Perpetuating Sing-Sex Play Groups

[BrennaLaRosa]

I wouldn't say so. It certainly leads to a certain amount of bonding within a group, that, while perfectly possible and probably in a mixed group, takes on a whole new level in a single sex group. Observe the following:

An armload of "Us Girls" snuck away every night at a camping event (okay, our parents knew we were at "Hazel's" camp with Hazel). We had snuck our gaming stuff into our baggage so we could play D&D before curfew. We had the sneaky theif lady (Hazel), the brickwall cheesecake (me), the fey spellslinger ("Betsy") and the cleric ("Tilly"). Our GM was an older girl with a dirty mind, but she'd agreed to tone down her usual game in case our folks got wind of this.

Some of us had been close-ish when this started. Tilly was the new girl but we were pretty warm towards her and considered this nothing more than "A friendly dungeon crawl between friends." We went to bed every night in excited stitches and would practically run to Hazel's after dinner. What started out a dungeon crawl had become a race to kill the princess who'd killed Tilly's character, then it turned into track down the lich that killed Betsy and Hazel's baby griffon. By the end of the event, we'd gotten so close, you could have passed a knife between us and heard screams.

I'm not saying that a mixed group can't do this. But I am pointing out that single-sex groups aren't always bad. We certainly would have welcomed a boy (we were all teenagers and I was the baby at 12). But we created a strong bond between us.

[Emily Care]

I'm not sure there is. It sounds very much like we're being asked to figure out how to alter the sex dynamics of our entire culture to me. Tall order. I think to some extent we're just going to have to accept whatever rate of change that our culture does.

Texts, on the other hand, I do think have an effect

Focusing on what we can effect makes sense.  Writing texts that are genderwise and racially diverse is a great place to start. I also think that Julie has an excellent point about looking at interpersonal interaction for other problems & solutions.  

Ian's this in the original thread gave a great concrete example:

I run a teen center devoted to non-electronic gaming, especially rpg's. When I arrived there four years ago there were very few girls in the program. In fact, the ones that were there were being abused verbally and socially in my opinion. I decided that one of my goals was to change this.  

I began to ask the adults with the program why this was the way it was. They gave me answers like "Its a boys hobby (one of them was a women)" and "having a female in the group really complicates things." This last answer was geared both as an in game and out of game comment. I disagree with this. I use the games I run as tools to help shape these youth as well as explore the stories they want to experience. This can't be done by not having full interaction of the genders. I worked hard to integrate and invite female gamers. We went from 10% female membership to about 40% in three years.

Of course the reason why this group was single sex wasn't "because girls don't game", it was instead because the girls who tried to game were treated poorly. The local gaming culture was abusive. Single sex group activities can be natural fun & good (and bonding!), but if they are enforced by social intimidation that ain't the case.  

Yes, we cannot address institutionalized sexism in our culture as a whole (racism, classism et al).  But what we can do is what Ian did in this specific situation: 1) recognize how the sexism is being expressed and perpetuated locally and 2) take concrete steps to change it.  It is possible, we just often don't realize we have a choice about these things because we don't step back & look at why things happen the way they do.

My experience of gaming has been much like Julie's.  I've been part of mixed gender groups from start to finish. Gender has never been a problem. I suspect that means we both ended up being part of groups that already had equal participation by men and women as part of their local culture.  So, nothing had to be tweaked to "let" us have a voice. I had one gm who asked me to play to "help the gender ratio". I didn't think much about it at the time, but I appreciate his impulse more now.

None of us are responsible for changing the world. But paying attention to our corner of it only makes sense.

respectfully,
Em

[Mike Holmes]

James, Single-sex game groups are bad, to me, only when they take female players out of gaming. That is, if they pretend not to be single-sex, allow women to play in theory, but then chase them off with bad social behavior or play material.

Is it bad if/when a female player is looking for a game, and your males-only game is the only one around? Tough call. As a social activity you don't automatically have an obligation to let such a player in (and you can certainly exclude them for any other reasonable reason - like they're nasty person or something). But if the woman is an otherwise acceptable player, and gender is the only reason that she's being exculded, then I think the group has to ask itself carefully if they really have a good reason to exclude the female player.

Once you've let the player in, it gets even more complicated. Do you have to alter your style to accomodate their preferences? I think it's fair to state your preferences up front, and let the person make their own decision whether or not they want to conform to them.

The problem here is that we're dealing with things on the social level. Which is a skill that we all hone on a daily basis, and which nobody is perfect at. I guess what I'm saying is, uh, "Be good" to female players as best you can. As you should be to all players.

Mike

[James Holloway]

Is it bad if/when a female player is looking for a game, and your males-only game is the only one around? Tough call. As a social activity you don't automatically have an obligation to let such a player in (and you can certainly exclude them for any other reasonable reason - like they're nasty person or something). But if the woman is an otherwise acceptable player, and gender is the only reason that she's being exculded, then I think the group has to ask itself carefully if they really have a good reason to exclude the female player.

But surely if the overall purpose of my game is "to bond with my male friends," gender is a great reason to exclude another player.

Which, mind you, it isn't -- I bond with that group over miniatures painting night. But I can certainly envision the hypothetical case.

[Mike Holmes]

But surely if the overall purpose of my game is "to bond with my male friends," gender is a great reason to exclude another player.

What do you want from me, James? I don't think I said anything counter to that. I haven't categorically said that it's always bad to exclude women. You sound like you have a guilty conscience to me. If not, then I don't think that you and I have a disagreement.

Mike

[Callan S.]

Texts, on the other hand, I do think have an effect. That is, I think that a bad text can, in fact, enable a male to be insensitive, or facilitate the creation of play that's just not interesting to women.

What? You mean like pushing deep immersionism, which cuts off real life communication...the sort I've heard many women enjoy during an activity? Nah!

Judd,

Agreed. My partner is cut throat gamist. Not into roleplay, probably because her exploration desires are quite low (I identify myself as gamist...after describing G & S roughly to her, she called me a simulationist. I was shocked!). But I think you can nurture some explorative desire with mechanics, rather than demand the player turn up with it, like most RPG's do, without any mechanical reward for doing so. Personally I find it useful to question her about it...her lack of explorative desire stops her from filling in the boring bits of mechanics with exploration, as I tend to reflexively do.

[James Holloway]

I haven't categorically said that it's always bad to exclude women.

Maybe I misunderstood this:

But if the woman is an otherwise acceptable player, and gender is t
he only reason that she's being exculded, then I think the group has to ask itself carefully if they really have a good reason to exclude the female player.

You sound like you have a guilty conscience to me.

Come on, man -- is that kind of thing really called for?

All I'm saying is that having more female gamers is desirable from the point of view of women who would like to game, or of Clinton, who enjoys play in mixed-gender groups better. But I kind of get the impression that a lot of people want to have more female gamers because they feel like some girls would raise the tone of the hobby a bit, which doesn't particularly move me as a reason.

[James Holloway]

To perhaps clarify my previous post. The question is "why do (male) gamers preserve single-sex gaming groups?" I suggest that for historical reasons gaming is seen by many of its participants as one of those male-bonding pastimes like poker or, I dunno, fishing. Which sucks if you're a woman and you want to go fishing with the guys, but nonetheless has its place.

[GameLoft]

Personally I am fine with one gender gaming groups.  If that is the way those individuals have chosen to structure their group then so be it.  I do think, from personal experience, that this phenomenon continues not from a real desire to bond only with men but from a lack of desire to change or expand the horizons of the groups play, as I said in a previous post.  Many men do see gaming like fishing or the book group and that is OK, unless it is damaging the hobby as a whole. Your group can be one gender only but don't make people interested in the hobby feel that yourway is the only way.   I do not believe that female gamers will make the gaming industry a better place, individuals will do that.  I do believe that we need to work hard to make sure everyone who may be inspired by this artform have a chance to experience it.  This is where we as a hobby group fall short in my opinion.  Our inclusivity, in many areas not just gender, is poor to abysmal.  I feel that it is my duty to spread gaming to as many as can be impacted by it.  With this in mind we need to make it an enjoyable experience the first time.  Not to mention the more people who experience it the stronger the hobby grows in public image.

In the case of my teen center I could not sit by and watch the situation as it was, continue on.  Both morally, I am a firm believer in gender equality and in the positive impact and spreading of the gaming artform, and professionally.  The Game Loft's mission is to use gaming as a positive factor in youth's lives to teach them to be positive adults.  That goal is not possible if you are denying half the population the experience.  I do not think everyone should game.  I tell people we are a niche program.  Those indivuduals who really connect with gaming, no matter gender, are the ones who we will have a positive and powerful impact on.  Not everyone.  But everyone who has even the slightest interest should feel safe to try it.

Ian

[Andrew Morris]

I've been reading this thread since it started, and I just don't get it. The discussion seems to be shooting all over the place. Can someone (M.J.? Julie?) help me out and identify the question being asked or specific issue being analyzed? I'm fascinated by gender relations, but I can't contribute since I'm not sure what the discussion is about.

Is it an opinion-fest? (e.g. "I think single-sex play groups are fine/wrong.")

Is it about personal experiences? (e.g. "Yeah, I played in a same/mixed gender group.")

Is it about something else entirely?

[Mike Holmes]

James, I say, ask yourself if you have a good reason. You say, I have, and I have a good reason. Where are we conflicting? Any reading of me that I'm codemning you is your own bias.

You're not saying that all groups who keep women out are doing so for good reasons, are you? For example, I'm quite sure that there are groups who keep women out just because they're scared of having a woman in the group, and/or having to clean up really sexist antics in play. You wouldn't agree with me that these people should check their reasons for why they're not including females?

I'm not even trying to set the line. All I'm saying is that people should think about the line.

Mike

[jrs]

Andrew,

I'm glad you asked, 'cause I'm not sure where it's going either.  I cannot speak for M.J. and since he started this topic, as far as I'm concerned, he gets final say on its disposition.  Personally, I don't think there is anything substantial being discussed at the moment; I'm not good at the "what girls want" versus "what guys want" kinds of dialogues.  The point I raised is rather simplistic and I don't have much to add than what I stated in my first post on this topic, i.e., RPG texts alone do not exclude women.  (I do appreciate Mike's comment that texts are more easily changed than people's interactions and therefore are a reasonable focus.)  I guess I could add to my assertion that I don't believe that role-playing as an activity is learned through texts alone; but that is a different issue and not necessarily germane to this one.

Julie

[Ron Edwards]

M.J. does not have much time to read and post at the Forge.

That means that everyone posting to this thread should let his (M.J.'s) pace set yours. Slow down. Follow his lead in terms of topic and what needs to be developed from this point on.

Best,
Ron

[James Holloway]

James, I say, ask yourself if you have a good reason. You say, I have, and I have a good reason. Where are we conflicting?

I don't have a good reason to exclude women from my group. All my regular gaming groups are mixed-sex. I get my bond-with-my-guy-friends on during miniatures painting sessions, like I said.

All I'm saying is: Julie's original question was "why are single-sex play groups perpetuated?" One answer is that some groups have a perfectly good reason to exclude girls: they don't want any girls. This may be for a good, experience-preserving reason, or it may be for a bad, woman-hating reason. But if it's for the bad woman-hating reason, why would women want to play in these groups? And what are you gonna do, take away their gaming licenses?

So I guess our conflict comes from your statement that you "chastise people who game in a manner inimical to female participation." I'm all for trying to prevent our fellow gamers from making the rest of us look bad, but for whatever reason that sounded like telling other people how to play their games, which tends to make me uncomfortable.

edit: but yeah, let's hear what MJ has to say about the thread -- I reckon this side point is about done with anyway.

[Mike Holmes]

So I guess our conflict comes from your statement that you "chastise people who game in a manner inimical to female participation." I'm all for trying to prevent our fellow gamers from making the rest of us look bad, but for whatever reason that sounded like telling other people how to play their games, which tends to make me uncomfortable.

I'm talking about, for instance, the examples that Kirsten gave in the threads in the HQ forum about her play experiences. About groups that have women players in them, and play in such a way as to alienate the women. Happens all the time.

And I'm sorry that helping other people have a good time makes you uncomfortable. I don't have that problem. Yes, I really have no problem telling jerks that they're being jerks when they're being jerks.

You seem to assume that I must be telling everyone who has a group that doesn't include women that they're playing incorrectly. Which would be a silly thing to do. I'm merely positing that there are things you can do to improve the situation. Try to get past my language and deal with that point. Because at that point I don't think that you and I disagree.

Mike