On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote: > Frankly, you'd have to back it up in that fashion. My experience has not > shown me any like this. I DM 3 women, and 4 men at the moment, and I would > be forced to define two of the women as being more logical than > free-associative, and two of the men as being more free-associative. Are you really unfamiliar with the general studies in this area. It's a known and well-accepted theory that women and men are different from each other. And the way they differ are *generally* as has been stated on this forum. Your experiences may differ, but your experiences are not a scientific study. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. Not a case-study, specifically, but certainly a work derived from such knowledge. Nobody writes such a popular book about how different men and women generally are without it having some substantial truth to it. If it were all a lie, it wouldn't be so well received. In reading this book, I find that my wife and I are often reversed in several areas. But that doesn't mean that, in general, the book's observations are not applicable. > I recognise that you are making the point that it is a generalisation that > people fall into it. And, that it's one that a lot of people don't. But enough do that the generalization can be made. > I just don't accept it as valid. It has not been something that is > validated by my experience, although I am happy to accept that this is what > most people BELIEVE is the case. Your experience is not the whole of experience and not a representative sample. Have you ever been in outer space? How, then, can you be sure that it is a vacuum? How can you be sure that the lunar landings weren't done on a Hollywood soundstage? Why, then, do you assume that because your experience with men and women does not match the generalization, the generalization must be false? There are hundreds of books whose basis is this generalization... can they all be inaccurate because they do not match up with your experience? > I, too, prefer diceless games, and am quite prepared to throw out rules. I > suggest to you that it isn't a female propensity, at all. Just because it is a female propensity doesn't mean males cannot be that way and that all females are that way. Do you know what "propensity" means? In general, women are more likely to accept diceless, ruleless games than men. Just because you choose something that is generally preferred more by women than men doesn't say anything about the general rule, nor does it say anything about you beyond your not fitting the general rule. > Roleplaying games have come a long way since the Seventies, and it has > changed in the face of a variety of interests. At one time the only game to > play was Dungeons & Dragons, because that was all there was. Interests have > changed. Are you aware that Dungeons and Dragons still holds the lion's share of the roleplaying market? Despite all the distance we have come, the majority of gamers are still playing in the seventies, if sales figures are any indicator. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) GMAST List Owner Ignoramus? I prefer the term "informationaly impaired" ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
