Perpetuating Sing-Sex Play Groups

[contracycle]

In a lot of pre-modern societies, men have secret societies that exist seperately from the culture overall, and specifically consitute a male-only subculture.  I think that for many adolescent males, and to a lesser extent, adult males in the poker scenario, are replicating this "hunting lodge" society.  It may in fact be slightly unrealistic to expect that adolescent male groups are going to be inclusive, but this is not excuse for pandering to or perpetuating the negative aspects of that subculture among adults.

Equally, an adolescent group that grows up may perpetuate the male-only subculture out of force of habit.  I don't, for example, criticise the validity of the boys poker night at all.  In that case, looking at the question again may provoke changes.

[M. J. Young]

Can someone (M.J.? Julie?) help me out and identify the question being asked or specific issue being analyzed?

Thank you all for your patience, and your contributions. (I am hoping that by setting aside one day per week in which The Forge is my sole major focus, and all e-mail, miscellaneous forums, and side work is tabled, that I'll be able to continue to contribute and to learn here; that means you get me on Thursdays, unless there's a problem.)

I'm quite certain that if you surveyed gamers just about anywhere that I've been about girls in roleplaying, you'll get one of two answers:[list=1][*]We've got girls in our group, and it's never been a problem;[*]It's a shame there aren't more girls in the hobby.[/list:o]That is, no one that I know will say that it's good that the hobby is dominated by guys. They'll either say that it isn't, or that it's a shame that it is.

It strikes me that until I read this thread tonight I had never heard tell of an all-girls gaming group (thank you Brenna for that example). The groups with which I am familiar are either all guys or mixed. I couldn't guess which is more prevalent, but there are many, many guys-only groups.

The question that I was raising is, given that no one is happy with the idea of a hobby so dominated by males, why are there still so many groups with no females?

I think something of a pattern is emerging here, and let me summarize what I've seen so far in it.

[*]A great many gamers begin in their adolescent and even pre-adolescent days, which generally was a phase of life during which we tended toward same-sex social groups for reasons on which we couldn't begin to agree (biological? social? I'm treading on Ron's territory there).[*]In that age range, hobby games are seen generally as boy's toys, in much the same way that sports, model trains, and some other activities have been so labeled in the past. Even today, there is a tendency for people outside the hobby to see it as a guy thing. Thus girls in that age group aren't as likely to join.[*]We grow up, but many of us keep the same circle of friends. If we played with these people ten years ago, we play with them now. It's very difficult for someone new to break into our gaming group; it is more difficult for someone who is clearly "different" to do so.[*]For many of us, gender is still "the big difference". We can accept race, religion, even sexual preference, as being "people like us", but the "opposite sex" is always more different than anyone who is "the same sex". Thus it's more difficult for girls to be incorporated into an existing guy group than anyone else.[/list:u]It seems, then, that more than anything else what keeps the ratio out of balance is the fact that adolescent boys are uncomfortable around adolescent girls and would prefer to have recreational activities that don't involve the embarrassment of making a fool of yourself in front of a girl; and that this establishes role playing games in the minds of participants and non-participants alike as a "guy thing", a stigma that is difficult to overcome later.

The reason I missed it, of course, is that I was already married when I started playing. I should have recognized it in the game I ran for the high school kids, because whether or not they had girlfriends the only girls that ever came to the games were their little sisters.

Is this analysis reasonably correct? That is, does this explain a significant part of the perpetuation of all-male gaming groups, both among younger gamers and among older gaming groups that grew up in such groups? Is there something else to it?

Is there anything we can do to shift gamer culture? (It sounds a formidable challenge if that analysis is correct.) I'm not looking to make all gaming groups co-ed, by any means. I do think that I'd like to see more co-ed groups, and perhaps more all-female groups. Like many of you, I find the contributions of many of the ladies to have been very valuable in enriching our play experience. (I would say the same about the younger kids we've had play as well, as they bring an entirely new perspective to our games in many cases--but that's a different topic.)

I hope this helps focus things a bit for those who have been a bit lost on this thread.

--M. J. Young

[Walt Freitag]

[That is, no one that I know will say that it's good that the hobby is dominated by guys. They'll either say that it isn't, or that it's a shame that it is.

Really? I wouldn't say either of those things. If the hobby isn't dominated by guys, then there's no issue, so let's assume it is. Why must that either be good (which I agree it's not) or a shame? I see it as a neutral fact.

To the extent that girls and women who want to play are being excluded from play by mistreatment in gaming groups, or at the game store, or embedded in published game texts... that's a shame. If such sexism is the cause of fewer girls and women playing, that's more than a shame, it's an embarrassment. But the mere fact itself that fewer girls and women play... why is that a shame?

Is it a shame because it leaves male players with fewer opportunities to meet and interact with women within game groups, at conventions and so forth? Show me ten people making that complaint, and I'd suspect nine of them of daydreaming of more easily obtained dates. (Only the tenth is concerned about the lack of socialization opportunities for the other nine.) No doubt many male stamp collectors wish more women shared their interest in stamp collecting. I've hung out at mystery-solving sites where female participants were the overwhelming majority, and where many of them expressed a wish that more guys would play. Sorry, no sympathy from me, on either side.

Or is it a shame because the dearth of female players leaves us guys lacking critical perspectives that only female players could provide? Are there characteristically "female perspectives"? I'll grant you characteristically female life experiences, sure. And having players with such experiences can certainly be a benefit. But so could having the roles of military heroes played by actual decorated veterans, the gangster roles played by actual hardened criminals, the fearsome Bugblatter Beast of Trall played by... you get the idea. When necessary, I get along without.

Or is it a shame because if more women played, the market for games would be bigger? Now that I sympathize with. Yes, that's a shame. But why concentrate outreach efforts on the 99.5% of women who don't play instead of on the 99% of men who don't play? (Figures pulled out of my ass, but the point remains valid under any realistic estimates. Since non-players way outnumber players, why focus on female non-players in particular?)

I think there are some possible reasonable answers to "why is this a shame," but I want to know which ones are being assumed here. In other words, solving the problem will probably require defining what the actual problem is.

If more girls and women want to play but are being prevented from doing so, hand me a torch and a pitchfork and point me at the villains. But if more girls and women don't want to play, wishing that more of them should want to doesn't amount to a social wrong that needs righting. It's eaither a product shortcoming or a marketing failure.

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

What Walt said. With feeling.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Two points:

I'm only really railing against the sexism, or people who would like to have women in their groups, but do not due to fear. I think we all agree these are bad things.

Or is it a shame because if more women played, the market for games would be bigger? Now that I sympathize with. Yes, that's a shame. But why concentrate outreach efforts on the 99.5% of women who don't play instead of on the 99% of men who don't play? (Figures pulled out of my ass, but the point remains valid under any realistic estimates. Since non-players way outnumber players, why focus on female non-players in particular?)

Because of the 99% perhaps 98% are not viable "targets." That is, the actual percentage of people who might be interested in RPGs might be more like 1% of males, and 1.5% of females. At that point, you're losing 60% of your potential market, and aiming for females may be quite profitable.

Hard to say as there's no way to estimate how many people are possible gamers. But I will say that I think that there's a ton of women who are willing to try RPGs as demonstrated by in fact having tried them, who have been chased away. I'd say that the ratio there male to female is possibly as much as 20 times women to men.

So there may indeed be a point in trying to get women to play from that POV. Don't play statistics with a statisitcian. I'm not saying that there might not be a point to aiming at the general public more. I'm saying that the demographic that's most likely to play that don't now do, may well be women.

Mike

[Andrew Morris]

The question that I was raising is, given that no one is happy with the idea of a hobby so dominated by males, why are there still so many groups with no females?

I don't know that we can ever answer that question, simply because it requires a level of research none of us have the time or resources to undertake. I mean, we can sit here all day coming up with theories and case studies, but at the end of the day, we don't have the means to identify the real reason, nor any way to test out our theories on a large scale.