Social Stigma (Second-Class Citizen)—a poor simulation of historical sexism?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If a particular Social Stigma does do both it's definitely underpriced. 5 pts per -1 to Reaction Rolls is standard pricing.

You don't always get the -1 though so it evens out. The GM needs to use judgement when it applies. For example, it would be absurd for a woman to get a -1 when using sex appeal just to try to attract a man's interest.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

That has less to do with the Social Stigma and far, far more to do with the Disads of the males in question. And the status of the men in question.

Only to a degree. Whether society frowned upon it or not, the unfortunate fact is that (for instance) in every jurisdiction in the United States prior to 1977, being married to one's victim was an absolute defense against a rape charge, and only twelve states had changed that even as late as 1987.

Because, after all, to how many social Disadvantages do similar but-ifs apply? Nothing requires a NPC to treat someone with Social Stigma poorly. The Duchess can treat a serf decently and fairly. The employer can pay the same wage to a party member with Struggling as to those without. The priest is not compelled to drive the Excommunicate from the temple. The master can teach the slave how to read.

None of that negates those disadvantages, because whatever the Duchess chooses to do, the Duke (and the Baron, and the knight, and the country squire) can still kick the serf around, with impunity. The master might still decide next week to kill the slave, with no more comeback than if he'd killed a chicken ... and so on and so forth. The same way that sure, a man who raped his wife in the United States in 1975 (or who slapped her around in 1875) might be considered an evil bastard by his neighbors. But nowhere would he be subject to any legal penalties for doing so.

And possibly no social ones either. Fact is that first marital rape case, in Oregon in 1978, resulted in a unanimous acquittal by the jury.

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by bocephus

I think you meant that tongue in cheek, but in case you didn't those are no where near the same thing.

Refusing to eat pork because it's unclean is similar to refusing to sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman.

When you add on the basement/kneeling/legos that becomes external to another person, and no longer just a person adhering to an internal choice.

It was partly tongue in cheek. (The lego and plug bit was)
There is no chemical/biological uncleanliness in pork.
At least not more significant than other animals, but can incur harsh penalties in some belief systems.

This also applies to menstruation, at least to a degree (it does involve body fluids after all) but there's been plenty of condemning a menstruating woman to some sort of even lower status during that time.
(Her mark of the stygian abyss has returned! Send the harlot to the cellar and have her kneel on the holy legos until she is exorcised of her wickedness, worked on grandma...she doesn't do any of that. What a good woman)

Even in modernity: "Why so surly? You on the rag, or something?", which is rather mild in comparison. I'd say "Imagine all the malignant things you could project into that process" but if you read through some history (and some contemporary things) ...not much left to the imagination...

It was an example on how a belief can add to an ambient "second grade" view, which is seen as too mild, for -1 reaction rolls.

I was attempting to illustrate that the harshness of some of the treatment of women might come from disads in other people dealing with said women.

Perhaps I chose a too extreme example.
How about the rather common thing that it's best to have a son instead of a daughter?
This mindset can be pervasive in a huge chunk of the population, but might hit worse in households where you might have a father, for example, that views it much worse (harder prejudices, intolerances, perhaps sadism, perhaps an extra hard adherence to a belief system (that's why I chose the pork example...)
and might see the reasoning behind that mindset that women are whores, weaklings, useless, etc.

Versus someone who just thinks "with a son, our family name spreads easier. A son can defend my country. A son can uphold the family business better because he won't leave on a marriage" and such things.

The latter father might have a -1 reaction modifier to a born daughter. The former much much worse.
edit:
And that -1 could theoretically be significant, especially stacked with the disads of other people, and it also sticks to the character more persistently.
As a woman, or someone who supports a woman, you could theoretically lessen the disads of the people in her life, increasing their regard of the woman.
But you'll have a much harder time getting rid of that -1 in that society wholesale.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It is generally easiest to treat social stigma as an average of -1. Being female is not really a universal reaction penalty, it's more like a larger penalty when you try to do things outside of your role.

This is plausible, but normally GURPS does try to model situational reaction penalties as situation. Like Social Stigma (Minor) does—it gives -2 in some situations, no penalty in others. So something similar here feels very plausible.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

Only to a degree.

Actually it's completely reliant on the "Disads of the NPC".

Social Stigma simply informs, to a minor and very vague degree, how "society" in general ends up reacting to the PC. However, when you get down to specifics, if the NPC doesn't have Bully, why would they bully a second class citizen?

What Social Stigma ends up meaning in application, is that while some of society will treat some decently (as much as the law might allow, if laws are in place to make sure second classers are treated poorly), it means that every Bully, Sadist, Bad Tempered, etc lout will take their Disads out on the person they are legally or socially allowed to.

I get you're trying to argue that historically speaking the Disad isn't perhaps strong enough to cover the multitude of sins that occurred under that auspice. However, I'm saying all of those sins were in the Disadvantages of those doing the horrible stuff, and sure, maybe Social Stigma (Second Class) isn't quite 'strong enough' to mirror that, but then I'm not interested in running a game with all that happening to the PCs.

So maybe Social Stigma is just fine the way it's currently worded.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Actually it's completely reliant on the "Disads of the NPC".

Social Stigma simply informs, to a minor and very vague degree, how "society" in general ends up reacting to the PC. However, when you get down to specifics, if the NPC doesn't have Bully, why would they bully a second class citizen?

You seem to have a binary outlook on this: either you have (for instance) the Bully disadvantage, in which case you bully people, or you do not, in which case you never do.

And it just isn't remotely that cut and dried. Most people, at some point or another, however infrequently, sometimes throw their weight around. Most people, at some point or another, have a bad tempered day. Most people, however much they're ashamed of having done so, have that occasional moment of cruelty, without being a Mean Person caricature.

And even without that, it's often irrelevant to Social Stigma. As a mid-19th century American, I can be courteous to black freemen, give them fair wages, treat them decently by my lights. But however much I might consider myself a liberal by contemporary standards, they will still not be welcome in my church, they would not be welcome to buy a home in my neighborhood, I would not welcome them marrying into my family (even were it legal, which in almost every state in the Union it wasn't), I would not consider them to be my social or business equals, and the notion of one holding political office would likely shock me. I might not have a bullying bone in my body, but that'd be true all the same.

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by RGTraynor

You seem to have a binary outlook on this: either you have (for instance) the Bully disadvantage, in which case you bully people, or you do not, in which case you never do.

And it just isn't remotely that cut and dried. Most people, at some point or another, however infrequently, sometimes throw their weight around. Most people, at some point or another, have a bad tempered day. Most people, however much they're ashamed of having done so, have that occasional moment of cruelty, without being a Mean Person caricature.

And even without that, it's often irrelevant to Social Stigma. As a mid-19th century American, I can be courteous to black freemen, give them fair wages, treat them decently by my lights. But however much I might consider myself a liberal by contemporary standards, they will still not be welcome in my church, they would not be welcome to buy a home in my neighborhood, I would not welcome them marrying into my family (even were it legal, which in almost every state in the Union it wasn't), I would not consider them to be my social or business equals, and the notion of one holding political office would likely shock me. I might not have a bullying bone in my body, but that'd be true all the same.

Could be an intolerance disad with some accessibility.
"Only regarding my direct community"

And hey, that would be free points. Instead of just RPing it :P

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

Could be an intolerance disad with some accessibility.
"Only regarding my direct community"

And hey, that would be free points. Instead of just RPing it :P

It's not a disadvantage when it's normal and socially accepted behaviour that doesn't cause the character any problems.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's not a disadvantage when its normal and socially accepted behaviour that doesn't cause the character any problems.

(nods) Quite. There are many times and places where not being intolerant of this group or that would be what singles you out as one of Those! people: what, are you some kind of "X" lover or something?!?

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's not a disadvantage when it's normal and socially accepted behaviour that doesn't cause the character any problems.

I mean, it is, though. Or at least it can be. Limiting what actions you can take is a disadvantage, even if it doesn't directly penalize you in some way.