Increasing Female Participation


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Jessica Price wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:

That may be, but given that men don't believe sexism is real even when confronted with hard evidence of its existence, that men don't notice it when it's happening in front of them,

Jessica, I agree with most of what you say. But saying "men don't" as opposed to "men often don't" is, literally, wrong.

And the quote you are responding to eventually goes back to one of my posts, that has quite a bit that is critical of male gamers being sexist, which can't happen if these unqualified statements are true.

But I am sure many male roleplayers don't see any problem for females in their gaming groups, which just means they don't see it.

I recall a bunch of roleplayers engaging in a hatefest over a lesbian feminist tutor at a uni. I asked them if there was actually anything to suggest she was lesbian, which there wasn't, and then told them they were all acting like children. We are not all bad.

But I am not typical, especially of men my age.

And my current gaming group includes a asexual, a group that hasn't been mentioned.

Did you seriously just #notallmen? Seriously?

Obviously not all men harass women or otherwise participate in making women uncomfortable in gaming spaces. But that's utterly irrelevant to the conversation about how to fix the problem caused by the fact that some men do these things.

I mean, for crying out loud, every single time we try to have a conversation about how to fix problems for women in gaming spaces, a chorus of (predominantly) dudes shows up to be like, "Well, *I* don't do that!" (Congratulations. Here's a cookie for meeting the minimum standard of not being a jerk.) "I have never seen it happen!" (And yet it is happening, as...

I agree, but it does make it easier if the phrasing isn't wide open to be read as "All Men". Which I think and hope is what Joynt Jezebel was meaning to say, since everything else he's said has been supportive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed another post. Being dismissive is not helping.

Ok, let me try again.

If the goal is to have a conversation about one specific point and not have the thread veer at all away from what the OP is hoping to discuss, then a public forum such as this one isn't the best tool.

This thread is far from unique - virtually every thread I have read or posted to changes directions as the conversation evolves.


mechaPoet wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:

That may be, but given that men don't believe sexism is real even when confronted with hard evidence of its existence, that men don't notice it when it's happening in front of them,

Jessica, I agree with most of what you say. But saying "men don't" as opposed to "men often don't" is, literally, wrong.
Can we not focus on the phrasing of this, since obviously it is not intended to mean "literally all men, every last one of them," and instead focus on the actual data that talks about men not recognizing sexism and harassment?
Nope. If one side of a debate has to speak carefully as to not "offend" people who grew up getting trophies for just showing up, the other side had better be very precise in their language.

Okay, so, when I say "can we," what I meant (in polite-ese) "Let's not."

Also, I must ask you to clarify something for me: who exactly is getting trophies for "just showing up"? Showing up for what? Is this a metaphorical trophy? Can I have one? Is there any possible way this answer won't ""offend"" me? (See how I put your quotation marks in quotation marks? If it's not clear, it's because I don't appreciate or respect your putting the word offend in quotation marks.)

I'm """offended""". I showed up and didn't get one of these "trophies".


Tormsskull wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed another post. Being dismissive is not helping.

Ok, let me try again.

If the goal is to have a conversation about one specific point and not have the thread veer at all away from what the OP is hoping to discuss, then a public forum such as this one isn't the best tool.

This thread is far from unique - virtually every thread I have read or posted to changes directions as the conversation evolves.

There's a difference between a general change in direction, like all discussions take and the reliable, predictable deflections that take place in any discussion about sexism - #NotAllMen being one of them. Turning it into an argument about how dare anyone accuse men of sexism.

Grand Lodge

Here an article that supports Jessica's points:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-dark-psychology-o f-the-sexist-internet-commenter/384497/

This article relates specifically to Internet commenting, so I think it's appropriate.

Now, where do folks think this conversation is evolving to? I'd like more good nuggets, so I'm open to hearing ideas.


mechaPoet wrote:
Did you read the whole document? I believe it should answer most of your questions.

Indeed I did. It just didn't convince me it's all the useful... It's not harmful, because no one is forced to use it, but I don't think it's particularly useful either.

mechaPoet wrote:
-Not everyone is good at expressing what's bothering them due to trauma, social anxiety, or any number of reasons. The X-Card makes that barrier to expression lower.

Eh... I dunno. I suppose that can be the case... But if you don't feel comfortable to say "I need a break" or something similar to your friends, then you have bigger issues to tackle. And no X card will help with that.

mechaPoet wrote:
-The card pretty clearly communicates: "This is bothering me significantly enough that I need it to stop, and maybe take a break for a second." I fail to see how it makes communication less clear in any way--care to explain?

You know what expresses that even better? Saying it.

mechaPoet wrote:
-Sometimes providing a detailed explanation can make trauma more traumatizing for people. This addresses the "no explanation given" dislike of yours.

Doesn't have to give me a detailed explanation. But the other extreme, giving zero explanation is not good either. One can always simply say "this makes me feel uncomfortable". I'd feel more embarrassed raising a silly card than speaking. Speaking is a normal thing that we all do everyday. Raising paper cards isn't, so it'd feel far more awkward for me.

mechaPoet wrote:
-Using the X-Card on oneself can be a way of back-peddling if you've said something that obviously makes someone uncomfortable, and you would like to take it back so they don't have to make it an issue themselves. You can also do this, as the document suggests, if you're the DM or otherwise the person introducing the X-Card to a group, in order to normalize it a little and to exemplify its use.

If you notice something you said offended or disturbed someone, you can simply apologize. "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel uncomfortable." or whatever.

mechaPoet wrote:
As the X-Card doc explains: the card is a tool to make sure everyone feels safe and comfortable while playing. Because tabletop RPG's are a fundamentally social experience, it's important that everyone is having fun and not feeling s#&&ty.

Like I said, I just don't think it's very useful. We should be encouraging people to talk to each other and making sure they feel comfortable doing so, rather than just giving them yet another reason to shut in.

mechaPoet wrote:
The players' (and GM's!) safety outweigh the need to play an RPG, dig?

Eh... Yes. Kinda. If you don't feel comfortable playing RPGs, then don't play RPGs. But if you join a group and start censoring everything that makes you feel uncomfortable and giving no explanation for it, that can harm the other players' enjoyment of the game.

I play on a public venue, and I always invite new players to sit at my table and have a go at the game (except when the table already has 6+ players in it, because more than that simply makes the game to crowded, slow-paced and chaotic to be fun). If a new player is uncomfortable with something, he can say it to me... But if he expects me to change/remove stuff from my game (stuff that my friends and me probably enjoy, or it wouldn't be in the campaign) with zero explanation for it, he'll be sorely disappointed.


thejeff wrote:
There's a difference between a general change in direction, like all discussions take and the reliable, predictable deflections that take place in any discussion about sexism - #NotAllMen being one of them. Turning it into an argument about how dare anyone accuse men of sexism.

I'm familiar with the concept. Its unavoidable in this type of format.

It would be the same if I started a thread with a title: "How do we get more roleplayers to join games." Some people will disagree or take offense at the premise. And those people will post because its something they're passionate about.

Unless Paizo wants to give every OP the ability to censor threads, I don't see it changing. As there are already tools out there that can facilitate the type of conversation some are asking for, why not use them?


Lemmy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

Here's a concrete and potentially productive suggestion: introduce the X-Card to more public gaming spaces.

It's a free set of rules to be used as a safety tool in RPG's, among other places/spaces/situations. Would it be feasible to encourage the use of this tool in more public gaming spaces? Would it help? What would it take to make its implementation more widespread?

I don't like the idea of everyone being able to censor whatever they want with no explanation given.

I find the idea rather ridiculous. We're all grown ups (and most likely friends or family). If something is bothering you, just say it. Why do we need a card with a drawing in it? Why make communication less clear?

I'd actually laugh if someone used the X-card on themselves. If you think it's that bad, why did you say it in the first place?

I came to the same conclusions.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some more posts. Baiting/insults, again, are not OK here. Challenge ideas, not others in the conversation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some more posts. Baiting/insults, again, are not OK here. Challenge ideas, not others in the conversation.

Thank you!

And this is on a thread entitled "Increasing Female Participation"? Perhaps increasing female participation on this thread might be a modest goal...

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, I'll reinforce this point about the X-Card:

"Your" game and the experience of that game is not more important than the collective experience of that game.

Do you know what will cause traumatic experiences in all of your friends? In any given stranger at a Pathfinder Society event or con? No? Here's a tool that helps those people out! And I'm having trouble finding any opposition to it that doesn't boil down to: "I don't really want to imagine a situation outside of my own, that sounds really inconvenient."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

Again, I'll reinforce this point about the X-Card:

"Your" game and the experience of that game is not more important than the collective experience of that game.

No. But it's the only one I can affect. Having an X-card in my games would only affect my experience (and my group's). You can use if you want. I won't.

mechaPoet wrote:
Do you know what will cause traumatic experiences in all of your friends? In any given stranger at a Pathfinder Society event or con? No? Here's a tool that helps those people out! And I'm having trouble finding any opposition to it that doesn't boil down to: "I don't really want to imagine a situation outside of my own, that sounds really inconvenient."

I don't know that. No one does. Which is why they should speak up if something bothers them. Like everyone does. They can use a silly card if they want, but I find it unnecessary.

I don't like the of having a "censor anything and everything you want with no explanation given" tool at the table. Nor do I think that raising a paper card is any easier or more effective than simply saying "this makes me feel uncomfortable". For one, speaking "Z makes me feel uncomfortable" tells me what is bothering them, instead of having me guess.

It's not about "not wanting to imagine a situation outside of my own". I don't have anything against people using whatever social devices they want in their games. I just don't think the X-card is a particularly good idea and wouldn't use it myself. That's all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have loved the x-card when a GM I played with sprung rape-as-punishment on the only female PC at the table. Thankfully, it wasn't my PC, but I was the only woman there.

Contributor

32 people marked this as a favorite.

As it turns out, if your group
* actually requires you to treat others' feelings with respect,
* accepts that some people consider certain topics sensitive or actually traumatic,
* and that those same people might not feel comfortable explaining why the topic makes them uncomfortable, and
* you can't handle how that group consensus makes playing the game difficult for you,

then you have the option to leave the game. Because in a social game where the point is to get together and have fun, you're supposed to be accommodating to others' needs.

If someone at the table is allergic to peanuts, you don't bring a peanut butter sandwitch and say, "if you have a problem with this, deal with it, or justify to me why it's a problem." They don't have to explain, "if you eat peanuts, you'll kill me," it should be enough to say, "please don't eat that around me."

If someone at the table has asthma, you don't smoke at the table and say, "if you have a problem with this, deal with it, or justify to me why it's a problem." They don't have to explain, "if you smoke around me, I'll have an asthma attack," it should be enough to say, "please don't smoke around me."

If someone at the table is a rape survivor, you don't make rape jokes or make rape an element of the campaign, and say "if you have a problem with this, deal with it, or justify to me why it's a problem." They don't have to explain, "I was raped, and you treating it so casually is making me have a panic attack," it should be enough to say, "please don't bring up that subject." They don't have to tell you why. You don't deserve an explanation. You don't need an explanation. It should be enough that if you're in a social situation and someone asks you not to do something, you don't do it.

Because we're supposed to treat each other decently. Show some courtesy.

You already know to not crap your pants at the game table.
You already know to not scream all your character's words at maximum volume at the game table.
You already know to not pick your nose and then touch someone else's food at the game table.
You already know not to put other players' dice in your mouth at the game table.
So maybe you could take a tiny bit of effort to have some empathy for another person (i.e., someone who isn't you) and accept their request to not add something they don't want to be part of the shared gaming experience, without demanding a reason why.

And if you aren't enough of a decent human being to do that, maybe you could "roleplay" a version of yourself who is just like you, except who is a decent human being.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And if you aren't enough of a decent human being to do that, maybe you could "roleplay" a version of yourself who is just like you, except who is a decent human being.

Daaaaaaamn...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. I don't see how requiring a minimal explanation about why I should stop doing something stops me from being a decent human being.

Sometimes it's fairly obvious why something bothers someone... Like smoking (you don't even have to be asthmatic) or the inclusion descriptive scenes of sex, gore or violence. These are easy to understand why someone wouldn't like.

But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?

I'm not saying the person has to give a detailed testimonial of what is bothering them and why it bothers them. A mere "This particular theme/image makes me uncomfortable, could we drop it?" would suffice.

I don't even care if the person is asthmatic or a rape survivor. If they say a theme makes them uncomfortable, I'll drop it. But they can at least do the courtesy of telling me what is making them feel uncomfortable instead of showing me a paper card and hoping I guess right. I can't read minds, and a big X drawn on a paper card doesn't help me know what the problem is.

(And why would anyone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)

Lemmy wrote:
Doesn't have to give me a detailed explanation. But the other extreme, giving zero explanation is not good either. One can always simply say "this makes me feel uncomfortable".

You know what decent human beings do? Actually listen to what others have to say before implying they are horrible people who don't care about others.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?

From the X-Card rules:

If you aren't sure what was X-Carded, call for a break and talk with the person in private.

Ta da.

Lemmy wrote:
(And why would someone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)

Although they've recently determined that this specific risk has been exaggerated, peanut allergies can be serious enough (especially in children) that airborne particles (such as on your breath) or secondary skin exposure (like you get peanut oil on your hand, then you touch the battlemap, and the allergic person touches the battlemap) can trigger a dangerous allergic reaction.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

From the X-Card rules:

If you aren't sure what was X-Carded, call for a break and talk with the person in private.

Ta da.

That's the thing. The card is not necessary for that. If something is disturbing for one of my players, they can always say it. I make that very clear to every player that joins the group.

Tell me what the problem is. No need for telling me why it's a problem, just tell what is bothering you. And that way we might not even have to stop the game.

I once had a player who had a... uh... phobia? I don't know what's the correct term. Well, she felt really disturbed by any image of stuff piercing eyes. No one knew that... Then one day I described a critical hit as hitting the ogre in its eye. She then asked me to not do it. The whole conversation went like this

Player: Ugh... Can we not have stuff piercing eyes?
GM (Me): Huh? Oh... Okay. The arrow pierces the ogre's chest... etc.

It took all of 2 seconds.

Had she raised a X-card, I'd have asked her what's the problem because I never had any player who was bothered by this, so I simply wouldn't have known what exactly she asking me to remove from the game. Or called an unnecessary break to ask what's wrong.

She only told me about her phobia(?) days later, when the group was eating pizza.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Although they've recently determined that this specific risk has been exaggerated, peanut allergies can be serious enough (especially in children) that airborne particles (such as on your breath) or secondary skin exposure (like you get peanut oil on your hand, then you touch the battlemap, and the allergic person touches the battlemap) can trigger a dangerous allergic reaction.

Well, if someone is allergic to something common enough to possibly be seen on the table, they should tell the group. Because otherwise, someone could bring said something without knowing it's a problem.

I don't expect people to share details of what makes them feel bad or why it does. But if their allergy is that serious, they really should tell the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I'd prefer to hear directly from female Australian gamers about their experiences before declaring Australian game milieus a bastion of inclusivity.

There have actually been quite a few on here in previous posts (this thread is one of several, as I am certain you are aware), they have generally echoed similar sentiment in the main. One or two have taken a bit of umbrage about the 'presentation' of some of the guys, and some of the boorish behaviour, but I don't recall seeing anything so far about discrimination or harassment.

Perhaps the Paizo peeps would be kind enough to send you on a field expedition down here to a PFS event in Sydney, for research... come in Summer, the beaches are great!


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Shifty is not claiming it's perfect... It is different with different problems to the U.S. Experience.

That is why we scratch our heads at some of the complaints we see coming from the U.S.

Correct.

What is frustrating here is that whilst gender imbalance at the gametable is still a global issue, why are we only allowed to talk about it through a localised US-centric viewpoint?


Shifty wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I'd prefer to hear directly from female Australian gamers about their experiences before declaring Australian game milieus a bastion of inclusivity.

There have actually been quite a few on here in previous posts (this thread is one of several, as I am certain you are aware), they have generally echoed similar sentiment in the main. One or two have taken a bit of umbrage about the 'presentation' of some of the guys, and some of the boorish behaviour, but I don't recall seeing anything so far about discrimination or harassment.

Well, if you look at my first post, it gives a couple of examples of things gals on the Australian RPG scene have complained about that could well be said to be harassment or discrimination.

But that is a post by an Australian man not woman. :P


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I'd prefer to hear directly from female Australian gamers about their experiences before declaring Australian game milieus a bastion of inclusivity.

*Raises hand* Yo. Aussie lass here. 1-star PFS GM (closing in on my second) in Adelaide, but I've seen only three other women at our tables. One doesn't come anymore, one showed up once with two of her friends, and one comes with her partner. A few incidents have stood out to me, though.

First, I had a player in a home game who made sexist jokes. This was my Kingmaker campaign that I was running, in my house, for my (all male) friends, and he liked to crack jokes along the lines of "A woman was hit by a car today. Don't know why the man was driving in the kitchen," and - when I joyfully showed off the Jayne hat I'd commissioned from a woman in the Barossa - "Is there a man that makes them? I want one, but I want it done right."

Second, as above, I had a GM spring rape-as-punishment on the only female PC in the game. It was a Mistborn one-shot, and the summary at the end was basically (after we got caught by the house we were stealing from), "Okay, your Soother has his hands and eyes removed and is forced into servitude; your Tineye is killed; your Coinshot is forced into gladiatorial combat; and your assassin has her eyes and tongue removed and is chained to a wall to be used and abused by anyone who wants her for the rest of her days." It was then passed off as "part of the setting".

Third, at a recent con, we had four PFS GMs. Of the four, I was the only woman. Guess who had two sign-ups over an entire day, while the others had full tables?
(To ward off predicted questions: the signups were handled online; all people-wrangling was done anonymously through the con profile; they weren't friends of the GMs, but in most instances total strangers; and I did eventually get tables when the VL gave me his signups and sat down to play himself, which he hadn't had much opportunity to do.)

I do my bit to welcome anyone and everyone at my public tables. Most of them have the decency to not crack sexist jokes and use slurs like "b!@%*" and *insert exceptionally crude term here* when the GM is a woman. (One guy did, but he must have noticed me cringing every time he did, because he's since stopped.)

On the original question, my FLGS has "Ladies' League" nights for Magic: The Gathering. I've considered doing similar for PFS, because for me (and I imagine for some others), simply being the only woman at the table was unnerving. It makes you feel like the outsider, the minority, and considering how normalized a lot of stuff has become, it can actually be downright scary.


Yep fair comment that one of them said she was being hit on a lot, that's a disappointing thing to hear, and totally out of order if that was crossing the line into harassment territory.

How recently was that, and was it 'home game' or an organised environment? Normally the organisers at Cons/Org play/etc are pretty on the ball with that these days.

I'd really like to see a longitudinal study done at some point, I reckon it would be pretty interesting reading. Maybe UWS could jump on it, they do some great work in this field.

When I was doing a lot of work and research raising the profile of bullying and sexual harassment in the workplace (As a senior Trade Union official) and its contribution to workplace injury and absenteeism through Workcover NSW in order get employees additional legal protection against those issues, UWS were really good at providing material through their Social Sciences dept.


El Ronza wrote:


*Raises hand* Yo. Aussie lass here. 1-star PFS GM (closing in on my second) in Adelaide, but I've seen only three other women at our tables.

Come to Sydney :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And if you aren't enough of a decent human being to do that, maybe you could "roleplay" a version of yourself who is just like you, except who is a decent human being.
Daaaaaaamn...

There he is! THATS the famous SKR we all have grown to love! Welcome back to full power, Sean!


El Ronza wrote:


First, I had a player in a home game who made sexist jokes. This was my Kingmaker campaign that I was running, in my house, for my (all male) friends, and he liked to crack jokes along the lines of "A woman was hit by a car today. Don't know why the man was driving in the kitchen," and - when I joyfully showed off the Jayne hat I'd commissioned from a woman in the Barossa - "Is there a man that makes them? I want one, but I want it done right."

Presumably this guy has some merits not mentioned in your post. Otherwise, why associate with him?

El Ronza wrote:


Second, as above, I had a GM spring rape-as-punishment on the only female PC in the game. It was a Mistborn one-shot, and the summary at the end was basically (after we got caught by the house we were stealing from), "Okay, your Soother has his hands and eyes removed and is forced into servitude; your Tineye is killed; your Coinshot is forced into gladiatorial combat; and your assassin has her eyes and tongue removed and is chained to a wall to be used and abused by anyone who wants her for the rest of her days." It was then passed off as "part of the setting".

Well, just to play devil's advocate a bit, everyone copped pretty intense abuse and it is 100% realistic.

But thinking about it, I still would not have done it if I was GMing. Why? The chances of encountering any of the other forms of abuse mentioned in your lifetime are minimal, like much less than 1%. But there is a substantial chance of a woman being raped, so its not a good topic for fantasy play. And the gal concerned may have been raped, in which case you are really putting your foot in your mouth.

El Ronza wrote:


Third, at a recent con, we had four PFS GMs. Of the four, I was the only woman. Guess who had two sign-ups over an entire day, while the others had full tables?

Well, I would have joined yours.

Really, and not motivated by ideology at all. You get more time "on" in a smaller group. And to generalise, female GMs are more likely to play up parts of the game apart from killing things and taking their treasure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As for X card... why not? It sounds like a safe word they use in LGBT. Sure it stops things, that IS kind of the point. If someone crosses a boundary sometimes it's easier to hold up a card then having to say in front of everyone that you find (situation X) disturbing. This is a good thing.

As for the Horror analogy... not relevant and I will explain why. When you go to a horror film you are expecting to be frightened and horrified by the experience. It brings up something primal inside us. Thrilling and obviously a good date choice with someone you are already comfortable with. BUT it causes trauma to see that stuff or experience it in real life... and unless the GM is running a horror game then some people are deeply bothered by having such things done in a regular game it reminds them TOO MUCH of it happening in real life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Presumably this guy has some merits not mentioned in your post. Otherwise, why associate with him?

He was a decent player, and he got along well with the rest of the group. He didn't start out making sexist jokes - it was only after a couple of sessions that it started to show. I had a chat with the whole group about it over email, mentioning that certain things were being said that were upsetting. To the guy's credit, it was dialled back, but the fact that he saw fit to say them in the first place, to his female game master, in her house, shows how normalized casual sexism has become. Or maybe he was just an asshat. He's since left the game due to a new job, so it's not a problem anymore, but it was pretty hurtful at the time.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Well, just to play devil's advocate a bit, everyone copped pretty intense abuse and it is 100% realistic.

But thinking about it, I still would not have done it if I was GMing. Why? The chances of encountering any of the other forms of abuse mentioned in your lifetime are minimal, like much less than 1%. But there is a substantial chance of a woman being raped, so its not a good topic for fantasy play. And the gal concerned may have been raped, in which case you are really putting your foot in your mouth.

I'd argue that "you are to be restrained and raped until you die" is far more intense than "you die", or "you're forced to fight wild beasts until you die in combat", and still worse than "you lose your extremities and are forced into servitude". And if it's accurate to the setting, you tell your players that beforehand. Like I said, if I'd known prior to the game that women were frequently abused in such a way as punishment for their crimes, I wouldn't have agreed to play.

Like you acknowledged, there's a substantial chance of it happening in real life, and it just isn't appropriate. Which puts you a step above the guy who decided it was appropriate to throw in at the end of a game, almost as an afterthought.

I'd also like to know what you mean by 'realistic'. Do you mean, "that's what would happen in real life", or "that's what happens in the setting this game takes place in"? (That isn't meant to sound harsh; it's a genuine question, because I'm unclear on your intention.)

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Well, I would have joined yours.

Really, and not motivated by ideology at all. You get more time "on" in a smaller group. And to generalise, female GMs are more likely to play up parts of the game apart from killing things and taking their treasure.

With one more player, I still wouldn't have had a legal table if not for my VL's wrangling. Admittedly, that whole scenario could have been me seeing sexism where there was none, but it was still an eye-opener.

And I can't speak for the generalisation, as I've sadly never had a female GM. I'm just hoping that I can lead by example and maybe not be the only woman at the table every now and again!

(Hope that all sounded civil; still getting the hang of proper forum expression and online etiquette.)

Oh, and:

Shifty wrote:
El Ronza wrote:
*Raises hand* Yo. Aussie lass here. 1-star PFS GM (closing in on my second) in Adelaide, but I've seen only three other women at our tables.
Come to Sydney :)

Maybe, for a con, when I can afford to do so. I'm barely supporting my hobby as it is ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

As for being continually dismissive of another's posts I truly wish moderators would BAN the offenders. It IS Trolling isn't it? Isn't that against CoC? Why keep letting it drive people away from the forums like Jessica here or Tels in the anime thread. I may have a deliberately thick skin but others don't and if keeping these disruptive people actually hurts by driving away others wouldn't it be better for the number of good posters just to boot these people for good?

I suspect that is a technical issues - namely the forum account is also the shop account so banning the offender would probably also prevent buying products and, what I think would be more important from Paizo point of view, preventing access to materials already purchased - which in general is a very bad thing to do when you are publisher. Which makes Paizo reluctant to use banhammer except for the grossest (or really repetitive) offenses.


Aranna wrote:

As for X card... why not? It sounds like a safe word they use in LGBT. Sure it stops things, that IS kind of the point. If someone crosses a boundary sometimes it's easier to hold up a card then having to say in front of everyone that you find (situation X) disturbing. This is a good thing.

As for the Horror analogy... not relevant and I will explain why. When you go to a horror film you are expecting to be frightened and horrified by the experience. It brings up something primal inside us. Thrilling and obviously a good date choice with someone you are already comfortable with. BUT it causes trauma to see that stuff or experience it in real life... and unless the GM is running a horror game then some people are deeply bothered by having such things done in a regular game it reminds them TOO MUCH of it happening in real life.

I suspect the X card would be great in a horror game. Having the formalized mechanic for "This is going to far", actually lets you push things closer to the limit, since you can rely on knowing when you've reached it. As you said, it's like a safeword - with that protection, you can go further.

I think much of the point of having the card - or whatever other mechanic, is just to make it explicit that it's okay to do this. Okay to want to back off from a specific act or theme in the game. What the actual mechanic is, isn't as important as there being one.


El Ronza wrote:
And I can't speak for the generalisation, as I've sadly never had a female GM. I'm just hoping that I can lead by example and maybe not be the only woman at the table every now and again!

I'll second that each time I've had a female GM it has been great.

One of my favourite PBP GM's here on the board does a ripper job and she has a great attitude - she makes a really great player too, and adds enormously to our group... I'd be horrified if someone said/did something to put her off.


thejeff wrote:
I suspect the X card would be great in a horror game. Having the formalized mechanic for "This is going to far", actually lets you push things closer to the limit, since you can rely on knowing when you've reached it. As you said, it's like a safeword - with that protection, you can go further.

Except that the guy that made it specifically stated that it was not to be used as a safe word and not to be used to push boundaries.

The concept behind this card would seem to only apply when gaming with people you don't know very well. I would hope all of my regular players would feel comfortable saying something like "woah - can we not go into that level of detail when describing injuries?"


Tormsskull wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I suspect the X card would be great in a horror game. Having the formalized mechanic for "This is going to far", actually lets you push things closer to the limit, since you can rely on knowing when you've reached it. As you said, it's like a safeword - with that protection, you can go further.

Except that the guy that made it specifically stated that it was not to be used as a safe word and not to be used to push boundaries.

The concept behind this card would seem to only apply when gaming with people you don't know very well. I would hope all of my regular players would feel comfortable saying something like "woah - can we not go into that level of detail when describing injuries?"

I'd hope so too, but you never know how people will react. It's not at all uncommon for people to push past what they're comfortable with due to peer pressure, due to not wanting to ruin things for others, or due to not wanting to talk about why it bothers them.

X-Card wrote:
The X-Card speech above can be more useful that the X-Card itself. It makes it clear that we are all in this together, will help each other, and that the group of people playing are more important than the game.

Establishing this as a formal mechanism and emphasizing that anyone can do it with no need for questions or hassle removes some, but not all of that pressure. Actually seeing it used removes even more.

As for the safeword analogy, yeah it's not the same thing and probably a bad comparison, but there are similarities. These are the bits I was thinking of when I said that:

X-Card wrote:

By knowing people can easily flag and edit any potentially problematic content, you can be even braver with your choices. You can spend less time trying to read people (we aren't mind readers) and more time being creative.

The X-Card sometimes leads to more intense play. People know they have a communication tool if things go too far, so they may feel more comfortable going farther than they normally would. We've rarely seen this happen in actual play but it's a possibility so we feel it's important to note it just in case.


Jessica Price wrote:

...

That may be, but given that men don't believe sexism is real even when confronted with hard evidence of its existence, that men don't notice it when it's happening in front of them ...

First Point:

I have no problem admitting that I know sexism is quite real and does occur. I don't really know of all that many people who don't admit it.

Like every other type of discrimination, there is a lot of disagreement on how often and when it is occurring. I think there are instances where people are offended and claim discrimination and there really was none. I think there are instances where there is in fact discrimination and many people do not notice it.

Personally, I would never intentionally discriminate against anyone for any particular grouping. But sometimes my actions or words are misconstrued as discriminatory. My wife has two coworkers that are becoming pretty close friends. I have no problems when I see them. However, they keep arranging group couples events. One husband tries to find some way to take any words out of my mouth as an attack on African-Americans. The other husband is sure I'm a whiney-commie lover that hates the military (he is a vet). I have the utmost respect for the military and veterans. I just have a hard time being pleasant to him because he is a jerk.
I end up trying to be present, smile, and not say anything substantive the whole day. Of course, then I'm not being sociable.

On the other hand, I found out something recently about I guy I used to work for. He is retired now, but he was telling me about how he always used to think it was funny to give women promotions to positions that he didn't really think they could handle just to watch them fail. I was completely appalled. I don't think any one knew what he was doing. It actually looked like he was trying to help women out since they were more likely to get a promotion under his management.

I will make no claims about the occurrence rate in either direction. But I know it happens in both directions.

Second Point:
I do fit into this one. If I notice discrimination, I will stop it. I've called out one of my bosses on it more than once. He at least backed off on the more obvious stuff around me.
However, I for one am not a very empathic person. If something isn't pretty blatant, I am likely to not notice. I'm just not wired that way. Doesn't mean I don't care or it isn't important to me. My lack of empathy has caused me plenty of problems at work even when it has nothing to do with discrimination.
Last year I was explaining how to do a job to a team of workers. they told me they understood and could handle it. I came back a few hours later to almost a quarter million dollars in scrap materials. Not a one of them understood me. But they didn't want to say it. "I thought you could tell that we really didn't get it." No. I can't.
My empathy has improved slightly over the last few decades, but it is definitely not now and will never be one of my strong suits.
Yes, if it obvious I will step in. But if it is among the more subtle sorts of discrimination... I probably won't catch it. Speak up, I will be glad to help you out.

Third Point:
The X-Cards. I would have no problem with someone at my group wanted to use those. I personally think it would cause more confusion and attention to the issue rather than less. But if a person is more comfortable using that rather than speaking up, it won't bother me. So sure, if that helps you go ahead, I have no issues with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:

I think there are instances where people are offended and claim discrimination and there really was none. I think there are instances where there is in fact discrimination and many people do not notice it.

Personally, I would never intentionally discriminate against anyone for any particular grouping. But sometimes my actions or words are misconstrued as discriminatory.

I'd be more comfortable saying that those being discriminated against are the ones who get to define what discrimination is and what it looks and sounds like. Otherwise, non-deliberate discrimination goes unchecked, rationalized by those who say they didn't mean to.

Liberty's Edge

El Ronza wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Well, just to play devil's advocate a bit, everyone copped pretty intense abuse and it is 100% realistic.

But thinking about it, I still would not have done it if I was GMing. Why? The chances of encountering any of the other forms of abuse mentioned in your lifetime are minimal, like much less than 1%. But there is a substantial chance of a woman being raped, so its not a good topic for fantasy play. And the gal concerned may have been raped, in which case you are really putting your foot in your mouth.

I'd argue that "you are to be restrained and raped until you die" is far more intense than "you die", or "you're forced to fight wild beasts until you die in combat", and still worse than "you lose your extremities and are forced into servitude". And if it's accurate to the setting, you tell your players that beforehand. Like I said, if I'd known prior to the game that women were frequently abused in such a way as punishment for their crimes, I wouldn't have agreed to play.

Like you acknowledged, there's a substantial chance of it happening in real life, and it just isn't appropriate. Which puts you a step above the guy who decided it was appropriate to throw in at the end of a game, almost as an afterthought.

I'd also like to know what you mean by 'realistic'. Do you mean, "that's what would happen in real life", or "that's what happens in the setting this game takes place in"? (That isn't meant to sound harsh; it's a genuine question, because I'm unclear on your intention.)

While I suppose it's not beyond possible for there to be a House or House Head in the Final Empire who would do that, it doesn't particularly fit with Sanderson's tone or with the guys at Crafty's style. There's some mention of rape in the context of the abuse of of the Skaa (slaves/peasants) by the nobility and the Lord Ruler's breeding program, but that's way different than telling a PC that their character is brutalised like that until dead.

I think the "it's part of the setting" excuse here is just covering for being skeevy.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:

I think there are instances where people are offended and claim discrimination and there really was none. I think there are instances where there is in fact discrimination and many people do not notice it.

Personally, I would never intentionally discriminate against anyone for any particular grouping. But sometimes my actions or words are misconstrued as discriminatory.

I'd be more comfortable saying that those being discriminated against are the ones who get to define what discrimination is and what it looks and sounds like. Otherwise, non-deliberate discrimination goes unchecked, rationalized by those who say they didn't mean to.

Disagree. The recipient definitely determines whether or not they were offended. However, discrimination implies intent to treat someone differently based on some non-applicable criteria.

You might find my vulgar language offensive and assume it is discrimination.
However, if I am just an obnoxious uncouth boor and use that language all the time around everyone it is not discrimination even if it is offensive. In fact, it is practically the definition of a lack of discrimination.

Note: I almost never use vulgar language. This is just an example.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:

That may be, but given that men don't believe sexism is real even when confronted with hard evidence of its existence, that men don't notice it when it's happening in front of them,

Jessica, I agree with most of what you say. But saying "men don't" as opposed to "men often don't" is, literally, wrong.
Can we not focus on the phrasing of this, since obviously it is not intended to mean "literally all men, every last one of them," and instead focus on the actual data that talks about men not recognizing sexism and harassment?
Nope. If one side of a debate has to speak carefully as to not "offend" people who grew up getting trophies for just showing up, the other side had better be very precise in their language.

Okay, so, when I say "can we," what I meant (in polite-ese) "Let's not."

Also, I must ask you to clarify something for me: who exactly is getting trophies for "just showing up"? Showing up for what? Is this a metaphorical trophy? Can I have one? Is there any possible way this answer won't ""offend"" me? (See how I put your quotation marks in quotation marks? If it's not clear, it's because I don't appreciate or respect your putting the word offend in quotation marks.)

I'm """offended""". I showed up and didn't get one of these "trophies".

We were the last generation to not have those, I think. I was referencing the "no score" soccer leagues and such that started popping up in the '90s.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
But what if I have no idea what is bothering someone? If the GM says we open a door to a room where a vampire sits by the fire, with a viper on his shoulders and a dark wolf with red eyes and a glass of blood in his hand, and then someone shows me an X-card, how the hell am I supposed to know what is troubling that person? Is it the blood? The fire? The viper? The wolf? A combination of these? Should the GM throw the whole scene out?

From the X-Card rules:

If you aren't sure what was X-Carded, call for a break and talk with the person in private.

Ta da.

Lemmy wrote:
(And why would someone allergic to peanuts care if someone else eats peanut butter? Does the smell of peanuts cause some sort of allergic reaction? Honest question here. I never met anyone who is allergic to peanuts... Or at least, the subject never came up)

Although they've recently determined that this specific risk has been exaggerated, peanut allergies can be serious enough (especially in children) that airborne particles (such as on your breath) or secondary skin exposure (like you get peanut oil on your hand, then you touch the battlemap, and the allergic person touches the battlemap) can trigger a dangerous allergic reaction.

Which is why you always have an Epipen handy.

Signed,

The father of a daughter with a fairly hard core peanut allergy.


ElterAgo wrote:
Dustin Ashe wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:

I think there are instances where people are offended and claim discrimination and there really was none. I think there are instances where there is in fact discrimination and many people do not notice it.

Personally, I would never intentionally discriminate against anyone for any particular grouping. But sometimes my actions or words are misconstrued as discriminatory.

I'd be more comfortable saying that those being discriminated against are the ones who get to define what discrimination is and what it looks and sounds like. Otherwise, non-deliberate discrimination goes unchecked, rationalized by those who say they didn't mean to.

Disagree. The recipient definitely determines whether or not they were offended. However, discrimination implies intent to treat someone differently based on some non-applicable criteria.

You might find my vulgar language offensive and assume it is discrimination.
However, if I am just an obnoxious uncouth boor and use that language all the time around everyone it is not discrimination even if it is offensive. In fact, it is practically the definition of a lack of discrimination.

Not necessarily. The effect matters too. If someone doesn't intentionally discriminate, but still chooses to hire or promote men over qualified women for all the subjective reasons people make those kinds of decisions (seemed a better fit, better attitude, etc), they're still discriminating. It's tricky as hell to prove, but it's still a problem, even if the person making the decisions isn't intentionally deciding to discriminate.

The condescending attitude some gamers show towards women may not be intended to offend, in fact the person may intend to be helpful, but it's still discriminating.

This isn't meant as an attack. It's not meant to call out people as being bad or evil or anything. But it is important to call out behavior that's a problem, even when the people doing it don't see it as such.

There does have to be some kind of balance. Some do call out "Discrimination" for every little thing that goes against them, though I think it's much rarer than some claim, but we should at least listen to them. Consider the possibility that there is a problem even if you didn't intend it or didn't see it in someone else's behavior.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some more posts. Baiting/insults, again, are not OK here. Challenge ideas, not others in the conversation.

C'mon, "Kiss Your Sister Alabama" was funny. :P

j/k, sorry if I raised the temperature too much.


ElterAgo wrote:
Disagree. The recipient definitely determines whether or not they were offended. However, discrimination implies intent to treat someone differently based on some non-applicable criteria.

Respectfully disagree. Discrimination does not imply intent. I just looked at the definition in five different sources and none of them even alluded to intent. It's measured in comparison. Does a person treat one type of person differently, regardless of merit, than he or she treats another? That's discrimination.

I think that's the insidious thing about discrimination. A person can be guilty of it without meaning to.

EDIT: Yes, what thejeff said.


houstonderek wrote:


We were the last generation to not have those, I think. I was referencing the "no score" soccer leagues and such that started popping up in the '90s.

On the other hand, we were also born in a much more sexist and racist time, to a generation where both were completely normal.

Some of the "being careful not to offend" comes from those younger generations being less willing to stand for the bull, not just from the self-esteem mentality.

1 to 50 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Increasing Female Participation All Messageboards