I wonder if some women are put off gaming because it's considered by many to be uncool and played by nerds. In other words, some would consider that it's played by the socially inept and would be boring. Is roleplaying still stereotyped with this poor image? I don't know that if I was still single, whether I would admit to being a roleplayer on a first date.
So the question in my mind is to whether the "brand" image of roleplaying puts women off playing and if this is true, what could be done about it?
|
On the flip side of this, and please don't attack me for it. My home group is an all male group. We're late 30's early 40's and most are married with kids.
We game as escapism. It's our equivalent of the friday night card game. We get together, laugh, roll dice and kill things in a fantasy world. Often we get outrageous in our antics in game and say the most amazingly politically incorrect things to each other, as parody rather than true belief.
We do this to let off steam. Nearly all of us are in jobs where we work with people of all genders. Political correctness has gotten so intense now that you almost constantly have to guard what is said all the time. To the point where some conversations becomes meaningless fencing around difficult topics.
As such, our roleplay is our Man Cave, so to speak. It's where we go to be men, in the presence of other men, where the things we say don't offend anyone. It's blowing off steam.
I we had a woman join our group, this dynamic would completely change. We wouldn't carry on like that in front of women because we understand it's stupid and rude. I don't think for our private home game we're going to try and recruit a woman, because we don't want this escape from society to end.
Sometimes men need to be stupid and rude in front of each other though. It's why we go camping, or fishing or hunting together.
This is not advocating behaviour like this in public groups, but I think it needs to be said.
Hope I got my point across without sounding like some sexist mysogonist. I'm certainly not one of those. But just like women have a certain psychology to how they want to be treated, men have a certain way we occasionally like to act. It's stupid, sure, but it's what men do. Those of us who understand the need for the behaviour do so without the women in our lives being subjected to it. The women in our lives understand our need to do so occasionally. Works for us.
I'd just like to point out, though it's probably implied, that all applies to some men, not all men. I prefer mixed groups for almost all activities and am probably more comfortable with groups of women than with all male groups.
I've got no need to hang out in the Man Cave where women aren't allowed. I don't enjoy the locker room atmosphere of the Man Cave. I don't guard what I say around women more than I do around men, it's far more about how well I know the person.Just another data point.
I would say I am pretty similar to The Jeff in this regard, only I'm equally comfortable with men or women.
I find the idea that being a man prevents me from reading the behaviour of a woman and responding appropriately to be a strange idea.
Of course, I get things wrong, but it seems like I misread men and women to a pretty equal amount.
It's not a particularly deep point but at the game table, as in the rest of life, it is the rich variety of our personalities which is half the fun.
|
|
Nobody is taking anything away from you and in the end you gain....
You gain more product and the talent pool becomes larger... We have Lisa, Lilith, Judy and all the other cool staff at Paizo. Imagine how many more women game Devs and Freelancers and cartographers that are out there but dont know it yet.
Think of this as an investment in the hobby.... a kick-starter.
I'm not taking about taking anything away from anybody. The optics of gender specific gaming for only half feels wrong to me. Just like a boys only thing feels wrong to me.
If somebody want to do it as a private venture, and create girl only gamer groups that all played together without men I'd feel kinda sad because we'd be missing out on the coolness and creativity that would come from a balanced group.
That said I don't have some sort of super strong objection to it. Private clubs can decide to do what they want to do. When it comes to something corporate backed by Paizo, I wouldn't be comfortable with the same thing. There is an important nuance there.
The intent is not to develop a whole parallel women only system, but beginner/intro games where a women can start to get into the hobby without also having to deal with the pressure of being the only woman in group of strange men. Once they're hooked on gaming, then they'll want to play more which means they'll be fine with playing in other groups. Once you know you like something, it's harder to get scared off than when you're just thinking about trying it.
There's no need for men-only games because the parallel situation is so rare. There are plenty of spontaneous unenforced male only games and it's rare at public events for a new male player to wind up at a female dominated table. If that changes then it might be worth having male only events. At the moment, it just isn't an issue.
I dislike it on multiple levels, from basic fairness to creating a bait-n-switch of expectations to the inevitable "now you're ready to go to Advanced Pathfinder and play with males!"
For any new player, male or female, it's best if they have a friend or family member teach them and play with them, rather than stick them in a group of strangers by themself. Or maybe 2 or 3 or more female friends all want to learn to play together, partly for moral support and so 1 isn't possibly "the only girl there". That is entirely up to them and there's nothing wrong with that, they are good ideas. I've DMed everything from a husband teaching his wife to play to a father teaching his son, and it does work better if they have a familiar face there to help out at first. Maybe encourage pairs of people to get together like that, 1 experienced player with 1 new one, 3 pairs to a group + 1 GM. That should certainly work against an intimidating atmosphere IMO, and yet it doesn't require excluding people based on gender.
Madscientist that's fine, but it behooves one to consider that if you throw a 'social handgrenade' into a conversation one of the casualties of doing so might be the conversation itself.
A little sensitivity goes a long way.
How is it a social handgrenade? I would argue that RPGs are some of the most white male dominated and white male privileged hobbies out there. And please don't whine about sensitivity. I don't really want to be charitable to the large number of people who will defend Paizo's inclusion of orc rape in the game.
Jessica mentioned a statistic earlier in this thread: 1 in 5 women have been raped.
And yet there is a rape baby race in the default book in the game.
You write IMO, but you don't actually think about what it means. It's your opinion. And in this context YOUR opinion is worthless. You don't know what it's like. I don't care how smart you are. How experienced you are. How sensitive you are. How you were bullied or made fun of for x or y problem you have. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!
So stop telling the women here that their experiences and reactions to those experiences are invalid. You ARE the problem. Just stop.
Let THEM, tell US, what would make THEM feel better. You can disagree and not do it, but you CAN'T tell them they are wrong. That you know better than they do what would make them feel better. .
Stop it.
|
|
You write IMO, but you don't actually think about what it means. It's your opinion. And in this context YOUR opinion is worthless. You don't know what it's like. I don't care how smart you are. How experienced you are. How sensitive you are. How you were bullied or made fun of for x or y problem you have. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!
So stop telling the women here that their experiences and reactions to those experiences are invalid. You ARE the problem. Just stop.
Let THEM, tell US, what would make THEM feel better. You can disagree and not do it, but you CAN'T tell them they are wrong. That you know better than they do what would make them feel better. .
Stop it.
I don't even know who you are talking to, no one is saying their experiences are "invalid", and no one here is "the problem", and no one here needs to "stop it", unless I missed something that was erased?
This is a discussion, a sharing of ideas and opinions. No one's saying theirs is the only valid opinion or idea.
We are talking about how to make it easier to get into roleplaying for new players and GMs (and whether there are/should be any differences between a generic effort to get/teach more players and one targeted at women).
For instance, if a version of the Pathfinder Beginner Box were made "for women", with all female characters, a female-specific intro-scenario, etc, would that be good idea? I think it'd be patronizing, myself. There are female iconic characters in the "box for everyone", it's not like they needed to make a new male iconic cleric and rogue in order to get men to play it. Do you think a "pink box" intro-set with new female wizard and fighter iconics would do any good at drawing female players?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, doesn't that apply to you too?
Here is the issue. A premise was presented (as fact and nearly universal), and any time anyone challenges that premise, shows evidence against it, disporves it, or disagrees with it, or some of it's foundations, they are censured or told they are off topic. When they show that they are on-topic, but it's more like things that the other side doesn't want to hear or have to deal with, then the goal posts get moved. When that happens, then it further shows some of the issues with the original premise, but still, one isn't allowed to argue or discuss the stability of the actual premise, (off-topic for discussing aspects directly related to the topic).
Then, certain terms are through in, (again as indisputable fact), that have a lot of intended or insinuated extra meaning, do not jive with people's actual experience, but instead point to either alienating one group to raise another, applying things to enite groups as if universal or nearly so, and expecting that said groups are not able to defend themselves, accept it or move on. The original premise is not really proved either, just sort of placed in a lofty is-true-by-it's-nature status. Now, if that is that actual goal, fine, just say it up front and stick to it. Establish this is a not-General Discussion topic, but rather something more like a Paizo Blog post people are not suppossed to respond to, and really intended for female gamers only or something along those lines. Or create a more gender-neutral, less sexist topic where the arguements and counter-arguements can respectfully and politely respnd to each other without being censured, uness they really should be for language or personal attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So stop telling the women here that their experiences and reactions to those experiences are invalid.
The only person I see telling people their experiences are invalid is you.
YOUR opinion is worthless. You don't know what it's like. I don't care how smart you are. How experienced you are. How sensitive you are. How you were bullied or made fun of for x or y problem you have. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!
If you want to keep this thread civil, I recommend you take a deep breath, take your finger off the caps lock button, and talk to people like they're people, and not "the problem."
|
|
Again, if you want to attract more female players, you might want to listen to the women.
I agree that a pink box set would be patronizing. Has that been suggested by a woman saying it would have helped bring her into the game? Has it been suggested by anyone except men denigrating the idea? How is that helpful?
Another issue really in itself. Just like with guys, gals just do not feel the same way about a topic. A few women I've talked to about things very similar to this show essentually an even split between 3 groups. (I'll use the pink, designed for woman car as an example).
Group A: That is a little sexist (not knowing it was designed by woman, not men)
Group B: That is awesome, I'd buy it.
Group C: I don't care either way.
Group A is by far the most vocal, and also tends to presume to speak for all groups, (in the sense that all the other's are on their side). They are usually also a minority, but believe they are a majority. In the end, it's simply a matter of preference, and gender has nothing to do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most gamers I have meet at a table are the most nice people you could ever meet. In more than 20 years I have never even seen a case of a woman being harassed at any table. The problem I have seen the most is women coming over and making fun of the role players because that is seen as a nerd hobby and even that is very rare. But that is only my experience. I have never agreed with the whole gamers are sexist debate. Its getting kind off old.
|
Well, I think a good way to get more women into gaming would be to market to them outside the usual gaming space. Like, maybe put the Pathfinder beginner box into the board game section of toy stores, or sell it at school book fairs, and include something in it on where they can find more Pathfinder-related material (IE, Paizo's website, gaming stores, the PRD, ect.).
And, of course, I do acknowledge that I have more privilege than others due to being a male, since I'm pretty sure nobody's ever groped me or told me to stay in the kitchen, though I think the drawbacks from my "Aspergers-induced social flubbery" kind of cancels out the benefits from my male privelege kinda like matter and anti-matter.
But, I have heard a lot of horror stories of misogyny, especially on the "That Guy" threads on 4chan's /tg/ board (Where they talk about horrifyingly unpleasant players and DMs). I know of one in four parts, that's especially, nastily relevant, though it is from the perspective of the male player who rebelled against the pervy DM.
I do think for the most part, Paizo is Doin It Rite, and I can't think of any ways in which they can improve that they aren't already doing except for to maybe add some pics with more female gaze. Because some hetero women like fanservice too yanno?
Well, I think a good way to get more women into gaming would be to market to them outside the usual gaming space. Like, maybe put the Pathfinder beginner box into the board game section of toy stores, or sell it at school book fairs, and include something in it on where they can find more Pathfinder-related material (IE, Paizo's website, gaming stores, the PRD, ect.).
A great idea. I don't think gaming needs to get out of the basement so much as it needs to get into Target and other such stores.
That said, aren't the good people at Paizo already working on a board game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So stop telling the women here that their experiences and reactions to those experiences are invalid.
The only person I see telling people their experiences are invalid is you.
If you want to keep this thread civil, I recommend you take a deep breath, take your finger off the caps lock button, and talk to people like they're people, and not "the problem."YOUR opinion is worthless. You don't know what it's like. I don't care how smart you are. How experienced you are. How sensitive you are. How you were bullied or made fun of for x or y problem you have. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!
When a women suggests that an all female game night would be helpful and a male responds with, "What's REALLY best for you is a mixed game night." That's invalidating their experience. If you're not seeing it, it's because you're not paying attention. And that's the crux of this issue. We all need to pay a bit more attention.
I'm not telling anyone their experience is invalid, I'm telling them that their application of that experience onto people and situations they do not understand is invalid.
Now I'm gonna take my own advice and hush up.
You can also show them episodes of "standard action" on youtube, which is actually produced by this totally awesome person named mighty Joanna which by incident happens to be a female player who is totally enjoying herself and gaming.
Some web-comics might also be suited. But then, maybe one named Oglaf not so much, depending on the tempers^^
Edit: Oh something just came to my mind. It might sound silly, but it´s only a try. Since there is definately something like "male fantasy", start a research about "female fantasy". Simple facts about the fiction in the game which especially appeal to women of all sorts. That might be super interesting and i might just be doing that at some point this year.
One thing i can already tell that some are keen on things like cat familiars.
I mean, after all, the game is all about impersonating someone else you think is awesome and you can´t really be in real life. The foundations of this game undoubtedly lie in a male dominated domain and mainly males were involved as far as i know. Even this changed a lot with Paizo, there is probably a lot of space left to improve.
It's "not about me" in the same way a male-only golf club or military academy isn't about women. Sorry ladies, but if you are going to kick in the doors of every single men's institution and group, demanding membership and forcing your way in simply because its there even when "it's not about you", then equality means the same right back. "Female-only" public game...
Your analogy fails for one major reason: The exclusive golf-club and military academy are elements of the power structure of society.
Golf clubs aren't like kickball leagues. They are places where wealthy and powerful people get together and socialize. The effects of being members of the same organization are pretty powerful, even large and varied organizations increase the odds that you will look favorably on someone you've never met from the same organization. Like university graduates, being from the same university as the HR director can increase your odds of getting the job.
Excluding people from an organization of wealthy and powerful people reduces the chances that the excluded will also become wealthy and powerful.
The same thing applies to the military academy. West Point graduates used to be much more likely to receive top promotions. Of the 38 men to hold the position of Chief of Staff of the Army:
9 Did not attend West Point
3 of them received their comission during the Civil War
2 others went to other prestigious military academies
West Point does not exist to make men feel better about being men. It also shouldn't exist to establish men as higher in the pecking order of the army.
So no, those organisations aren't "about women", but they are about power and influence. I'd love to hear a rationalization for why only men should have access to power and influence.
Women are often intimidated at male-dominated organisations. I don't just mean that men are intentionally intimidating, but rather that sometimes women just feel like an outsider if they're the only woman at the table. If they're not familiar with the game and everyone else is, that can also be intimidating. Now we're layering on levels of intimidation. A women's only game night is an attempt to remove one of those layers, that way more women can show up on nights other than the "women's only night", which makes those nights less intimidating for other women, which eventually removes the need for a "women's only night".
Events that encourage more women to play games are good for our hobby.
|
|
When a women suggests that an all female game night would be helpful and a male responds with, "What's REALLY best for you is a mixed game night." That's invalidating their experience. If you're not seeing it, it's because you're not paying attention. And that's the crux of this issue. We all need to pay a bit more attention.I'm not telling anyone their experience is invalid, I'm telling them that their application of that experience onto people and situations they do not understand is invalid.
Now I'm gonna take my own advice and hush up.
I'm trying to respond to fellow gamers as to what in my experience works best for introducing new players and GMs to gaming. I ran 4e Encounters at my FLGS for years and had a great deal of experience introducing new people to gaming for the 1st time... all kinds of people, from 10 year old kids to 40 year olds who hadn't played in decades, both males and females, we even had a blind woman who played with us for a long time.
You know what, in my experience, works best with new players? Doing everything you can to treat the people as an equal fellow gamer. Don't talk down to them, or treat them with kid gloves or reverence or awe, just treat them like anyone else. Also, pairing up an experienced gamer to help them out, offer advice, have someone to turn to for questions without interrupting the game too much, etc.
I find a public, openly-stated "women-only game" to be as offensive as you might find a public "whites-only game". Sorry, but that's just how I see it, and I will call it as I see it. It might make the players feel a little "safer" to say and do things they otherwise might not in mixed company, but it's not something I'll support and it does more harm than good IMO. One of the great things about RPGs is that they are a social gathering of various people. Some people may be jerks, yeah, but when you start excluding entire swaths of people based on superficial features they were born with, whether that's race, gender, or whatever, you are closing yourself off from greater human interaction. You don't "increase diversity" by segregation. You don't promote "equality" by unequal treatment. This isn't a sporting competition, this is sitting around talking and imagining, there's no reason why mature men and women can't do that together, and I feel it detracts from both men and women if you segregate them.
|
|
I agree, and will also add that it both sets unrealistic expectations for everything thereafter, as well as further hurts anyone else that is not incuded in such games, (male and female) by presenting a false sense of "security". It promotes a different form of segregation as well, spliting the fan base.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a women suggests that an all female game night would be helpful and a male responds with, "What's REALLY best for you is a mixed game night." That's invalidating their experience. If you're not seeing it, it's because you're not paying attention. And that's the crux of this issue. We all need to pay a bit more attention.I'm not telling anyone their experience is invalid, I'm telling them that their application of that experience onto people and situations they do not understand is invalid.
Now I'm gonna take my own advice and hush up.
I'm trying to respond to fellow gamers as to what in my experience works best for introducing new players and GMs to gaming. I ran 4e Encounters at my FLGS for years and had a great deal of experience introducing new people to gaming for the 1st time... all kinds of people, from 10 year old kids to 40 year olds who hadn't played in decades, both males and females, we even had a blind woman who played with us for a long time.
You know what, in my experience, works best with new players? Doing everything you can to treat the people as an equal fellow gamer. Don't talk down to them, or treat them with kid gloves or reverence or awe, just treat them like anyone else. Also, pairing up an experienced gamer to help them out, offer advice, have someone to turn to for questions without interrupting the game too much, etc.
I find a public, openly-stated "women-only game" to be as offensive as you might find a public "whites-only game". Sorry, but that's just how I see it, and I will call it as I see it. It might make the players feel a little "safer" to say and do things they otherwise might not in mixed company, but it's not something I'll support and it does more harm than good IMO. One of the great things about RPGs is that they are a social gathering of various people. Some people may be jerks, yeah, but when you start excluding entire swaths of people based on superficial features they were born with, whether...
We all have varying degrees of experience in playing games, running games, introducing new people to games, and being the new people at games. No one is trying to diminish your experience or the potential value it may have.
But in your 20 years of gaming, and your years of 4e encounters, I can guarantee that you've never had the experience of being a female gamer. Neither have I.
Since you lack that perspective, and the question at hand is what can be done to make a more welcoming environment for female gamers, why do you demand so adamantly that your opinion be given equal weight to the stated opinions of people who actually know from their own experiences what they would like best?
Would you demand your medical opinion be given equal weight to your doctor's, or would you defer to his years of experience in the medical field? What about your legal opinion, as compared to your lawyer? We have certified expert females on this board who are trying to offer their perspectives, and are being shouted down and counter-manded by people who, while they have undeniable experience, lack the critical experience and perspective to the question at hand.
Why can't you just set back and take them at their word as to what they want and what they think may be best for others in their situation? Do you really think you know better what it's like to be them than they do?
|
|
Well, I can say that (in the interests of getting more womn into the game) that there was one company and it's product line that both did this and is fairly well known for it. White Wolf's original WoD lines significantly increased the female fanbase, as well as introduced a lot of womn to the hobby in general by making their games much more focused on the story rather than rules, by really focusing on social experience and rules as a significant part of the game, by including reasons where males and females ar different, not better or worse, but have differences that can be strengths and weaknesses depending, and making the game about personal issues rather than exceptional heroes.
Another aspect I've often heard from a significant amount of women players as well as men, is that another major aspect that braught them to (o/c)WoD games is that it was set in a much more realistic world. Both in the modern sense, and also it was something they could relate to. It didn't shirk aspects and show only the good sides of others, but rather presented everything as both consisting of corrupt people and trueblue individuals, (though it did often make jabs at religions), it showed the good and bad about political groups, religions, feminism, racist groups, whatever.
One last thing I can think of I've heard mentioned and I agree with was that the WoD was much more of a "yes you can, but. . ." mentality rather than "No, not in ______ (Golarion for eample), but you can do this other thing instead" sort of mentality, in the game itself.
I'm not suggesting playing WoD instead as much as these are some of the thing that worked for some (female) gamers, and maybe there is something there that could be developed more. (Also ironic that some Paiso staff have a history of old school White Wolf employent, :), it seems this would have been mentioned earlier).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all have varying degrees of experience in playing games, running games, introducing new people to games, and being the new people at games. No one is trying to diminish your experience or the potential value it may have.
But in your 20 years of gaming, and your years of 4e encounters, I can guarantee that you've never had the experience of being a female gamer. Neither have I.
Since you lack that perspective, and the question at hand is what can be done to make a more welcoming environment for female gamers, why do you demand so adamantly that your opinion be given equal weight to the stated opinions of people who actually know from their own experiences what they would like best?
Would you demand your medical opinion be given equal weight to your doctor's, or would you defer to his years of experience in the medical field? What about your legal opinion, as compared to your lawyer? We have certified expert females on this board who are trying to offer their perspectives, and are being shouted down and counter-manded by people who, while they have undeniable experience, lack the critical experience and perspective to the question at hand.
Why can't you just set back and take them at their word as to what they want and what they think may be best for others in their situation? Do you really think you know better what it's like to be them than they do?
32 years of experience gaming, not 20. I started playing in 1981 with the Erol Otis cover basic set.
If we are talking about getting new players into the game, then I and many others here do have relevant experience. It's only if you believe women are such extraordinary, unique, and unfathomable creatures as to need special segregated groups and playing areas and incentives that it might not be relevant.
Tell me this... if there were a discussion on how boys are getting into video games more than role-playing, and how we might best get boys to join the hobby, and a woman with decades of gaming experience offered her perspective, would you say "Hey, hold on a minute, you may have years of experience as a female gamer, but you've never been a boy, you can't understand boys, and so your thoughts and ideas are irrelevant. Let the men speak, they've been boys, they know what they are talking about!" Heck no you wouldn't, right?
If whites wanted a whites-only public game, and said they just didn't feel comfortable playing with players of other races, would you support that? Again, I don't think so.
Look, I'm just 1 guy on the internet voicing my opinion. If Paizo or a con wants to do a women's only game, they will, no matter what I say to the contrary. I'm not stopping anyone from anything, I'm just offering my opinions, they can take 'em or leave 'em.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope I can offer another perspective on the man-only/woman-only grouping... (with hope it does not devolve into a flamewar)
Are only women allowed to play/attend? If so, and you are fine with that, I assume you'd also be fine with a "men's night" that excluded all female gamers? Or would that be unfair and exclusionary?
Actually, I would absolutely be fine with that. If the men involved are upfront and clear that they want a "men's night out" and an opportunity to do same-sex peer bonding, and gaming happens to be the focus, that's totally fine with me. Male bonding groups are a common thing and are actually a good thing to encourage, because men are often in our society encouraged to "do it alone" and "man up" to deal with any issues they have on their own, which is often very behaviorally unhealthy (and may in fact contribute to why male suicide rates are so high).
Same-sex peer bonding can be a good thing.
WHY they are actually a good thing and are needed for men or for women... or for trans-folk or genderqueer folk... may differ. The latter, as more frequently oppressed groups, may feel the need for a "safe space." This is a good thing to encourage. Men, while they usually have more privilege (NOT a dirty word or intended to make anyone guilty for having it, because most of us have some kind of privilege or another), still also need their own space to explore their own needs and desires as a group. I guess it is a "safe space" but in a different way and for a different reason.
It's also just like we have men's magazines and women's magazines, and men's clubs or women's clubs, or men's sports teams and women's sports teams. It isn't necessarily to be sexist or exclusionary, but more about exploring what (occasional) benefits there are to homogeneity--AS LONG AS SUCH SEPARATION IS NOT ENCOURAGED TO BE THE BROAD, SOCIAL NORM.
There is a difference between say, having a "men's knitting club" and a "women's knitting club" (things that do exist), versus saying all men should be separated from all women all the time.
And the reason for having same sex peer groups should be about encouraging bonding and teaching each other, it should NOT be about exclusion.
The proposed women's gaming group is not about exclusion. In other words, it is not designed with exclusivity or sexism in mind. It is designed with the positive benefits a same-sex bonding group can provide for an individual, understanding that it is a group with a brief and specific purpose and does not exist to encourage women to be exclusivist or intolerant in their daily lives.
If a men's gaming group formed with a similar purpose, again, I think that is totally fine.
If someone takes offense to the idea that the opposite sex needs opportunities for bonding with each other, then that's the problem of the person taking offense, because they are selfishly overlooking the positive reasons for this group existing. Especially in cases like the gaming group proposal, where the "excluded" knows they can find a coed group for their own enjoyment easily enough.
In both cases, the intention needs to be clear. It's not about putting a "no girls/boys' allowed" sign up.
But if men got together to play and they said they were just getting together to play and that there was no other purpose, and technically by all appearances "anyone was welcome," and then a woman asked if she could join, and they said, "NO, THIS IS A GAME FOR BOYS, GO AWAY," then that is offensive and sexist and exclusionary. And for the record, that very thing happened to me personally, and is the reason why there is an eight year gap between when I first started purchasing table top RPGs and when I first started playing them with other people.
And a group of women who did the same thing would also be unfairly exclusive. , so if you see it that way, then you are missing a huge, huge part of the picture.
=====
And a little more on why in particular, having some women's groups (or insert often-oppressed-groups here) is a good thing... a historical anecdote:
Background first: I am a (liberal/Hicksite) Quaker. My religious community is known amongst other things for its testimony of Equality--the idea that God (or an Inner Light for a less theistic view)--is in every person, and thus all should be seen as equals, beyond superficial designations of gender, class, race, etc. (We are not perfect at upholding this, but we try.) We also don't have traditional clergy--instead, a person who feels moved by the Light speaks during meeting for worship and delivers their "sermon" as it comes to them. Thus all members are essentially the community's ministers. ((As an aside, some modern groups of Quakers--very large ones in fact--do have pastors, but the idea of the "lay ministry" is still part of the fabric of their beliefs.))
Back in the early days of Quakerism (1600-1700s), men and women worshiped in segregation -- meeting houses were designed with a divider down the middle (that could be opened), and women sat on one side and men on the other in worship.
At a time in history where women were typically seen as "lesser," one might assume that the separation was because women were believed to not have as good ministry as the men, or what-have-you--but in fact that was not the case.
At this time, most women were converts, and raised to believe that not only indeed were they "lesser," but especially that women were not worthy of praying aloud or to be gifted with the qualities of the priesthood (in part due to some dodgily transcribed/translated passages in some of the Letters of Paul). Quakers, even in these early times, felt this was not the case, and cited other passages of the Bible and the existence of Mary Magdalene and other female followers of Jesus to show that women should be encouraged to develop their potential for ministry as much as men. But women typically felt afraid to share what gifts of ministry they might have, especially in front of their "betters" (the men).
The segregation at worship made women feel more confident about sharing their gifts of ministry, because what made them afraid to speak (the menfolk) were somewhat removed from them. Over time, they became strong and passionate ministers along with the male ministers in the community (and many major leaders in Quakerism were women). Quaker women, who were also put in charge of certain business matters like religious education, also learned to lead and act on business matters and administration, something not encouraged in society as a whole in time.
Over time, Quaker women became influential in both their own community as leaders and educators, and were often willing to speak up when women weren't. They became well known for their work in educating those who would not be educated by "the system" at the time (including other women, as well as the poor and minorities), and went to women's prisons to teach prisoners skills so that when they were released, the women had a means of supporting themselves.
(It's also worth noting that down the line, these Quaker women who became unafraid to speak, eventually in another hundred years or two became leaders in the early women's movements--as well as other early equality movements such as abolition and work for American Indian rights--such as Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony.)
And of course, eventually the meetings for worship were no longer segregated, because it wasn't necessary anymore. The Quaker women had found their voice and then some. But they needed some time and space to develop that voice, that willingness both to speak and to act. The ultimately temporary segregation actually helped them become equals with their fellow male members of the community.
Looking at that and then toward contemporary women's groups, like the proposed women's gaming group and similar ideas, I see the same concept: an opportunity to give women afraid to speak in broader society a voice. To encourage them to lead and to act. So that at some point, indeed, such groups are no longer needed as we can join together more fully as a whole community as equals.
And I very much hope that quest for a voice is not silenced.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread wasn't so much about attracting new players as about making existing female gamers feel welcome. The devolution of this thread is a textbook example of how not to do it.
|
|
I agree, and will also add that it both sets unrealistic expectations for everything thereafter, as well as further hurts anyone else that is not incuded in such games, (male and female) by presenting a false sense of "security". It promotes a different form of segregation as well, spliting the fan base.If done as an intro, get involved kind of thing, it does not split the fan base.
There is a big difference between things the majority does to exclude the minority and things the minority does try to reach equality. But some people don't see any difference between Black Power and White Power either. That goes to the heart of the debate about privilege.I'm going to bow out of the argument about "ladies night gaming". I think I've said what I have to say about why I don't think it should be offensive.
If women do think it would be effective and you do want more women in the hobby, then you have to decide if that's worth being a little offended.
The point is that making a "female-only" beginner box does nothing except present a standard for play that will not likely continue beyond that single game, will teach females that RPGs are played one way, that certain things are fun, but those things might not be actually that present outside that game, or that other players will be just like the players from that girls-only game, which again, is probably not true. It isn't that everyone else will be offended as much as I predict that if it did manage to get women into gameing based on presenting a "perfect" female gaming experience, those women would probably be either driven away thereafter when the actual game (next step) is ot the same focus and includes men too, and will likely have a worse affect on their opinions than if tey would have just never tried to begin with. I could be wrong, and that is just what I see probably happening, but it's just an opinion.
|
|
DeathQuaker, like I said before, I see a difference between official/public games and those organized and held by private individuals. If you are forming a gaming group that is going to play in your home and you want all women or all men, or whatever, that is your right, and I've got no problem with it at all.
Where I have the problem is when public or official games become segregationist. That is sending the wrong message IMO. And if someone were to do it, I would at the very least expect reciprocal "men's only nights" to keep it fair, the way they do at some swimming pools for instance.
|
|
Because we've been doing just what you suggest for those 30 years and the percentage of women is still small. That suggests it hasn't worked for bringing more women into the game.
First, the percentage is much larger now than at any time in the past. The number of female gamers in the 80's was tiny compared to today, so there definitely has been change.
Second, there are simply some toys and games that appeal more to boys or girls. Do the makers of Barbie try to appeal to boys and lament the number of boys buying and playing with Barbie? Do the makers of toy trucks do the same for girls? Now, RPGs ideally could appeal to both genders, but once a game or toy has decades of product identity matching it to mostly 1 gender (and not at all a "cool thing" for that gender, either), that alone can be a barrier.
Third, just what is the point of more female gamers? If its just to sell more product and get more money, fine, segregated groups can do that. But if it is to increase the interaction between men and women by bringing more women to the game table together with the men, then segregated groups actively work against that. Despite the claim that "it's only to start with", most players join a group and stick with it, seeing their character grow and level up, they don't jump from game to game like you might with cards or board games. Also, what Devil's Advocate has been saying about unrealistic expectations and taking the next step into "real gaming, now with 100% more males!"
DeathQuaker, like I said before, I see a difference between official/public games and those organized and held by private individuals. If you are forming a gaming group that is going to play in your home and you want all women or all men, or whatever, that is your right, and I've got no problem with it at all.
Where I have the problem is when public or official games become segregationist. That is sending the wrong message IMO. And if someone were to do it, I would at the very least expect reciprocal "men's only nights" to keep it fair, the way they do at some swimming pools for instance.
As I (hope I) made very and repeatedly clear, if the intention is clear from the get-go, then there should be no "wrong message" out there.
I personally don't see an issue with a public group doing this in this instance. If Paizo were to sponsor an all-women's group (to train GMs and such), and made it clear the purpose was to provide a safe space and all the other things previously discussed, and you still chose to take away that they were being "sexist and exclusive," that is not Paizo's fault. In that case, in my opinion, you would be refusing to see the real beneficial reasons of the group's establishment and are choosing to take personally and be offended by something that clearly and obviously was not meant to be harmful in any way--and that would not, in fact, harm you or oppress you in any way. Paizo nor anyone else can be expected to protect you from something you take personally that clearly was not directed toward you or anyone else as a harmful thing. That is in fact entirely your own problem.
If they wanted to have a men's group too, however, that's great too. But I don't think one should HAVE to exist with the other, either way. After all, if a large number of women are interested in having a women's group, but not many men are interested in a men's group--or vice versa--then both shouldn't necessarily have to be created. But if both were called for, then sure, why not?
DeathQuaker, like I said before, I see a difference between official/public games and those organized and held by private individuals. If you are forming a gaming group that is going to play in your home and you want all women or all men, or whatever, that is your right, and I've got no problem with it at all.
Where I have the problem is when public or official games become segregationist. That is sending the wrong message IMO. And if someone were to do it, I would at the very least expect reciprocal "men's only nights" to keep it fair, the way they do at some swimming pools for instance.
Hi Samurai,
I know I said I was gonna hush up, but I can't help myself.
As I walks self back from the cliff, consider these two scenarios:
Person A says "I think X is a good idea."
Person B says "No, X won't work. Y is what you need."
Versus
Person A says "I think X is a good idea."
Person B says "That's an idea. Maybe we could also consider Y."
Do you see a difference? One is someone telling someone else that they know what's best for them. It''s taking away their freedom of choice. The other is expressing your view, possibly even your disagreement, but still leaving them the authority to chose on their own.
The difference is subtle perhaps. And I'm probably not even making my second conversation perfectly inclusive. But if we all (myself included) made subtle changes to the way we think and talk, things would be a lot better.
|
|
DeathQuaker, like I said before, I see a difference between official/public games and those organized and held by private individuals. If you are forming a gaming group that is going to play in your home and you want all women or all men, or whatever, that is your right, and I've got no problem with it at all.
Where I have the problem is when public or official games become segregationist. That is sending the wrong message IMO. And if someone were to do it, I would at the very least expect reciprocal "men's only nights" to keep it fair, the way they do at some swimming pools for instance.
Hi Samurai,
I know I said I was gonna hush up, but I can't help myself.
As I walks self back from the cliff, consider these two scenarios:
Person A says "I think X is a good idea."
Person B says "No, X won't work. Y is what you need."
Versus
Person A says "I think X is a good idea."
Person B says "That's an idea. Maybe we could also consider Y."
Do you see a difference? One is someone telling someone else that they know what's best for them. It''s taking away their freedom of choice. The other is expressing your view, possibly even your disagreement, but still leaving them the authority to chose on their own.
The difference is subtle perhaps. And I'm probably not even making my second conversation perfectly inclusive. But if we all (myself included) made subtle changes to the way we think and talk, things would be a lot better.
I see what you are saying, and to a point I agree. If I really felt X and Y were both fine choices and neither was particularly better or worse, that is how I'd phrase it. But in my opinion, and it is just my opinion, I don't feel X and Y are both equally good choices so I'm stating why/why not. I'm not taking away anyone's authority to decide on their own which point of view they agree with, I'm just stating my case. Like I said, if Paizo or anyone else wanted to do a women's only Pathfinder game then that's their decision.
|
|
I'm just going to leave this here.Personally I'd rather have Person B tell me they see a flaw in my idea and give a suggestion on a better idea than Person B in example two not really help me.
:-)
If only someone could invent some kind of game or social problem solving adventure thingee where men and women could work together to solve problems so as to learn from each other, gain mutual respect and understanding for each other and their various styles, rather than playing separately all the time...
Oh well, maybe I'm just a dreamer...
|
|
I'm just going to leave this here.Personally I'd rather have Person B tell me they see a flaw in my idea and give a suggestion on a better idea than Person B in example two not really help me.
:-)
Im not sure I would say that men solve problem by communicating less as much as differently. More specifically I think men either usually communicate with specific people about specific aspecs of the problem or ask for advice while women communicate more about the whole problem and do not care as much about speaking with specialists (or people they view as).
|
Eh I'm all for a women's only game, why not. The store I saw in Portland that did it is once a month, and I believe a lot of those women also play in mixed games so not a big deal. Also since it's not very often it's not like the gaming space is dominated by this activity.
Having said that, yeah good luck with a men's only game.
|
|
Eh I'm all for a women's only game, why not. The store I saw in Portland that did it is once a month, and I believe a lot of those women also play in mixed games so not a big deal. Also since it's not very often it's not like the gaming space is dominated by this activity.
Having said that, yeah good luck with a men's only game.
Yeah, for my taste, it is too close to "What's mine is mine (Stay out!), and what's yours is mine (How dare you exclude me!)". That just gets my dander right up, as Professor Elemental would say.
Because we've been doing just what you suggest for those 30 years and the percentage of women is still small. That suggests it hasn't worked for bringing more women into the game.Despite the claim that "it's only to start with", most players join a group and stick with it, seeing their character grow and level up, they don't jump from game to game like you might with cards or board games.
The approach I've seen has been to explicitly have one-shot games to introduce new players, or players who want to try a new game—play through an adventure and get a sense for the rules, setting, and expectations, just testing the waters. And if there's time for a quick break, you can see what other people are playing, and get a sense of what other games you might be interested in. So there's no commitment to ongoing attendance, which might be another draw for people who are reluctant to commit to a potentially years-long campaign when they're not even sure they LIKE gaming yet.
Alternatively, with Pathfinder Society, there is often less expectation that you'll playing with the same people all the time anyway, so if there were PFS tables at a women's gaming event, you could potentially move from there to any other PFS event with the same character.
I think a women's night at gaming store or a Con would be a great idea. These are not actual public areas...I know that most people think things like stores and such are...but there are not. A owner of a store can ban anybody they want from one(well unless they own stock in the company) for numerous reasons.
It not any different than say a salon offering discount to just women. I don't have that big of a problem with it.
The stumbling blocks I do see to this idea atleast from a gaming store prospective can it make them enough money to disrupt there normal bussiness schedule. I have two friends who owns gaming stores...RPGs just don't sell well enough in my area for them to close down all aspects of their stores for organized RPG events. One of them ran 4th Ed Encounters and RPGa events and PFS at his store...and particpants almost never buy anything from the store. They get it online. So I don't see hoe at gaming stores having a 'Women's Night' type thing would get more women into RPGs.
Now it is a great idea for cons and gaming clubs to do. And of course my statement is entirely only really valid for my area.
Eh I'm all for a women's only game, why not. The store I saw in Portland that did it is once a month, and I believe a lot of those women also play in mixed games so not a big deal. Also since it's not very often it's not like the gaming space is dominated by this activity.
Having said that, yeah good luck with a men's only game.
Well, prove me wrong by trying it out then. :) Putting best foot forward and making the intention clear of course.
Until then, you're just assuming the worst in a very large group of people. Which might be a little unfair.
|
I'm not understanding the objections some posters are making to women-only events for women who are new to the hobby.
While I don't have the links handy at the moment, numerous studies show that students of both sexes are more likely to participate in classroom discussions of newly-introduced material when separated into single-sex classroom environments. The studies also show that these students are more likely to retain the information under discussion in such environments, and that this retention is not diminished when the two populations are later reintegrated. (DeathQuaker's historical anecdote is a perfect example of this principal in action.)
I'm also not understanding the analogies some posters are drawing between single-sex games for new gamers and racial segregation. There is no functional or biological reason for racial segregation; its only purpose is to perpetuate advantages* bestowed upon one group at the expense of the other. In contrast, the female brain and the male brain have distinct biological differences that lead them to solve problems in differing ways. (See the link posted by StrangePackage, above.) Since learning a new skill is a form of problem solving, it makes sense to give females the option of pursuing female-specific curricula when learning that skill, in the same way female-specific exercise programs should be made available at a gym. Both are simple acknowledgements of biology.
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree it makes sense for both genders to be seperate at times. however if there is no acceptance to anything being male only because it is "sexist" then it is equally wrong for the same reason when women do it.