M. J. Young wrote:
It seems to me that in the 80's, the overwhelming majority of role players were guys. I know that every girl who played at my table was either the significant other or the sister of some guy who did, save for one game in which a couple of people wanted to see what the game was like on rather the spur of the moment. People thought that role playing games just didn't appeal to girls.

MK Snyder wrote: Notice also the incredible sexism of the last sentence: who are the "people"? Why, guys.

Guys are "people". Girls are "girlfriends" and "sisters".

MK Snyder wrote: This kind of unconscious, unthinking, thoroughly accepted and unquestioned prejudice makes *me* want to leave. Because it never blinkin' stops. When does the door to gaming get opened to me and my gender? What does it take to get you boys to grow up? How about pretending that some women might post here and read here?

MK,

Just to put out a (possibly) minority expereince, most of my best gaming experiences in the 1980s involved mixed-gender gaming groups, none of which had "girlfriends of the players" or other "day-trippers" involved in them.

Mind you, this was mostly becase I was picky about who I gamed with. I did know a handfull of female gamers who prefered to game in mostly- or all-female groups because of how they'd been treated by male gamers in the past.

The games involved were D&D (2nd ed. and a mutant variant of the original brownbooks) and Amber, for the demographically minded.

Lon

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:

MK,

(Edit: I've split this into its own thread, since it's way off topic.)

I get your point, and understand what you're trying to do, but you might want to tone it down. I can pretty much guarantee you two things:

a) There's no real sexism here. I game with women, work with women, am in a singular relationship with my partner - all of whom are equals. Ron - well, I imagine Ron's ideas on sexism are mind-blowing, considering his field, and we probably don't want to know. He's quite progressive, though.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
b) That I will take control of any situation involving sexism on The Forge. The thought of it is an insult to me, and I - as the administrator - will take serious action in that case.

To your point, though: do you still have a problem being excluded from game groups because of your sex?

There is an obvious sex imbalance in gaming - anyone can see that. I have problems not finding enough women for my game group. (Most of my best role-playing experiences have been when there was a female in the group, even when I wasn't interacting with her. Maybe there's some reverse sexism at work here.) My point: I'm shocked that you're not actually sought out and begged to play in groups.

I've often seen self-described "geeks" become very defensive about being discriminated against before any discrimination happens. Now, I'm not saying women - or you specifically, MK - aren't discriminated against. I am saying that I can see your reaction to MJ Young, and wonder if your anger at past discrimination pushes away others.

MK Snyder wrote:
Read some of the posts about
misanthropy for some hilarious sexism.

This kind of unconscious, unthinking, thoroughly accepted and unquestioned prejudice makes *me* want to leave. Because it never blinkin' stops. When does the door to gaming get opened to me and my gender? What does it take to get you boys to grow up? How about pretending that some women might post here and read here?

thoth wrote:
There might not be a lot of obvious and intentional sexism, but there is sexism. The issue I see is the sort of overriding assumption that girls RP with dolls and fashion websites, and boys RP with RPGs. And saying RPGs just "don't appeal to girls" unintentionally falls back on 'girls RP with Barbie dolls'. It seems like it'd be a constant but subtle pin prick.

James V. West wrote:
Its a great big world out there and the potential markets for rpgs is phenomenal when you consider that we're talking about a medium that has just as much potential for diversity as painting, music, or anything else.

OK.

Thoth,
I hate to do this, but I'm going to be upfront and say that you are wrong. I've been reading your posts, and they're full of jumped-to conclusions, including this one. If you want me to discuss this further, I don't mind.

You were right about my post being patronizing. It was intended to be, and asked a serious question. (It also was read by my female partner beforehand, so she could make sure it wasn't offensive.)

On the Forge being sexist, though, we're the most enlightened place around, bar none. There's no perception that "girls play with Barbies." If someone actually said something like that, they'd have me down their throat in a heartbeat. What James West said has already been explained; what MJ Young said is that there was a public perception in the 1980's that girls weren't interested in RPGs. He didn't say he felt that way - his wife plays, as I understand - and there was a public perception.

If anyone wants to discuss whether it still exists, then I think that would be a fine topic. I tried to start a topic earlier, and will again:

The perceived sexism in RPG's has led to a gender inbalance. Both Lon and I have mentioned that our best experiences RPGing were in mixed-gender groups. The imbalance in role-players has given us a problem: if playing RPGs (and socializing in general) is more enjoyable in a mixed-gender group, how does the (majority-male) RPG community reach out to females?

MK, your input would be awesome on this topic. What has attracted you to certain groups or games? Have you had to build your own group from scratch because of sexism in other groups?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
what MJ Young said is that there was a public perception in the 1980's that girls weren't interested in RPGs. He didn't say he felt that way - his wife plays, as I understand - and there was a public perception.

If anyone wants to discuss whether it still exists, then I think that would be a fine topic. I tried to start a topic earlier, and will again:

The perceived sexism in RPG's has led to a gender inbalance. Both Lon and I have mentioned that our best experiences RPGing were in mixed-gender groups. The imbalance in role-players has given us a problem: if playing RPGs (and socializing in general) is more enjoyable in a mixed-gender group, how does the (majority-male) RPG community reach out to females?

talysman wrote: one other thing: teen boys have dirty minds. they tend to start making leering comments towards girls that join their group, thus making the girls feel like going elsewhere.

I was waiting to post on this thread because I really wanted to see where it would go. After much thought and hesitation I've decided to speak up.

First of all, I am a female gamer. I admit this with a fair amount of anxiety due to the fact that I have not once gained anything from telling others this online, actually rather the opposite. It has been my experience that when I have expressed strong opinions and people knew my gender I was being "too emotional". Funny how no one has ever said that to me when they assumed I was a guy. However, I digress.

I agree with talysman in that the reason most roleplayers are male has nothing to do with the games themselves but with gender issues in general. When I started gaming (in the mid 80's) I was never invited to join a group unless my boyfriend was playing. My presence was threatening and akward for "the guys". No, I didn't, and still don't, think they are sexist in an offensive way. It was just an akward age to be mixing genders in a social way like that.

I got very frustrated with not being able to play and I ended up forming my own group in high school with two of my good friends. These good friends of mine were both girls and they had never heard of roleplaying before, aside from the odd media story. We played D&D for awhile and they liked killing monsters and building sword wielding barbarian characters just as much as the guys. So, on that note, I really must reiterate that I don't think that it's the style of game that's important to drawing in female gamers as much as the group.

Now I am playing with a group that has survived for over five years. There are five other players in this group, all guys. Other players that have come and gone in the past have also been guys. We often puzzle over the fact that it seems near impossible to recruit any women. I have come to the conclusion that women enjoy gaming as much as men.

So where are they?

Lots of them don't know anything about gaming. Some of them are afraid that no one plays but creepy, unbathed, teenage boys, so they avoid it. Others are out there but they are hiding, even more tentative to admit they play than their male counterparts. I'm not saying this iz always the case, but I've seen it hold true a fair amount of the time. To admit to other girls that you roleplay, especially when you are younger, iz like saying: I enjoy hanging out with nerdy guys in their basements in my spare time. It's certainly doesn't have to be true, but to those not in the know it reads like that all the same.

One final note: You don't have to leer or make rude comments in order to make girls feel unwelcome in a group. (I'm certain this iz true for you guys too.) General atmosphere can convey "boys club" just as vividly as anything outright rude. Sometimes it's the little things that people don't even realize they do. Other times it's simply being the only one there who iz different.

I hope my ramblings shed at least a little light on things. I love gaming. I love gamers. I truly do. Sometimes it iz hard being the "token girl" though.

Thank you for reading my really long post. *sheepish grin*

Talysman, Ziriel,

I don't think it's all just gender issues in general. Some of it is (was) marketing, on the same level that markets "dolls" to girls and "action figures" to boys. Of course, I don't think that marketing rules all, but it does play a part.

For instance, if a book's illustrations featuring women are mostly some version of damsel in distress, with the only women wielding power being obviously evil, what does that say about the game the illustrations appear in?

Art imitates life imitates art. When more game companies started to notice their women customers, their marketing started to shift to appeal to women more. This attracted more women to gaming. Which made companies pay more attention to them...

Again, marketing and illustrations are not the only factors, but you get the idea.

Ziriel, I'm curious as to what atmospheric elements you see would warn women off. One I'm aware of is communications style. I had the unfortunate experience of gaming with some new people, and my female partner was turned off before the game ever began. The guy who was going to be GMing seemed to ignore her, as if she was not a potential gamer. He didn't seem to listen to her when we talking gaming in general, even when she made an effort to be a part of the conversation. Is this the sort of thing you meant?

Lon

Hello,

Oy. Is there any particular reason to continue the thread beyond these two points?

1) M.J., perhaps reviewing your phraseology and basic point is a good idea.

2) Maryanne, perhaps allowing M.J. a single "no blood no foul" opportunity for such a review is your best first step.

Plus a couple side points ...

- I see no merit to threatening to leave the Forge as part of an argued statement. Anyone is free to sign on; anyone is free to cease posting.

- Discussions of how sexist "all of role-playing" is are uniformly unfruitful. They suffer badly from lack of definition of terms, among other things.

As I see it, the floor is M.J. Young's to clarify his point (or not), amend his statement (or not), and so forth, as he sees fit.

Best,
Ron

Hi there again,

H'm, Clinton rightly pointed out that a general question had been raised that's worth pursuing:

"What behaviors attribute to the gender inbalance in gaming?"

With the addition of "if any" at the end of it, sure, let's do it. Regarding MK's initial objection to M.J., though, my previous point ("let M.J. talk") stands.

Best,
Ron

Maryanne, I am sorry to have offended you; I meant nothing of the sort.

In 1978, having just graduated college, I moved with my wife of almost two years back to her home town, to be near her aging parents. That put us near her friends. Margaret, whose shins she had kicked back in second grade but who had always been a friend since, was dating a guy named Bob whom we had briefly met at the wedding; since we were now local, and they liked to play games (which we did), we started getting together. It quickly grew to weekly, and we played everything. Bob brought board games and war games, we picked up stuff that looked interesting when we were out, Margaret was incredible at cards and had the most amazing dice luck any of us ever saw. Bob also bought a pinball game, and was able to get the latest Atari chips in pirate copies through work, so we played lots of games, getting together more and more frequently for about two years.

Then in the fall of 1980 we stumbled on D&D, found a copy, and started playing. That meant two guys, two girls. I was the DM. My wife, Janet, scrounged a copy of Met Alpha and started running that; Bob dug up Gamma World at a farmer's market, so we started playing that; Jan didn't like MA and dumped it in favor of Star Frontiers. Margaret was never interested in running games, but played well with us, even if she wished we did more of the other games.

Michelle was the friend of a sister of a friend, and knew my wife that way. She was engaged to David. David heard that we played, and insisted on joining us. So the two of them created characters, and started playing--three girls, three guys. But David was the one who really got into it; Michelle just sort of played.

We had a lot of others come for a while and then leave; I can't remember them all. However, most were either couples or single guys. Maybe it was because the guys in the group talked about the games between play more; maybe we just had more exposure to people, I don't know.

Then David and Michelle got divorced, and both vanished from our social scene entirely; I didn't even know how to find them. Margaret broke up with Bob; and although Margaret had been our long-time friend, it was Bob who continued gaming with us. The three of us played into about 86, when I started Law School and life kind of went into major upheaval. So my experience always suggested that girls played (Janet was really into it, and Margaret didn't enjoy it as much but was very good) but that guys were more interested.

Then I got asked by a neighborhood kid to teach them how to play D&D; one thing led to another, and I started running a game for six fifteen-year-old boys and my eldest son (then in second grade, I believe) as their party leader. That burgeoned over the years to about thirty gamers, ranging from my second son when he reached second grade to then thirty-year-old E. R. Jones--and of all of these, I clearly remember one girl, the younger sister of two boys already playing. I never invited anyone; they invited each other. I still don't know who some of them were, and once confused a complete stranger with someone who had been there a few months earlier, handing him the other guy's character papers. There may have been a couple of other girls who sat in for one night here or there, but it was predominantly guys. We played on Friday evenings, when my wife was working, and wrapped up shortly after (sometimes before) she got home. I told them to bring girlfriends, sisters, anyone else; I would have liked that. They said the girls didn't want to come.

The kid who roped me into that was Jim Denaxas, now doing art for several games (including Multiverser, but also some of Dark Omen Games' projects and Little Fears). The girl he was dating then is now his wife, and served as Valdron's corporate secretary last year. But I don't think she's ever played a role playing game. She will; she's in med school right now, and hardly has time to say hi some days. But it never really caught her interest then, even though she probably could easily have convinced her mom to let her go up to Mr. Young's place and play in a game with Jimmy on Friday nights.

So I don't get it. Maybe that many guys in one place is intimidating. Maybe the guys really didn't want the girls around. Maybe the way I ran D&D appealed to guys better than girls. Or maybe there was already an idea prevalent in the neighborhood that this was a game guys played, like Pong and Tank (which in their day captured the male audience first--I was there).

I think men and women are different. I use to be able to cite rather credible authorities on that, although now all I remember specifically is Sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, and that there's some guy who styles himself a Darwinian Anthropologist, and someone who was very involved in the nursing community in New York City when I read about her. I don't think one is better than the other, or that they can't share interests; I do think that there are strong tendencies for some things to appeal more to boys than to girls, and the other way around.

If being sexist means you think that the sexes are different, well, viva la difference. If it means that you think one better than the other, I concede--I've always thought girls were better at most things that mattered in life; I just do my best to try to catch up.

--M. J. Young

I don't think it's all just gender issues in general. Some of it is (was) marketing, on the same level that markets "dolls" to girls and "action figures" to boys. Of course, I don't think that marketing rules all, but it does play a part.

Ziriel, I'm curious as to what atmospheric elements you see would warn women off. One I'm aware of is communications style. I had the unfortunate experience of gaming with some new people, and my female partner was turned off before the game ever began. The guy who was going to be GMing seemed to ignore her, as if she was not a potential gamer. He didn't seem to listen to her when we talking gaming in general, even when she made an effort to be a part of the conversation. Is this the sort of thing you meant?

M. J. Young wrote:
I think men and women are different.

I don't think one is better than the other, or that they can't share interests; I do think that there are strong tendencies for some things to appeal more to boys than to girls, and the other way around.

The perceived sexism in RPG's has led to a gender inbalance.

Damn it.

When I go to bat, and MJ makes an excellent, honest post, someone's got to ruin it. I'm getting tired of sensitive topics being ruined by people here. This thread is now very, very closed, and my off-topic reply and reasoning is here.

test

So, if I can post to it, how is this thread closed?

I'm confused.

Edit --> Thanks to Ron for the explanation below. Someone else PMed me on this also - pardon my ignorance, no offence intended, etc.

Hi silkworm,

"Closed" is a social-contract here in the Forge. If a thread's closed, you don't post to it, as a courtesy to the community.

"Locked" is another issue entirely, which involves software. That's when Clinton or I put a little lock-symbol onto the thread which prevents anyone from adding to it.

In general, locking a thread is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a punishment or at least an indication that things "went wrong." Both of us try to keep locking to a minimum.

That means that strictly enforcing the social standards becomes an issue, which we ask everyone to help with.

Best,
Ron

contracycle wrote:
And lastly, I just wanted to adrress something wehich Clinton said, namely:

The perceived sexism in RPG's has led to a gender inbalance.

Perceived? May I ask, what the hell is PERCIEVED about it? Does this not seek to imply that its all a horrible misperception on the part of the poor oversensitive dears rather than a real and actual phenomenon? The situation cannot be addressed as long we make these attempts to sweep it under the carpet.

Can the RPGamer community actually do anything about it?
Obviously sexism isn't inherent in the hobby of RPGs itself, though it may be expressed in some actual games (not necessarily in an overt fashion). Where sexism does reside is in the larger society, members of which make up the RPGamer community and the game designers. And that is why I didn't like it when Clinton said "There's no real sexism here". And is also why I'm asking the question of if the RPGamer community can actually do anything about it. It seems to be a problem with the larger society, a problem that dealing within the RPGamer community ultimately means nothing.

Now i'm Not saying the community should do nothing at all, or pretend it doesn't exist. What I am saying is that maybe it would be more fruitful overall for individuals to deal with it from within the larger society, as well as doing something from within the RPGamer community. The larger society will always have an influence and as long as it has misogynist tendencies, the sub-societies within will have them too, at least to some degree.

None of that actually answers the direct question "how does the community reach out to females more effectively?" though. I don't have any specific thoughts on reaching out, but what about attempting to neutralize male gamer confusion/fear/discomfort? Heh, pass out little "facts about females" pamphlets at various cons, maybe including some Do's and Dont's (ie: treat them like people/gamers, not glass dolls).

Yes, of course we can. The only thing that changes anything anywhere is human action (caveat: context is society). To declare that we are not responsible for our own back yard becuase there is a broader problem is to merely decline to do anything; to wait for someone else, someone unkown, to actually do something. But, if everybody is waiting for someone else to do it, nothing gets done. Yes we can look after our own patch, and the very fact that we do so will feed back into and impact on society at large. That is how social change happens.

This kind of unconscious, unthinking, thoroughly accepted and unquestioned prejudice makes *me* want to leave. Because it never blinkin' stops. When does the door to gaming get opened to me and my gender? What does it take to get you boys to grow up? How about pretending that some women might post here and read here?

I should have re-phrased my question, because people seem to keep getting caught on the word community. (Also, men keep answering, which is great, but not really an objective view into what makes women tick.)

(By the way, I'm 'hypothetical male gamer X' in this post.) I play role-playing games. I find that playing RPGs with women in the group is more fun, but look around and find not that many women playing RPGs. What can I do to make the idea of playing in my game more attractive to females; or, actually, just more attractive to a normally-gender-mixed group?

A good while back, I'm trying to figure out how to get back into role-playing after a few years of no gaming. So I respond to a flyer. After talking to the guy on the phone and getting a feel for each others interests, we decide to set-up a gaming group. Since we didn't have many players to start, I invite one of my co-workers to our first session. Her response to the invitation was interesting: she said that she would accompany me so that I wouldn't be nervous going to a strange guy's apartment alone.

I was really surprised by this reaction; it did not even occur to me that I was about to embark on a potentially threatening situation. I wonder how much of the low women gamer count has to do with social constraints against lone women entering male dominated environs rather than any blatent sexism associated with rpg's.

Julie

Julie,

Excellent point. I've found myself loathe to invite females that I didn't know well to one of my gaming sessions, solely because I was inviting a lone woman into a private home with two to three men present, which taken objectively sounds like an opportunity for trouble. Now, that's obviously overreaction on my part, but it's a valuable consideration.

(This ties into a thread I really want to start about sexual tension and its effects on role-playing.)

Clinton wrote: What can I do to make the idea of playing in my game more attractive to females; or, actually, just more attractive to a normally-gender-mixed group?

I'd like to (hopefully) open the floor up to MK, who originally said that she felt that some content on the Forge was sexist.

What we fellas should be aware of in reading her - or any - response is that as the well-intentioned guys that we are, we hate the thought that we might say or do something that might actually be sexist - at least I do. There's a real danger in saying to oneself, "I know I could never think a sexist thought," but we do it, because we think of sexism as obvious and conscious, when really it's often subtle and unconscious. And dismissing the notion that the subtle might be in there lets it perpetuate.

So MK, if you're comfortable with it, I'd be interested in more about what you felt was sexism.

And hey Alan, I think that dictionary definition is missing something important: What makes sexism and racism a problem is the power, or the perception of power, connected to the relationship. "Reverse discrimination" doesn't really work so well in that light.

As for the "discomfort" thing, yeah, you're right, it is tough. And being aware of the discomfort is important too.

Thoth: Not sure I understand you. The greater community is the sum of its parts, and if the RPG community as a whole were more conscious of sexism, I think that'd rock.

And hopefully no one will misinterpret Clinton's recent post as a request for men not to post. More feedback from women would be great, but the last thing we need is for men not to talk about it. And thanks Mr. Prez for re-opening it.

Clinton, regarding your last post, my SO sometimes feels "excluded" by games. I'll see if she'll respond.

-Matt

-Matt

lumpley wrote:
I think Ron's given us the answer: Socialize First. Be friends with women, then play games with them.

Not that that's a great answer, or easy, or look! I've solved it. But I think that's the level we oughta be looking at, as individual male gamers. I think the way to overcome the "buncha boys" stigma is one woman at a time, by direct human social contact.

This is going to sound crude to some of you, and I'm going to state up front that I'm more than a little "politically incorrect."

My own suggestion to help men make women feel more welcome in the group: get laid. I notice that my interaction with all women is more relaxed when I'm getting some on at least a semi-regular basis. My gaming group (including one female member) has also noticed this (in fact they said that I was a whole lot more relaxed in general). This seems to eliminate any sexual tension within the group, which obviously can disrupt interactions.

This won't in itself get women into the group, but it will keep the women there from feeling uncomfortable.

Hi there,

What Clay said.

Best,
Ron

First of all, I'm glad this thread has been reopened. Thanks Clinton.
I heard a call for female input so here's my dos pesos...

given the perceived sexism in RPG's, and the gender imbalance that comes from that, how does the community reach out to females more effectively?

I've found myself loathe to invite females that I didn't know well to one of my gaming sessions, solely because I was inviting a lone woman into a private home with two to three men present, which taken objectively sounds like an opportunity for trouble.

I wonder how much of the low women gamer count has to do with social constraints against lone women entering male dominated environs rather than any blatent sexism associated with rpg's.

contracycle wrote: Yes, of course we can. The only thing that changes anything anywhere is human action (caveat: context is society). To declare that we are not responsible for our own back yard becuase there is a broader problem is to merely decline to do anything; to wait for someone else, someone unkown, to actually do something. But, if everybody is waiting for someone else to do it, nothing gets done. Yes we can look after our own patch, and the very fact that we do so will feed back into and impact on society at large. That is how social change happens.

So semi-regular nookie is a good way to deal with sexual tension between male and female gamers. And individual socialzing with a female is a good way to bust through preconceptions, and/or anxiety. But both of these require a female partner (social or significant), what of those who are not so fortunate as to have a female partner?

thoth wrote: So semi-regular nookie is a good way to deal with sexual tension between male and female gamers. And individual socialzing with a female is a good way to bust through preconceptions, and/or anxiety. But both of these require a female partner (social or significant), what of those who are not so fortunate as to have a female partner?

thoth wrote: what of those who are not so fortunate as to have a female partner?

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Hmm - I'll join in the blunt approach here and say "find one." If you're not so fortunate as to have one, go out and find one. Actually, find a bunch. Meet 'em at work, at your Martial Arts class, through a friend of a friend . . . whatever.

I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm also not saying it's hard. There are plenty of places to get advice about how to do it, and the Forge ain't one of 'em.

But you asked a question, and really, that's the only answer. Change the situation. It can be done.

Gordon

Well, the last couple posts seem to provide solutions to the current problem. Perhaps a discussion of how the the situation developed in the first place and
if any remenats of it are around might be helpfull?

thoth wrote: So, what can the gamer community, or individuals within it, do to provide this impetus to other individual gamers to face the problem and tear down the wall? And thus deal with it on a gamer community level.

Amos,

Got you - I agree (and said so in my post), this is NOT the place for dating advice :-) You're really asking about what we can do about folks for whom the "change it" advice just doesn't sink in.

But - the general advice is the same, I think - those in the gamer community (whatever that is) who won't/don't follow it just need . . . whatever it is they need to start following it. So you're really asking what we can do to *get* them to follow that advice. If you're gaming with friends, then you can help out your friends with their personal issues to whatever degree you're comfortable with (and again, there are better places than here to get info on how to do that).

But there is a BIG issue, discussed in one of the Social Issues threads - the idea that we excuse certain types of behavior in our fellow gamers just 'cause they're fellow gamers. One good principle might be that sexism (unlike, say, enjoying pretend-fights with realistic swords or even - gulp - males who dress as Sailor Scouts "for the fun of it") needs to be a behavior that other gamers DO NOT "let slide." At all.

Hope that gets us on the same page - I obviously misinterpreted where you were going with the "what about those who don't?" thing at first.

Gordon

Re: sexual tension.

Gentlemen, take the solution into your own hands. The belief that one must expend one's sexual tension with a female partner is part of the problem.

Watch out for AntiMotherhood advertising. For example, look at the description of this forum's "Critical Hit" section. What, fathers can't be fuddy duddies too?

The Issue of Artwork has been well covered. Or rather, the uncovered nature of issued artwork re:the female form.

Forget Not the Foremothers: women were playing and designing RPG's in the 80's. "I can't think of any at all."

Be Aware That Women Can't Rest:

stupid sex stats

Is it worth it to add art that targets women as players?

Can't even invite a friends' kids to a convention because of the cheesecake factor

I want large breasted, well-armed women and nothing will change my mind!

I can find more, but my husband keeps interrupting me to discuss family schedule.

I don't see the problem being sexism so much as being a matter of impolite behavior. Now, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as sexism. I've had about two dozen sexist thoughts in the last 15 minutes. I'm a heterosexual male, and that fact alone guarantees at least a somewhat sexist outlook. Sexist thoughts, and actions, often stem from deeply rooted biological and psychological issues. Yes, cultural issues are involved, but they are often rooted in those same biological and psychological issues.

I think men and women are both, by their very nature, sexist. What is important is how they handle themselves when dealing with members of the opposite sex. Being aware of what behavior might be construed as sexist might help, but that sounds too much like a blanket excuse for political correctness. I think the only real thing to do is to be polite and considerate of those around you, something that we should all be doing anyway. Of course there are a good deal of very rude and hopelessly misinformed people out there who are at a total loss when it comes to social aptitude.

One final, possibly contentious, thought. I see nothing inherently wrong with the "I want large breasted, well-armed women and nothing will change my mind!" thread. A woman, or homosexual male for that matter, could very well have posted the opposite and I would have no problem with it. This is only my personal experience but I've found that the more comfortable someone is in their own skin the less likely it is that the expression of such thoughts will bother them. Granted, not being able to take kids to a convention because of the cheesecake is a real bummer. But I have to wonder, I've seen my share of real women in chain-mail bikinis, at conventions and ren-faires, and from what I've gathered they don't see any issues with their mode of dress or with children seeing them outfitted in such a manner. Honestly, you can see more flesh at the beach or by a public pool than you can at a game convention.

I'm thinking of a few more points and questions, but I'll leave it there for now.

-Chris

p.s. I was considering going into the "Some people take things far too seriously" rant, but thought better of it. :)

MK Snyder wrote: Gentlemen, take the solution into your own hands. The belief that one must expend one's sexual tension with a female partner is part of the problem.

Watch out for AntiMotherhood advertising. For example, look at the description of this forum's "Critical Hit" section. What, fathers can't be fuddy duddies too?

Forget Not the Foremothers: women were playing and designing RPG's in the 80's. "I can't think of any at all."

Be Aware That Women Can't Rest:

stupid sex stats

Is it worth it to add art that targets women as players?

Can't even invite a friends' kids to a convention because of the
I want large breasted, well-armed women and nothing will change my mind!

I can find more, but my husband keeps interrupting me to discuss family schedule.

Amos,

Let's not attack Maryanne's points. Her view is just as valid as anyone else's. Let's do examine them, though.

Maryanne,

I think you may have read Clay's 'get laid' point wrong. I think it's much less about the sexual release than about the mutual understanding that comes from sex.

(Before I continue, I am making one assumption that if you disagree with invalidates my statement. That assumption: men and women are different, and one can never completely comprehend the other because of these differences. Where these come from, I'm not saying.)

Sex isn't something that a man "does to" a woman just for sexual release. (Well, not always. It isn't in my case, at least.) I love sex with my partner - to be honest, it's my favorite thing in the world. I'm a pretty typical male in that I'm always trying to get in her pants. I have a good reason, though: sex is a mutual activity in which we both get more understanding about the other than perhaps any other way. During sex, I learn things about her behavior that apply in all other parts of our life. From this, I learn things about women that I wouldn't know otherwise.

Your links were great examples of how the RPG community can have sexist elements.

Let's not mix up cause and effect here. I'm sure you can go to any place that has almost all males and hear "guy talk". The same sort of stuff that wouldn't fly in mixed company comes out at golf clubs, poker nights, bars, pool halls, and anything that becomes, "just the guys". This isn't an excuse, but the gender imbalance leads to it happening(although, to be honest, there's sexism underlying a lot of that too).

So what is roleplaying? Well, its a different version of poker night for a lot of guys, and has been portrayed that way to most women as well. The perception of, "It's for us and you're not welcome" is prevalent, and then because there's no women around, you get more of that behavior, which leads to women not wanting to be around, repeat, repeat, etc.

If you look at places where folks have a chance at having more balanced relations, its usually public, with the general social contract being the neutral ground on which folks can meet. You can play tennis with someone you barely know, and not feel threatened or endangered. You can't enter someone's house surrounded by their friends, and not feel a bit out of water(much less the one woman/many men threat).

The public social contract prevents a lot of bad behavior, by way of the unstated rule, "Do this, and you'll look like a jackass in front of everyone, and no one will want to be your friend" Notice how rarely this rule gets enforced in the gaming hobby, and the unhappy groups and dysfunctional behavior you get from it. The basic civlized concept of gaming is ok, and being an asshole is not, seems to miss many gamers.

So what are some possible means of fixing the issue? One, public gaming will have an easier time, and many LARPS have borne this out as true. Two, application of social contract, the same you would do in public, or at least in mixed gender company is necessary. Three, women busting guys asses if they pull shit. Now, the last point isn't to put the responsibility on women, but obviously the guys are doing a bad job policing themselves, and letting them know that they're not living up to what's expected, and letting other folks know about it too, will start slapping some consequences on people.

It's one thing if one person doesn't like you, but if you find that all women in your circle have heard about you...you either shape up or be very lonely. It also sucks when you find some of your players leaving because of it(to paraphrase Ron, "Wherever goes the girl, so goes the guy").

Chris

C. Edwards wrote: I'm a heterosexual male, and that fact alone guarantees at least a somewhat sexist outlook. Sexist thoughts, and actions, often stem from deeply rooted biological and psychological issues. Yes, cultural issues are involved, but they are often rooted in those same biological and psychological issues.

p.s. I was considering going into the "Some people take things far too seriously" rant, but thought better of it. :)

Everyone - please pardon me for the off-topic post. I asked a fellow poster to do something last night that actually worked, and so I'm going to ask contracycle now.

Gareth - could you post with a positive attitude? I know that sounds like an elementary school teacher, but I think it would work. Your last post attacked several people's points, but didn't answer anyone's questions, or posit alternative ideas. Be constructive, not destructive, and I promise that people will listen to your ideas more.

Best,
Clinton

Man, I hope this is useful clarification/interpretation . . .

Maryanne is saying "Sexism exists in the gaming community." She's right. No surprise, it exists in society at large, and there are some factors - the perception (contrary to my experience) that "girls don't like that", the poker-night like clubishness that can exist, the over-tolerance that shared gamer-geekhood can sometimes promote - that aggravate it within the RPG community.

Gareth is saying that accepting those aggravating factors - using them as excuses/explanations to let the status quo remain - is disgusting. He's right. To rework what Mike Holmes said over here , "Sexists are NOT my tribe." More gamers should sign up for that.

Clinton is saying The Forge ain't all that sexist. I think he's right, but I'll allow that it wouldn't hurt to be even more careful.

Other folks (or those same folks in different posts/parts of posts) are trying to clarify how the sexism exists, what works to minimze it, and etc. But this is such a damn touchy subject that saying something entirely practical like "getting laid kinda-regular will make you more comfortable around folks of the opposite gender" can be seen as sexist. I'm confident it wasn't meant that way.

I'm confident everyone posting here looks at all people, of every gender, as fully human equals. With whatever (minor, I'd guess) clarifications based on personal preferences, religious/philosophical beliefs, acknowledgement of biology, and variation across individuals are required to make "fully human equals" correspond with a slighly messy real world.

So I guess I'm back to Ron's "What behaviors attribute to the gender inbalance in gaming?" as the useful bit to explore. My earlier "aggravating factors" list is my thoughts on the matter - did I miss something obvious?

Gordon

MK,

If you feel that masturbation and sex with a partner who enjoys the experience are the same, you've been doing it wrong. Empathy with the other person is the key to making sex work. I don't think that it matters if the partner is a man or a woman. Getting laid and sharing the empathy is the important part.

And don't say I didn't warn you that I was a sexist pig. I still like big breasted women with guns. I married one, so I'd better not fall out of that liking if I know what's good for me.

Clinton,

At least in my case, it wasn't some deeper understanding of females that improved my play. When I'm getting some at home, I'm not angling for a piece of ass in the gaming session. Said angling introduces tension that is destructive to play. Thanks for covering my tail though.

Hrm...

Sexism in gaming?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My experiences (no points or arguments in this part):

I have two groups, one younger, and one older. Both would love to have more female gamers, especially the younger ones.

Younger Group: Have we asked them? Yes. None of them wanted too. Some guys are afraid to bring over their female friends because we might frighten them away or scare them. We are scary to the average person, we have thousands of in jokes, make sarcastic jokes, and beat the hell out of each other. Getting females into this group would be up to the other players currently, because all of my female friends have left to college.

Most of the girls that we've asked to come over viewed it as dorky, scary, or they don't have time.

Older Group: We have one female gamer. We've never had more than one girl at the table at the time (Playing games that is. Last time we ran my friend's roomate's girlfriend sat down at the table drunk and drew things...). We are unofficially called the asshole club. Most girls (guys too)I know I would not invite to this group unless I knew they could handle themselves in a battle of wits and criticism. The female gamer in this group is my friend's girlfriend, but she wasn't when she started.

Back in the Day: When I was in 7th grade (keep that in mind!), I was somehow planning to run a Vampire game. I'm not sure what the specifics were, but I do remember planning it. I was in, what was called gifted. In other words those with outstanding intellectual power (I was the dumbest in that class...).
Back then is in the middle of my massive crush phase. Most of the girls in the gifted class I had a crush on. I was planning my Vampire game (which was actually going to somehow be a LARP) with my fellow gamers (who were all guys, and two of which were in gifted).
A few days later (these things take time) I was approached by two of the girls I had massive crushes on, and I they asked if they could play... well... I said no, well not exactly. I made up some excuse would be closer to the truth. Why? I don't know for sure. Maybe I was just extremely uncomfortable having them in my game (stacked on top of my general uncomfortableness around girls at the time). Maybe I didn't think the game was actually going to take off. I look back at that moment and I just want to beat the hell out of myself (which is no small feat, since I was around 6' something back then). Now, with all due respect, I'm not as old as most of you fogies on this site, so this all took place in the 90s.
Is this considered sexism? I was just as sensitive too sexism as I am now, so it wasn't really a conscious act of sexism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do I bring to the party?

I don't see blatant sexism in role-playing. I just see very few girls already involved. I haven't been able to bring many gamers into the fold lately because of my stable of players I already have (thus the two groups).

I don't know anyone who would have a problem with girls playing. I don't know anyone who has stupid preconceptions on how they play. The only problem I see is that there are not enough girls out there that don't need to be 'converted' into gamers.

As usual, I have little to contribute...

As usual(2), excuse the rambling nature of my post.
-Joshua

I hope I have supplied enough rebuttal for the "perceived sexism" argument.

Now to the "justified sexism" argument.

The fact that men dominate (are the majority) in the hobby doesn't justify the men telling women what women should do, like, prefer, be comfortable with, accomodate, etc.

Let's try a counter example.

For all the straight guys here, you go to a gaming convention. The program cover is of a muscled, nude man with a terrific erection.

You open up the manual for your favorite game. It is full of pictures of large, muscled, fully armored men embracing slighter, near naked men in black leather bondage gear.

Nobody remembers the names of any straight men who've written and designed games. It's always been that way. It's a homosexual art form, maybe straight guys don't have the mental skills for it. For one thing, no fashion sense.

All the gaming groups (except for yours) are gay men who stare at your butt.

When you walk into a store to buy games, you have to flag down the clerk to take your credit card, because as an obvious straight you couldn't have been in here to actually buy a game.

Strangely enough, you love role-playing. Sure, in the early days you had to adjust for the Bathhouse Stamina stats for characters, and the paragraphs about how all straight guys were really just closeted and latent and just needed a good lay to get over it.

Things got better. Some folks talked about bringing more straight guys into the hobby. Wouldn't it be nice that there were more straight guys and their breeder viewpoints. Straight guys are so cute, why, some are even my best friend!

You start posting on forums. Of course, for every post you make about how all of the above makes you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, there's a gay guy posting about how he loves large, erect, uncut cocks in the art; it's fantasy and it's his fantasy; and you just have to adjust to it.

Or perhaps you are being too emotional, over-reacting to "perceived homosexism". After you provide enough examples of overt homosexism, well, maybe it's inevitable and justified homosexism, because you're in a homosexual dominated hobby.

A large portion of the hobby involves the fantasy of "awakening" a latent homosexual to his identity. There is much discussion of the psychology of straight guys and what they like and don't like; the gay designers and posters frequently post their stories of straight guy reactions and thoughts. This is considered an accurate representation of straight guys, their lives, their reactions.

You see very few posts by straight guys. After all, all of the gay posters have straight men in their lives. They know all they need to know about the straight man experience.

The moderators even congratulate themselves on how "diverse" their community is, in spite of the fact it has so few straight guys.

Games continue to be marketed primarily to gay men. At game industry conventions, attractive slim men in Speedos who know nothing about gaming hand out fliers at booths. RPG stores are dimly lit, the covers of many of the manuals feature naked men. A group of gay teens sniggers over the latest module that features the "Awakening" of an entire seminary.

The hobby itself is still about imagination, and the power of the individual player to create the game he wants. In your own group of only straight guys, all of whom are your friends, you run games about straight guys in armor beating up monsters and taking their stuff.

Enoch, read the post above yours for an example of someone having a problem with "girls playing".

Or at least, "a woman having an opinon".

It is a real shame that in your personal discomfort with girls that you turned away two fellow gamers from playing. Yes, that is sexism. Is racism any less hurtful if the perpetrator is acting out of sincere emotional distress? Consider how the girls remember that.

Besides, if the younger male players, who are too shy around girls for their own good, can be given the mission of overcoming their shyness to *let girls play*, it will be good for everybody all around.

Maryanne,

That's an interesting (and horrific, to be honest) viewpoint. I hope by now I've shown in some way to you that I'm not this stereotypical male gamer you keep pointing at, because if I haven't, this is going to be painful.

The majority of the sexism I see in this thread comes directly from you. The portrayal you just made was an obvious metaphor for how you feel the RPG community is towards women today. I find it spurious, and based on a stereotypical image of males that is not what individual males are.

Oh, I grant you that each of the traits you mentioned exists in some males. I grant you that some might exist in me. (Hmm... let's see. I like breasts. That fits.) That does not mean that a blanket accessment of the entire community in that light is correct, or even appropriate.

You've had bad experiences, to be sure. Fuck, all of us have. You want to hear something humiliating and stereotypical? I once had a woman tell me, after seeing a role-playing session I was in, "You know, I quit playing with Barbies when I was ten." That doesn't mean I think all women (a) equate roleplaying with Barbies, (b) hate men, or (c) see males as juvenile. It does mean I think that particular woman had some serious problems relating to men, as well as understanding the idea of having fun and relaxing.

Maryanne - I want you to be able to express your ideas and help those of us that don't understand why there isn't an equal number of women in role-playing. The tropes you're describing don't exist in any normal proportion anymore, though, and the manner in which you're choosing to discuss them prohibits fruitful discussion.

Clay,

I assumed the advice to "get laid" was about releasing personal erotic tension.

I frankly could not imagine that "partner sex" was being posited as a prerequisite for dealing with gaming with women.

Perhaps I am assuming too much. For example, I am assuming that most gamers do deal with females in other spheres of life, such as co-workers, teachers, friends, bus drivers, parole officers, parents, etc.

Are you saying that until a male is sexually mature and has engaged in partner sex it is unrealistic to expect empathy, politeness, or the ability to play RPG's with females?

I respectfully submit also that the tone and tenor of your post somewhat undercuts any claims you may have to expertise on enhancing one's sense of empathy.

Clinton,

I am not you.

You are not female.

You are not the entire gaming industry, community, or world.

You do not have omniscient knowledge.

You have no discursive right to tell a woman (or any poster) what her experience has been, is, or will be.

You have no discursive right to disallow the expression of emotion, thought, or opinion; provided that opinion is appropriately expressed.

To do so is to enforce a single individual's experience over that of others.

You have the power to do that; but not the right. You have the right to do that if you so state it; but not if you value diversity of person or opinion.

The above post was to give straight male gamers a subjective experience--for those who could empathize--into what it is like to be female gamer. It is much how it is and has been.

Don't shoot the messenger.

To do so only reinforces my argument: Male gamers have no right to tell female gamers who female gamers are.

MK Snyder wrote: =
You have no discursive right to tell a woman (or any poster) what her experience has been, is, or will be.

You have no discursive right to disallow the expression of emotion, thought, or opinion; provided that opinion is appropriately expressed.

To do so is to enforce a single individual's experience over that of others.

As a former gamer geek adolescent boy, getting a girlfriend changed everything about my gaming with girls, and (later) getting laid changed everything again. Nothing like a good, happy dose of reality to get you to leave (some of) your twerpiness behind.

(Many disclaimers: "getting" a girlfriend isn't what happened, of course, more like coming to be, by mutual agreement, a boyfriend. Similarly "getting" laid. Also, getting a girlfriend didn't change only my gaming with girls, but my every interaction with girls, and my every interaction with boys, and a bunch of things I did by myself, too. Similarly getting laid.)

It's the happy dose of reality stuff that's important. Relieving personal sexual tension is called for as far as it goes, but if you want any sort of nuanced understanding of any kind of person, interacting closely with them is absolutely necessary. And PARTICULARLY for the gamer-geek boy demographic, which has a crude, simplistic, devoted, anxious, curious, and stunted understanding of women indeed. At least it did when I was a kid.

And no, interacting closely doesn't necessarily mean sex and romance. But the worship, dread, fascination and terror I felt toward girls interfered with every interaction I had with a girl, not just gaming. Becoming a girl's boyfriend let me leave some of those feelings behind.

Hence, getting laid was important to my ability to roleplay with women.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with MK.

-Vincent

I want to follow up on Chris (Banukei)'s mention of LARPs.

Some (though not all) of the LARPs I ran and played in had close to 50-50 gender ratios, and in a few instances the female players were a significant majority. Without any particular visible gender-specific marketing or outreach efforts on the organizers' part.

What does this mean? I dunno. Any of several things:

- Genre is important. Arabian Nights always seems to attract a higher proportion of female players than, say, a cyberpunk LARP.

- Crunchiness is important. LARPS usually have simpler mechanics than tabletop games. (Not the case for the outdoor boffer-combat LARPs like IFGS and NERO, though, where gender ratios appear to be skewed more male.)

- The perceived-geekiness factor may be less important in affecting the gender balance than it appears, since LARPs are usually considered even geekier than tabletop games (though I've used the higher female participation rate as evidence that's not really the case).

- The total effort required to play is apparently not an important effect on the gender balance, since these LARPs required a lot of time and effort for all participants.

- If there are prevalent problems with role players creating a hostile environment for potential female players, they either didn't carry over to LARP players (which would seem suspiciously miraculous -- except that our LARP audiences were generally older than high school age, which could be very significant) or didn't prevent equal numbers of women participating anyway.

My wife and I are sometimes called upon to design computer games specifically to appeal to young women or to have equal appeal to both genders, so we do maintain a theory of what sorts of game elements have relatively high appeal to young women and what sorts of game elements disproportionately put them off. This theory is not what I'd call scientifically tested, but it's not just pulled out of our asses either. It's based on looking at past products that have demonstrated, in the marketplace, appeal to female players, and examining them for common elements that distinguish them from other games (including many intended to be marketed to women) that haven't. (All games, not role playing games specifically.) In this effort we're motivated to be as unbiased as possible, since it determines how well we can do our jobs.

Our current working theory is that female players find the following (among others) more appealing relative to males:

- A wide range of effective strategic options for problem-solving, including retreat, evasion, subversion, seeking allies, bluff, and negotiation, rather than rewards only being gained for "attacking" the problem head-on.

- Gaining power or other rewards by means of building and using social networks.

- Rewards based on subjectively good situational decision-making rather than successful manipulation of systems of abstractions.

Equally important, we've seen no difference in degree of competitiveness, willingness to put time or effort into play, or ability to engage in any kind of play including those kinds that appear to be less preferred.

So, line up the three points above with typical entry level role playing experiences, as well as with the wide range of styles of play discussed here. Does it conform to observations about the general state of female participation in role playing gaming? Does it correlate with games and players you've observed in your own experience?

These are generalizations about statistical differences between the play preferences of males and females. As such, I suppose they are sexist by definition. But if they are real trends in the real world, that for me is sufficent reason to design and market along those lines if I want to reach that audience. I'm not at all concerned with the question of whether or not there should be differences in preferences between sexes or, if there shouldn't be (but are), whose fault that is or what should be done about it.

- Walt

Ok...I've read through all of this and quite frankly...for better or worse...I come to a big fat "so what".

MK's straight guy / gay guy left me decidedly underwhelmed. If this was supposed to demonstrate how horrible it is to be a woman gamer it failed to accomplish that...at least for me. If my biggest challenge as a gamer is being faced with some guys big hairy balls on the cover of my Origins program...I mean really...how does that even qualify as a problem. Am I supposed to feel offended or slighted or diminished by that? I don't... It might seem odd to me. It'd hardly be something I'd pin up on my gym locker door. May, if it was particularly obnoxious exercise my right to rip the cover off and throw it out...but how is it a problem. I suspect you'd get the same level of juvenile reaction to it as you would to a full frontal succubus...and likely from the same people, just 180d different. Some people are just ignorant...so what.

Don't see how that suddenly becomes some form of -ism that I should be offended about.


Plus I don't see this idea of sexism being supported in gaming. Every year I go to Origins I see more female gamers. I've gamed with more women in the past 5 years than I did in the previous 15. Seems to me that the number of women involved in gaming is INCREASING...which means whatever sexism is supposedly running rampant through the hobby isn't serving as a complete barrier to entry. The more women join...the less of a "boys club" the hobby becomes. The more women control the money behind gaming budgets the smaller market there will be for tasteless cheesecake and it will dwindle on its own by simple market pressure.

And I don't believe for a second that women don't share and promote similiar sexist views about men amongst themselves. There is as much beefcake out there as there is cheesecake. Fabio doesn't make his money as an intellectual, and last I heard there were more bachlorette parties hiring male strippers than vice versa...again so what.

I see no evidence whatsoever of any systematic sexism in gaming that isn't present in society at large. And sure there is sexism in society at large. Not as much as there was 10 years ago, not as much as there was 100 years ago, not as much as there was a 1000 years ago...but it hasn't been entirely stamped out. Its unfortuneate that 10,000 years of bigotry can't be turned off like a light switch, but it can't.

There are juvenile sexist pigs in gaming...same as there is in anything. But if anything its diminished not increased. Avalanche catches at least as much flak for its incredibly ridiculous game supplement covers as it does cheers from leering 8th graders sitting at home trying to unstick the pages.

I guess I'm not sure what the point, is. Just to point out that the world isn't a perfect place and that some people's attitudes really suck? Well, yeah...that's hardly news. Is there a call to action of some kind that's being made...if so I missed it buried in all the extraneous back and forth.

I guess I'm just asking...is there a reason for this thread beyond being a opportunity to vent?

Enoch, read the post above yours for an example of someone having a problem with "girls playing".

This one thread is tearing apart the entire forum?

Isn't that a bit of an overbroad metaphor? Sure, it's a hot topic, and an important one, but quelling discussion is not the solution to the problem; and quelling the discussion by shooting the messenger is doubly not the solution.

Especially if it is a problem that you feel deeply about and want to solve. Women feeling uncomfortable isn't going to going to be solved by making the women who feel uncomfortable shut up or go away.

Is the metaphor I used a 100% accurate portrayal of every male-female interaction in the RPG community? Of course not, nor was it meant to be. Is it a good representation of the suffiently significant number of negative interactions to which female players are exposed? I think so; I would, of course.

The defensive response to this is interesting and deserves some reflection, in my opinion; I do think it is counter productive to your stated goals and I found it very surprising.

Okay, one example:

I pointed out that using "embarrass your mother" as a phrase to describe "no holds barred discussion" is sexist. Actually, pretty annoying to me as a mother *and* a gamer who is capable of no-holds-barred discussion.

That was an example. In this thread. The thread that you say has no examples.

To tell me that the examples I have provided are not examples...is an example.

How could that have gone better? Well, there could have been one post about, "Yeah, I've seen a lot of that kind of thing myself." or "I see how that could be annoying."

As for the whole "getting laid" subtopic. My mind reels at the cluelessness.

Definite "Same planet, different worlds." experience there. May I humbly submit that conversation with female gamers could also lead to greater empathy?

That said, I respect the honesty a lot, and I think that it is much better to have honest discussion than not.

What is the value of venting?

Well, if you are interested in designing games that will appeal to women, or in designing games that won't actively annoy them, it's worthwhile to read some venting.

If there is interest in making the Forge more appealing to women, or at least not actively turning them away, it's worthwhile to read some venting.

If those aren't of interest to you, feel free to not read the thread. Consider it an activity similar to ripping the cover off a gaming supplement.

It didn't occur to me that so many of the male members of the Forge would take this so personally. I have never thought nor accused Clinton, for example, of being a Neanderthal fart lighting frat boy geek gamer. Clay can self-identify as one if he wants. I suspect he isn't one, though.

Maryanne,

Thanks. I complimented your links when you posted them, but didn't back them up simply because they were on other forums. (That doesn't invalidate them, but trust me, me commenting on RPG.net or Gaming Outpost causes more flames than this ever could. Suffice it to say - yep, I've seen those links before, and yep, they are pretty bad. I did find it interesting that the two Forge links included one that derided cheesecake at conventions, and another that questioned the idea that attractive women depicted in RPG art is inherently bad.) I humbly disagree with you on the getting laid topic: I've already submitted that intimacy brings understanding, which we can discuss if you like, and I don't think the idea that less sexual tension might bring easier interaction is bad. I do think that we might want to be able to see through our sexual tension, or even use that in a positive way.

I apologize if you've thought I wanted to quell you specifically. Honestly, I want to quell anyone who posts attacking or negative posts on the Forge. I'm all about two things: concrete examples, and solutions.

I appreciate your honesty, as well. I do think the behavior exhibited by many people, to include both you and I, will tear apart the Forge if continued. That's not a topic for this thread, though.

Your point that just talking face-to-face with women roleplayers can help is an excellent one. I'd say that the majority of my understanding of the issue comes from interactions with women, both role-players and not. For example, my statement that mixed-gender groups can be more enjoyable comes from my long-time play with Lise Mendel, one of the best role-players I've met.

If I may, I'm going to restate some questions brought up in this thread (or just thought up by me), and I'd love it if you (or anyone) answered them:

- Is the sexism in role-playing different than the sexism in society at large, and if so, how?
- What can an individual role-playing group do to make themselves more appealing to women players?
- I think it can be taken as a given that youths of both sexes are less sensitive than adults. Could part of the gender imbalance come from the fact that many role-players are introduced to the hobby in their youth? (I ask this because many female players I've met started in college or in their 20's, or even when they married a role-player.)
- In your current group, what behaviors make you feel welcome, and what behaviors (if any) do not?
- Why don't we see more all-female role-playing groups?

(Edit: also, I wanted to add one thing, because I don't think I've said it clearly yet. I apologize to Maryanne for overreacting earlier. I completely misread you. Understanding that you pointed out the extremes of behavior and not your opinion of the Forge's behavior, I realize my reaction was asinine.)

Ok folks, let's stop and take a breather, and re-examine the situation.

Sexism exists in our society, it also exists in roleplaying(it being a social activity after all). Lots of socially unacceptable behavior that wouldn't get tolerated in society, gets put up with and sometimes encouraged in the gaming hobby(sexism, racism, out and out being an asshole, and more).


We could sit here and argue to what degree, or vent. Neither will solve the problem. Here's some issues that folks might want to examine for productive discussion;

•Gamers introduce each other into the hobby. Women gamers can form their own groups(can you get 2 friends to play?). This isn't about making gender exclusivity, but if your game group is 4 guys, 1 girl, you can get a lot of crap. When the 4 guys see that it's not 1, but 3 girls who are going to be together, the social dynamic changes. If the guys are still pricks, then the women still play without them, go have fun. I'd say introducing more women into gaming is the first priority, and the only way to avoid the issues is for women to initiate other women into it. Only a women would know best how to make a woman friendly environment.

•All women gamers got into the hobby somehow. What positive experiences made you decide to stay in gaming? What positive experiences could be reproduced for other women?

•Large groups of mixed gender folks creates its own social contract. Someone is always trying to impress someone, and you can't be an asshole to the person you're trying to impress and get very far. Aside from LARPS, is there any other public manner of gaming that might introduce women into the hobby?

Chris

I pointed out that using "embarrass your mother" as a phrase to describe "no holds barred discussion" is sexist. Actually, pretty annoying to me as a mother *and* a gamer who is capable of no-holds-barred discussion.

Valamir wrote:

I pointed out that using "embarrass your mother" as a phrase to describe "no holds barred discussion" is sexist. Actually, pretty annoying to me as a mother *and* a gamer who is capable of no-holds-barred discussion.

Yet I'm failing to see how comments like that are any different than comments about Italians and gangsters. Should I, as an Italian American, be offended every time someone says something like "Hey, keep it up and I'll send Guido and Angelo out to pay you a visit". Whats being implied by the statement could (were I so inclined) be interpreted even worse than what you're saying is being implied by your example.

Wow, I think I hit a nerve somewhere.

Vincent, thank you for your post. You described exactly what I was driving at. Although intercourse with one woman does help gain empathy with others in general, empathy with the women I game with isn't really the issue that caused trouble for me. I haven't noticed that making the bed squeak with my wife does anything to increase my empathy with the women I game with. Knowing that my wife and I will be making the bed squeak keeps me from introducing unwanted tension into the game. Ron can probably provide solid scientific reasons why this is so, but I notice that he's steering clear of this discussion.

What I'm looking for definitely is erotic release. Slapping the bald headed step child isn't the answer because our little monkey brains are geared to have sex with other hairless monkeys, not hairy palms. Orgasm is only part of the solution.

wfreitag wrote: Our current working theory is that female players find the following (among others) more appealing relative to males:

- A wide range of effective strategic options for problem-solving, including retreat, evasion, subversion, seeking allies, bluff, and negotiation, rather than rewards only being gained for "attacking" the problem head-on.

- Gaining power or other rewards by means of building and using social networks.

- Rewards based on subjectively good situational decision-making rather than successful manipulation of systems of abstractions.

- Walt

MK Snyder wrote: Is the metaphor I used a 100% accurate portrayal of every male-female interaction in the RPG community? Of course not, nor was it meant to be. Is it a good representation of the suffiently significant number of negative interactions to which female players are exposed? I think so

...How could that have gone better? Well, there could have been one post about, "Yeah, I've seen a lot of that kind of thing myself." or "I see how that could be annoying."

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I'd love it if you (or anyone) answered them:

- Is the sexism in role-playing different than the sexism in society at large, and if so, how?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: - What can an individual role-playing group do to make themselves more appealing to women players?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: - I think it can be taken as a given that youths of both sexes are less sensitive than adults. Could part of the gender imbalance come from the fact that many role-players are introduced to the hobby in their youth? (I ask this because many female players I've met started in college or in their 20's, or even when they married a role-player.)

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: - In your current group, what behaviors make you feel welcome, and what behaviors (if any) do not?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: - Why don't we see more all-female role-playing groups?

Le Joueur wrote:
I'm not sure that's the right approach. Wouldn't targetting women be sexist? Perhaps aiming for more diversity would be better. Perhaps pulling down barriers such as exemplified in the gay metaphor (not that every group has all of them, but pulling down any your group has and drawing attention to those any other group displays.

Le Joueur wrote: I know these answers are likely to be taken widely out of context by the flames I see rising, but I thought it was worth adding a little 'cool air' to the conversation.

Maryanne,

Personally, I found your example not only valid, but also funny as hell. Honestly, you'd think some folk had never heard of hyperbole...


As to the "get laid" discussion, what underlies that is the fact that what turns many women off to gaming is being seen/treated as a potential sex partner first and a fellow gamer second. Or so my female gamer friends have told me. I think the theory here is that if a (het) gamer guy already has a girlfriend, he won't see female gamers that way. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.

Note, though, that the core of the problem is being percieved/treated as a sex object more often than as a gamer. More effective than getting laid regularly would be to simply police oneself for such behavior and just not do it.

A general observation: I have played in one group that was 3:1 male to female, and another that was 3:1 female to male. It was my experience that (when I was in the gender minority) I had to deal with much less crap than the women in the mostly male group did.

Now for the interesting bit: both groups had equal amounts of sexual innuendo and blue humor, in game and out. But with the mostly-female group, it was usually very clear that it was all friendly, all in fun, usually satire of people who are jerks about such stuff in real life.

Which is not to say that the guys in the male-dominated group were jerks. Rather, it was much harder to tell when a guy was serious-friendly, serious-antagonistic, or just joking.

One factor was that the female GM of the female-dominated group was much quicker to step in when things were begining to get out of hand, while the male GM in the other group usually let things go, sometimes even joining in.

Mind you, I'm not talking about abusive stuff here. In both situations the minorities gave as good as they got, and nobody ever walked off hurt. But the overal quality of the interactions were markedly different.

Anybody else ever encounter this?

A fair enough request, Fang, to look more deeply into MK's metaphor.

Doing so, I find there's one element that I just don't understand:

MK Snyder wrote: Strangely enough, you love role-playing. Sure, in the early days you had to adjust for the Bathhouse Stamina stats for characters, and the paragraphs about how all straight guys were really just closeted and latent and just needed a good lay to get over it.

[snip]

A large portion of the hobby involves the fantasy of "awakening" a latent homosexual to his identity. There is much discussion of the psychology of straight guys and what they like and don't like; the gay designers and posters frequently post their stories of straight guy reactions and thoughts. This is considered an accurate representation of straight guys, their lives, their reactions.

Uh oh. The person I mostly agree with thinks I'm mind-reelingly clueless.

Maryanne, I'm not offended, and I'm just offering my own experiences from when I was an adolescent hetboy geek. I have no real idea if anybody shares my experience -- sounds like Clay might, or might know people who do -- but I'm just saying, having a romantic relationship changed me as a person. Particularly, key in fact, it made me a more reasonable, well-rounded, empathic person. Which no surprise, I'd say, and I'd say it's a good thing, too.

A trivial little side benefit was that it made me less twerpy when it came to roleplaying with girls (and then women, later).

I would recommend having romantic relationships to anybody for whom they're at all appropriate, because they're cool. A bit hesitantly, I don't think I'm being clueless in doing so.

-Vincent

Walt, I was just trying to get the "being viewed as potential sexual partner" phenomenon in; it would of necessity involve changing orientation so it's not a perfect fit.

I didn't even attempt to take on the aspects of roleplaying rape, having prostitutes as characters, actually being propositioned, repellent conversations, or attempting a homosexist version of Grand Theft Auto.

Good thing, too. It probably would have led to some real angry posts in response.

Personal favorite heterosexist klutzy RPG behavior experiences:

*Being invited back to a guy's apartment to look at UFO blueprints.
*Being told on a forum that I was lying about being a woman because my posts had been too rational and logically written for a woman to have done them.
*Salesman ignoring me and asking my eight-year old son what he was shopping for in crpg department of store.

It's really bad in the casino gaming industry, which is one of my areas of investment and expertise. There isn't enough money in the RPG industry to justify hiring female prostitutes as a marketing aid. There is in gambling and investment.

This works to my advantage as a blackjack player, however.

I would not be surprised if role-playing, like the computer industry, has a higher percentage of men with Asberger's Syndrome in the hobby than in the population at large. Such individuals would have more problems interacting with females than they do males, and with people-as-strangers overall.

Lumpley, I have nothing against romantic or sexual relationships. I'd put it down as one "growing up" experience that would improve role-playing. Parenting is another. But it is a bit silly to put it forth as a solution to making women feel more welcome when one of the common complaints that women gamers have is being too often treated as potential sexual partners first, and gamers second!

I could just as well recommend to everyone here that they will be better players if they have children and raise them, volunteer to work with people with disabilities, get a job, travel, or join a sports team! All will add to one's knowledge of the human condition.

Gareth,

contracycle wrote:

Now, this I take extreme and vigorous exception to. It may well be that I exhibit sexist thoughts and actions, despite my intent. And yet, the assertion that this is BECAUSE I HAVE TESTICLES is utter rubbish. There is nothing about your masculinity or your hormones or your morphology which mandates or justifies ANY form of discrimination whatsoever.

I think men and women are both, by their very nature, sexist.

Valimar: many little slights can add up. Especially in something that is one's mental refuge. One of the joys of fandom (or religion, or any hobby) is the sense of being among "one's own kind".

It's jarring as a woman who games to be reminded, "No. You're one of the Scary Other."

I accept it in the X-rated bookstore; I put up with it in the boardroom (where I am the only female.); I give stockbrokers grief over it when they ask to speak to my husband; I had a great time being the only straight person at my job in college.

It's not just a problem for straight women, either; it's a problem for gays, lesbians, transgendered, polyamorous, bisexual and asexual individuals too.

Maryanne -

In case it's not clear by now - *I* think having your input in this thread is GREAT. I think many other people here think having your input on this thread, and the issue in general, is GREAT. Doesn't mean I agree with it all, of course, but that's not an attack on you, it just gives us stuff to discuss. Some things (a lot, by my guess) we could work through and come to total agreement on, a few others - maybe not. But if you think folks aren't appreciating what you're bringing to the thread - well, not true for me, and not how I'm reading other people's posts.

Clinton -

I'm admirin' the way your posting here, sir.

Folks -

Appologies if I'm lapsing into boring pedant mode here - this may come across as "wise elder speaking," and I'm sure not claiming that - or any - authority. But IMO - you've always got to remember, serious discussions about touchy subjects in a 'net Forum environment are HARD. Maryanne has excellent points in her discussion, but people choose to comment on ("attack?") the more questionable ones. Plenty of folks (I claim including me, in at least one post) brought up specific areas where gaming-in-general kinda messes up on the sexism issue, perhaps even moreso than society as a whole - but those posts don't get any response. In my experience, you HAVE to focus on the points of agreement AT LEAST as much as on the points of disagreement, or the discussion is doomed. I see LOTS of points of agreement here, and no one focusing on them. Even the disagreement isn't formed in such a way to get a helpful response.

Maybe that's because the only response that makes sense is "Don't be sexist, in life or in gaming." (Where I define sexism as inappropriate behavior towards the opposite sex, and DON'T limit it to males alone). But maybe there is more to say . . . until/unless we get cogent dialouge going, we won't know.

So - I've encountered very sexist game groups. Contrary to the experience of some here, my early (junior high/high school) groups were far LESS sexist than the environment in general. Depending on which configuration I consider, my current groups fit that bill too - though when the group is all-male, sometimes it slides a bit too close to the "inappropriate" for my liking. In between . . . I ran into some of the worst that "gamer culture" has to offer, and sexism (along with many other downright nasty behaviors) almost drove me out of the hobby.

The most positive thing I can take from the thread at this point is some more determination to keep that inappropriate behavior out of our group(s). Not as some PC, "oh-don't-say-that" knee-jerk, but as a sincere expression of my "don't forget that's another fully-human being you're talking about" beliefs.

Again, hoping this is seen as a positive contribution,

Gordon

A few quotes, for context:

MK Snyder wrote: Lumpley, I have nothing against romantic or sexual relationships. I'd put it down as one "growing up" experience that would improve role-playing. Parenting is another. But it is a bit silly to put it forth as a solution to making women feel more welcome when one of the common complaints that women gamers have is being too often treated as potential sexual partners first, and gamers second!

MK Snyder wrote: I could just as well recommend to everyone here that they will be better players if they have children and raise them, volunteer to work with people with disabilities, get a job, travel, or join a sports team! All will add to one's knowledge of the human condition.

MK Snyder wrote: I would not be surprised if role-playing, like the computer industry, has a higher percentage of men with Asberger's Syndrome in the hobby than in the population at large. Such individuals would have more problems interacting with females than they do males, and with people-as-strangers overall.

Fang,

Do males who have Asperger's Syndrome not respond to females with physiological arousal symptoms similar to those of stress? i.e., a response to females qua females similar to that of a response to hostile males?

Keeping in mind that Asperger's Syndrome has degrees of severity.

I have some other friends who have been diganosed with Asperger's; their experience has been that while all non-familiar humans induce anxiety and the desire to retreat or disengage, it is easier to overcome with fellow males than with females, and that it is easier for them to have male friends than female friends.

They are gamers and computer professionals. It has been difficult and frustrating for them; they are very isolated from the all-pervasive heterosexual emphases in media, social activities, etc. Their games have few to none female characters, either from the male players or as NPC's. Emotions, family life, romance...all that guff is non-existent in their games.

We may find that the RPG's serve an important role for individuals with biological/cognitive/social deficits. There are "Gamer Geeks". Instead of being ashamed, or hiding them, or laughing with the rest of society, we may want to be more aware and inclusive of them, too.

So far, Asperger's has been found to be more prevalent in males than females. This would be a biologically based imbalance that has nothing to do with RPG content with respect to math skills, violence, or gender roles; but instead, impacts gender representation in the recruitment of new gamers.

Jon (quozl) wrote:

wfreitag wrote:
Our current working theory is that female players [tend, statistically, to] find the following (among others) more appealing relative to males:

- A wide range of effective strategic options for problem-solving, including retreat, evasion, subversion, seeking allies, bluff, and negotiation, rather than rewards only being gained for "attacking" the problem head-on.

- Gaining power or other rewards by means of building and using social networks.

- Rewards based on subjectively good situational decision-making rather than successful manipulation of systems of abstractions.

Heck, isn't that what all roleplayers want? I sure find them to be the most appealing parts of RPGs.

Hey Maryanne,

MK Snyder wrote: Do males who have Asperger's Syndrome not respond to females with physiological arousal symptoms similar to those of stress? i.e., a response to females qua females similar to that of a response to hostile males?

MK Snyder wrote: Keeping in mind that Asperger's Syndrome has degrees of severity.

MK Snyder wrote: I have some other friends who have been diagnosed with Asperger's; their experience has been that while all non-familiar humans induce anxiety and the desire to retreat or disengage, it is easier to overcome with fellow males than with females, and that it is easier for them to have male friends than female friends.

MK Snyder wrote: They are gamers and computer professionals. It has been difficult and frustrating for them; they are very isolated from the all-pervasive heterosexual emphases in media, social activities, etc. Their games have few to none female characters, either from the male players or as NPC's. Emotions, family life, romance...all that guff is non-existent in their games.

MK Snyder wrote: We may find that the RPG's serve an important role for individuals with biological/cognitive/social deficits. There are "Gamer Geeks". Instead of being ashamed, or hiding them, or laughing with the rest of society, we may want to be more aware and inclusive of them, too.

MK Snyder wrote: So far, Asperger's has been found to be more prevalent in males than females. This would be a biologically based imbalance that has nothing to do with RPG content with respect to math skills, violence, or gender roles; but instead, impacts gender representation in the recruitment of new gamers.

MK Snyder wrote:

I would not be surprised if role-playing, like the computer industry, has a higher percentage of men with Asberger's Syndrome in the hobby than in the population at large. Such individuals would have more problems interacting with females than they do males, and with people-as-strangers overall.

Evan Waters wrote: Personally I've always felt more comfortable interacting with women than men. Not quite sure why.

MK Snyder wrote:

It's not just a problem for straight women, either; it's a problem for gays, lesbians, transgendered, polyamorous, bisexual and asexual individuals too.

C. Edwards wrote:
Therefore, you having testicles is not the primary qualifier. Also, if you re-read my post you might notice that I wasn’t justifying sexist behavior. People are hard-wired towards discrimination. I was simply saying that we need to be aware of this on an individual level and regulate our behavior appropriately.

I would appreciate not being quoted out of context in the future.

wfreitag wrote:
In this metaphor gay men represent (real world) men, and straight men represent (real world) women. So the fantasy of turning a straight man into a homosexual represents... the fantasy of turning women into men??

Rape has been depicted or implied in RPGs, which has occasioned much controversy, but I've never seen or heard of it depicted as converting the victim to the attacker's lifestyle.

7. DO NOT RAPE THEIR CHARACTER.
We hope this is the most blindingly obvious, what-the-hell-planet-are-you-on statement you have ever read, yet over and over we meet women with horror stories to tell. A friend of ours, now a successful gaming artist, was not three hours into her first AD&D session when one party member declared he was raping her. Rather than stopping him, all four other party members joined in. To this day, this woman will not play a female character. We only wonder that she ever played a second session.
Another friend of ours describes a game that "I was lucky to get out of when I did." On the night after she left, the party got arrested by the city watch. After throwing the PCs into separate cells, the male gamemaster had the guards rape every female character. The women left in tears and never returned to roleplaying, while, as our friend described incredulously, "the GM never understood what he did wrong."
In yet another game, a friend of ours ended up playing the self-described "town slut." Though this was not a role she wanted, she had felt so pressured that she "ended up giving it away before someone tried to take it."
These three examples are from three different states (New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland) in three different decades (late '70s, mid-'80s and 1997), yet describe disturbingly similar situations. These women are not alone.

I'm glad I asked the question, because I've now received three completely different interpretations: Gareth's immediately above; one in a PM regarding fantasized female homoeroticism; and MK's own answer (which I'll take as authoritative, since it was her metaphor to begin with), which was:

Walt, I was just trying to get the "being viewed as potential sexual partner" phenomenon in; it would of necessity involve changing orientation so it's not a perfect fit.

I didn't even attempt to take on the aspects of roleplaying rape, having prostitutes as characters, actually being propositioned, repellent conversations, or attempting a homosexist version of Grand Theft Auto.

Good thing, too. It probably would have led to some real angry posts in response.

Well, that water sure does look chilly, but I think I need to take a dip anyway....

Where to begin?

As far as men and women being different: this statement is true and helpful with respect to physiological differences and the different kinds of experiences men and women have (as has been noted, women may feel less safe going to a strange man's apartment to play, etc.). However, this statement implies things that are not true. The corrolary: "Men and women are different and these difference can never be bridged or ever really understood," creates barriers between men and women.

I am sure everyone here would be interested in hearing about the differences in men's and women's experiences, since this would enable us to understand eachother's viewpoint. Am I wrong?

Difference among groups members are usually as widely varied as differences between groups when you really look at it.

However, two differences along male/female lines that have cropped up in this conversation that I've noted are 1) the kind of hostile environment many aspects of rpg and the broader gaming/comic/geek environment present to women, and 2) the issue of getting laid helping men be better able to offer a friendly gaming environment to women gamers.

My thoughts:
OK, Forge men, here we are. This is it, you asked why there are not as many women gamers, MK's hyperbolic post about the industry treating straight men as the anomalous and sexualized Other is an excellent document to help you get a feel for what makes women uncomfortable. You are role-players! Use your talents to get into that character, to empathize and understand the range of emotions from a kind of vague discomfort it could cause women to feel, all the way to having to face the threat of rape, and institutional discrimination and control that women have faced and continue to. Take this as an opportunity, and ask questions about what you don't understand, rather than refuting it because you personally don't believe you would feel that way. Thank you everyone who did understand and expressed support. Thank you MK for writing it. I thought it was dead on and helpful.

Getting laid: What I heard said: When men are desperate or hungry for sex, it is much more likely to bleed over into how they treat female friends they game with (and presumably do anything else with socially), which will contribute to making the women feel uncomfortable. So men are being encouraged to take responsibility for their own sexual needs and not impose that on women in their circle. Forgot something folks! Most of the posts about this only mentioned the need for sex, the emotional aspects are just as critical. Otherwise, masturbation would be all you need. Men are looking for intimacy, too.

Not in every specific case, but overall in the US, culturally, men are disencouraged in almost everyway possible from engaging with their own emotions or to be intimate with others. I believe Vincent was getting at something along these lines and saying that his relationships allowed him to relate better to himself and others of all genders. Women, on the other hand, are almost equally encouraged to do the opposite. Interactions in sports, games and role-playing games have emotional components that are not acknowledged: from identification with character or team and vicarious thrills of success, to the frisson of conflict with another, physical or intellectual. Feel about that for a minute. Then think about the things that Walt outlined in his post about what women gamers look for. They are the same things as men, but more so--not limited to a competitive and emotionally distanced model.

Women are encouraged to access much more of their own emotional experience so may look for less externalized and vicarious experiences to feel similar fulfillment. Though there is a romantic fantasy model in much of media that is geared towards fulfilling these desires in women. Well, our society raises us in alienation from one another and promises two goals for men and women (especially if white): emotional security to women, and financial security for men.

Not a really clear analysis, but food for thought, perhaps.

--Emily Care

Vincent: I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought you were clueless. You're right, we're in total agreement.

Gordon: thank you for expressing my point more clearly. My "get laid" advice is saying "deal with it off the table." You're right that in some idealized world we could just correct the behavior. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we live in that world. Our little monkey brains are the only ones we've got, and the only one's we're going to get, and they're hard wired to be on the lookout for food, sex and a warm place to get out of the weather.

Emily: My own experience suggests that I don't particularly need to be in love with the person who's satisfying the sexual urge. Having sex with someone that I'm not in love with, but happen to enjoy shaking the bed with, has been sufficient to curb game problems. Even sex with someone I didn't like and didn't even enjoy having sex with also curbed the urge, although in unpleasant ways in that I'm not looking for sex at the table, but I'm also pissed off.

I do agree with you on one point though: intimacy with someone you love is the best solution. Since I met my wife I have had absolutely no uncomfortable moments of looking for love at the table.

The difference between rape and getting killed in RPGs:

In REAL LIFE it is extremely unlikely that I as an American female will be killed by a maniac, sword wielding or otherwise.

In REAL LIFE it is extremely likely that I will experience sexual assault, harrassment, domestic violence, or economic discrimination.

In REAL LIFE it is very likely that any female player will have *already* experienced sexual assault, harrassment, date rape, domestic violence, or economic discrimination.

There are also the differences in how the two forms of character damage are handled in-game. To die in battle is quite a bit different from being raped.

Interestingly enough, in RPG's male rape is probably underrepresented. Consider that.

Nuredin wrote:

Maybe some do's as well as do nots?

I'll bring the Aspergers count to 3, but since my experiances seem to be almost the same as Fang, but with a slighly lower IQ, I'll leave it at that.

MK-Good job with the reversal post, I found it rather disturbing. I'm glad some hyperbole was involved (oh good, there's hope...).

Mk, Emily, or for that matter, anyone else:

Many of the good steps have been mentioned, such as not tolerating sexism among your group, inviting in more gamers, changing bad attitudes one might have toward female gamers, ect.

My question is this:

Is there anything in the structure of RPG's that should be examined? I'm talking about things in the system or presentation of material. (Ignoring stuff we already know about, such as cheesecake(where did this term come from anyway?) art and ludicrous stuff like geneder based stat mods).

I know Walt mentioned that he persieved differences in the types of games females preferred. One could assume these differences are a consequence of enculturation, but that doesn't make them less real.
Should we take them into account, which might appeal more to women, but enforces the enculturation or should games ignore such things, (the idea being to not 'target' anyone, but just be a game)?

I like the second one, and a purpose of the Forge(IMHO) is to promote indie games, which tends to increase the diverstiy, but perhaps not enough. What are peoples opinons of the designes that have been posted here on the forge?

First, a specific bit back at Clay:

Clay wrote: Gordon: thank you for expressing my point more clearly. My "get laid" advice is saying "deal with it off the table." You're right that in some idealized world we could just correct the behavior. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we live in that world. Our little monkey brains are the only ones we've got, and the only one's we're going to get, and they're hard wired to be on the lookout for food, sex and a warm place to get out of the weather.

Gareth,

contracycle wrote:

I am well aware of what you wrote, and you were not quoted out of context. You are now asserting a postion I regard as absurd; please provide some evidence to support your claim that prejudice is inherent to the human condition, and specifically that this arises from hardwiring.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Well, I think we can keep that monkey brain in check, somewhat, or at the very least I don't want "monkey brain" to be an excuse for unacceptable conduct. Still - I agree, we shouldn't fool ourselves, either.

Chris and Gareth,

Things are getting a little flamey looking here. In a thread that Clinton has said he fears could tear the Forge apart, that makes me very nervous.

Would it help if I were to point out that the exact point you're disagreeing on has been a source of bitter dispute for decades throughout the social sciences? It's nature versus nurture, and guess what: there's a huge amount of credible and complex evidence on both sides.

For one evolutionary psychologist's view, see "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker (Viking, 2002, ISBN 0-670-03151-8). He discusses not only the position he regards as moderate, which is that both genes and environment determine human behavior, but also the cultural struggle surrounding that issue which has resulted (for reasons he believes are outside of science) in that same position being regarded by many as extreme. If I recall his arguments correctly, chief among those reasons is the fear that acknowledging any amount of genetic influence on behavior would be seen as justifying undesirable behavior. Sounds to me a lot like what you guys (and also Clinton, in other threads) are arguing about.

Now, you're both smarter than the average bear, but nonetheless I doubt that you'll be able to resolve this question on a Forge thread. But if you can, I hope you have a few moments to spare to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which should be a piece of cake by comparison. :-)

- Walt

In the interest of not wanting to post anything nonconstructive I considered saying nothing about this, but it just bothered me too much...

Begin rant:

What the hell?! I've read MK's parody of women in gaming where she used homosexual men as the example. Yes, I think it drove home the point fairly well. Yes, I got the point; it was not missed on me I assure you. However, am I the only one who found it an offensive representation of homosexual men?

MK, this iz in no way an attack against you or your point, because I know that it was not meant to be taken that way. I just feel I need to say that it really pissed me off. This portrayal iz exactally the kind of stereotyping that homosexuals have to fight against all of the time. And it bothers me that no one noticed it (or if they did they said nothing). In my eyes it iz identical to the type of treatment that we are on here rallying against except that it has to do with sexual orientation instead of gender.

End rant.

I will write a more constructive post later once I've regained my equalibrium. I just needed to get that out of my system and I don't require any apologies.

I'd also like to add that I'm seeing a tendancy to link sexual assault to sexism. No one has directly stated this, but I feel the implication and I'd like to warn against it. Saying rape is a sexist behavior is like saying splitting someone's skull with a baseball bat is like not liking baseball.

As we all know, rape is a crime of both emotional and physical violence.

Physical violence is a 'soft' sort of violence, one we are desensitized to...in the confines of our little game universes a cracked skull is isolated from the player.

Emotional violence upon a character can have the direct impact of emotional violence on the player - just as me discussing the topic subjects you to a minor bit of emotional violence. If you are subjecting your players to a level of emotional violence beyond their comfort level this is in no way discrimination - it is a lack of emotional sensitivity in relating to the individual (not the definition of that individual, which would be discrimination). If a player has a nine month old son, and you murder his character's baby in a gruesome manner you will be inflicting him with emotional violence he as a player has to deal with. Rape just happens to be the sort of emotional violence you can be pretty certain is going to make a woman uncomfortable.

We can all agree that the group must decide on the level of emotional violence they are willing to handle as players. This I see as a completely seperate issue from sexism.

Ziriel-

Speaking as a queer man into leather, I wasn't particularly offended. Mind you, I don't claim to speak for all of my tribe, but hey, I found it funny.

Cruciel-
Sexual assault and sexism are intimately linked. Threat of sexual violence underlies a lot of the fear and frustration that many women feel in situations where men make them uncomfortable. This threat is usually not overt, nor is it usually personal. Most often it is implied by experience. This experience may be personal, or it may be indirect, from stories or warnings from other women and the culture in general.

It works something like this: Every woman has heard the story of the woman who was raped at a party that "just got out of hand." Jokes and rowdiness changed to sexual jokes and harassment, changed to inappropriate touching, to manhandling, to rape.

Note that sexual jokes and harrassment is step two of the path that leads to rape. Once the (unwanted/inappropriate) sexual jokes start at the gaming table, alarm bells are already going off for most women.

Now, this is not to say that every woman faced with sexism is in mortal fear. Most are just annoyed. Most will write it off as bad behavior, and trust that the situation isn't really going that way. But the thought, the alarm, is still there.

So while it could be argued that not all rape is sexist (although the fact that 1 man is raped for every 10 or so women implies that sexism plays some role), fear of rape and threat of rape plays a role in why sexist behavior is so offensive.

Lon

Z, absolutely, it is a terrible portrayal of homosexuals. It is not an accurate portrayal of homosexual men and never was intended to be such.

It may be a fairly accurate portrayal of some heterosexual men's homophobia, though. During the debate some years ago about the status of Gays in the US Armed Forces, I was quite impressed with how worried defenders of the "straight only" policy were that homosexual men would make unwanted advances on fellow soldiers.

My interpretation, slanted as it is, was that many heterosexual men were projecting their own attitudes towards servicewomen in this anxiety.

As for rape as assault...well, the potential for rape as a threat is used differently in our society between men and women in general. As I have moved to more male-centered workplaces, I have been quite struck with how often anal rape metaphors are used in the workplace between straight men. Yet, statistically speaking, they face a much lower chance of actually being raped than does any woman; certainly as an element of domestic violence or dating gone bad.

Plus, one must consider the role of rape in fantasy, law, and storytelling. Rape is a common sexual fantasy of nonviolent nonpredatory individuals of both genders that has nothing in common with the motivations behind the actual psychology of active rapists. Especially when we are talking about adolescent males who may be introducing rape of females as a way to introduce sexuality, period.

There is also the dimension of rape as damage to one's man property by another man; as a political/military statement of contempt; and as seizing another culture's reproductive assets.

In terms of gaming, the problem is not that rape is "more awful than death" or other forms of assault; the problem is that it is a specific form of assault that is disproportionally dealt to female characters over male characters *and* that it is also a form of assault female players must realistically cope with every day. Not only on their own behalf, but also in offering support to friends and family who have experienced sexual assaults.

Males have the mirror stress, as of yet unaddressed, of frequently being seen as potential predators. Men must censor their physical movements and statements concerning emotional intimacy so as not to be misinterpreted; this takes a toll on mental and physical health too. Men are not permitted to seek as easily the emotional support and connection that women are allowed to request of their friends.

Another thread beckons: how comfortable are male players with playing characters in emotions? Can they exhibit grief? Comeradery? Can your character hug his Dad?

cruciel wrote: If a player has a nine month old son, and you murder his character's baby in a gruesome manner you will be inflicting him with emotional violence he as a player has to deal with. Rape just happens to be the sort of emotional violence you can be pretty certain is going to make a woman uncomfortable.

We can all agree that the group must decide on the level of emotional violence they are willing to handle as players. This I see as a completely seperate issue from sexism.

Uncle Dark and MK make some excellent points about the seperation of motivation of action and rationalization of action (assuming I understand, and they agree with me).

I see a sexist rationalization for a violent action as completely seperate from the motivation of a violent action. However, when dealing with social issues belief is more important than truth (no philosophy on truth, please). I can see how it would be easy for either gender to believe the rationalization.

I can also see how people could mistake their fantasies for reality...though I've not met any man or woman who would air their rape fantasies in a public setting (my personal experiences may not be universal).

I like to make sure my borders, and where they grey, are clear when dealing with hate, discrimination, and violence so I can attack them at the source.

MK Snyder wrote: Another thread beckons: how comfortable are male players with playing characters in emotions? Can they exhibit grief? Comeradery? Can your character hug his Dad?

Speaking as a queer man into leather, I wasn't particularly offended. Mind you, I don't claim to speak for all of my tribe, but hey, I found it funny.

Z, absolutely, it is a terrible portrayal of homosexuals. It is not an accurate portrayal of homosexual men and never was intended to be such.

It may be a fairly accurate portrayal of some heterosexual men's homophobia, though.

BEGIN anecdote
Once upon a time, Ziriel worked at a retail store. A middle aged black woman handed her a credit card with the name "Edward" on it. Ziriel ask for her ID. The woman went into a raging fit about Ziriel being a racist, impling she was a thief only because she was black. The woman was so blinded by her experiences she was looking for racism in every dark corner. She had created racism, in her mind, where it simply did not exist.
END anecdote

Cruciel, Ziriel,

Regarding your anecdote:
Yeah, there was no racisim in that situation. Yeah, the woman saw something that wasn't there. But why?

It's not like her reaction came out of the blue, with no basis. How many times had someone accused her of being a thief because she was black? Sure, Ziriel wasn't doing that, but the old lady had experienced enough racisim in her life that she interpreted that oen situation wrong. Think about this: if she was old enough, she may remember a childhood where she'd been regularly and legally sent to the back of the bus or refused service because she was black. Rosa Parks only made her stand in 1955. Segregation did not end until, what, 1966?

Now imagine gaming with her. Portraying racism, segregation, or slavery in-game would be touchy enough. Joking about it out-of-game around the table would be a big mistake.

The point is, you can't isolate a person in one situation from the rest of his or her experience. Saying, "I'm not being racist right now!" does nothing to ease the burden of pain that woman carried, and sounds like the all the denials she'd heard from bigots most of her life. Saying "yeah, whatever" discounts that pain, as if it was of no consequence, as if her life and experience did not matter.

This isn't to say that Ziriel should have done something different. It sounds like you did what you were supposed to do for someone in your position at that time.

What it is to say is that when dealing with people's emotional buttons, people you want to enjoy a liesure activity with and perhaps keep as friends, you can't just dismiss their previous experience. It has to be taken into account.

Lon

Ziriel wrote:

This iz sadly very much a true tale. When I worked in retail I was one of the few people that always checked signatures and names on credit cards. It hadn't even occured to me that the woman was black. It was something I noticed then shuffled away just like "blonde hair" or any other tidbit. She was so enraged it took my store manager giving her our credit card policy and talking her down to get her to stop screaming at me. The experience disturbed me deeply for weeks. More on topic: I think this iz why we have to be so careful when we imply that anyone may be sexist. I like to be damn sure before I do. Of course when I am sure...boy do I let them have it. ;)

Regarding your anecdote:
Yeah, there was no racisim in that situation. Yeah, the woman saw something that wasn't there. But why?

While your story suggests that one should be careful, I think one should be even more careful to declare "No one is less discriminatory than I/we." It's not always obvious to oneself when one acts in a discriminatory fashion, and sometimes one slaps oneself after the fact for not being more tactful. While in your example, there obviously was no discrimination given, I personally very much see the view on the receiving end as the relevant one. If someone feels discriminated, and there isn't a very solid reason why the other party acted that way, then it would probably have been better had the other party not acted that way. And in that, one should keep in mind that different people have different thresholds. ... And while one can personally feel its exaggerated, one isn't in their hide and doesn't know what other experiences they build their attitude on.

Uncle Dark wrote: The point is, you can't isolate a person in one situation from the rest of his or her experience. Saying, "I'm not being racist right now!" does nothing to ease the burden of pain that woman carried, and sounds like the all the denials she'd heard from bigots most of her life. Saying "yeah, whatever" discounts that pain, as if it was of no consequence, as if her life and experience did not matter.

cruciel wrote: What I'm saying here, is maybe for a second her experiences and pain don't matter...I'll deal with her as an individual, and she can deal with me in the same manner.

cruciel wrote: never mind the little things that are only sexist if you seperate them from their intent.

cruciel wrote: What I'm saying here, is maybe for a second her experiences and pain don't matter...I'll deal with her as an individual, and she can deal with me in the same manner.

Uncle Dark and Ziriel, you are of course both right.

I'm somewhat of an idealist...now that I've poked my head out of my little fantasy world and screamed 'why can't we all just get along' I can safely crawl back into my idealistic cave before sharp pointy rocks of reality rain from the sky and bury themselves in my skull.

And reverse discrimination is just one of my little buttons.

The problem is -ism's are all defined by nebulous social convention.
The have to be defined in terms of the victim, and also in terms of a socially
accepted 'norm'. Thus any accusation of sexual harrasment is taken seriously and examined by a higher power, frex jury. (Yeah, I know there are problems with this, they arn't relevent to this point). The idea being the jury is compare against the 'social norm'. The end result is it's a combination of the victims feelings and the accuseds intentions, neither of which is readily available. (To take the Ziriel example, yes you had a reason to be suspicious, because the name on the card does not appear to match the person.)
(sorry for the ~rant)

I suppose for gaming it just comes down to social contract, what can people encounter in game and not have it cause severe emotional resonance with out-of-game emotions. Also, these issues may not be obvious.(The soprano's thing was mentioned)

Good handling of strong disagreements everyone.

Damion had some constructive, on-topic questions:

damion wrote: Is there anything in the structure of RPG's that should be examined? I'm talking about things in the system or presentation of material. (Ignoring stuff we already know about, such as cheesecake(where did this term come from anyway?) art and ludicrous stuff like gender based stat mods).

I know Walt mentioned that he perceived differences in the types of games females preferred. One could assume these differences are a consequence of enculturation, but that doesn't make them less real.
Should we take them into account, which might appeal more to women, but enforces the enculturation or should games ignore such things, (the idea being to not 'target' anyone, but just be a game)?

I like the second one, and a purpose of the Forge(IMHO) is to promote indie games, which tends to increase the diverstiy, but perhaps not enough. What are peoples opinons of the designes that have been posted here on the forge?

Emily Care wrote:
Should we take them into account, which might appeal more to women, but enforces the enculturation or should games ignore such things, (the idea being to not 'target' anyone, but just be a game)?
Ron's gendered Sorcerer mechanics are an interesting approach. If rpg hit the main stream, I am certain that there would be gendered rpg's just like there are gender targeted products of every stripe. Gad, I shudder at the thought. Barbie the Role-playing game. <shiver> yes, I suppose that day will come. :) That's not whay you meant, Damion, sorry.

Possible tangent question, but i'm thinking still on-topic.

There has been a lot of talk about negative sexism towards females, but what about positive sexism?

The reason I ask is because i've always seen what seems like positive sexism when talking about females. Specifically, the notion that 'hack n slash' is not-so-good, females don't like 'hack n slash', so females are better role-players. It's not very heavy, I don't think, but its something I've always felt was present.

If someone was stereotyped (however lightly) with something that wasn't considered a bad thing (positive discrimination), but still stereotyped, does that somehow make it less wrong?

Which leads to me the question; is this whole thread about trying to get better treatment for women (possibly positive sexist), or for fair and equal treatment (egalitarian)?

thoth wrote: If someone was stereotyped (however lightly) with something that wasn't considered a bad thing (positive discrimination), but still stereotyped, does that somehow make it less wrong?

Which leads to me the question; is this whole thread about trying to get better treatment for women (possibly positive sexist), or for fair and equal treatment (egalitarian)?

thoth wrote:
The reason I ask is because i've always seen what seems like positive sexism when talking about females. Specifically, the notion that 'hack n slash' is not-so-good, females don't like 'hack n slash', so females are better role-players. It's not very heavy, I don't think, but its something I've always felt was present....
If someone was stereotyped (however lightly) with something that wasn't considered a bad thing (positive discrimination), but still stereotyped, does that somehow make it less wrong?

MK Snyder wrote:
It may be a fairly accurate portrayal of some heterosexual men's homophobia, though. During the debate some years ago about the status of Gays in the US Armed Forces, I was quite impressed with how worried defenders of the "straight only" policy were that homosexual men would make unwanted advances on fellow soldiers.

Daimon,

There are technical definitons of many -isms. Moslty, they're used in the academy. One of the important factors is that it isn't an -ism unless it is backed by and/or supports the current power structure.

And as far as "any accusation" being taken seriously, often they aren't taken seriously. Unless the victim raises holy hell. And one of the problems with discrimination cases is that juries are actually not likely to find in favor of victims of sublte discrimination and abuse.

If it were so easy to get justice for the problem, it wouldn't be such a problem.

Thoth,

"Positive sexism" is something of an oxymoron, since sexism is by definition bad. Any stereotype, whether it appears superficially positive or not, is a handicap because it prevents people from seeing the whole person.

Back to an old point about the effects of sexism on men:
My main beef is having to pay the karmic/social bills for the actions of assholes. That's why I devote time to things like this discussion. Every little bit of the problem I can erode away is less stuff the next guy has to deal with.

Lon

Uncle Dark wrote: Daimon,

There are technical definitons of many -isms. Moslty, they're used in the academy. One of the important factors is that it isn't an -ism unless it is backed by and/or supports the current power structure.

And as far as "any accusation" being taken seriously, often they aren't taken seriously. Unless the victim raises holy hell. And one of the problems with discrimination cases is that juries are actually not likely to find in favor of victims of sublte discrimination and abuse.

If it were so easy to get justice for the problem, it wouldn't be such a problem.

I don't care for "positive sexism" either; because there are women who enjoy a good hack'n'slash. Me, for example.

Expanding the range of RPG's beyond designs that facilitate hack'n'slash is a good goal in itself, getting more players (both male and female) and also allowing RPG's to be played throughout life/moods/PMS cycles of individuals. Sometimes, you just want to kill things.

Sometimes, you don't.

thoth wrote: There has been a lot of talk about negative sexism towards females, but what about positive sexism?

M. J. Young wrote: So there's really no such thing as "positive discrimination" except on an individual basis. A man telling a female coworker that she has beautiful eyes could be a compliment or grounds for a sexual harrassment suit, depending on how she thinks it was meant.

M. J. Young also wrote: As to the doors problem, the answer is simpler than you thought: hold the door for everyone. That way you're neither being impolite to women nor treating them different. The solution to the problem is to treat everyone as equally special.

Amos,

Hurm. I thought I'd been clear... what you're calling "positive sexism" may be less harmful, but I still think it's a bad thing. No offense taken.

As far as women discriminating against men, yeah, it happens. Sometimes it inspires men to discriminate back. But the two discriminations are qualitatively different, because the way the past experiences of women (in general) bring them to feel it differently than (most) men would, given their pasts.

Think about it this way:
One person pokes another in the belly. The other person pokes back. Objectively, the same action. But if one person has been repeatedly punched in the stomach, and still carries the bruises, then they'll react much differently than the one who hasn't been hit so hard or so often. Are they unjustified in doing so? Probably their friend did not mean to cause pain, but still did.

damion wrote: Do women actually want anything different in RPG's than men do? (One of the strongest hack/slashers I ever met was female)

I'm not sure that requiring (or even encouraging) people to play characters of an opposite gender is a desirable thing. Watching males get in touch with their feminine side via roleplaying is more than a little uncomfortable. I've seen it, and I didn't like it.

Clay wrote: Watching males get in touch with their feminine side via roleplaying is more than a little uncomfortable. I've seen it, and I didn't like it.

Emily Care wrote:

damion wrote: A game that explicitly required all players to play an opposite gendered character might be an interesting exercise. Roleplaying games actually represent an opportunity for folks to play with, explore and gain better insight about what gender differences mean or don't mean.

I'm just imagining each group playing it's stereotypes of the other. It would probably be pretty amusing, and educational.
I suppose this is the should RPG's be educational, or just fun, but that's a new thread. (I know, I know, learning should be fun. Not in the american school system though.)

Emily Care wrote:

Clay wrote: Watching males get in touch with their feminine side via roleplaying is more than a little uncomfortable. I've seen it, and I didn't like it.

What was it like?

Hello,

It's time for everyone to take a full 12 hours, as of individually reading this message, to lay off. It's time to stop reacting and start reflecting.

I doubt many will comply with this next point, but I suggest that if you want to continue, print the current thread out in its entirety, read it over, and isolate any major points you think have been made.

This topic is not closed, although I'd prefer that this thread be closed. Feel free to address any single one of the points as a new thread topic.

Please honor this post regarding the 12-hour off period.

Best,
Ron