Save vs. Sexism: Interview with Jessica Price


Paizo General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,067 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
Treating women as equals is what we all want.

There's a problem with this statement though. Much of the boorish behaviour that women are complaining about is men treating women as though they're other men and jockeying for dominance in the group. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't excuse crappy behaviour, nor am I condoning it, but guy/guy social connections are dramatically different from guy/girl ones whether we like it or not... (especially among the guys out there who aren't good at interacting with women.)

As a consequence approaching this from a gender/feminist/privledge model of interaction is entirely the wrong approach to actually accomplishing anything. This is a marketing issue pure and simple, and to try and make it more than that is a red herring that squeezes the most drama and angst out of the problem possible without actually addressing anything.

In a related vein, I know a lot of people have been recommending using the experiences of female gamers as a model to get more women in, but I don't think that's the only or even best approach. Those women have already jumped the barriers to entry into the hobby and stuck around.

The women paizo should be reaching out to are the ladies who've never gamed because understanding their thoughts and assumptions about the hobby are more relevant to changing their minds and getting them to try it. (My guess is that even if you don't retain 80% of them, the remaining 20% of potential women is larger than than the pool that have actively looked for a gaming table to join.)

Sovereign Court

fretgod99 wrote:
Lengthy Post

I'm not going to get into the Civil Rights Movement and my thoughts on it, that's not what this thread is about. So let's tackle the last paragraph. You say it's irrelevant but clearly it isn't. If your goal is simply "more women any way possible" by using unequal treatment, then you could greatly expand the options by fully embracing that. What if female players got an extra feat at 1st level and 5 extra attribute point buy? Knowing that their characters are just plain better than the males at the table would encourage them to take part. And to retain them, maybe they can get a 10% XP bonus too? If unequal treatment in the name of "more women" is the answer, then these could work wonders, and are fully in the spirit of Affirmative Action.

If, on the other hand, the goal is an equal and welcoming place for all, then that would never fly, and neither would some other stuff. As I said, I think a welcome and equal place for all should be the final end goal, not a means to another goal, and while you or I can't wave a magic wand to make that happen, the path to get there is by moving in that direction as much as you can, not by going the opposite way.

I think also it's wrong to ascribe a "generic male socialization" of domineering alpha-male personality to RPG gamers. The vast majority of male gamers I know are the furthest thing from that, and instead tend to be quiet, shy, were bullied and abused in school, and were never popular. There is one guy that has played with us for many years who hardly says 5 sentences in a 3 hour game... I doubt he could domineer any female player even if he wanted to. And I bet the vast, vast majority of gamers wouldn't even WANT to do that anyway. There are some jerks out there, yeah, I'm sure we've all met our share, but should policy be set because of a few jerks or the majority of players?


Samurai wrote:
Treating people as equals is, IMO, a 1-step process... you just do it. I don't believe you should actively treat people UNequally as a method to maybe, eventually, treat people equally, which is why I'm strongly against Affirmative Action, quotas, etc. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the ends don't always justifies the means. Some of the suggestions do seem to amount to Affirmative Action-style preferences for female gamers.

Let's assume something:

1) The current system is already unfair
2) Doing nothing, the system will not change

Action is required. Doing nothing only maintains the status quo. Describe an active plan that brings about change, instead of just hoping things get better on their own.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Treating people as equals is, IMO, a 1-step process... you just do it. I don't believe you should actively treat people UNequally as a method to maybe, eventually, treat people equally, which is why I'm strongly against Affirmative Action, quotas, etc. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the ends don't always justifies the means. Some of the suggestions do seem to amount to Affirmative Action-style preferences for female gamers.

Let's assume something:

1) The current system is already unfair
2) Doing nothing, the system will not change

Action is required. Doing nothing only maintains the status quo. Describe an active plan that brings about change, instead of just hoping things get better on their own.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with either of those things. What "current system" are you referring to, and exactly how is it "unfair"? (In fact, describing just what is unfair should be the start of any attempt to change things, identify the problem). Is it simply "there are not many women gamers and many have had some negative experiences with obnoxious individuals, something must be systemically wrong"?)

And the hobby has changed a huge amount in the past 3 decades. I've seen it. Has that been "on its own" or by effort? Hard to say, but I think "some of each" is a fair answer. The world has changed around us and that is reflected in the hobby and the gamers that comprise it. Also, people have made efforts to be more inclusive over the years.


Well, the "current system" is women being treated poorly, with sexist comments and harassment. I'd call that unfair. Wouldn't you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whoa. I've been reading this whole thread, and I've been at it for hours. I didn't get all the way through yet, but I really wanted to add my experiences to the mix before I have to turn in.

I live in Denmark, and sexism isn't something I experience on a regular basis. That said, there are a few things that have happened while gaming...

anecdotes:

The one that popped to mind first was the last con I ever attended. In it, I signed up for a slot of D&D that turned out to be for an evil game. Okay, I thought, that'll be different... but within seconds of being handed the pregen character sheets, the character I picked was whisked out of my hands and I was given the token female character, because hey, I didn't want to make the guys play her and be uncomfortable, right? Okay, I thought, I can live with that. So in our first scene, we were breaking out of jail, and one of the other players announces that he's going to rape my character. Yeah, another one of those again, sorry. The DM told him to roll for it vs. my Strength, which of course sucked because, hey, female characters must have sucky Strength scores. To this day, I have no idea what was going through that player's head, because he was laughing about it as though I might join in until I got up and left. The DM came out to apologize later, but... yeah. That was the cherry on top of the con FUBAR for me. Last one I went to. No intent of going to another. Creep factor too high to waste my money and life on.

In an earlier game at a school, one of the players insisted on going into details about how great the sex he was having with the NPC barmaid was. I didn't stay with that group either.

At yet ANOTHER first-and-only game with a new group, one of the other players simply tried to bully my character into doing what he wanted... and when I told him that was b*%@+$#!, he actually punched me in the face. He didn't get tossed from the group, as the DM was his friend, so I left.

All of these are obvious ways of how NOT to keep a female player (or in the last case, ANY player), but there are little niggly things too, which have been brought up by others. Things like being spoken over and ignored when you have ideas as to what the party could do in a given situation. Dumb blonde jokes as a staple of your joking. (I'm not blond, but the vibe can be unpleasant anyway. Maybe if some of the dumb blondes were men...) Unwanted advice every time you make a move. Lots of other things, some of them hard to formulate for me, that basically say "Deal with it or GTFO."

Right here on the Paizo forums, someone once mentioned that her character was against the church of Erastil because the church placed women as subservient to men. She was pretty much shouted down by people getting in a twist over her position, in her own home game, on a FANTASY RELIGION. Feminism was brought up in a negative light ("Hyuck hyuck, those damn feminists, what will they think of next"). Things like that make it harder to want to participate.

Most of the gaming I do now is online, with a smaller percentage being with my face-to-face group of friends. If I were to be lured back into gaming face-to-face with strangers, an all-female group would definitely alleviate most of the concerns I have with doing so. Don't get me wrong, female groups can have bad chemistry or styles or whatever, but I don't think the most egregious of the behaviors I've experienced would originate with them, simply because they don't automatically see another woman as "other" and therefore fine to treat as an object of gaming-at rather than a member of gaming-with.

For the record, for those who were interested in that, when I first got into gaming Dragonlance was a horrible bore. I leapt right at the Forgotten Realms, though. I think it was primarily because of the fiction I read about it, the terrible, terrible writing notwithstanding. It was fun to actually be able to step into the world a book had described, and affect things there.

anecdote:

Oh, that reminds me of another anecdote: my very first DM (a teacher who caught me reading Lone Wolf choose-your-own-adventure type books and told me that D&D was kinda like that, but much better) had to leave the school we all were learning to play at, and one of the older students stepped in to take the roll. Another girl around my age (12) was "the pretty one," and LAWDY but did she get spoiled. In battles, she made the last attack and was thus awarded all the experience for killing a foe (none for us). She found the good treasure, she got to make the fun discoveries... yeah, favoritism pretty much killed that game, which was an extension of the very first game I ever played.

I like the combat aspects of gaming as much as my male friends do; I can never help but suspect that claims of women naturally liking less combat, rather than being socialized not to engage in it, is gender-essentialist nonsense. The only caveat to that is that online combat is so, so slow that it's preferable to avoid it when possible, just to avoid boring your players to death.

Okay, one last anecdote:

anecdote:

I came across a job posting for a (video) game design position recently. The headline read, "Are you interested in advancing games for women?", and I was thinking HELL YEAH until I clicked the link. The very first lines of the job description said, "We’re looking for someone who relates to girls (aged 8-12) and who finds inspiration for their next game in pink hearts and cute ‘n’ fuzzy baby animals ... You must understand the ingredients that make a great girls’ game and use these in your design—whether it’s a cooking quiz ... or dress-up game. " Wow, thanks for the breadth of scope, game company. I'll check right in with you when I want to ensure girls grow up knowing they can make a difference. /sarcasm

Whew, that got long, and now it's REALLY late. I just want to say thanks to TanithT, Alice Margatroid and all the other gamers who are helping women find a voice in gaming.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Well, the "current system" is women being treated poorly, with sexist comments and harassment. I'd call that unfair. Wouldn't you?

It's definitely unfair, yes, and I agree 100% something should be done about it whenever you see it. I'm not sure it's a "system", as that implies organization and purpose. I think "the system" could maybe be more receptive to complaints of bad behavior (especially actually hitting someone in the face, as Krisam related above!) I get the feeling that if something like that happened at Paizocon, though, the system would work properly and that person would be shown the door., but in a home game as opposed to a con game, what is a game company supposed to do about such things?


Samurai wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Well, the "current system" is women being treated poorly, with sexist comments and harassment. I'd call that unfair. Wouldn't you?
It's definitely unfair, yes, and I agree 100% something should be done about it whenever you see it. I'm not sure it's a "system", as that implies organization and purpose. I think "the system" could maybe be more receptive to complaints of bad behavior (especially actually hitting someone in the face, as Krisam related above!) I get the feeling that if something like that happened at Paizocon, though, the system would work properly and that person would be shown the door., but in a home game as opposed to a con game, what is a game company supposed to do about such things?

You need to stop trying to minimize this. Either you believe it's a problem or you don't.

Personally, I'm willing to trust Jessica Price, TanithT and Alice when they say the problem is real.

Is there some reason you don't want to believe them?

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Well, the "current system" is women being treated poorly, with sexist comments and harassment. I'd call that unfair. Wouldn't you?
It's definitely unfair, yes, and I agree 100% something should be done about it whenever you see it. I'm not sure it's a "system", as that implies organization and purpose. I think "the system" could maybe be more receptive to complaints of bad behavior (especially actually hitting someone in the face, as Krisam related above!) I get the feeling that if something like that happened at Paizocon, though, the system would work properly and that person would be shown the door., but in a home game as opposed to a con game, what is a game company supposed to do about such things?

You need to stop trying to minimize this. Either you believe it's a problem or you don't.

Personally, I'm willing to trust Jessica Price, TanithT and Alice when they say the problem is real.

Is there some reason you don't want to believe them?

I said that it's unfair, and I've stated that equal treatment for all should be strongly encouraged and supported to end that kind of crappy behavior. What I'm less sure about is that there is a "system" behind the unfairness. If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did) or Paizo official organized play events and nothing is being done to correct it, then yes, there are/were problems with the system. If these are occurring in home games, I'm not sure the system (the company) can do anything to stop it.

So how about priority #1 is teaching con organizers and supervisors how to handle such cases when they happen, and how to encourage less of it? The talk about "let me know if you are bothered by any occurrences in or out of the game" is a great place to start.


Irontruth wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I think one of the biggest things, and this goes for a lot more than just female players, is communication between the GM and the players about what kind of game everyone wants to play. This is especially important when you want to enter territory such as sexism, sexual violence, violence against children, and so on. Any GM who wants to touch that needs to know how the players are going to feel about it.

A post I made back in December, about how to make it easy for people to establish boundaries as needed.

They aren't my concepts (though the opening spiel for a con table is mine), but I like them. I mention in that post, I don't have a lot of boundaries as far as topics/themes, so when gaming with strangers, I like to make it explicit that they are allowed to make boundaries that are comfortable for them.

I would prefer to handle this via e-mail questioning before the game, but to each GM there own. The big thing is that their is communication on this issue. There isn't some magical list of all the things that are sexist that you can read to avoid offending women. I enjoy a lot of things (cheesecake art, for example) that get called out as sexist by some other women, and see things tolerated by many as very sexist, such as the somewhat common attitude where I live that you shouldn't swear in front of women. Not all women are the same, and we get riled up about different behaviors. If you want to avoid that, ask us what those behaviors are. Ask the men, too. They have fewer problems in the RPG industry, but that doesn't mean they can't possibly be discriminated against.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Samurai wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Well, the "current system" is women being treated poorly, with sexist comments and harassment. I'd call that unfair. Wouldn't you?
It's definitely unfair, yes, and I agree 100% something should be done about it whenever you see it. I'm not sure it's a "system", as that implies organization and purpose. I think "the system" could maybe be more receptive to complaints of bad behavior (especially actually hitting someone in the face, as Krisam related above!) I get the feeling that if something like that happened at Paizocon, though, the system would work properly and that person would be shown the door., but in a home game as opposed to a con game, what is a game company supposed to do about such things?

You need to stop trying to minimize this. Either you believe it's a problem or you don't.

Personally, I'm willing to trust Jessica Price, TanithT and Alice when they say the problem is real.

Is there some reason you don't want to believe them?

I said that it's unfair, and I've stated that equal treatment for all should be strongly encouraged and supported to end that kind of crappy behavior. What I'm less sure about is that there is a "system" behind the unfairness. If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did) or Paizo official organized play events and nothing is being done to correct it, then yes, there are/were problems with the system. If these are occurring in home games, I'm not sure the system (the company) can do anything to stop it.

So how about priority #1 is teaching con organizers and supervisors how to handle such cases when they happen, and how to encourage less of it? The talk about "let me know if you are bothered by any occurrences in or out of the game" is a great place to start.

If a better welcoming culture is established in public venues not only at cons and organized play, but also here in public Internet spaces--and many of the comments in this thread and others in this forum prove very much that many gamers are NOT yet willing to be welcoming or supportive in this matter in a public gaming community, and in fact go out of their way to be dismissive of efforts to do so--then that culture will be carried over into private games over time as well.

Many of the examples provided of women feeling out of place in this thread and elsewhere have surrounded organized play, cons, and even PBPs have been unsafe (a personal experience I had, which I mentioned earlier). Obviously work needs to be done in these areas, and fortunately in this thread, there have been a lot of good suggestions on how to do so, even if you choose to ignore or dismiss all or most of them. I hope everyone actually invested in making the gaming community more welcoming to women pays attention to those suggestions and thinks about how to implement them in local gaming events and here on the forums.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Lengthy Post
I'm not going to get into the Civil Rights Movement and my thoughts on it, that's not what this thread is about. So let's tackle the last paragraph. You say it's irrelevant but clearly it isn't. If your goal is simply "more women any way possible" by using unequal treatment, then you could greatly expand the options by fully embracing that. What if female players got an extra feat at 1st level and 5 extra attribute point buy? Knowing that their characters are just plain better than the males at the table would encourage them to take part. And to retain them, maybe they can get a 10% XP bonus too? If unequal treatment in the name of "more women" is the answer, then these could work wonders, and are fully in the spirit of Affirmative Action.

First, that women and men might ultimately participate in different numbers is what I said is irrelevant. Second, my goal isn't more women any way possible by using unequal treatment. My goal is equal opportunity, equal access, and equal treatment for gamers using any and all reasonable means necessary. The specious things you're proposing for effect aren't remotely relevant to anything we're discussing.

How, in any way shape or form, does allowing women to play in a group of only women on a scattering of occasions give them a benefit over men? How are their characters progressing any differently? How are they obtaining experience levels or magical items that are in any way prohibited to men who are playing the same quests? How is allowing women to play in their own group, should they so choose, in any way prohibiting men from playing, too? Because we've seen examples, many of them, which demonstrate that there are aspects of male-dominated games that legitimately infringe on women's ability to participate. In what way does having limited female-only tables/events prevent equal participation on the part of men? Please give me a concrete answer to that question, because you've simply skirted it for like 5 pages.

Quote:
I think a welcome and equal place for all should be the final end goal, not a means to another goal, and while you or I can't wave a magic wand to make that happen, the path to get there is by moving in that direction as much as you can, not by going the opposite way.

That's the point you're missing. How are men prohibited from participating by having a limited number of female-only tables/events? How is having like a once every three months women-only night at a local gaming store keeping men from accessing the game? How? Seriously. I'm baffled as to how this would result in unequal results.

And the thing I think you don't realize in your attempt to liken this to a quasi equal rights issue is that purely equal treatment isn't something that's required under the law. Equal access is paramount. If that means a female-only event is warranted from time to time, where is the harm?

Quote:
I think also it's wrong to ascribe a "generic male socialization" of domineering alpha-male personality to RPG gamers. The vast majority of male gamers I know are the furthest thing from that, and instead tend to be quiet, shy, were bullied and abused in school, and were never popular. There is one guy that has played with us for many years who hardly says 5 sentences in a 3 hour game... I doubt he could domineer any female player even if he wanted to. And I bet the vast, vast majority of gamers wouldn't even WANT to do that anyway. There are some jerks out there, yeah, I'm sure we've all met our share, but should policy be set because of a few jerks or the majority of players?

Statistics and percentages are in play here. I think you're missing how socialization works. Not every man is going to shout everybody down and be a domineering alpha male. Not every woman is going to necessarily defer her opinions to the outspoken male. But the statistics clearly and unabashedly demonstrate that, when in mixed company (even with men who are otherwise equality driven, etc.), women are significantly more likely to be talked over, interrupted, or have their opinions marginalized. That is quantifiable fact. That you know a guy who legitimately may have never talked over a person in his life does not dispute that for a majority of people, the trend is accurate. And it does not take a table full of aggressive players to ruin or tarnish the experience of the lone female player, trying something new. And again, it's not always a conscious choice when it is done. In fact, I would argue that a vast majority of the time, marginalization of women in discussion or participation is not a conscious choice.

Of all the things proposed, you seem good with everything aside from this (so it seems kind of silly that we're devoting this much time to the issue, except it's maybe one of the easiest and most direct ways to foment female participation in gaming). I honestly cannot fathom why there is such resistance on your part to the idea of once in a while allowing women to have a gaming table to themselves. How is that unfair? How is it unjust? Ultimately, that is the question you have failed to answer.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I answered it far back in the thread, when this first came up. I believe in equal treatment. If some white players said they felt uncomfortable having a person of another race play with them, I'd suggest they learn to play together and just treat them as any other player. I would not be happy with a "whites only table" and a "non-whites table." If a bunch of guys wanted to exclude a female player, I'd be opposed to that. If a group wanted to oppose playing with a player for their religion, or sexuality, or whatever, I'd be opposed to that.

So WHY, when either some female players say they don't want to play with male players, or if some organizers were to suggest women shouldn't play alongside the men, should I happily embrace that? It's logically inconsistent to do so. They are stereotyping the unknown male players based upon their gender, something the male players can't help. I understand that they may have had some bad experiences from some male players in the past, but unless it was THESE specific males, it's not relevant, any more than if the whites said they were uncomfortable with the black player because other young black men had mugged them in the past. That's terrible, I'm sorry it happened, but was this black gamer the mugger? No? Then you are excluding him merely for his gender and skin color, and that's wrong.

Like I said before, if the powers that be decide to start excluding people from games because someone at the table has a problem with "their kind", well, I can only voice my dissent and stand up for what I believe to be right. They'll go ahead and do what they want to do regardless, I'm sure. But would you be as supportive of any of those other cases, I wonder? If not, why not, and what makes this so very different in your mind?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:

I answered it far back in the thread, when this first came up. I believe in equal treatment. If some white players said they felt uncomfortable having a person of another race play with them, I'd suggest they learn to play together and just treat them as any other player. I would not be happy with a "whites only table" and a "non-whites table." If a bunch of guys wanted to exclude a female player, I'd be opposed to that. If a group wanted to oppose playing with a player for their religion, or sexuality, or whatever, I'd be opposed to that.

So WHY, when either some female players say they don't want to play with male players, or if some organizers were to suggest women shouldn't play alongside the men, should I happily embrace that? It's logically inconsistent to do so. They are stereotyping the unknown male players based upon their gender, something the male players can't help. I understand that they may have had some bad experiences from some male players in the past, but unless it was THESE specific males, it's not relevant, any more than if the whites said they were uncomfortable with the black player because other young black men had mugged them in the past. That's terrible, I'm sorry it happened, but was this black gamer the mugger? No? Then you are excluding him merely for his gender and skin color, and that's wrong.

Like I said before, if the powers that be decide to start excluding people from games because someone at the table has a problem with "their kind", well, I can only voice my dissent and stand up for what I believe to be right. They'll go ahead and do what they want to do regardless, I'm sure. But would you be as supportive of any of those other cases, I wonder? If not, why not, and what makes this so very different in your mind?

I don't think you're understanding how this works. This isn't a group of people saying "I don't want to play with him". This isn't a group of white guys saying "No blacks". This is a group of people, who have typically been prevented access to the activity due to circumstances outside of their control, wanting a comfortable environment in which to learn the activity. That's it. That's as far as it goes. There's no segregation occurring. You're also flipping the situation on its head - your examples generally include a majority excluding a minority.

Furthermore, this isn't discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Your argument is specious and based on a strawman. That what I and many others have stated regarding the social dynamics between men and women is very real isn't the same as ignorant racism. There's no legitimate basis to think that having a black guy at a table would interfere with a group of white players' ability to access the game. The point is, whether conscious or not, all-male groups have a tendency to exclude (or at least put up certain barriers to the participation of) women. So you've got it backwards. You're opposing this based on fear of exclusion (a mischaracterization, by the way), while refusing to recognize that that very exclusion is already occurring.

Nobody is saying that women shouldn't play alongside men. Where on Earth did you get that? The whole purpose of this is to introduce new women to the game. The purpose isn't to create to classes of events: male and female.

The fact that you're likening gender issues to race in this context is a bit baffling. There's absolutely no correlation. This is like you arguing that there shouldn't be separate college basketball teams based upon gender because the races play together just fine. Nobody is excluding anybody because they don't like "their kind". Nobody is saying, "We should have all women tables because women don't like playing with men." I honestly do not know where you got that idea.

But again, this doesn't address the ultimate question. How does having a female-only table at an event prevent males from having equal access to the game? Where is the unequal treatment?


They're so very different in my mind because none of the men on these boards have gone into an all female gaming group and had one of those women attempt sexual assault on their character while the rest of the women at the table gave that behavior tacit approval.

If you don't already see the difference between an all female gaming table and a racist gaming group refusing to play with a black person, I doubt anyone here can explain it to your satisfaction.

Edit: Ninja'd by Fret.

Sovereign Court

Hitdice wrote:

They're so very different in my mind because none of the men on these boards have gone into an all female gaming group and had one of those women attempt sexual assault on their character while the rest of the women at the table gave that behavior tacit approval.

If you don't already see the difference between an all female gaming table and a racist gaming group refusing to play with a black person, I doubt anyone here can explain it to your satisfaction.

Edit: Ninja'd by Fret.

It may not simply be racism, which is why I pointed out the "mugged in the past by black males", which makes it a direct correlation. Bad experiences in the past from similar-looking people might legitimately make you wary, I understand that. But you still shouldn't exclude this unrelated person from the game.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

fretgod99, you are valiant and taking up a Herculian task here.

However, this is fundamentally just becoming a needless back-and-forth. Samurai is never going to agree that anything needs to be done; as is his right to do so. I've accepted it as a lost cause. I think the energy could be better put towards imagining real solutions.

On a more positive note: in asking around with my friends if anyone was interested in getting into Pathfinder, I actually got a few bites from two women that I never thought would be interested! So if things pan out and we can play together, hopefully I can be a positive force to help them feel comfortable playing. :)

Networking with women who are already players might be a good thing on the whole.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Samurai, you're missing the point. This isn't a Plessey v. Ferguson "separate-but-equal" proposal. It is a way to offer female players a non-threatening venue for them to enjoy a hobby that we all love. More importantly (not saying that current female players are less important), having something like this available might be enough to punch through the social stigma of gaming and provide an avenue for new players to step up and give it a try.

The fact that you are a good guy and won't put up with any type of discriminatory behavior is completely irrelevant to someone like my wife who walks into a gaming store and feels like she doesn't belong there—not because anyone is overtly being rude, but because in her mind, that type of environment is only for guys who live in their mother's basement. Having some type of female-only event might go a long way in helping alleviate some of that unease.

EDIT: man, did it really take me 38 minutes to write that, or did I get time-warped?


Samurai wrote:
If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did)

This, right there, maybe it's just language choice, but there is no "if". It IS happening. It has happened, it is continuing to happen. There is no mystery as to whether it is happening or not.


Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did)
This, right there, maybe it's just language choice, but there is no "if". It IS happening. It has happened, it is continuing to happen. There is no mystery as to whether it is happening or not.

Yup.

Sovereign Court

HangarFlying wrote:

Samurai, you're missing the point. This isn't a Plessey v. Ferguson "separate-but-equal" proposal. It is a way to offer female players a non-threatening venue for them to enjoy a hobby that we all love. More importantly (not saying that current female players are less important), having something like this available might be enough to punch through the social stigma of gaming and provide an avenue for new players to step up and give it a try.

The fact that you are a good guy and won't put up with any type of discriminatory behavior is completely irrelevant to someone like my wife who walks into a gaming store and feels like she doesn't belong there—not because anyone is overtly being rude, but because in her mind, that type of environment is only for guys who live in their mother's basement. Having some type of female-only event might go a long way in helping alleviate some of that unease.

EDIT: man, did it really take me 38 minutes to write that, or did I get time-warped?

One of my best and oldest friends is a comic collector who lives in his mother's basement! :)

Yes, I acknowledge that it might well do as you say. There are certainly multiple women here who seem to feel it is the only solution that will work.

And since there are not very many non-white RPG players, perhaps they also would feel more at home in a group without whites because they've had some bad experiences in the past.

People generally do feel more comfortable around other people like them, that has been known for a very long time. I think it'd be great if everyone could look past that and sit down around the game table together and just have fun and treat each other like fellow human beings. Seeing something like "The 4 PM game of "We Be Goblins" is only open to X kind of people" on a con schedule would be disheartening for me (with the exception of an all-kids game, that I can understand.) Others might well be overjoyed to see it, as we've heard. It doesn't need my permission or approval to happen if they want it to.

In the meantime, there are lots of other areas that we can find common ground on. I, for one, am hoping to see a Pathfinder game on Youtube with half female participants. All the other "celebrity D&D" games I'd seen have had all men, and I think that alone would draw a lot of attention. Maybe get Lisa Stevens, Jessica Price, James Jacobs, and Eric Mona to all play together.


There are a lot of great suggestions in this thread backed up by unreliable assumptions and low-utility anecdotal experiences. Do we have any data on gender at gaming tables?

Are there PFS censuses of players and GMs that include useful demographic information? At cons? If not, why not?

Has anyone done market research to find out what the buying and playing demographics are these days? Has Paizo ever conducted a survey of its customer base, even for internal marketing information that they wouldn't share on the forums?

Even better, has anyone--commercially or academically--surveyed non-gamers to find out why they don't play, or what they think of gaming products and games culture?

Does Paizo playtest and collect reactions and feedback from non-gamer groups? All-female groups? Groups of non-white/non-hetero/non-adult/non-English-speaking gamers? If not, why not?

Some companies drop a survey in the back of books or as an insert with product shipments to solicit product feedback. Is that an option for Paizo? If not, why not?

Retailers could benefit from demographic information and feedback at least as much as Paizo, GMs, and people with an interest in improving games and games culture. Are they a potential channel for collecting information about customers? If not, why not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Anecdotal experiences of female players or female would-be-players are the most high-utility stuff in this thread.
Any survey regarding matters like this has to be mainly qualitative, which means interviewing and listening to the concerned group, in this case clearly female players or would be players.
So the most important thing is that women speak up and tell their experiences, good and bad, as well as their ideas and suggestions.
Of course men are needed too, to listen carefully, to add their experience if usefull, as positive role models for other men on how to do it better and to support the women.
At this point i can hint at Neil Spicer for his positive, supporting partnership relation to Jessica Price (which on this level contains no sexual note in any way, which is a important part of it.)


Alice Margatroid wrote:

fretgod99, you are valiant and taking up a Herculian task here.

However, this is fundamentally just becoming a needless back-and-forth. Samurai is never going to agree that anything needs to be done; as is his right to do so. I've accepted it as a lost cause. I think the energy could be better put towards imagining real solutions.

Yeah, I'd pretty much come to that conclusion as well. It was worth a shot. I still think it's a grand idea, to be honest. Like I said, I think it's probably the simplest to get the ball moving on and could make an early impact while we're trying to come up with other workable solutions.


Samurai wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

They're so very different in my mind because none of the men on these boards have gone into an all female gaming group and had one of those women attempt sexual assault on their character while the rest of the women at the table gave that behavior tacit approval.

If you don't already see the difference between an all female gaming table and a racist gaming group refusing to play with a black person, I doubt anyone here can explain it to your satisfaction.

Edit: Ninja'd by Fret.

It may not simply be racism, which is why I pointed out the "mugged in the past by black males", which makes it a direct correlation. Bad experiences in the past from similar-looking people might legitimately make you wary, I understand that. But you still shouldn't exclude this unrelated person from the game.

Nah, that's still racism.

Samurai wrote:
Seeing something like "The 4 PM game of "We Be Goblins" is only open to X kind of people" on a con schedule would be disheartening for me (with the exception of an all-kids game, that I can understand.).

How? That's unequal treatment, which you are vehemently opposed to, in any way, shape, or form. Should we also give kids an extra feat at first level, 5 more points on the point buy, and 10% more experience?

At any rate, it's been fun. It's clear this isn't going to go anywhere, but I'm glad I chimed in regardless.


Well we have laws against minors drinking and not against women drinking (anymore). So I guess there is some difference between sex issues and age issues. Perhaps Samurai isn't as irrational as you think.

If the issue is that women tend not to be experienced with gaming, and thus might be more open to it if given a chance to learn, why not just offer "novice"-only sessions vs. women-only sessions. Yes, you will get some guys that also don't have any experience, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In fact that might be a good thing, getting new players, male and female, starting playing together may make some of these larger issues to eventually disappear (assuming the people running these novice games doesn't bring in their own baggage).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

They're so very different in my mind because none of the men on these boards have gone into an all female gaming group and had one of those women attempt sexual assault on their character while the rest of the women at the table gave that behavior tacit approval.

If you don't already see the difference between an all female gaming table and a racist gaming group refusing to play with a black person, I doubt anyone here can explain it to your satisfaction.

Edit: Ninja'd by Fret.

It may not simply be racism, which is why I pointed out the "mugged in the past by black males", which makes it a direct correlation. Bad experiences in the past from similar-looking people might legitimately make you wary, I understand that. But you still shouldn't exclude this unrelated person from the game.
Nah, that's still racism.

So you are willing to say that having a no whites table to create a safe space for persons of color is racist, but can't understand why someone would say that having a no males table to create a safe space for women would be sexist?

I don't agree with Samurai, but I can see his point, and it is a valid concern. I think his concern is out of proportion to the problems it would cause, and so I don't agree with him that this is a bad idea. But his concern is valid.


Samurai wrote:

In the meantime, there are lots of other areas that we can find common ground on. I, for one, am hoping to see a Pathfinder game on Youtube with half female participants. All the other "celebrity D&D" games I'd seen have had all men, and I think that alone would draw a lot of attention. Maybe get Lisa Stevens, Jessica Price, James Jacobs, and Eric Mona to all play together.

I think this is a great idea. I know a lot of people (mostly women) who don't like that Felicia Day, but she has given a face to women in gaming recently and I think it has helped. Getting more female public faces out there who actively participate in the hobby would be big. I'm not sure how you can do that though.

Edit: I think a huge part of the problem is hitting new market share. The people who would look for these types of things tend to already be people who are hooked, and places that are cross-promotion, like video games, tend to have similar gender issues.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like Standard Action a lot. It is produced and written by Joanna Gaskell, who also plays the barbarian. Perhaps this could be seen as a positive role model?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow. It's really amazing to see this type of discourse. I feel a bit intimidated to chime in because my guess is anything I might add may have already been covered in the 18 preceding pages. Nevertheless, I feel compelled.

It is really exciting for me to see so many individuals who are willing to speak up, shine a light on male privilege, and step off of the paths of least resistance in the service of social justice and equality.

Fretgod99, you made the comment that what you're saying is not going anywhere, but I disagree. Sure, for the past handful of posts it may seem like you've got an audience of one, Samurai, but in reality your words have the potential to reach so many more people. You are articulating considerations of privilege very well.

I suppose the tricky thing about privilege is the fact that if you are the bearer of privilege you have no compelling reason to self-reflect on the privilege. It requires a willingness to sit with uncomfortable thoughts, feelings, and realizations in the service of something bigger than yourself. In the case of this discussion, it is equal treatment of women in the oppressive gaming culture.

Irontruth labeled this phenomenon as a system (and experienced some push back). He/she/they has the right of it. The issues we are discussing here are indicative of broader issues of white, male, hetero-normative, middle-class privilege. Oppression is perpetuated by a system that demands homeostasis. Making waves feels threatening to the system and those that benefit from it. It is so uncomfortable for folks to sit with the idea that they may be participating in system that benefits one group to the detriment of many other groups. It is this discomfort that leads to people saying nothing, going with the flow, or even lashing out against those who shine a light on the system. People self-identify as good, caring, empathetic, individuals who want the best for their fellow-man. This is mostly true! I see this in Samurai's posts. That said, I think one can still be a good person and be willing to reflect and recognize the systemic nature of oppression and their position therein. For example, I recognize that as a white, middle-class, well-educated, heterosexual, married, man I am in about as privileged of a position as one can be in. When interacting in most contexts I can be pretty certain I will be able to find others who are similar to me, I can be confident that I will be seen as trustworthy and competent, and I can be confident that others will be unlikely to project undesirable characteristics on me. This is a comfortable place to be! However, I am willing to see that there are so many people who are not freely afforded these perks because of their race, gender identity, religion, sexual orientation, SES, culture, ethnicity, and/or physical/mental limitations.

I recognize that I've taken a focused discussion on gaming culture and expanded it a bit into American/Western/Capitalist culture as a whole... That is in part because I cannot help but connect the two. In my profession as a Counseling Psychologist at a university I constantly engage with these issues in the service of the underrepresented/disenfranchised students I care for. It is something that I hold dear both professionally and personally, which takes my back to my original comment. I am so thankful and excited to see the culture in which I spend my free time is engaging in serious discourse about these issues rather than allowing them persist in the background unacknowledged.

If folks wish to learn more about these issues, and I hope you do, check out this site: http://www.agjohnson.us/

There are some really good essays on these issues. If you're willing to splurge on a non-rpg book, check out Privilege, Power, and Difference by Alan Johnson. I wish to was assigned reading in public schools.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Keep the back and forth to a minimum please.

An Aside: Gender equality is an often debated, heated, and an important issue around the world. Jessica's article was a small spotlight relevant to her profession and interests. The gaming community is a niche where gender equality has only recently had a bright light shining on it. Is it male dominated? Yes. Are all men in that niche rude and unwelcoming? No. Are all gaming events, companies, and products rude and unwelcoming? No. That isn't the point of the article. The overall point and topic of this discussion: how can it be changed?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did)
This, right there, maybe it's just language choice, but there is no "if". It IS happening. It has happened, it is continuing to happen. There is no mystery as to whether it is happening or not.

I'm not agreeing with Samurai, but this doesn't seem like a fair reading of his statement.

I might be wrong, but I think you're applying the conditional wrong there. His statement didn't appear to doubting these events happened or that they happened at conventions.

IF "this occurs at a convention, PFS session, or other event Paizo has some control over" THEN "Piazo should take steps to punish the offender"

When might have been a less mis-understandable conditional there, but it really seems like you took the worst possible interpretation of Samurai's statement there rather then the most likely one.

Sovereign Court

Hayato Ken wrote:
I like Standard Action a lot. It is produced and written by Joanna Gaskell, who also plays the barbarian. Perhaps this could be seen as a positive role model?

I think it is. It's a fun show that I'm subscribed to. Also, if you want to see more of Joanna, she and Kaja Sadowski review board games on the Starlit Citadel channel:

Starlit Citadel


Hayato Ken wrote:
So the most important thing is that women speak up and tell their experiences, good and bad, as well as their ideas and suggestions.

Yes, they should.

But if we want systemic change, we have to understand the system. We don't have any data to help us understand where the system is broken, why it's broken, and how it can be fixed.

The bigger issues of privilege, equality, and representation are valid. The much smaller issue of making gaming more welcoming to everyone needs data.

I'm not trying to debunk anyone's personal experience. I want to support the anecdotes with actionable data that Paizo can use to help develop products, retailers can use to develop programs, and GMs can use to recruit gamers.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:
Neil Spicer wrote:
Many good points.

I'll try to move beyond it, but I'm a dude, so it's going to sound creepy. What if we figure how to bring young girls into the RPG scene? (But in a cool, not creepy, way.)

I was a young boy (like prepubescent) when I started playing, but I didn't deal with a mixed group till college, and even at that late date the ratio was still way off in favor of boys. Gaming is a lifestyle choice, and those decisions are made early in life. I think the simplest thing we can do is introduce RPGs to young girls. (But like I said, NOT IN A CREEPY WAY.)

And this is why I think both vanilla D&D and Pathfinder both should try their hand at an anime-themed setting, or a bit more anime-ish art, because I have noticed that a lot more female nerdlings tend to get into nerdery via anime, and that both big dogs in the market should take notice of that.

I'd like at least a bit more variety in artstyles, since I've actually heard (But I've forgotten where) is the reason that a lot of female artists don't tend to get into the comics industry is that they're a lot more cartoony and stylized in their art , and I was wondering if that same push towards "realism" in RPG art might not be alienating them as well.

Also, even though I'm a hetero male, I do think there should be a bit more female-directed fanservice in the name of equality. But I don't think that's going to happen because the latent homophobia in a lot of men makes them react violently towards beefcake, I.E. they act as if they see too many sexy ab-men they night catch "The Gay," and that's why you so rarely see female-directed fanservice in a lot of other general-audience media. Anyone else agree?

And, on the RPG Ladies night thing, why not take that idea a step further and say that a previous customer who brings a non-gaming friend with her actually gets a discount on books? That way, it'd incentivize existing female gamers to add to their numbers.

And finally, I can't help but think that game shop owners/con organizers should get more involved in preventing sexism in public games as well. Like, they should have a "Shepherds Crook of Get The #$@% Out Of My Store" for when Creepy Mc Molesto or Douchey o' Talkover decides to do his thing.


fretgod99 wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

They're so very different in my mind because none of the men on these boards have gone into an all female gaming group and had one of those women attempt sexual assault on their character while the rest of the women at the table gave that behavior tacit approval.

If you don't already see the difference between an all female gaming table and a racist gaming group refusing to play with a black person, I doubt anyone here can explain it to your satisfaction.

Edit: Ninja'd by Fret.

It may not simply be racism, which is why I pointed out the "mugged in the past by black males", which makes it a direct correlation. Bad experiences in the past from similar-looking people might legitimately make you wary, I understand that. But you still shouldn't exclude this unrelated person from the game.

Nah, that's still racism.

Samurai wrote:
Seeing something like "The 4 PM game of "We Be Goblins" is only open to X kind of people" on a con schedule would be disheartening for me (with the exception of an all-kids game, that I can understand.).

How? That's unequal treatment, which you are vehemently opposed to, in any way, shape, or form. Should we also give kids an extra feat at first level, 5 more points on the point buy, and 10% more experience?

At any rate, it's been fun. It's clear this isn't going to go anywhere, but I'm glad I chimed in regardless.

This post was intended to be much more tongue-in-cheek, by the way. Forgot to throw in the ";)" smiley there, though. So apologies for that. That's my fault.


pres man wrote:

Well we have laws against minors drinking and not against women drinking (anymore). So I guess there is some difference between sex issues and age issues. Perhaps Samurai isn't as irrational as you think.

If the issue is that women tend not to be experienced with gaming, and thus might be more open to it if given a chance to learn, why not just offer "novice"-only sessions vs. women-only sessions. Yes, you will get some guys that also don't have any experience, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In fact that might be a good thing, getting new players, male and female, starting playing together may make some of these larger issues to eventually disappear (assuming the people running these novice games doesn't bring in their own baggage).

Well, I was being facetious but that didn't come out at all. My fault, really. As to the substance of that point, we actually could go into a discussion of that in regards to a blanket and uniform policy that any disparate treatment is bad (which is essentially what was being espoused), but we are starting to get a bit far afield and I really don't want to detract any more from the goals of the thread.

More on point, as to the novice tables v. women-only, I don't really have a problem with either of those. I think having novice tables run by experienced GMs would be a great way to introduce people to what can be an intimidating experience. Whether they be male or female, being in a new environment can be intimidating. But because of the other issues discussed already, I think that intimidation can be (and is) compounded when the newcomer is female.

But I think it's a great idea to have lots of beginner initiation type stuff. Not ever having been to a convention, I can't speak to what sorts of things occur and whether or not some of this is done. But if it is not, I would encourage it to be looked into. I also think having a Paizo sponsored youtube channel or something along those lines could be great. It could be a great educational tool to introduce new players to the game, to highlight minority gamers (such as the women already referenced in this thread) to help dispel preconceived notions and draw in new clientele, to provide advice to GMs on how to handle in-game situations, to provide another medium to educate regarding rules clarifications, to advertise upcoming events and product releases, etc. That could be interesting, honestly.

Shadow Lodge

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post. Keep the back and forth to a minimum please.

An Aside: Gender equality is an often debated, heated, and an important issue around the world. Jessica's article was a small spotlight relevant to her profession and interests. The gaming community is a niche where gender equality has only recently had a bright light shining on it. Is it male dominated? Yes. Are all men in that niche rude and unwelcoming? No. Are all gaming events, companies, and products rude and unwelcoming? No. That isn't the point of the article. The overall point and topic of this discussion: how can it be changed?

I would like to point out that that is not actually correct. The topic is how to make the game more friendly to women, and everyone else.

Removing discussion about that (I'm not sure what was removed in this case) or things directly related to that is not helping, but hurting the topic. I think that people have confussed this topic either with what they want it to be or are mixing up one of the 3 or 4 other similar ones.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In the past 6 years I've had two different gaming groups. One was composed of 3 couples (male and female couples) and the other was composed of two straight couples and one man and one woman. I've been the DM in every game. I attribute the equality in our groups to having players who are thoughtful, mature, and appreciate the diversity that folks from different backgrounds bring to play experience. Members are intentional about making the experience a group endeavor that is enjoyed by all. When putting together a group I think actively seeking out diverse folks goes a long way. For instance, including a disclaimer on a LFG ad that specifies the qualities you want in a gamer (including an appreciation of diversity). You can even include a notation that you strive to create an environment that is open and friendly regardless of one's gender identity (or other diversity variables to increase access to all gamers).

This stance has led to equal numbers of men and women in my games. I recognize I've also just hit the jackpot in terms of meeting fantastic people with which to game.

The women in my group have since come to GenCon with my partner and I and participated in gaming across a myriad of settings. I think having the experience of being valued as a player, being treated in a mature and considerate way, and having a positive entry into the hobby will all lead to increased equality in our hobby. These women are now able to serve as heralds to other women that playing a nerdy game with nerdy people can be really fulfilling and fun.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tbok1992 wrote:


And this is why I think both vanilla D&D and Pathfinder both should try their hand at an anime-themed setting, or a bit more anime-ish art, because I have noticed that a lot more female nerdlings tend to get into nerdery via anime, and that both big dogs in the market should take notice of that.

I´m not sure if that is a good idea. Manga, anime and the land they are originating from are like a flagship of sexism in big parts. That sounds like a contradiction to me of what was expressed several times here before.

Sovereign Court

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


I would like to point out that that is not actually correct. The topic is how to make the game more friendly to women, and everyone else.

Removing discussion about that (I'm not sure what was removed in this case) or things directly related to that is not helping, but hurting the topic. I think that people have confussed this topic either with what they want it to be or are mixing up one of the 3 or 4 other similar ones.

That's a good point. These are quotes from the very first post in the thread:

Quote:

I would like to see RPGs and other games grow, and I think our tables have to be open to everyone.

So, how do we make our tables friendly for female gamers, as well as everyone else?

Digital Products Assistant

"Devil's Advocate wrote:
I would like to point out that that is not actually correct. The topic is how to make the game more friendly to women, and everyone else.

You are correct, that was an oversight of mine. Apologies.


Krensky wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did)
This, right there, maybe it's just language choice, but there is no "if". It IS happening. It has happened, it is continuing to happen. There is no mystery as to whether it is happening or not.

I'm not agreeing with Samurai, but this doesn't seem like a fair reading of his statement.

I might be wrong, but I think you're applying the conditional wrong there. His statement didn't appear to doubting these events happened or that they happened at conventions.

IF "this occurs at a convention, PFS session, or other event Paizo has some control over" THEN "Piazo should take steps to punish the offender"

When might have been a less mis-understandable conditional there, but it really seems like you took the worst possible interpretation of Samurai's statement there rather then the most likely one.

You'll note that if you reread my post, it actually starts by noting that it could be a language choice, giving him the opportunity to change "if" to "when" if that is what he meant. But he has had a pattern of using hedging language to leave open the possibility that the problem the female gamers are running into isn't real or blown out of proportion.

If that isn't the intention, it wouldn't be that hard to make that clear.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
HangarFlying wrote:
The fact that you are a good guy and won't put up with any type of discriminatory behavior is completely irrelevant to someone like my wife who walks into a gaming store and feels like she doesn't belong there—not because anyone is overtly being rude, but because in her mind, that type of environment is only for guys who live in their mother's basement.

Let me tell you about the time I walked into a fabric store looking for a very particular kind of dress snap. No, it's not for making dresses. One of my other not-always-thought-about-positively-by-others hobbies is model railroading. It just so happens that this particular dress snap is perfect for representing a particular kind of valve-wheel (after you drill out the center and solder it onto the valve stem). The construction article I was following called for N of these things, and of course no single shop carried that many at a time. (This was well before the days of ordering nearly anything that exists online). No one was rude, but I could feel the "Why is this guy here ?" vibe. Of course, it could have all been in my head.

Model Railroading has long struggled with "How do we get females interested ?" (No, the pink Lionel "Girl's Train" didn't do it) although this is now somewhat overshadowed by "How do we get young people of either gender interested ?" (a problem I don't think gaming has).

EDIT:Added link to description of the Lionel Girl's Train.

Editor

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Recap of suggestions so far, broken down by level at which they should be addressed
There's some overlap between categories; also, after 950-ish posts, I'm surely missing some suggestions—let me know if that's the case!

Paizo (and other publishers):
• Mentoring seminars for women (game design, GMing).
• Art: Less cheesecake (or at least less inappropriate, bikini into combat/bikini on a glacier cheesecake), more normal stances for women.
• Writing: More awesome, plot-relevant, powerful women.
• Cultivate female writers and artists.
• Market research to try to figure out how better to draw in more women/improve the image of the game and the surrounding culture.
• "Key rules" sheet for new players.
• Promotional videos showing both men and women playing.
• Promotional videos showing a female GM.

Gaming events (cons, store games, etc.):
• Have a harassment policy, make everyone aware of it, and ENFORCE IT.
• Make sure there's always someone available who's empowered to deal with harassment, and willing to do so.
• Mentoring seminars for women (game design, GMing).
• Women's only tables
• Encourage women to GM.

GMs
• When gaming with new players, state your expectations about player behavior.
• Enforce courteous behavior. No one gets a free pass.
• Check with players before running adult content (particularly themes of rape and sexism).
• No special rules for a character/player because she's female, unless you've discussed it with the player and the player is cool with it (e.g., female characters shouldn't have to roll for their measurements, no strength penalties for playing a female character, etc.).
• Rein in players who talk over women or barrage them with unsolicited advice ("Excuse me, X was saying something./Give X space—ok, X, your turn!").
• Mix up the kinds of adventures you run to appeal to a wider range of players.
• Mentor women who show interest in GMing.
• "Key rules" sheet for new players.

All players
• Recruit, recruit, recruit! (Accompany to first game as an ally.)
• Listen to female gamers, and take their concerns seriously.
• Rein in players who talk over women or barrage them with unsolicited advice.
• Pay attention to your own speech—don't talk over women or barrage them with unsolicited advice.
• Think about the language you're using to talk to and about women and whether it's different/more derogatory than language used about men (e.g., slut-shaming of sexually active/sexy female characters or players).
• Act as allies to women (and other new players) at the table.
• Don't tolerate harassment.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samurai wrote:
If the bad behavior is happening at cons (and I know at least some of the cases did)
This, right there, maybe it's just language choice, but there is no "if". It IS happening. It has happened, it is continuing to happen. There is no mystery as to whether it is happening or not.

I'm not agreeing with Samurai, but this doesn't seem like a fair reading of his statement.

I might be wrong, but I think you're applying the conditional wrong there. His statement didn't appear to doubting these events happened or that they happened at conventions.

IF "this occurs at a convention, PFS session, or other event Paizo has some control over" THEN "Piazo should take steps to punish the offender"

When might have been a less mis-understandable conditional there, but it really seems like you took the worst possible interpretation of Samurai's statement there rather then the most likely one.

You'll note that if you reread my post, it actually starts by noting that it could be a language choice, giving him the opportunity to change "if" to "when" if that is what he meant. But he has had a pattern of using hedging language to leave open the possibility that the problem the female gamers are running into isn't real or blown out of proportion.

If that isn't the intention, it wouldn't be that hard to make that clear.

1) Some people always choose to read things in the most uncharitable light possible. I usually try to ignore such distractions.

2) Yes, some happened at cons, but were they at cons Paizo had any control over or just a local affair? For that matter, maybe they were playing D&D or some other game/version. Holding Paizo responsible or suggesting they should do something different if they had no knowledge or control over the event isn't fair. From what I've seen and heard, Paizo does go out of its way to handle such things if they happen at a Paizo event and they are told about it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

3) "When" also suggests an inevitability for it to keep happening, no matter what. "If" holds open the possibility that maybe we can prevent it from happening.

Sovereign Court

That's a good summary Judy. However, you might add the idea for the videos of games being played showing women playing alongside the guys.

Editor

Samurai wrote:
That's a good summary Judy. However, you might add the idea for the videos of games being played showing women playing alongside the guys.

Added.

901 to 950 of 1,067 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Save vs. Sexism: Interview with Jessica Price All Messageboards