Regarding romance specifically,

Quote from: jhkimOther player groups have been very into romantic subplots, though. Some is preference, and having the the gender of the opposing GM or player match preferred gender helps. My friend Janyce had a number of long-running Call of Cthulhu campaigns with mostly male players, who were often into romantic subplots.

Quote from: SHARK;1080020I imagine being a man with four women certainly helps the whole romance thing, too. The guys have a limited, but also an important interest in it as well, but how they go about it, and the priorities are different from the women. The women are usually very keen on specific details that the men are entirely oblivious to. Unless such and such actually presents itself somehow to the men, they are usually focused on other things about the relationship in general.

Actually, I take back what I said about romance. In retrospect, the pattern of my experience is that mostly hetero male players don't want to play out romance with other hetero males. Also, slightly less so, hetero women with other hetero women. But hetero players are usually fine with romance playing off an opposite-sex GM or other player. And LGBT players tend to be comfortable playing out romance with whomever. i.e. A gay man usually has no discomfort playing out a romance plot with a woman, in my experience. It's more about stigma / discomfort than needing to be attracted. And of course, it varies a lot from player to player.

As I mentioned, my friend Jan had mostly male players in her Call of Cthulhu campaigns - but there was a ton of romantic involvement. A majority of the male players were still heavily into that side of play.

Quote from: jhkim;1080024In retrospect, the pattern of my experience is that mostly hetero male players don't want to play out romance with other hetero males. Also, slightly less so, hetero women with other hetero women. But hetero players are usually fine with romance playing off an opposite-sex GM or other player. And LGBT players tend to be comfortable playing out romance with whomever.

This is pretty much what I see, except I've not seen hetero women embarrassed at romance plots - but some women players & GMs aren't interested in romance plots, either not at all, or no more than the typical male player or GM. Off hand I can't recall any straight female GM/straight female player/romance plot situations so I don't even have any anecdotal evidence. The female GM I've had who was most interested in romance plots had all male players. I think I'm more interested in romance plots than most straight male players, though there are plenty others like me (especially among the more thespian types), while female players uninterested in romance plots are more a minority.

This site has gotten so weird about gender. There is a constant stream of kvetching about how 'those other sites' obsess about gender politics, but when I (rarely) drop in here, this is the place where there I'm sure to find active threads where frequent posters blather about what women are like, and what men are like, and how different they are, and how unfair the outside world is toward men, and so forth. It is all so predictably sexist and dopey.

Quote from: SHARK;1080016More than once, there has been some inter-party conflict between the women players and the men players. The women often want to find ways to heal creatures, make friends with them, or intervene somehow and negotiate peaceful relationships, and listen to the different creature's and their grievances and problems, either with other creatures, or with the humans. The men are often more like, "Fuck 'em. The Lord says they are evil, they have been opposing civilization--and we get gold, too. Crush them all!" The men often accuse the women of being too emotional, too trusting, too peace-loving, and too willing to disregard the progress and wealth of the human community, in favour of being sweet and nice to the monsters or humanoid creatures. The women often get wrapped up in wanting to help the talking deer, or the band of rainbow sprites, and could give a damn about the uber wood the humans want, or the wealthy mines that the humans want to dig into. The men are like, hey, we need to crush these creatures, and secure these resources for the human community. If we don't do this, the evil orcs on the other side of the hills will get it all, and the humans will be fucked then, down the road. The women snort at the men, and say, "What about the talking deer? What about the ancient rainbow sprites that have been there forever? We need to be friends with them, and help them protect their homes and their families!" LOL. Yeah, I have been amused as they argue back and forth through all of this stuff. You'd be surprised at how passionate they can often get! LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks Shark.  "Greetings!" to you too.  Yeah, that sounds familiar but you know what they say, 'Viva la difference'! I enjoy the perspective change, personally.  I've always liked having a woman or two in the group to balance out the play style.  

My daughters are too young, but I fully intend to introduce them when they're old enough.  Between the wife and two girls, I expect I will provide many hours of talkative woodland creature dialogue and palace intrigue in the future - whether I want to or not.  Cheers!

Quote from: Larsdangly;1080101but when I (rarely) drop in here, this is the place where there I'm sure to find active threads where frequent posters blather about what women are like, and what men are like, and how different they are

My God! Someone call the Purity Police! :eek:

Quote from: Brendan;1080117Yeah, that sounds familiar but you know what they say, 'Viva la difference'!

My God! Someone call the Purity Police! :eek:

Edit: Found another one for the Gulags https://quillette.com/2019/03/11/science-denial-wont-end-sexism/ This 'Debrah Soh' is probably really called something like John T Ratzenberger III. Either way, clearly in need of Re-Education.

Quote from: Brendan;1080117Thanks Shark.  "Greetings!" to you too.  Yeah, that sounds familiar but you know what they say, 'Viva la difference'! I enjoy the perspective change, personally.  I've always liked having a woman or two in the group to balance out the play style.  

My daughters are too young, but I fully intend to introduce them when they're old enough.  Between the wife and two girls, I expect I will provide many hours of talkative woodland creature dialogue and palace intrigue in the future - whether I want to or not.  Cheers!

Greetings!

You're very welcome, my friend. And also--welcome Brendan, to our forum here. It's good to have you here with us! I might add, we seem to have been attracting a lot of new members recently! It's very cool.

Indeed, the *perspective* change when dealing with one or more women that are really into roleplaying in our D&D games is quite refreshing, and fun! Their priorities and focus is different. It has inspired me to change my expectations involving the campaign, what *progress* looks like, pacing, and embracing different kindsof goals. Along with this, I have really had to dive deep into preparing and detailing all kinds of aspects of the campaign that *most* men would entirely overlook, or not be interested in whatesoever. The women players enjoy it immensely, and are very appreciative of the extra attention and details provided to all manner of things. Overall, it provides more depth, creativity, and nuance to various aspects that the women consistently find interesting and meaningful. For many women players--*most of the time*--just hacking and killing things, and gaining gold isn't terribly interesting. I always seek to add more elements that can appeal to not just the men players, but also consistently present a *buffet* of things to maintain the women's interest, and to provide a comprehensive foundation of inspiration and fun.

I think that over some time, with some practice and skill gained--from your wife and daughters--you will definitely notice a different kind of campaign, and they will make different kinds of demands on you, as the DM, creatively.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1080157Their priorities and focus is different. It has inspired me to change my expectations involving the campaign, what *progress* looks like, pacing, and embracing different kindsof goals.

I definitely find that taking a more relaxed pace, with more space for 'talky stuff', is good for women & thespians.
It also tends to enrich the game and make for a better campaign overall IMO - the guys who like to hack things have a richer environment in which to do the hacking, and better developed enemies to hack.

Quote from: S'mon;1080144My God! Someone call the Purity Police! :eek:

Edit: Found another one for the Gulags https://quillette.com/2019/03/11/science-denial-wont-end-sexism/ This 'Debrah Soh' is probably really called something like John T Ratzenberger III. Either way, clearly in need of Re-Education.

It kind of bugs me that you to cite supposed science here - when you dodged debate on the subject in the political correctness thread, unable to stand having your views challenged.

For the record, I believe that genetic neurological differences exist between men and women.

However, something that Soh's article fails to address is environmental differences - which was a core point in Eliot's review. (I haven't read Rippon's book.) The bizarre assumption of many interpretations is that *any* observed difference between a population of men and women, then it *must* represent essential genetic programming rather than environment. So if we scientifically measure that women wear dresses more than men, that proves that women are genetically programmed to wear dresses. That's nonsensical, but it is routinely asserted about any number of scientific results.

Men and women absolutely differ in their behaviors and interests - which is reflected in brain activity and other scientific measurements. However, it is still an open question how much of those differences are from environment and how much are from pure genetics. Soh ignores this point, and lamely asserts that any observed brain difference contradicts Rippon.

Without addressing this, Soh's mild contesting of Rippon's scientific results comes across as weak. There may well be problems with Rippon's book and her summary of studies, but to criticize it, a critic should dig into the science and address the real scientific points.

Quote from: jhkim;1080164The bizarre assumption of many interpretations is that *any* observed difference between a population of men and women, then it *must* represent essential genetic programming rather than environment. So if we scientifically measure that women wear dresses more than men, that proves that women are genetically programmed to wear dresses. That's nonsensical, but it is routinely asserted about any number of scientific results.

I have honestly never seen that argument made by anyone. Not even once. However, I frequently come across assertion that all differences between men and women are due to socialization. There are entire political movements where this is an article of faith.

Gendered behaviour is the result of a mix of socialization and biology. This is not seriously disputed by the people who study these things, or by any reasonable person. The anti-science ideologues on this matter are almost entirely on the far left.

Quote from: jhkim;1080164It kind of bugs me that you to cite supposed science here - when you dodged debate on the subject in the political correctness thread, unable to stand having your views challenged.

Maybe I'm not sufficiently autistic to wish to argue endlessly over some silly novel series I've not read. Anyway if I'm bugging you, put me on Ignore for a bit. That's what I do when people get sufficiently annoying.

Quote from: S'mon;1080144Either way, clearly in need of Re-Education.

Hah.  I do sometimes wonder how many watch-lists I'm on.  

Quote from: SHARK;1080157Greetings!

You're very welcome, my friend. And also--welcome Brendan, to our forum here. It's good to have you here with us! I might add, we seem to have been attracting a lot of new members recently! It's very cool.

...

I think that over some time, with some practice and skill gained--from your wife and daughters--you will definitely notice a different kind of campaign, and they will make different kinds of demands on you, as the DM, creatively.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks. I've been lurking for a while now, but I'll take the "newbie" designation.

Yeah, it's certainly an adventure.  I'm already out-numbered!

Quote from: jhkimThe bizarre assumption of many interpretations is that *any* observed difference between a population of men and women, then it *must* represent essential genetic programming rather than environment. So if we scientifically measure that women wear dresses more than men, that proves that women are genetically programmed to wear dresses. That's nonsensical, but it is routinely asserted about any number of scientific results.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080174I have honestly never seen that argument made by anyone. Not even once. However, I frequently come across assertion that all differences between men and women are due to socialization. There are entire political movements where this is an article of faith.

Gendered behaviour is the result of a mix of socialization and biology. This is not seriously disputed by the people who study these things, or by any reasonable person. The anti-science ideologues on this matter are almost entirely on the far left.

It happened exactly like that in S'mon's link.

1) In the book, Rippon argues that observed brain differences between sexes are either exaggerated or environmental.
2) In the article, Soh argues back that brain differences exist, claiming that this finds fault in Rippon.

From Soh's article,

QuoteHow anyone familiar with the neuroscientific literature can argue this with a straight face is puzzling. Even if we were to neglect the thousands of studies documenting the effects of prenatal testosterone on the developing brain, we can look no further than the largest neuroimaging study examining sex differences to date, published just last year in Cerebral Cortex. In a sample of 5,216 brains, the study found significant differences between the sexes. The amygdala, a region associated with appraising emotion, was larger in men, even when men's larger overall brain size was taken into consideration. Another study, published last month in Nature's very own Scientific Reports, found sex differences in grey matter volume among 2,838 participants.

Here Soh does nothing to suggest that amygdala size or grey matter volume is purely genetic rather than environmental. Maybe they are - but that needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed. If there are substantial environmental effects to them, then they do nothing to dispute Rippon's thesis.


More broadly, outside of scientific circles, there are tons of people who assert that observed differences between men and women are essential rather than environmental. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, etc.

Oh, my 31/3 game RSVPs are now at 1 male player & 5 female -  I know one of the women well, one other has played a few sessions, the the other 4 players I don't know and we'll make PCs on the day. Should be interesting! *eek*

Quote from: jhkim;1080181It happened exactly like that in S'mon's link.

1) In the book, Rippon argues that observed brain differences between sexes are either exaggerated or environmental.
2) In the article, Soh argues back that brain differences exist, claiming that this finds fault in Rippon.

From Soh's article,


Here Soh does nothing to suggest that amygdala size or grey matter volume is purely genetic rather than environmental. Maybe they are - but that needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed. If there are substantial environmental effects to them, then they do nothing to dispute Rippon's thesis.

She does. Prenatal testosterone is highly dependent on genetics; i.e. the sex of the baby.

The thing is: There is a very substantial push-back to any study that concludes that there are biological sex differences in our brain or behavior. But Soh is correct in pointing out that this should have been settled long ago based on data we already have.  It is even worse than she says; some of it is even successfully used in clinical treatments on a daily basis, but people STILL argue that there is no such thing as e.g. effect of testosterone on how we feel or behave. Because if they do, then they have to admit that we can expect substantial differences between men and women.

Quote from: jhkim;1080181More broadly, outside of scientific circles, there are tons of people who assert that observed differences between men and women are essential rather than environmental. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, etc.

This is true. And sometimes there might be something to what they are saying. I have run into students who had been told by educated people (no less) that men and women do not differ in libido. I have a feeling that their grandparents could probably have told them that this is hogwash, and they would have been right.