Karen J Cravens writes:
(in response to me)
> CW>It is a known theory that men and women are essentially
different. It
> CW>is far from a well-accepted one - indeed, most people actively
> CW>theorizing about this sort of thing seem to have reached a
conclusion
> CW>that notions such as "masculine" and "feminine" are entirely
socially
> CW>constructed.
>
> Yes, but we *do* live in that social construct. Whether kids raised
in a
> social vacuum would develop no differentiating gender-based
tendencies is
> not an issue here, because no one who roleplays grew up that way.
Nature
> vs. nurture is altogether irrelevent when you're dealing with the
results.
Right - and while I'm not arguing (as some seem to be) that these
differences do not exist, I'm pointing at a couple reasons for the
differences. What annoys the living @#$% out of me is the continued
use of "masculine" and "feminine", which are exceedingly vague and
often mean little more than "good" and "bad" (or "bad" and "good,"
depending on who's applying them).
If we're going to talk about roleplaying styles, let's use more
precise words. We can almost certainly agree on what "objective" and
"subjective" mean, or "emotional" and "rational," or "competitive" and
"cooperative." Rather than lumping subjective, emotional, and
cooperative under the amorphous term "feminine", and objective,
rational, and competitive under the amorphous term "masculine" --
especially when, as several posters have done, you need to explain a
particular play style and how it differs from or adheres to the
concept of "masculine" or "feminine" play by describing it in more
detail -- let's just use the accurate words themselves.
I'm trying hard not to come across as moralizing or knee-jerk
politically correct here. Apologies if I don't succeed.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@bowdoin.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
