@Dinh AaronMK: I fully agree, with an amendment. If a morality system (or similar) is used, it should be less good versus evil, more pragmatic survivalist versus charismatic idealist. The pragmatic survivalist might not want to leave people to die, but will do it to accomplish an objective or save the majority. The charismatic idealist will try to save innocent lives, even if it costs the lives of some of their men or even themselves in the process. It also makes an in-between state not only relevant, but perfectly reasonable, and better reflects the outlook of human beings between individualism and collectivism, between self and community, and then deciding from there if those actions are motivated by a sense of righteousness, arrogance, or simple necessity.

Easy: make diverse and compelling characters. Create a diverse cast. It's not even about feminism or anti-racism/oppression. It's just good, realistic writing.

And I hate excuses like "but the time period" because I'll throw A Song of Ice and Fire in your face, which has a good mix of men, women, white people, colored people, queer relationships, and disabled people but takes place in a medieval fantasy setting. It acknowledges issues that are still problems today, but through characters. It adds immersion to the story. No one is "colorblind" and there's plenty of sexism, homophobia, etc...But there are also characters who are basically embodiments of "fuck you" to those attitudes--WITHOUT making the story all about those issues. It's perfection, imo.

Stories comprised solely of straight / white characters are not only boring, but make no fucking sense. If you just include good representation in a role play or story, you basically solve the problem.

As far as racism, sexism, etc. goes I will incorporate it into RP if the setting calls for it. Like I'm not going to do a RP about the Southern US in the 1800's without there being some sort of racism from the white characters involved. I like realism in my historical RPs, but it doesn't mean I agree with racism, sexism, etc. in real life. Roleplaying is simply another form of acting so should be treated as such.

It would be interesting to see somebody successfully subvert a lot of the common time-period norms. There isn't any rule written that all pre-industrial societies have to be patriarchal. You'd have to attend to the reasons why gender stratification existed in the first place (primarily, the difficulty of maintaining households in time periods where there was no microwaves or washing machines or Lysol, or the reality that having and raising children was vital to the community back then because infant mortality rates were so high and there were not a lot of nursing homes around). I have definitely seen it done successfully. The Adem in the Kingkiller Chronicles come to mind, where the society is so matriarchal that they believe the idea men have a hand in conception is foolish, and don't see a connection between sex and reproduction. You can do a lot of things, especially when writing about societies that don't exist, whether they are in fantasy worlds, or set in the future, or set in an alternate version of our world. Make a Gay Caliphate on Mars. Your options are limitless.

What you should avoid is the thought that your morals would somehow bring about a utopia. Question yourself a lot. If you made a society where your belief, whether it be third-wave feminism, or Christianity, or egalitarianism, became the moral norm, would that really mean the end of society's problems? Would a feminist society, where your beliefs became law, actually manage to eliminate prejudice? Finding the holes in your own ideas and reflecting on what they would mean will make for the most interesting writing. And really, it makes you a better person.

I quite like characters with conflicting mental states (to a degree that is) and enjoy the design of a man with many rules imposed on himself for fear of what he may do/have done happening again. I've always used ideas such as feminism to build on a character design I had in mind. For example I once made a nobleman for a story who saw women as his play things and gave them no rating other than bed servants. His views were not shared and it caused serious damage to his reputation when he was exposed, thus fueling his belief they were evil creatures with only one good purpose.

I have no personal joy playing out such characters, as I am very much opposed to them even existing! But for stories these villains can be vital, as he was, for the plot. Such views and beliefs can be easily implemented into a Roleplay, though it is best to make it subtle and believable. I rather doubt for instance that you would enter a town and see just women as guards and the likes. I personally see it far more believable if the men still make up the town watch but the women guard the palace and/or form the ruling classes

I feel like the wording of this question should of been "How do you address gender roles, pressures, identity etc. in your RP's" rather than "Feminist roleplaying".

It was be a more understanding title, but we intellectual folk have cut through that veil and discovered the core of this argument for a good debate (though I know that was not the function of the topic at first if I remember rightly). I truly feel that this argument is entirely dependent on the timeline and theme of the story.

Magic Magnum said
I feel like the wording of this question should of been "How do you address gender roles, pressures, identity etc. in your RP's" rather than "Feminist roleplaying".

this is a good way to word it because as much as feminism is important in our world, roleplays have the freedom for their world to have entirely new social construction and systems of oppression.

Magic Magnum said
Depends on the definition of feminism.-If you mean third-wave, as in the belief/idea that women are always discriminated against, men suck *yadda yadda probably the shit you said you didn't want to debate about*.

That is second wave feminism, not third wave. Third wave feminism is more "Capitalism/medicine/religion is inherently patriarchal." One of these days, I will need to make a clarifications chart, so people stop using "first/second/third wave feminism" and "radical feminism" incorrectly. If you are going to criticise the movement that has nearly eradicated misogyny in the west, at least do it with correct terminology.

Jozarin said
That is second wave feminism, not third wave. Third wave feminism is more "Capitalism/medicine/religion is inherently patriarchal." One of these days, I will need to make a clarifications chart, so people stop using "first/second/third wave feminism" and "radical feminism" incorrectly. If you are going to criticise the movement that has nearly eradicated misogyny in the west, at least do it with correct terminology.

That's sounds like a little bit of a radical statement. Heck i didn't even know about first wave,second wave, and third wave because it all sounds basically the same to me. But i applaud people who bring these things into their characters, or other things. You kinda get tired of seeing the same shit over and over in a character.

First wave is the nineteenth-early twentieth century movement that brought about voting rights and more legal emancipation for women. Very basically, it was more about laws. And, for whatever reason, temperance.

Second Wave was the mid-late twentieth century movement that focused on the idea of "Women's roles" in society. This would be sexual roles, career roles, the whole works. There were laws involved (Roe vs Wade for example), but it was much less about the legal status and much more about the broader place women had in western society.

Third Wave feminism is a little tricky because it is quite a bit broader. Some of it has to do with expanding western views on gender into other cultures, and some of it is more of a continuation of second wave feminism in the sense things like pay differences. It also has expanded into transgenderism and the like. On top of it, particularly in the English speaking world, is the popularity of "Privilege theory" in Sociology and the movement to produce policy based on it. That is where things get controversial. Whereas Privilege theory itself isn't completely off base, it is incredibly easy to oversimplify, and since it is popular with the college-going white middle class, people who get into Privilege theory tend to slight the importance of economic factors in favor of those things that apply to them.

And radical feminists are those who went off the deep end and want to start castrating dudes. We should start investing in codpieces soon...

Vilageidiotx said
And radical feminists are those who went off the deep end and want to start castrating dudes. We should start investing in codpieces soon...

Hey! Radical feminism has done great things for the rights and freedoms of middle-class cisgender lesbians.

I don't agree with feminism. I agree with equal opportunities, and I think it's only fair that everyone has an equal opportunity to sign up and roleplay.

Not sure how I apparently missed some of the later replies to this until Henry posted. :/

Anyways, all the stuff I said about Third Wave feminism is stuff like that Third wave does. I was not off in my definition, I just forgot to include their love of Patriarchy.
Plus, I'd hate to break this to people but feminism is not doing crap to help gender equality (or even help women) at this point. It's turned into a hateful movement that wants to see men burn so women can enjoy all sorts of privileges and advantages. We've hit a point in society that men and women are equal, do both still have their own issues? Oh yea, we do. But both sexes has things that they are discriminated against, so we're both equal in the sense we both have battles of fight. We no longer have a society or legal structure where one sex is dominant over the other.

When I get married I'm thinking of merging last names with my fiance. Do you think that's a feminist thing to do? Or is that equalist?

henrypotema said
When I get married I'm thinking of merging last names with my fiance. Do you think that's a feminist thing to do? Or is that equalist?

That's a do what you want thing to do.
I definitely wouldn't make that the expected norm of families though, cause you could get some really weird/unpronounceable last names from that.

henrypotema said
When I get married I'm thinking of merging last names with my fiance. Do you think that's a feminist thing to do? Or is that equalist?

Everybody does their own thing, but I always thought that would get unwieldy if it became the norm.

When two people do it and you get something simple Smith-Jones, that isn't too bad. But if their child marries the child of another family who did the same thing, you would get something like Smith-Jones-Pierce-Franklin. And then it just keeps going, until everyone's last name is just an amalgamation of all the last names ever.

Okay yeah you'd end up with long names, but surely feminists can agree that this is the only true equal thing to do?

henrypotema said
Okay yeah you'd end up with long names, but surely feminists can agree that this is the only true equal thing to do?

Feminism would argue that it should always be the woman's last name, cause involving a mans at all is exercising a power fantasy over women and is Patriarchy.

In all seriousness though? Yea, that is essentially an equal thing to do.
Another method though could be:

1) Use both but separate. Two last names? Make one a middle name? etc.
2) Alternate last names per child (But this would probably confuse both outsiders and the children).
3) Just let the couple decide for themselves which last name to use.

I think letting people choose their own way of doing it makes the most sense. Equality should be equal in the sense of equal rights and access to choices, not equal in the sense that you are forced to fit some shallow abstract that somebody else invented.