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."
One of the players in my group has a deadly peanut allergy. We throw peanut m&ms at him when he is doing something dumb.
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.
I said implies not dictionary definition.
But even by your definition "Does a person treat one type of person differently, regardless of merit, than he or she treats another?" my point is made.One could easily make the case that treating someone different regardless of merit implies intent. How can you decide if it was 'regardless of merit' until you do know what the decision was based upon? Which leads to intent.
But that isn't necessary and wasn't the point of my post. The 'different' is necessary and is the point of my post.
No where in there is "I am offended or that makes me uncomfortable." Yet that is often how it is used and how several people even in this thread are using it.
Discrimination and offensive behavior are both problems and people should work to eliminate them. But they are not necessarily the same thing. Lumping them together and acting like they are identical hurts the case of and makes it more difficult to work on either of them.
Offensive behavior is subjective as well as annoying, but it rarely destroys people or damages society.
In my personal opinion, discrimination is worse. It is not subjective (though it may be difficult to determine, that is not the same as subjective), can destroy peoples, and does damage to the fabric of our society. It needs more emphasis and priority in 'fixing' for society to function well.
.
.
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.
...
I disagree. But now we are getting into the fiddly bits of carefully parsing word definitions.
Unwilling to admit why an action was taken is not the same as unintended.If you base and action/comment/attitude on whether a person is female, Spanish, gay, or whatever, that is intentional. Even if you don't want to admit it to yourself.
And I agree sometimes it will be nearly impossible to prove. That doesn't mean unintended.
But again, that isn't the important part. The important part of it was is it different treatment based on whatever group and not on applicable factors. If it was, then yes I agree it is discrimination.
... 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.
Agree. I made no claim on how often it happens. But I know from personal observation that it happens often enough to bother. But I would agree it is probably much less often than actual instances of discrimination.
And yes, I do try to give legit consideration when it is brought up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes it so funny?If that got attempted in any group I have ever gamed with, the person who brought it up would probably be laughed at so much they would flee from embarrassment.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'm guessing you have never gamed with military people.
1. It treats everyone at the table like children and forces people to use baby gloves. It puts not offending people at the front of the list of people's minds, instead of just having a good time with friends.
2. The idea of not offending people is very frequently seen as not a worthwhile goal. Offending everyone is one of the primary ways groups bond.
3. It is a passive aggressive way of censoring people in the name of avoiding confrontation and will probably cause just as many issues as it attempts to fix.
Personally, I'm more likely to play a game of cards against humanity with a new person and throw in the most offensive things I can to test their response than I am to play with something like this. Hell, the last time we introduced a new person to my current game group we played cards against lego creationary (use lego bricks to make cards against humanity cards and people have to guess what the card is). We mocked the guy because he didn't know what the card was but made a highly amusing rectum.
If a GM I didn't know brought the X card to a generic table, I would probably find a way to politely excuse myself, because I doubt I would enjoy the game, and probably wouldn't enjoy that person's company very long. If I knew the game was designed to be intentionally emotional, I would stay, because those types of games are designed to test the boundaries, but you know that when you sign up for those games. For a generic game this really isn't needed and will only distract people from having a good time.
|
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.
I can dig that, but I think that telling kids that you always win, when life is most definitely not like that, isn't the best message, and can lead to some issues when reality does meet self-esteem.
I agree with being raised by whom we were raised by to a degree. I was raised by dysfunctional parents who were also in the hippy culture, so I learned a lot of tolerance of others coupled with horrible lessons on how to deal with stress and function in society (hence the prison sentence). Depending on where and who you were born (to), some of those old ideals were already being challenged by your parents, so it's a mixed bag, I guess.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ElterAgo—An interesting point about there being a difference between "offensive behavior" and "discrimination". However, I disagree that looking at both at once is in some way inhibiting the process.
For instance, interrupting/talking over people is often considered "offensive behavior", but the fact that it's so overwhelmingly often a man doing it to a woman makes it simultaneously discrimination.
Deciding to have a stranger's character raped by NPCs is (generally) "offensive behavior", but when it's consistently targeting the women rather than the men, it also becomes discrimination.
Assuming someone you've just met is new or otherwise not knowledgeable about the game is offensive; making that assumption more often with women than with men is, simultaneously, discrimination.
Intimate touching of complete strangers who haven't given consent is offensive, but when it's almost always man-on-woman, it's also discrimination.
The list goes on.
Sure, there are things that are offensive without being discriminatory (like not bothering to shower), and there are things that are discriminatory without being inherently offensive. But, at least within the gaming culture, there is a LOT of overlap between the two categories, where this or that offensive behavior is primarily/near-exclusively directed at one group (such as women).
I'd even venture a guess, based on the testimonies of actual women who have chimed in, that behaviors that are both offensive AND discriminatory outnumber behaviors that are one or the other. As a result, it seems perfectly fine to me to discuss them together.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I could never understand why people would want to put such real world issues like rape and stuff in their games anyway. I mean, YMMV and all, but I play games to escape from reality for a bit and enjoy worlds where Good(™) and Evil(™) exist in some PG, relatively innocent fantasy setting. I get enough in real life with the adult stuff, I don't need to know who my friend's paladin is attracted to or what gender the hobbit thinks he or she should have been born as, I just want to know that both want to save the world from Orcus or something.
I'm not saying that the characters cannot or should not have such back stories, I'm just saying I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, I play it to kill orcs and save the village.
...
I'm really much less concerned with what you call it and more on how you react to it. If you steadfastly refuse to call something discrimination, but do change your behavior when it's pointed out as offensive, that works for me. (*Insert disclaimers for the claim not being completely ridiculous, etc. Assume good faith.) ...
I'm only concerned with label to the extent that people confuse and treat them the same.
Jimmy-Joe-Bob not taking a shower is not discrimination. It is equally offensive to everyone at the table. It is annoying and bothersome.But it is not wrecking someone's self image.
I personally try to moderate any behavior that others might find offensive. However, that is a subjective opinion and differs person to person. It is by definition impossible to eliminate because it is subjective.
If you lived in the tiny back hills community where my cousin grew up and did not use vulgar language, you would be offensive to the people around you. They would feel like you are insulting the way they speak. And to a certain extent they would be correct. You don't approve of the words they use.
It can be irritating when someone does not change what I consider to be offensive behavior.
But it does damage to the society about us when someone does not correct discriminatory behavior.
...
I would point out though that there a number of studies that show that these discriminatory effects aren't just "unwilling to admit", but actually "unaware". The studies linked earlier about everyone in the group discussion, even the women, thinking the women had participated far more than they actually did would be a good example.
As I said before, this is getting into very fine parsing of the definitions of words.
I am not sure that I would call actions that you are actually 'unaware' of can be considered discrimination. I will have to give that some consideration..
.
@ElterAgo—An interesting point about there being a difference between "offensive behavior" and "discrimination". However, I disagree that looking at both at once is in some way inhibiting the process.
For instance, interrupting/talking over people is often considered "offensive behavior", but the fact that it's so overwhelmingly often a man doing it to a woman makes it simultaneously discrimination.
Deciding to have a stranger's character raped by NPCs is (generally) "offensive behavior", but when it's consistently targeting the women rather than the men, it also becomes discrimination.
Assuming someone you've just met is new or otherwise not knowledgeable about the game is offensive; making that assumption more often with women than with men is, simultaneously, discrimination.
Intimate touching of complete strangers who haven't given consent is offensive, but when it's almost always man-on-woman, it's also discrimination.
The list goes on.
Sure, there are things that are offensive without being discriminatory (like not bothering to shower), and there are things that are discriminatory without being inherently offensive. But, at least within the gaming culture, there is a LOT of overlap between the two categories, where this or that offensive behavior is primarily/near-exclusively directed at one group (such as women).
I'd even venture a guess, based on the testimonies of actual women who have chimed in, that behaviors that are both offensive AND discriminatory outnumber behaviors that are one or the other. As a result, it seems perfectly fine to me to discuss them together.
I apologize if I gave the impression that I believe there is no overlap. That was not my intent. There obviously is a huge amount of overlap.
I am actually much less concerned by the offensive nature of your examples and much more concerned by the discriminatory aspect.
But if you don't differentiate, you immediately lose much of the impact of your statement. For instance all of the items you mentioned were mentioned earlier in this thread as reasons that women don't join a table.
If you say the problem is them talking over other people, then the response is potentially totally different.
It is actually defensible within that group of people. It is only offensive to someone outside that similar group. Because what is offensive is subjective. There is no definition of offensive.
When you say the problem is that you talk over women more than you do men.
That is an objective statement. It is discriminatory. It is a bigger problem. There is a definition of discrimination.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes it so funny?I'm guessing you have never gamed with military people.
1. It treats everyone at the table like children and forces people to use baby gloves. It puts not offending people at the front of the list of people's minds, instead of just having a good time with friends.
2. The idea of not offending people is very frequently seen as not a worthwhile goal. Offending everyone is one of the primary ways groups bond.
3. It is a passive aggressive way of censoring people in the name of avoiding confrontation and will probably cause just as many issues as it attempts to fix.
Personally, I'm more likely to play a game of cards against humanity with a new person and throw in the most offensive things I can to test their response than I am to play with something like this. Hell, the last time we introduced a new person to my current game group we played cards against lego creationary (use lego bricks to make cards against humanity cards and people have to guess what the card is). We mocked the guy because he didn't know what the card was but made a highly amusing rectum.
If a GM I didn't know brought the X card to a generic table, I would probably find a way to politely excuse myself, because I doubt I would enjoy the game, and probably wouldn't enjoy that person's company very long. If I knew the game was designed to be intentionally emotional, I would stay, because those types of games are designed to test the boundaries, but you know that when you sign up for those games. For a generic game this really isn't needed and will only distract people from having a good time.
1. Okay, couple of things. First of all, if players are offending others, how is that "having a good time with friends"? Second, it's really not about whether something is offensive (e.g. someone saying "F**% you" or something), but rather about whether someone has said or done something a) oppressive (rather than offensive--the difference being between just hurting someone's feelings and reinforcing societally normalized forms of dehumanization/objectification/etc. whether it's in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, transmisogyny, what have you), or b) trauma-inducing (trigger warnings exist not to censor, but to give people a heads up so they can avoid or prepare for a triggering factor that will literally make them re-experience trauma that will f&~$ them up).
2. See my above point about oppression versus offense. In any case, if you aim for offending "everyone," that necessarily includes oppressed groups. Mocking people with power and calling them out for s+$@ty behavior (which is certainly an offensive action toward them) is not equivalent to offensive sexist behavior. The notion of "it's fun to offend everyone!" is well within your rights, but recognize that "everyone" includes oppressed groups.3. Well, it's not really passive aggressive, is it? The X-Card has a direct function that is explained to the table, and is to be used not in place of talking, but as a supplement to talking. If someone at your table, one of your friends, asks you to stop doing something that's bothering them, is that also "censoring"? Perhaps, but it is a request for you to self-censor for the benefit of a social activity--the X-Card is not some magical compulsion effect that goes around suppressing your freedom of speech, it's a request that you can honor or not.
You are correct in assuming that I've never played with military people. However, I think the X-Card would be great for military players, considering the astounding rates of PTSD and rape that occur in the U.S. military (I don't know any stats on this in other militaries).
And, I'll just reinforce this point: the X-Card is just as "censoring" as someone asking with their words for something to stop--for high levels of gore, for phobias, etc.--and this tool makes games more accessible by making it easier for people with anxiety, trauma, and even just plain shyness to play games with people.
|
|
Honestly, I could never understand why people would want to put such real world issues like rape and stuff in their games anyway. I mean, YMMV and all, but I play games to escape from reality for a bit and enjoy worlds where Good(™) and Evil(™) exist in some PG, relatively innocent fantasy setting. I get enough in real life with the adult stuff, I don't need to know who my friend's paladin is attracted to or what gender the hobbit thinks he or she should have been born as, I just want to know that both want to save the world from Orcus or something.
I'm not saying that the characters cannot or should not have such back stories, I'm just saying I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, I play it to kill orcs and save the village.
Isn't it a great thing that people like different things in their entertainment? Whether it's rpgs or movies or books or tv shows.
I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, but I do like a bit more depth than just "kick down the door, kill the monster, take the treasure".
Like I said, YMMV. My games are a little deeper than that as well, lots of politics and such, but I just don't see the entertainment value of having rape and stuff in a game. And, what I meant about the characters' gender identity or orientation was basically why should anyone care that a character is like that? My games are asexual, in that I'm not going to really get into that side of the characters' lives in session much (I don't center plots around it, so why bother).
I hope it didn't come off as dismissive of diverse back stories and characteristics.
... But that damage is done whether the person doing the behavior intends to discriminate or not. (Leaving aside the question of whether you can call unintentional behavior discriminatory).
Going back to gaming: If you consider driving women away from gaming to be a bad thing, does it matter whether you'd classify the thing that drove them away as "offensive", that is not intended or "discriminatory", that is intended? The damage is still done. The woman is still pushed away. ...
If for no other reason than you are being discriminatory in order to attract women.
You are not saying, "Hey take a shower cause you stink and it bothers us."You are saying, "Hey take a shower cause I want some girls in the group."
I can see a hell of a lot of people ignoring the second. But after the first, most people I've met have started taking a shower or left the group.
... Again, I don't care what you call it. It's a real thing. It affects people in the real world. I'm not interested in parsing definitions. If women's input is not heard or taken less seriously in debate, if women exhibiting the same behavior as men are considered "pushy" (negative), while the men are considered "assertive" (positive), if preference in hiring/promotion skews towards men, those are problems and need to be addressed whether or not the people involved are aware of them or not. ...
I agree all of those are bad and need to be fixed. I'm not sure I agree that they are unintended or unaware though. I can see that someone doesn't want to admit or chooses to ignore why he's making a decision. But I'm not sure I can legitimacy he agree is unaware of it or didn't intend it.
The thing that got me thinking is the part about not knowing they had not participated as much. I had not heard that before. I'm honestly having difficulty wrapping my head around that. How can you think you talked more/less than you did because the other person is of a different gender?
Not saying they're lying or anything. It is just confusing me.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
... But that damage is done whether the person doing the behavior intends to discriminate or not. (Leaving aside the question of whether you can call unintentional behavior discriminatory).
Going back to gaming: If you consider driving women away from gaming to be a bad thing, does it matter whether you'd classify the thing that drove them away as "offensive", that is not intended or "discriminatory", that is intended? The damage is still done. The woman is still pushed away. ...
If for no other reason than you are being discriminatory in order to attract women.
You are not saying, "Hey take a shower cause you stink and it bothers us."
You are saying, "Hey take a shower cause I want some girls in the group."
I can see a hell of a lot of people ignoring the second. But after the first, most people I've met have started taking a shower or left the group.... Again, I don't care what you call it. It's a real thing. It affects people in the real world. I'm not interested in parsing definitions. If women's input is not heard or taken less seriously in debate, if women exhibiting the same behavior as men are considered "pushy" (negative), while the men are considered "assertive" (positive), if preference in hiring/promotion skews towards men, those are problems and need to be addressed whether or not the people involved are aware of them or not. ...I agree all of those are bad and need to be fixed. I'm not sure I agree that they are unintended or unaware though. I can see that someone doesn't want to admit or chooses to ignore why he's making a decision. But I'm not sure I can legitimacy he agree is unaware of it or didn't intend it.
The thing that got me thinking is the part about not knowing they had not participated as much. I had not heard that before. I'm honestly having difficulty wrapping my head around that. How can you think you talked more/less than you did because the other person is of a different gender?
To answer the bolded question: there was a study done (and there have been numerous studies done on this topic) that showed exactly this. It was linked to earlier in the thread. People had no idea it was occurring, but it did nonetheless.
EDIT: Sorry, I thought that link went to a different study. I'll find it if I can, but for now I'll just have to say: there was a study done that found that men tend to take more speaking time, and both men and women assumed that women talked more than those women actually did, and took up more than their fair share of talking time.
What do you think can be done to make roleplaying games more appealing to women (teenage and older)?
Be normal? I don't think there should be any special rules or pandering towards women, except to be respectful of course. But that should be towards all human beings.
Better yet, invite them to the table. The only reason why 3 of the players at my table are women is because I went out of my way to invite them to play and teach them the game. Roleplaying isn't something easy to pickup, the first time you play it's likely to be with friends and family.
So invite your (female) friends and family to play! Maybe starting with some boardgames and moving into a Pathfinder society game (using a pregen) where there is no commitment or work to be done. That's how you bring women (and people) into the hobby.
Honestly, I could never understand why people would want to put such real world issues like rape and stuff in their games anyway. I mean, YMMV and all, but I play games to escape from reality for a bit and enjoy worlds where Good(™) and Evil(™) exist in some PG, relatively innocent fantasy setting. I get enough in real life with the adult stuff, I don't need to know who my friend's paladin is attracted to or what gender the hobbit thinks he or she should have been born as, I just want to know that both want to save the world from Orcus or something.
I'm not saying that the characters cannot or should not have such back stories, I'm just saying I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, I play it to kill orcs and save the village.
Isn't it a great thing that people like different things in their entertainment? Whether it's rpgs or movies or books or tv shows.
I don't play RPGs to sort out social issues, but I do like a bit more depth than just "kick down the door, kill the monster, take the treasure".
Like I said, YMMV. My games are a little deeper than that as well, lots of politics and such, but I just don't see the entertainment value of having rape and stuff in a game. And, what I meant about the characters' gender identity or orientation was basically why should anyone care that a character is like that? My games are asexual, in that I'm not going to really get into that side of the characters' lives in session much (I don't center plots around it, so why bother).
I hope it didn't come off as dismissive of diverse back stories and characteristics.
Personally, I don't get into rape either.
Nor actual sex, but romance certainly has figured in. Which often does bring up orientation at least.
I haven't stayed in groups that get too graphic about things like that. I'm just not into it. I've been to group that go into extreme detail describing nearly everything (blood splatter in combats, exactly how torture, sex, rape, death throes, disease, disfigurement, etc... ).
Ok if you want to make a 'realistic' world, those things happen. That doesn't mean I want to immerse myself in the issue. Just make it an abstract 'off stage' event and not directly to a PC.
I will look for it to give it a detailed read later. It sounds interesting.
{Limit to what I can access at work.}
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sorta try to avoid this topics now as they get my rankles up... but I can't help it, because this always happens. Someone talks about how you can be more inclusive and the straight white guys inevitably bring up a ridiculous argument about how everyone needs to get over it and NOT being offensive would be its own form of discrimination by not treating people 'equally'. And I hate, hate, hate that argument with a passion.
Maybe there's a point, and maybe somebody gets to say that. But not you. Not me. Not us. Not the people whose entire lives have been defined by others going out of their way not to offend us.
Making a big budget Hollywood movie? Better not make it too black! Or only include women! Hell, you just better not even make it too 'girly' regardless of your male-to-female ratio.
Remember Magic Mike? How many of you actually saw it? Notice the actual ratio of male-to-female nudity in there? Even if you're targeting women in a provocative way you have to include something for their boyfriends in case they get 'dragged' along to see it. Ever see any such consideration given to women?
All this talk about sexy iconics and never once is it considered that it would actually be more than fair if Pathfinder never included a sexualized female character and only focused on the female gaze because it still wouldn't bring the industry close to parity. There was never a point at which heterosexual men were NOT considered as part of the target demographic. Can you say that about any other group?
Want to sell a predominately black musical genre to a white audience? It'd better have a white face stamped on it, even if they're despicable human beings. (Eminem springs to mind.)
Want to make feminism relevant to men? Better list the myriad ways that men are hurt by patriarchy, too - as if subjugating 51% of the population in the guise of tradition wasn't enough of a reason. And you'd better begin every single point by reminding men - mostly straight white men specifically, as the only group of people who predominately have so few actual problems that they have to go looking for them - that you don't hate them or aren't biased toward them.
Stop acting like being asked not to offend is hypersensitive or some great burden on you or like you're the "true" Egalitarian(TM) for not buying it. It's just people asking for the same basic courtesy we've taken for granted since we pretty much got control of the Western world 500 years ago. If we lived in a society that didn't do that, then you might have a case. But since you have ZERO idea what it's like to constantly be expected to just 'get over it' or being diminished, then no, you're not being fair when you're "equally" crude or belittling to everyone you meet. Especially when they're things that can only very specifically target someone for their gender - like rape, for instance - but ultimately no matter what the context.
I'm not entirely sure who that was directed at.
If it was me, that is not anywhere close to what I was trying to say and I'm not sure how you could take it like that. I am sorry if it came across that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Okay, couple of things. First of all, if players are offending others, how is that "having a good time with friends"? Second, it's really not about whether something is offensive (e.g. someone saying "F@*! you" or something), but rather about whether someone has said or done something a) oppressive (rather than offensive--the difference being between just hurting someone's feelings and reinforcing societally normalized forms of dehumanization/objectification/etc. whether it's in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, transmisogyny, what have you), or b) trauma-inducing (trigger warnings exist not to censor, but to give people a heads up so they can avoid or prepare for a triggering factor that will literally make them re-experience trauma that will f*~! them up).
This is part of the reason I have trouble believing any woman whenever she says she wants to be treated just like one of the guys. They never seem to understand that men are generally a!&&*%@s to their friends. Mocking and ridicule are some of the surest ways to know that you are an accepted part of a group. If I can't make an anti-Semitic joke with my Jewish friend, I question if we are actually friends. I'll joke with my gay friends to stop checking out my ass, and they will joke about how I'm not good enough for them. Like I said above, we through peanut M&Ms at my friend with a sever nut allergy.
At the same time, you pay attention to how people react. If someone goes cold after a dead baby joke, you don't make more. But you learn those boundaries though actually interacting with the people around you and poking them.
2. See my above point about oppression versus offense. In any case, if you aim for offending "everyone," that necessarily includes oppressed groups. Mocking people with power and calling them out for s%&&ty behavior (which is certainly an offensive action toward them) is not equivalent to offensive sexist behavior. The notion of "it's fun to offend everyone!" is well within your rights, but recognize that "everyone" includes oppressed groups.
So? If they are friends they will join in with their own insults and jokes and you will bond. If you cross the line, you will learn where the line is for them, and not cross it in the future. If they're not yet friends, you jumping the gun. You need to establish the relationship first.
3. Well, it's not really passive aggressive, is it? The X-Card has a direct function that is explained to the table, and is to be used not in place of talking, but as a supplement to talking. If someone at your table, one of your friends, asks you to stop doing something that's bothering them, is that also "censoring"? Perhaps, but it is a request for you to self-censor for the benefit of a social activity--the X-Card is not some magical compulsion effect that goes around suppressing your freedom of speech, it's a request that you can honor or not.
It puts a barrier between you and your friends that prevents you from bonding. The person you flag is either going to already know he went to far or be completely confused. It starts with a stage set for not offending people, putting people on the defensive before you even begin.
You are correct in assuming that I've never played with military people. However, I think the X-Card would be great for military players, considering the astounding rates of PTSD and rape that occur in the U.S. military (I don't know any stats on this in other militaries).
Game time isn't a therapy session. Its a time to shoot the s%#* with friends and make new ones. Just having the X-card rules sets the tone for the game in a way that will change how people will approach the game, and that will turn a lot of people off.
And, I'll just reinforce this point: the X-Card is just as "censoring" as someone asking with their words for something to stop--for high levels of gore, for phobias, etc.--and this tool makes games more accessible by making it easier for people with anxiety, trauma, and even just plain shyness to play games with people.
And it puts other people on the defensive, makes them uncomfortable because they feel like they have to watch what they say, and becomes a barrier for them to interact with others.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The obstacles women face at the gaming table are not limited to offensiveness, either giving or taking.
It's certainly a part of it for some, but I don't think the topic of offensiveness meaningfully captures the biggest issues here -- and issues it does address are pretty easily generalized, and can be found in lots of different demographics, not just women.
For my part, a lot of the girls I know are not into games not because they are offended, but because they feel excluded or unwelcome. This really has nothing to do with anyone being offended or offensive -- so that's kind of a trap line of discussion, as far as producing actual results here.
I'm not saying the above ideas are ineffective for dealing with potentially offensive situations. They're fine. I'm disagreeing that sensitivity is really the nature of the problem.
who makes dead baby jokes anymore? if you're going to use tasteless humor (or disgusting in the case of those jokes) at least keep current:-)
and throwing peanut M&Ms at someone with a known peanut allergy is dangerous, thoughtless, rude, cold-hearted... need i go on?
otherwise i get what you're saying, tho i'm not sure what an X card is, don't want to:)
i'm doing my part by playing with my wife and daughter:-)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To add: I'm a little bothered by the idea dominating this thread that what keeps women out of games is salty talk or lewdness, as though they are delicate flowers who might fan themselves and exclaim "my word!" and have a fainting spell. I call BS on that.
It's because guys get clubby and exclusive, and some even harbor an unapologetic sexism about the idea of allowing a girl at the table.
That tendency is what keeps women out of the hobby. Full stop. Including a girl I know who is quite happy to say things that would make a sailor blush.
All this talk about varying degrees of trauma and how to interact with sensitive people is GREAT, and worthy, and things I think that should be discussed. But they're not what's at issue with girls and RPGs. It's actually a lot simpler, and a lot more obvious than that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To add: I'm a little bothered by the idea dominating this thread that what keeps women out of games is salty talk or lewdness, as though they are delicate flowers who might fan themselves and exclaim "my word!" and have a fainting spell. I call BS on that.
Unless I've missed something, I don't think anybody actually believes this; rather, I think this is what the "Nuthin' needs to change" crowd pretends is being cited as the issue, because it's a lot easier to dismiss as ridiculous than the convention groping and the selective PC rape and the assumptions of incompetence and so on and so forth.
Some women in this thread: "The game would be more accessible to women if there weren't men trying to grope us, rape our characters, and talk down to us like we're completely ignorant."
Certain male respondents: "You want us to stop cussing? That's ridiculous because XYZ, which now means I've proven there's not an issue so if you still say there is then you're against honest criticism of your ideas."
Then I would absolutely be the one to say: something needs to change, and it ain't that.
The sensitivity issue is one that's worth discussing, but it really cuts across all genders.
In this case, I think it's being used as a kind of misdirection which diverts us from the rather obvious cause and solution to the problem: stop excluding women, and more women will play.
Gamers have to do this. Game companies can lead the way, but the gamers themselves need to do this.
Getting people into games where the offensiveness level matches their sensibilities isn't really what's keeping women out of games. It doesn't help, but it's not the source of the problem.
To add: I'm a little bothered by the idea dominating this thread that what keeps women out of games is salty talk or lewdness, as though they are delicate flowers who might fan themselves and exclaim "my word!" and have a fainting spell. I call BS on that.Unless I've missed something, I don't think anybody actually believes this; rather, I think this is what the "Nuthin' needs to change" crowd pretends is being cited as the issue, because it's a lot easier to dismiss as ridiculous than the convention groping and the selective PC rape and the assumptions of incompetence and so on and so forth.
Some women in this thread: "The game would be more accessible to women if there weren't men trying to grope us, rape our characters, and talk down to us like we're completely ignorant."
Certain male respondents: "You want us to stop cussing? That's ridiculous because XYZ, which now means I've proven there's not an issue so if you still say there is then you're against honest criticism of your ideas."
I think you are getting 2 conversations crossed.
I think you are getting 2 conversations crossed.In a 230-post thread? Poppycock! ;)
If you can get it better-sorted, by all means, be my guest!
No, no, this is something very good to keep in mind.
Long threads plus intense topics tend to get confused like that. Everyone self-check.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.
;-)
Okay. So what about the ones that do want to play and feel excluded, hazed, and harassed by male gamers?
|
|
Okie dokie, Caineach. What I'm getting from this is:
1. You and your friends interact very differently than my friends and I. So your generalizations about "this is how friends interact" aren't applicable across the board, and doesn't really address the issue of inclusivity.
2. Partly due to how you've described your friendships, and partly due to the fact that you're someone who seriously uses the phrase "I have trouble believing any woman whenever she says...", among other things, makes me strongly uninterested in playing any game with you.
3. Do you act this way in public? Would you encourage this behavior at a public game or a con?I'm just going to throw this out there: the fact that gaming is a mostly male thing is not bad. The fact that any particular thing that is male is mostly male is not bad.Why?
Because? Not everyone has to like everything. My wife loves Investigation Discovery and The Bachelor, she doesn't really care if I do. She has some interest in trying out my hobbies (she'll give gaming a shot if I can find the time to start a new game, and is interested in learning pinochle), but if she doesn't wind up finding them fun, I'm not going to worry too much about it
Inclusiveness is fine, but it doesn't have to be forced.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. So what about the ones that do want to play and feel excluded, hazed, and harassed by male gamers?You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.
;-)
Try to find a cool group? I've never had a problem with women in games I've run (other than with one idiot that, I am ashamed to admit, I specifically targeted at a PFS game just to get him off the table to stop him from creeping out the females), and only a few times at others' tables (one of whom is/was a regular poster here and I agree with her perception 100%).
Now, just because I haven't had much issue doesn't mean there aren't issues, but sometimes it might take time to find a good group. Also, nothing is keeping women from running their own games without cretins being at the table.
Let morons live in their own little headspace and find compatible people. If you a social activist person that is sensitive to obliviousness or unintended offense, don't play with people who aren't thoughtful. You're not going to change them, and if your outlook prevents them from playing something they find fun (no matter how juvenile or graphic), you're just ruining it for them like they did for you.
The bottom line is, no one really owes it to anyone to include them at their specific table. It's on the person wanting to enjoy the hobby to find people they can play with.
You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.
;-)
It's just possible that a lot of women just don't have any interest in hard science fields. That's why there are so few studying or working there.
Said by so many people over decades as the percent of women in those fields keeps rising.
I think there are countless psychological traits that can be present in a human mind. And while none of those traits are gender-exclusive, many of them are far more common in one gender or another.
I doubt misogyny and misandry is the main reason why we have more male engineers and more female nurses. The whole idea behind gender equality is giving everyone the choice to follow whatever path they want, not trying and force every field of work to have a 50-50 distribution. That'll never happen, no matter how advanced or progressive a society is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes being welcoming doesn't look the way you think it would. I used to run sessions at the apartment of an all but married couple, the dude of whom played while the chick looked on and offered thoughts in general and advice in specific to the players. Eventually I said, "Look, Janine (not her name) if you want to be this involved, you're gonna have to roll up a character, okay?!"
So she did.
I was sort of scolding her when I made the offer, but she took me up on it and turned out to be a great player. We haven't kept in touch, but I hope she still games.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt misogyny and misandry is the main reason why we have more male engineers and more female nurses. The whole idea behind gender equality is giving everyone the choice to follow whatever path they want, not try and force every field of work to have a 50-50 distribution. That'll never happen, no matter how advanced or progressive a society is.
I have direct experience that indicates misogyny is a huge force against women trying to make it in technical fields, actually.
There's a feedback loop which is fueled by stereotypes. My girlfriend will create an entire website (backend CMS stuff in C# and all), and then watch as every male on the team gets congratulated for her work just because the person involved cannot conceive that it was she that did the work.
That's everywhere, and you'd better believe it has an effect on the motivation of the women who try to break in.
|
|
Sometimes being welcoming doesn't look the way you think it would. I used to run sessions at the apartment of an all but married couple, the dude of whom played while the chick looked on and offered thoughts in general and advice in specific to the players. Eventually I said, "Look, Janine (not her name) if you want to be this involved, you're gonna have to roll up a character, okay?!"
So she did.
I was sort of scolding her when I made the offer, but she took me up on it and turned out to be a great player. We haven't kept in touch, but I hope she still games.
Awesome anecdote. Thanks :-)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it is also possible that a lot of women just had zero interest in playing TTRPGs, no matter how much they're into Game of Thrones and anime. Maybe they just think it is a level of dorky they don't want to explore.
;-)
It's just possible that a lot of women just don't have any interest in hard science fields. That's why there are so few studying or working there.
Said by so many people over decades as the percent of women in those fields keeps rising.
I think there are countless psychological traits that can be present in a human mind. And while none of those traits are gender-exclusive, many of them are far more common in one gender or another.
I doubt misogyny and misandry is the main reason why we have more male engineers and more female nurses. The whole idea behind gender equality is giving everyone the choice to follow whatever path they want, not try and force every field of work to have a 50-50 distribution. That'll never happen, no matter how advanced or progressive a society is.
Actually, misogyny is exactly the reason for job distribution. The majority of computer programmers were female because software was considered less important than hardware. Once people realized how vital programming was to comp-sci, women were driven out.
Doctors generally make very good wages and are well-respected experts in a society. But in Russia, doctors are paid way less than doctors in other western countries. Tell me if you saw this coming: in countries where doctors are respected and well-paid, most doctors are male. In Russia, most doctors are female. Sexism puts up barriers to keep non-male people out of certain jobs. Also, the data shows that when women enter a given field in larger numbers such that they become the majority, societal respect and pay for jobs in that field decrease.
No one is asking for a literal 50/50 split of male/female in TTRPG's (I'd also like everyone to recognize and respect nonbinary genders in games, and in general, so let's call it a 47.5/47.5/5 split). But it could get a lot closer by curtailing sexist behavior within that community. To suggest that a significant difference in gaming interest is due to some inherent quality of gender rather than (often misogynistic) culture is, well, laughable.
I agree with MEL, I've heard too many stories of how tech dudes treat tech chicks to even consider there is exaggeration involved. It appears that a lot of computer geeks might be a bit socially inept and oblivious, if not downright misogynistic.
Bear in mind, in the above example, it's not even the tech guys who are doing it. She's earned their respect. It's the non-techies who are oblivious.
By way of bringing it back to RPGs though, the problem is similar.
The perception of exclusivity is as bad or worse than actual exclusivity. It leads to a situation where a female someone might actually want to play, and a group of (normal, well-adjusted) dudes might actually want to include them, but now there's a stereotype and fear to even ask.
That's the kind of thing I think is really going on here... I don't think it's necessarily about sensitivity. More like exclusivity and persistent stereotypes. And like all stereotypes, it's hard to break when you sometimes get the genuine article.