Something I've realised recently, is I don't think I've ever seen any female posters at the forge, now I know that the forge has no intirinsic gender bias, so why on earth is this such an uneven community - rpg.net and the white-wolf forums have plenty of female posters so why is it just us men over here?

Please, prove me wrong, but this seems a bit odd to say the least. Any theories?

There are definitely several female posters in the top 50. If you haven't seen any, you either haven't been around long enough or haven't been paying attention.

The gender imbalance at the Forge is reflected at almost every other online forum about roleplaying, simply because there's a massive gender imbalance in the hobby itself. However, I tend to think that our percentage of female-to-male posters is actually higher than many places, because the Forge doesn't have a drolling, socially-inept fanboy population.

Actually, the only women I know of in the top 60 posters are Shreyas Sampat (I think) and Emily Care, but that particular group is not necessarily an accurate sample. I'm sort of hoping that some women will come forth to remark on this question... ladies?

I know that there are female posters on the Forge because the issue has come up before. I think you don't see it so much in part because not all of them have obviously female-sounding handles. There is a tendency to assume that a poster is male if there's nothing to indicate otherwise, but it isn't always so.

I vaguely recall a thread about gender issues not so long ago in which several posters who contributed specified that they were female; I just can't place what it was about otherwise. Emily might remember.

Anyway, the short answer is that you haven't noticed any posters whom you knew to be female; that's not the same thing.

--M. J. Young

clehrich wrote: Actually, the only women I know of in the top 60 posters are Shreyas Sampat (I think) and Emily Care...

Thomas,

Your assumption of "just us men" at the forge is incorrect. I have no theories or anything particularly enlightening to say about the perceived lack of women at the forge. I am a woman with a non-descript login (my initials); I do usually close my posts with my first name. I've been a forge member for quite a while, but with only a small number of posts. Why? I'm not a game designer, and I've never been a prolific online participant.

I agree that the women who do post here are not in-your-face about it, which I for one appreciate. I don't think it is necessary for gender, male or female, to be blatant in an online environment, and I find it curious whenever the issue is raised.

I'm guessing that the topic that M.J. refers to is Sexism and Gaming (split).

Julie

There are female members on the Forge. For some reason they just aren't as vocal or visible. I would suggest allow avatars to make it more obvious if I didn't hate avatars. (I really hope this doesn't open up a "turn on avatars on the Forge discussion." Avatars are annoying and if there were on, I would turn off my ability to view them in the users options)
But there are women here. I don't know why they don't seem to post as much as the males. But we won't get them to post more often by drawing attention to their sex.

For whatever reason, I've been seeing less of our female members than usual - Emily Care's been conspicuously quiet, Cynthia Celeste Miller mostly stays inside her game's forum, and so on. I think M. J. covered the topic adequately with noticing and knowledge.

For the record, Jonathan's right. I'm lucky enough to have one of those uncommon foreign names that's androgynous in its own language. (:

If Forgers would like to see more women posting, my .02 is to suggest looking for women's gaming groups on the Web and telling them about the Forge, and that it's a really cool community, and that damnit, gamers of all sorts are definitely welcome here.

Sigh,

No one is understanding Julie's post - which, at a very basic level which I'm afraid will also be misunderstood, says, So what?

I shall illustrate with a hypothetical situation. Let's say that posting above a certain amount on the Forge is a pathological behavior which tends to be observed in men. All right then, the current pattern (plenty of women but not in the top-posting category) would then represent the "best" possible situtation.

Sigh. Let me guess, people will misunderstand that too. I am not claiming that the above idea really is the case. What I'm saying is that there is no pattern of data that would alarm me into thinking something's "wrong," barring a tendency to show up, to break into a variety of clearly negative internet-style interactions, and to leave. Since I don't see that at the Forge - no problem. Even if only 1% of the posts were by women, it would still be no problem. We don't know whether 1% is "good," or if 99% is "good," and especially whether an even, perfect, constant 50% is "good."

"We do a lot of X! But women aren't doing X as often as we are! Oh, no, what are we doing wrong, to drive them away?" Bah. Maybe it's a gender-biased behavior in the first place. Maybe they have better things to do. Maybe it's sunspots. Maybe we're all unconscious sexists who send out repellent thought-waves or imply it in some ineffable way in our posts. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

It comes down to this. I don't expect anyone to want to post to the Forge as often as (say) me or Mike Holmes. Since men, obviously, are exempt from such expectations on my part, why should I place the expectation on women to do so, especially?

I am especially unhappy with singling out women posters by name with the implication that they should post more - that is frankly provocative and pushy. I'm only a little less unhappy with the idea that they would if only "we" (the guys) would do something different or right.

Guys, it's very sweet of you to want to be good to the women and make sure that they aren't "offended" or aren't being marginalized in some way. That's great. You know something, though. I think they can take care of themselves.

If such things were going on, I'd be hearing about it very directly from quite a few women who post here - some of whom I have to deal with face to face regularly, and some of whom I don't but stay in fairly regular private email contact with. None of them are shy in telling me what I do "wrong," and they like it here. So far, that's the data I'm working with, and it, unlike that which this thread is based on, is completely non-speculative as to cause.

Best,
Ron

I was going to say much the same as Ron: why is this even remotely an issue?

There's no sexism going on, thus no problem, and no need to close this perceived (and completely artificial) gap. Gender isn't and shouldn't even be an issue in this case.

Saying, "Oh my gods, we don't have enough women!" is only important if:
a) You're trying to get laid
b) see "a"

or, to put it another way:

there are Forge members who (a) are male; and, (b) post about as much as the average female Forge member. why should we be concerned about the quantity of posts from female posters, but not those from males with a low post count? why are we treating women different than we treat men? should we include religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and political party in the profile, to make sure no other groups are left out?

even if someone isn't "trying to get laid" (as Raven suggests,) it sounds a bit sexist to treat women differently when women don't ask to be treated differently. Thomas, I don't mean to suggest you are being sexist (and I'm sure Raven isn't suggesting you're looking for romance.) you're just concerned you (or the community as a whole) are doing something wrong in relation to women. but double-guessing your behavior or the community's behavior doesn't work well and just increases stress; relax! if you spot an actual problem, report it in a private message to the moderators; otherwise, pretend everything is fine -- it probably is.

I think Ron was right before when he suggested that total number of posts should be turned off. maybe "date of last login" would be a more useful stat.

greyorm wrote: I was going to say much the same as Ron: why is this even remotely an issue?

There's no sexism going on, thus no problem, and no need to close this perceived (and completely artificial) gap. Gender isn't and shouldn't even be an issue in this case.

Saying, "Oh my gods, we don't have enough women!" is only important if:
a) You're trying to get laid
b) see "a"

Jeffrey,

That's a fine example of a valid private-message, not a post. You could address it to me, as content moderator, or to Raven (greyorm) if you preferred to discuss it with him directly.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: That's a fine example of a valid private-message, not a post. You could address it to me, as content moderator, or to Raven (greyorm) if you preferred to discuss it with him directly.

Hi Jeffrey,

While you're all fired-up about the issue, ready with your weapons and eager to join battle?

Yes, I would very much mind starting such a thread and I will not do it under these circumstances.

You're talking to someone raised in a feminist environment to a significant degree, as well as someone who's organized womens' conferences, participated in female-centered self-defense training, and who's been around the block on these issues in general. I am significantly suspicious of the attitude, be it held by male or female, that someone absolutely knows what is right and wrong about gender issues and interaction and can tell us allllll about it.

As content moderator, I absolutely require threads such as you describe to be venues for discourse and coming to a shared understanding, not stumps for people to wave around their little 3x5 card ideologies. My discourse standards for a sexism (etc) thread are extremely high.

Here are a couple of other points of view, held by me, that would serve as constraints on such a thread.

1) The term "offensive" is not defined and cannot serve as a basis for any sort of meaningful discussion. Actual harm can be identified and discussed - on-line, it ranges from emotional abuse, to marginalizing, to power-theft, and to instilling fear of losing status. Sexism and similar issues should be discussed in terms of observed, actual harm, which is real, and common enough that it deserves our attention far more than inferred and vague pseudo-events such as "offensiveness."

2) Deconstructing "how we talk" is one of the big red herrings. A real issue about gender interactions, sexism, and so on is always best addressed in terms of the work at hand, in terms of a shared agenda that itself is not about "getting along better" nor any other gender-activist thing.

There is only one shared agenda at the Forge. It was discussed in the The five percent thread, which I rank among the most important threads ever at this site.

If anyone would like to begin a thread properly centered on that agenda, and in line with my two points above, in regard to "women [or whoever or whatever] at the Forge," then please feel free.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I'm a little disappointed that you choose to start this conversation in this mode; we had several messages back in forth in private that contained no trace of acrimony, anger, or passionate and righteous anger from my corner, and I had expected a thoughtful, engaging, and above all respectful response.

You seem to have what I can only see as willful misunderstanding of both what I'm saying and the manner in which I'm saying it. In neither my public postings nor my private messages with both you, 'greyorm', and other members of the Forge community have I proposed that I have any special license to insight, knowledge, or wisdom that I'm descending from on high to gift to the masses; I would expect better than straw men from you, Ron.

In all of our correspondence, you've shown a decided hostility towards both this topic and myself, and I can only summise that you've bad experiences with people around this subject, a situation that I certainly dislike being made a whipping boy for. If you can't be involved in a community discussion on this subject because it causes a negative reaction for you, I can certainly understand that, but as I hope I made clear in my private letters this afternoon, I will regret losing your insight and thoughts.

As for credentials, I firmly don't believe that we need to start bringing our CVs to the table. Everyone who is both a participant in modern society and here at the Forge has a worthwhile perspective and experience to share.

As content moderator, I absolutely require threads such as you describe to be venues for discourse and coming to a shared understanding, not stumps for people to wave around their little 3x5 card ideologies. My discourse standards for a sexism (etc) thread are extremely high.

1) The term "offensive" is not defined and cannot serve as a basis for any sort of meaningful discussion. Actual harm can be identified and discussed - on-line, it ranges from emotional abuse, to marginalizing, to power-theft, and to instilling fear of losing status. Sexism and similar issues should be discussed in terms of observed, actual harm, which is real, and common enough that it deserves our attention far more than inferred and vague pseudo-events such as "offensiveness."

There is only one shared agenda at the Forge. It was discussed in the The five percent thread, which I rank among the most important threads ever at this site.

talysman wrote: even if someone isn't "trying to get laid" (as Raven suggests,) it sounds a bit sexist to treat women differently when women don't ask to be treated differently. Thomas, I don't mean to suggest you are being sexist (and I'm sure Raven isn't suggesting you're looking for romance.)

Hello,

Jeffrey, you see me as reasonable and then responding with anger. I see you as posting in anger and then becoming reasonable. You state that no acrimony, etc, was present in your messages/posts, and I strongly disagree. I could state there's none in mine, including the above, and you (I presume) disagree. You're disappointed with my response, and I'm disappointed in your posts. Clearly something is wrong.

So we're not getting anywhere with "who got mad." Neither of us sees ourselves as the mad one, and I doubt either is going to budge. I'll drop it if you will, he said, eyeing the other fellow warily. That's a joke. I do think we'd do well to drop it, and I'm not speaking as moderator in doing so (which would be unfair).

You wrote,

Are you actually offering to start a thread on either the incident/post in question, or upon the nature/role/place of sexism and/or gender identity politics, or are your points as outline made, in the absence of any thread of rebuttal, as points in an argument?

Jeffrey, Ron, don't do this. Do we truly need to see a conversation about community standards here? At the moment it only seems to be the two of you arguing the point. Watching the two of you starting to puff up over what's appropriate is not pretty. If nothing else, throwing down the gauntlet, "You gonna start a topic on that?", is not the way to resolve this misunderstanding.

For the record, I am in agreement with everything that greyorm has posted in this thread. And, I was not offended by his first post, on the contrary, I thought it was spot on. I also had Belushi running through my head, "The little girls? How much for the little girls?" It made me laugh. So if you want to label me a sexist, go for it, I don't mind.

This has gone way off topic, and I suggest that everyone go back to talking about gaming.

Julie

Hiya,

So it's been, since last posting, five hours of semi-stressful role-playing (new people), plus grading papers, plus a shutdown of public transportation on the way to work ...

The good news is that Jeffrey and I took it to private mail and did OK there. Julie gets the unsolicited-but-welcome moderator prize for the thread, I think.

Best,
Ron

For what it's worth, I agree with Julie. Here's a few points that might be worth discussion, IMO; otherwise this all seems pointless.

1. Is there any reason to think that women are actually avoiding the Forge, or avoiding posting at the Forge? I don't know how you could find out, but certainly sheer numbers aren't useful absent exactly parallel data from other RPG fora and the statistics of the hobby in general, neither of which (I suspect) will be available.

2. Does anyone know why RPGs are perceived as a male thing? Is there any way to analyze this intelligently (i.e. not just saying that D&D was all about killing, and women don't like that, which is sexist if perhaps generously-minded)?

3. It appears, from this thread and a few others, that some men are quite concerned that RPGs are perceived as predominantly male, and that there do seem to be fewer women players around. Is there some way to attract more women to the hobby, and is this a worthwhile goal in itself? Raven's point, that the only reason to do this is to increase chances of a liaison, made sense in that context but not this. The argument made for affirmative action lately might fit: RPGs would be more fun and more rewarding if the players represented a wider spectrum of society at large. Does this argument hold here, and is there an intelligent way to achieve such a goal?

Now I'm going back to thinking about RPGs specifically.

Oops.

I think I'd better defend my motives for starting this thread since I don't want anybody thinking the worse of me for something I wasn't trying to do. This wasn't supposed to be a big deal, I just saw (thought I saw) something unusual and wondered why.

It wasn't an issue of "are there enough women", I didn't want to propose any changes, I wasn't trying to be an activist for women's issues, I CERTAINLY wasn't advocating a 'woman of the forge' membership drive. It was a perfectly selfish inquiry meant to benefit noone and nothing but me and my curiosity.

On the other hand, whether I was trying to or not, I stirred up a hornets nest and I apologise for any personal offense or disruption to the forge casued by my starting this thread.

The following thread discussed these issues in depth:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4433

Mike

jrs wrote: Jeffrey, Ron, don't do this. Do we truly need to see a conversation about community standards here? At the moment it only seems to be the two of you arguing the point. Watching the two of you starting to puff up over what's appropriate is not pretty. If nothing else, throwing down the gauntlet, "You gonna start a topic on that?", is not the way to resolve this misunderstanding.

I'm a pragmatic guy, and while I only have a tangential interest in what's being debated, I gotta ask:

It sounds like you are very interested in bringing women to the Forge. Cool.

So how are you going to go about this? What can you do to bring more women into the Forge?

Before the thread is closed, the original post was posted mostly because of a curiousity on where the female Forge members are. The question can be extended, and rightly so, to other groups like gays, African-Americans, Asians, etc. I don't think there is an answer to the how-to handle this, except to point of Forge precident on a similar issue, the use of one's real name.

Not to reopen that whole issue again, but to point out that it eventually settled down into "we encourage you to use your real name here. You do not have to if you do not wish to, but we encourage it."

The point here is Forge member have the right to be identified or recognized as whomever they wish. I was "pblock" when I first joined the Forge, but I started using my real name based on my own choice. I believe this should extend to whether a Forge member wishes to be identified with or by their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin, or whatever may also be applicable. It should be the member's choice to mention such thing. If they wish to share such things, fine so long as it is conducive to the sort of discussion the Forge was made for. If they wish to not disclose such information, that is also their right. As far as the purpose of discussion on the Forge, these matter are a non-issue in most cases.

That said, I personally encourage members to make certain their own gender is clear if only to avoid "pronoun trouble."

-White American Male of Welsh descent.

Jeffrey Miller wrote: The perspective that female game designers can bring to the discussion is important, its a viewpoint and experience I'd like to hear more from, and its something that we should support.

greyorm wrote: However, all you need is one woman to get the "female perspective," though that brings to light the question of whether the "female perspective" is so different from the "male perspective" that gender is an actual issue in regards to an individual's response.

For me, the differences between people are far more important than the differences between sexes. And I say that from a training background, where as a member of a group of instructors in a traditionally male field, we noted that our female students always had very interesting questions and approaches to issues in comparison to the usual provided by male students.

Hi guys. It's me again. I'm just dropping by to let you know that I won't be contributing to the current discussion about the elusive "female perspective". Honestly, I find the topic tedious and uninteresting. And, unless Clinton devises a means to authenticate my or any other female posters xx chromosomes, there's no way to validate that a "female perspective" has come to light.

Have fun!

Julie

Jeffrey Miller wrote:

greyorm wrote: However, all you need is one woman to get the "female perspective," though that brings to light the question of whether the "female perspective" is so different from the "male perspective" that gender is an actual issue in regards to an individual's response.

I don't think so at all. An individual can in no way speak towards the experience of an entire class of people.

At this point I'm going to give up attempting this discussion in this forum. If anyone is interested, I'm more than happy to take it offline, but I think the community has pretty firmly spoken that this is not an issue of importance.

-j-

Jeffrey, as this discussion isn't really on-topic and you've seriously misunderstood a number of my points and discussing my statements would be even further off-topic, I'll take that to private with you.

Julie, in her last post, nicely summarizes precisely why the whole "gender perspective" issue is not only moot but useless to discussion in a community as a basis for anything. Following, John's comments about the "class of people" is precisely what I was getting at in regards to my statements about gender perspectives and individual perspectives.


EDIT: I've been informed that the first paragraph sounds like an attempt to "get the last word in." I admit it does at that. Apologies.

My hope with the scond paragraph was to quickly clarify for anyone reading my statements the same way Jeffrey did. Anyone with problems about what I said or how I said it should PM me and we can discuss it.

Hey, I hope this doesn't pour oil on the fire, but I just wanted to make an observation.

Julie posted to disagree that there's any big deal on the matter. More than a few posts used that as really strong evidence. Isn't that kind of like getting the female perspective on the matter?

I hope that doesn't sound pissy. I don't mean it that way. What I'm inferring with it is that there's no reason why she couldn't be in that five percent Clinton talks about, but she kind of got some special attention on this thread.

Maybe I'm making a gross exaggeration, but it sort of stood out to me. If you disagree, let me know. I kind of think it's interesting.

As has been pointed out, the only info I can give is why I post or don't post here--not why anybody else of my gender might do so or not. I personally have never experienced any sexist behaviour towards myself on the Forge, and that may be part of why I continue to choose to participate here. When I don't post, it's much more about the rest of my life, rather than having anything to do with the Forge.

There are a number of women who post on the Forge. This may be hard to tell from a casual look at the Forge roster. Julie is not the only female poster who uses an inconspicuous moniker. I chose to use my full first name in part because I wanted my gender to be clear--because of the perception of gender imbalance in gaming. Also, I did so because it is safe to use a female name at the Forge, unlike other online forums (I'm defintely not implying any particular ones, I simply know that it's a common situation in the online medium) where people will pester--you regardless of your real sex--if you use a female gendered name.

Given that, the overwhelming majority of posters here are male. Same with the industry. The group of those who participate in the hobby altogether, if that could be measured, probably has a less skewed gender split. Just my impression. If I totalled it up I believe I have gamed with more women than men.

As far as why there are no women on the top 10 posters roll, Ron pegged it. I don't think I'd say it's pathological, but it sure ain't gonna be everybody that has that much time and energy to devote to it. I lived with at least one woman who had did, back in the old FRPG.advocacy days, however. As I recall, that community had several women who were top posters. This one doesn't. I personally don't have any cause to believe that is more than an accident of history. If anyone has experience otherwise, I'm sure Ron & Clinton would be interested in hearing about it.

Anyway, in my opinion, keeping the level of discourse high, and atmosphere respectful are the best things that could be done to encourage people of whatever variety to participate here at the Forge.

Regards,
Emily Care

Matt Wilson wrote: Julie posted to disagree that there's any big deal on the matter. More than a few posts used that as really strong evidence. Isn't that kind of like getting the female perspective on the matter?

Julie, Talysman, Jeffery Miller and greyorm all have debate-worthy albeit differing views of the relativity of the whole issue. I have to agree with Emily Care and Ron about time spent here being mostly male, and thus the major posters appear to be male. I think a better question, perhaps, is 'where are the women game writers?', which of course raises all the same points rasied by those above (where are the gay/ asian/ disabled/ etc. demographic X people). Personally, I think there are two answers. First, we're not as likely to have the time and / or access to be on-line at the same volume as posters here seem to have (lower tech jobs, whatever), and second, we may not be designing the same sorts of games. There's a third in there about the extreamly high level of the work around here, and plain ol' intimidation. :) I'd have to second whoever said to troll other boards and advertize.

~Meguey