Ancient mythology, from the 'heroic era' (3000-1500BCE), deeply influences society today. We play out these same patriarchal myths through so much of our society. Books like Wild at Heart exemplify this. Our concept of heroism, of self, and of what it means to be a (hu)man all depend upon these myths: Heroes only become heroes by killing a she-monster and winning their prize of a female-object.
I have played Dungeons and Dragons since I was 16. I am only now asking myself, can I still play? For DnD is a purposeful reiteration of these myths. My character goes out to kill and to rescue. So I decided to build a character that would no longer kill the monsters that are killed by patriarchy.
However, when I tried to do this, I realised the character was not feasible. Aside from Tiamat, there are a great deal of other 'creatures' in DnD that occur in patriarchy-perpetuating myths. These include Medusa, gorgons, hags, mermaids, dragons, most sea-monsters, snakes, spiders (think of the ultimate evil of the drow with their matriarchal Lolth-worship), harpies, and chimeras. In fact, it goes deeper. The 'types' that DnD assigns to these creatures also stop my sword, for how can I kill such repressed creatures as 'outsiders', 'beasts' (from whose perspective are they beasts anyway?), 'aberrations', and 'monstrous humanoids'?
Indeed, I must consider what 'monster' means, for all these creatures are listed in the 'Monster Manual'. Aristotle wrote, "Whatever does not resemble its parents is already in a way a monster, for in these cases nature has... deviated from the generic type. The first beginning of this deviation is when a female is produced..." (Genesis of Animals). So the female is the start of the monster category, and everything else is lumped in with that, except for the 'generic' man. Interestingly enough, 'human' is not in the Monster Manual, and so may be the only thing the character could kill. Let's reduce that further, to say that men may be all the character could kill.
So it seems that a feminist character is impossible in this game. Squeezed out into obsolescence, a party member that would be worse than useless. For within a patriarchal world, the female has no place. Catherine Keller writes, "'The characteristics most highly developed in women and perhaps most essential to human beings are the very characteristics that are specifically dysfunctional for success in the world as it is' (Miller). And creation of new worlds presupposes, dangerously, some sort of success in the world-as-it-already-is on the part of the would-be creators." (From a Broken Web, 22).
I have already taken issue with playing DnD because of its political and religious naivety (with its anti-pagan witch-burnings, its elitism, and its focus on power-over), and because of the greed of its producers. However, I believe this is the 'killing blow' to the game, from my perspective. For if by playing I am forced into perpetuating a damaging, patriarchal mythology, then I will not play. Playing would go against what I am trying to work towards (and away from) in my life, so I will no longer do so. Edit: (Through the comments I received about this post, I changed my mind and will still play.)
This is my own opinion and my own decision. I do not expect any of my DnD-playing friends to follow me, nor do I wish them to feel guilty because of me. But I'm curious what they think of this post. :)
While I agree with you on the greed of the publisher and can't say thank you enough for recognizing the anti-pagan overtones of the game, I disagree with you on thinking that the game is perpetuating an exlpoitive patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteInitially the game was defined to give women an equal footing with men. This was very different from most other games of the time when DnD was popularized. From my experience with other rpgs that gave women lesser stats, more non-heroic roles and a back seat to guys, DnD has done more than most to see that the there is some equality in the PCs.
Anytime we think of boycotting something on either a moral or ethical basis we have to look at intentions. Is WOTC greedy? Hell yeah! They're a business first. Are they doing what they can to keep women down either as villains or as heroes taking a second hand role? I don't think so, because alienating women would drive away a growing demographic from their product. Are they doing it for moral reasons, nope, just financial ones imho.
I understand and sympathize with whatever you should decide about this. I would like to add that I love gaming with you and hope there are some RPGs you would still have fun playing. No matter what, remember they are just games and if you're not having fun, then fuck em!
Love Ken
I think I agree with psychicken. An anti-feminist agenda that DnD has is not so much one limited to the game, or even indeed the RPG genre, but rather in the whole concept of myth telling as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThere is a good test, I can't remember where I read it, but it still holds up to see whether or not a film is a "female" film. To pass this test a film must satisfy the following three things...
1. It must have at least female character who's name is spoken in the film
2. The character must have at least 3 lines of dialog
3. The character must not be a love interest of one of the leading males
This sounds simple right? A single woman, with only 3 lines of dialog? Yet a stupidly high number of films fail this simple test. I just navigated to IMDB and checked out their "Top movies" page, all of the top 10 fail. I started reading down and the first movie that passes is #22 (Pyscho) and then #26 (Silence of the Lambs).
The problem isn't with DnD, it is with story-telling as a whole, which is an overtly male dominated mythos which largely focuses on male-centric themes and male lead characters.
-Iain
There is something about intent. But as the therapists tell us, what we do not work out, we act out. Greed may be intentional, but in a way I am more afraid of the unconscious, of the blind wotc-man leading me thru patriarchal mythology that damages the women (and this men) I share life-community with.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a problem with myth-style story telling, then I should also avoid that. Not all story-telling is patriarchal (I think). But there's something to be said for not participating in the top Hollywood movies. I will not be telling our myths of Snow White and Cinderella to my children (or anyone else's), as they reinforce female passivity and build up ideas of shining princes and happily-ever-afters that do not connect with the reality I experience.
If I am to think holistically, then I should be concerned about the stories I tell and the stories I live.
Ironically, I think a game like Call of Cthulhu is probably less harmful, and I would be more willing to play it (esp. with psychicken). CoC does not act out heroics, for all the 'heroes' die or turn insane in an ongoing story of transcendence, beyondness and marginality trying to gain a hold. Heck, you even feel sorry for some of the 'monsters' encountered in Lovecraft's work.
Oh, and concerning how DnD was better than many other rpgs by not giving less stats to women, I think the consequence of that was that women were just absorbed into being men with a particular shtick. Occasionally there are differences between the sexes (a few prestige classes require you to be feel, and I believe the (unofficial) Book of Erotic Deeds handles sex a lot better), but you generally end up playing the generic anyway - either a male hero, or a female hero in drag.
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your comments. They really do help me out in figuring out my life and where I want to go with it. :)
I'm not going to quit DnD quite yet. I write my blogs as suggestions, not certainties, and I received an email that has made me re-think my position.
ReplyDeleteThe email stated, "There are good reasons to quit playing D&D, but I believe a feminine critique is not among them." I think that is right.
Although I am concerned about the mythology that is perpetuated by DnD, that is not enough of a reason to leave it completely, to quit the community of people who do play it. I have a lot of fun with my friends who play, and quitting that fun is in some ways an insult to them, as if I am judging them to be doing something that I cannot lower myself to. And that's not the way I should react, as it is judgmental and negative. Instead, I should continue to play, and hope to change it. I let go of good things too easily, and throw babies out with the bathwater too often. I'll have to change that about me, as babies are actually quite nice and should be kept. :)
So I will continue to play. I doubt I'll bother to get/learn 4th edition, but I'll continue playing what I do know for now. To abstain would be akin to the holier-than-thou fundamentalist-me of a few years ago, who abstained from some things that it was unnecessary to. I'm trying to get away from that. Thank you to my friends who helped to show me this.