citizen role in most cultures. Men are bullies and we very often hold our physical strength over women in an attempt to keep them down. (I am using present tense, though I assume that most of you are not like this, it is still far too prevalent in our world to be using the past tense.)

I believe that the coddling of women came about as an excuse, not a reason. All of man's "protectiveness" of woman was merely a smoke screen to dominate. But, jdale says it better:

I would say sexism is not the whole story, but it certainly is an important part of the story.

To each their own, of course, but I don't like it, because it means that you are basing an entire population's point of view and the impacts it has on society on the roll of a die. I would rather do the reverse : know the biases beforehand, and assign modifiers as necessary... and manage exceptions as plot points (after all, if everyone around is an "everyday racist", meeting someone who is *not* is sure to attract attention). But go to Sarnak and have the men do the talking ? You're going nowhere, and no die roll will change that.

I, too, generally love tons of background info, I am an immersive gamer. Give me a huge player handout, please! As a GM I have made 20+page player handouts, complete with full color images and maps, and I want the same. I love to use in-world information. I just know that not everyone is like that, and gave the method of randomizing such information as an option.

[Jenkyna]

I would never be one to say that childbirth was not hard.

On the topic of modern medicine being "transformative": not sure where anyone said it wasn't,

I wasn't suggesting any of you were saying that. I am just trying to get a point across.

But, I don't believe it was the deterrent to women's rights that you think it was.

From what I have read on the subject though, and to my original point although I have admittedly wandered, that was a major element in why women learned trades, but seldom mastered them during the medieval period. Time investment is an essential element in mastering anything, regardless of personal aptitude. Women undoubtedly possessed aptitude, but they lacked time. Not just time on a day to day basis, but they lived shorter lives.

With everything else being equal, if you take 100 women and have them fight 100 men, the men will win way more than they lose.

There was a time when people felt upper-body strength was essential to sword fighting, but I think that idea has largely been debunked in modern times. Good physical fitness is essential to any physical endeavor. Today they think there is a more basic reason why women weren't warriors back them, and that's simply because they may have preferred not to be.

Awhile back I was reading an article about a rare sleep disorder, and one of the subjects of the article was an army combat trainer who was one of a handful of people certified to teach soldiers how to fight two people at once, and who also happened to be a woman. Granted she was almost certainly atypical both as a woman and as a soldier in general, but she was undoubtedly a master at combat, and taught the boys how to have a chance at surviving a fight where normally they could expect to die.

[MisterK]

There was a time when people felt upper-body strength was essential to sword fighting, but I think that idea has largely been debunked in modern times.

I believe it really depends on the weapon type, and more specifically for melee weapons, of weapon mass and where the center of mass is located with regards to the way the weapon is handled. Basically, the more momentum the weapon has, the more upper body strength it would require to wield it if you are not using full-body rotations (in which case the required body strength is partially transferred to the center and lower body).
But you do not need that kind of weapons to be an effective fighter at any range - on the other hand, occidental medieval warfare iconography favored that kind of weapons (heavy sword, axes and maces/flails) because it provided an easy way to crush through a knight's armour. So if your basic warfare model is occidental medieval warfare, you will likely end up with weapons with high momentum requirements and high upper bidy strength requirements because the need to wield a shield effectively at the same time prevents the use of full-body rotations.
But 1) there are other models of warfare and 2) the knight (whether on foot or mounted) as the ultimate battlefield machine was brought low by other weapons that, incidentally, required less upper-body strength because angular momentum was less important.

@Good physical fitness is essential to any physical endeavor. Today they think there is a more basic reason why women weren't warriors back them, and that's simply because they may have preferred not to be.

Which is a sound reasoning, if you ask me Do not fight unless you have to... but with the corollary that you must be trained to in case you have to.

But given the number of lethal weapons that do not have high upper body strength requirements (1), I think women can hold their own in battle against men adequately, given the same quality and quantity of training (and then we go back to the "free time" discussion).

(1) On that point, I really think RM should get rid of stat bonus strictly according to weapon type, and use stat bonuses according to *combat style* type. Different combat styles would have different physical requirements and different weapon uses.

[RandalThor]

But, I don't believe it was the deterrent to women's rights that you think it was.

From what I have read on the subject though, and to my original point although I have admittedly wandered, that was a major element in why women learned trades, but seldom mastered them during the medieval period. Time investment is an essential element in mastering anything, regardless of personal aptitude. Women undoubtedly possessed aptitude, but they lacked time. Not just time on a day to day basis, but they lived shorter lives.

There was a time when people felt upper-body strength was essential to sword fighting, but I think that idea has largely been debunked in modern times. Good physical fitness is essential to any physical endeavor. Today they think there is a more basic reason why women weren't warriors back them, and that's simply because they may have preferred not to be.

I believe it really depends on the weapon type, and more specifically for melee weapons, of weapon mass and where the center of mass is located with regards to the way the weapon is handled. Basically, the more momentum the weapon has, the more upper body strength it would require to wield it if you are not using full-body rotations (in which case the required body strength is partially transferred to the center and lower body).
But you do not need that kind of weapons to be an effective fighter at any range - on the other hand, occidental medieval warfare iconography favored that kind of weapons (heavy sword, axes and maces/flails) because it provided an easy way to crush through a knight's armour. So if your basic warfare model is occidental medieval warfare, you will likely end up with weapons with high momentum requirements and high upper bidy strength requirements because the need to wield a shield effectively at the same time prevents the use of full-body rotations.
But 1) there are other models of warfare and 2) the knight (whether on foot or mounted) as the ultimate battlefield machine was brought low by other weapons that, incidentally, required less upper-body strength because angular momentum was less important.

@Good physical fitness is essential to any physical endeavor. Today they think there is a more basic reason why women weren't warriors back them, and that's simply because they may have preferred not to be.

Which is a sound reasoning, if you ask me Do not fight unless you have to... but with the corollary that you must be trained to in case you have to.

But given the number of lethal weapons that do not have high upper body strength requirements (1), I think women can hold their own in battle against men adequately, given the same quality and quantity of training (and then we go back to the "free time" discussion).

(1) On that point, I really think RM should get rid of stat bonus strictly according to weapon type, and use stat bonuses according to *combat style* type. Different combat styles would have different physical requirements and different weapon uses.

Made the point better than I could. I was basically going to say, "If you are talking about fencing and the like, then sure. But that is a relatively recent type of combat and I think arose out of the phasing out of heavy armor. Which was due more for financial reason than lack-of effectiveness, I believe: it took a lot of time and resources to make the armor and train the knight to use it correctly. Even early firearms were not very effective against heavy armor." Or something like that. 

I would say that firearms and other modern weaponry are the closest analogy to using magic in a fantasy world. And women are certainly capable of using them just as well as men. Only the ideas that they cannot, which are still entrenched in most societies, have limited women in this fashion. In a world where women have been doing the same magics with the same capabilities as men, these ideals may not have been entrenched quite so much. So, I feel that lesser sexism than our world has is totally viable and more likely. But, I also feel that if you want to tackle such topics in your games, go for it. Good luck and I hope it helps everyone learn something. Of course, as I am quite liberal (You don't say!?!), I am hoping what you are teaching/learning go in that direction. 

The time factor. Again, I think most of this limitation has been placed upon women unfairly. While having a child is a process, women have been doing it and still doing other things (working, going to school, fighting, etc...) at the same time, so I think this is not an argument for why women don't do certain things. I am sure, that if you look back far enough, past The Middle-Ages, past when these male-dominated religions began to influence most the cultures of the world, you will see that women have been doing much more than they have been given credit for. They were doing what modern folk think of as "male" jobs, almost as much as the men were. Not saying there hasn't been a division of labor, that is just a good survival strategy to make sure everyone knows their job, but I think it would be less along the lines of men/women, and more along the lines of capability than even now.

Now, if you are talking about being housewives and such, that was put on them and would be an unfair example of things that limit their time. You can't force someone to do X, Y & Z, then complain that they couldn't/didn't do A. Men should have been as responsible for the house work, including hands-on child rearing, as women, but historically we men have shoved that solely on the backs of women (in most cultures). So, sure, if that is the case, then they don't have "the time" to learn a trade or how to make war. But it was because we (men) have not let them. In a fantasy setting, as I explained above, especially one as magic-rich as Shadow World, I really don't feel you would have the same amount of division. So, not having it is not a big stretch, imo.

[MisterK]

I reorganised the quotes - for some reason, the quotes in your post were all out of whack.

There was a time when people felt upper-body strength was essential to sword fighting, but I think that idea has largely been debunked in modern times. Good physical fitness is essential to any physical endeavor. Today they think there is a more basic reason why women weren't warriors back them, and that's simply because they may have preferred not to be.

I believe it really depends on the weapon type, and more specifically for melee weapons, of weapon mass and where the center of mass is located with regards to the way the weapon is handled. Basically, the more momentum the weapon has, the more upper body strength it would require to wield it if you are not using full-body rotations (in which case the required body strength is partially transferred to the center and lower body).
But you do not need that kind of weapons to be an effective fighter at any range - on the other hand, occidental medieval warfare iconography favored that kind of weapons (heavy sword, axes and maces/flails) because it provided an easy way to crush through a knight's armour. So if your basic warfare model is occidental medieval warfare, you will likely end up with weapons with high momentum requirements and high upper bidy strength requirements because the need to wield a shield effectively at the same time prevents the use of full-body rotations.
But 1) there are other models of warfare and 2) the knight (whether on foot or mounted) as the ultimate battlefield machine was brought low by other weapons that, incidentally, required less upper-body strength because angular momentum was less important.

Made the point better than I could. I was basically going to say, "If you are talking about fencing and the like, then sure. But that is a relatively recent type of combat and I think arose out of the phasing out of heavy armor. Which was due more for financial reason than lack-of effectiveness, I believe: it took a lot of time and resources to make the armor and train the knight to use it correctly. Even early firearms were not very effective against heavy armor." Or something like that. 

Actually, the knights were starting to fail before heavy armour was phased out - the pendulum starting to swing the other way during the Hundred Years War, when it was demonstrated several times that the essence of a good army was not brute shock power but discipline and suppressive fire. The heavy knight was vulnerable because of his overall weight which limited his deployment, but also because armour-piercing weapons had been developed and were proving their efficiency when used in a disciplined way. After all, if most missile weapons were banned for use against christians at a time (by the pope), it was because of the danger they posed to the established christian order that the knight (the nobleman) was the protector of the people - if knights could be felled by bandits armed with bows and crossbows, the whole societal order fell apart with them. And this clearly indicated that knights were vulnerable. They were also increasingly vulnerable to pole arms such as pikes which were becoming dedicated "anti-tank" weapons.
But in order to use bows/crossbows and pikes decisively, you needed something no knight-based army could provide : military discipline. Knights were noblemen - military discipline was not their strong trait, as so many middle ages battles demonstrated. As long as they only faced each other on the field of battle, victory was determined by individual might and bravery, but there was very little military acumen involved. As soon as people added military training and discipline on top of already existing anti-knight weapons (that were used by commoners), those who did it had both the numbers and the weaponry to defeat the medieval tanks. From then, the only way was down.

Additionally, if you leave the strictly western medieval mindset behind, you will notice that most weapons were not heavy impact weapons. From antiquity where the roman soldiers conquiered the world with pilum (short throwing spear) and gladius (short sword) to medieval japan were the early samurai iconic weapon was the longbow and the late one was the katana, a blade that is NOT meant to be used as a momentum weapon, heavy impact weapons were the exception, not the norm.

Basically, the heavily armoured knight was a progressive development that needed a particular mix of factors to bloom:
- available resources (money, metal and the ability to work it to make usable heavy armours)
- steeds capable to carry the armoured knight into combat (the warhorses became increasingly sturdier, a development that could not be matched in other parts of the world)
- favourable terrain (you need terrain where heavy cavalry can be deployed for effect, otherwise your heavy cavalry is just dead weight)
- a societal structure that favours low intensity conflict where the few noble warriors are enough to wage war. This can be true for local warfare, but becomes increasingly difficult to maintain for invasions.
- a social contract (based on religious decree in western europe) that strives to preserve the status quo where the heavy armoured nobleman has the "right to rule" in exchange of the duty to protect. The real downfall of the knight occured at the same time as many changes in the societal order of western europe, which were reflected in the way war was waged.

Remove any of those, and the way people select weapons for war suddenly becomes different.

As for Shadow World, the situation is compounded by the existence of monsters. One one hand, some monsters have the same heavy armour as the knights and would thus require similar weapons to fight. On the other, if you can hit a monster without being hit in turn, so much the better, and you *won't* be able to do that with heavy weapons - you might, however, be able to do that with pole arms and missile weapons, which tend to be effective against heavy armours as well.

As for the rest, I cannot see many places where noble heavy cavalry would be the ultimate weaponry on the battlefield. most of Emer would be too hot, with the possible exception of Haestra. Jaiman would not have the required wealth and societal structure, with the possible exception of U-Lyshak - Rhakhaan would have moved away from a medieval army structure because of the need to have the army available for long campaigns of conquest, even though the terrain in Rhakhaan would favour the knights, Tanara neither has the right terrain nor the right social structure, and Saralis would have medieval-like armed forces but would be too poor to support the archetypal "heavy tank" knight - the saralian knights would more likely be the equivalent of early medieval (norman) noblemen, with lower protection and an unarmoured mount, with the associated increased vulnerability to pole arms and missile weaponry.

I would thus expect heavy weapons such as battle axes, two-handed swords, flails and the like to be quite uncommon, and I would also expect most fighting styles to have developed around weapons that do not require so much upper body strength. Exceptions would obviously exist, but women would not be handicapped in this aspect.

[Jenkyna]

I believe it really depends on the weapon type, and more specifically for melee weapons, of weapon mass and where the center of mass is located with regards to the way the weapon is handled.

Agreed, but I believe some of the change in thinking is based on changes in beliefs about the weight of the weapons and how they were used. A lot of ideas from just a few decades ago were based on stereotypes or misconceptions. Sadly, scholars often don't ask tradesman for details about their crafts.

Celtic women fought with swords against Roman Legionaries in armor. I believe there is even an example of a Celtic grave in which they found the body of a pregnant woman who had clearly died in battle against a Roman. Japanese women fought with Naginata against Samurai in bamboo armor.

@Good physical fitness is essential to any physical endeavor. Today they think there is a more basic reason why women weren't warriors back them, and that's simply because they may have preferred not to be.

Which is a sound reasoning, if you ask me Do not fight unless you have to... but with the corollary that you must be trained to in case you have to.

Honestly, I think I expressed that poorly, but you got the idea. What I meant to say is any physical endeavor requires good physical conditioning regardless of whether you are male or female.

As far as upper body strength, if you look at photo of an Olympic Women's Water Polo team you will see women with upper arms and shoulders that most men would kill for. Do athletic men's upper bodies bulk larger in the long run? Yes. That doesn't mean women can't put on enough muscle mass to hold their own, and potentially exceed that of most men, even men of good physical conditioning. You could also look at female gymnast working the uneven bars, and you would realize those women have upper body strength, and endurance, beyond that of most men. Male gymnasts do have events that specifically showcase upper body strength, and it is a substantial difference in how their events work with respect to what their shoulder and arm muscles make possible. That exercise they do with the rings is just nuts.

Women today do choose to be warriors, police, and other militant professions. I think that has been driven by a substantial change in self-perception, as well as a substantial change in the concept of nation. I think it's easier to choose fight for country when we are the nation as opposed to the King being the nation. Those Celtic women were fighting for their land against an Emperor who wanted to take their land, and enslave them. To be certain though, the example of Jeanne d'Arc is an example of a peasant woman who fought for both God & nation back in the days when everything belonged to the nobles.

I tend to think the form of modern RPGs is the product of those changes in self-perception on the part of women, and I do think it's important that settings like ShadowWorld embrace those girl-gamers while remaining immersive and true to its form. Terry does have a fair number of good female characters, but as I pointed out while back when I pulled all of the names from a few books into a spreadsheet, there are considerably fewer examples of female names to draw on when creating characters.

Personally, Jeanne d'Arc is my favorite historical figure, and were I a Catholic she would be my chosen patron Saint. She was an amazing person, and her life story speaks to me on a fairly profound level.

The time factor. Again, I think most of this limitation has been placed upon women unfairly. While having a child is a process, women have been doing it and still doing other things (working, going to school, fighting, etc...)

Here I'm focusing more on European Feudalism as opposed to other world regions, because what I have read is really more focused on women's lives during European feudalism. To be certain you could look at the example of Native American women carrying their babies on the back as they fulfilled their roles in what were then hunter gatherer societies, and as I pointed out above Celtic & Japanese women went into battle, sometimes even while pregnant.

At no point have I suggested that women weren't working their asses off at stuff other than homemaking, just like a man.

What I think you aren't seeing is how the amount of time it takes to look after 5 or 6 small kids by yourself drastically limits your ability to spend time on anything else.

My stepmother was a homemaker with 4 kids when her husband killed himself. The only reason she was able to go back to nursing school and re-certify as a nurse in order that she could support her family, was because two friends packed up their own family and moved halfway across the country in order to help take care of her kids while she studied. Everything in life is a question of allocation of three scarce resources: time, money, and personal. If you put those into one thing, by necessity you take them from another. The only way to change the dynamic is to reduce the investment a given activity takes to complete. In the case of reproduction, this means reducing the numbers of kids, while increasing the number that survive to adulthood, and increasing the number of mothers who survive the process. That modern world paradigm has to exist in the RPG fantasy setting for females to have equity imo.

One way of addressing that, that ShadowWorld does do, is limiting birthrates in elven populations. Basically, immortals have built in birth control. In terms of a setting dynamic, you might say that opens a door for elven women that is potentially closed for human women, unless they also have some means of limiting the number of pregnancies they have. You could also play that dynamic up in gender / race prejudiced cultures.

Now, you can certainly argue that the requirement that a women must marry, and therefore make babies till she died of it, was sexism.

Digging around a bit on the internet, there are historical examples from the renaissance period of women mastering trades. In those cases, a woman generally learned her family's trade from a very early age, essentially apprenticed just like the boys did, and worked at it her entire life. Those examples were unusual though.

Where I think RPGs failed in the early days was in imposing limits on stats for female characters, but where I think they succeeded is in the very fact that female characters were allowed to be warriors and magicians. We owe Gygax for the fact that he welcomed his daughter at the table. What he didn't do, in fairness because it wasn't really necessary for his game, is world-build a social structure to support that. I think modern RPG world-builders want that structure in place, so their worlds are realistic. ShadowWorld does a pretty good job of being a world players can immerse themselves in. I don't know every setting out there, but I will say I haven't seen many that have this much detail. TSR's Forgotten Realms & Traveller's Third Imperium are the big ones that come to mind.

[RandalThor]

I reorganised the quotes - for some reason, the quotes in your post were all out of whack.

Yeah, I am so out of practice with how this site operates I had some fun trying to do that.