| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have left-handed players in our group, it's quite sinister...
I'm sure the right-handed players deal with it in quite an adroit fashion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking about handedness. How gauche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. But this discussion does make me curious: what is a queer-friendly gaming group like?
Sort of like any other group; someone being queer makes about 0 impact at any table I have ever played at. We've had a few QUILTBAG players and it has never been an issue nor even something that anyone thought could/should be an issue.
I guess you wont KNOW if your group is or isn't until you ask "Hey, whaddyareckon...?"
True. But this discussion does make me curious: what is a queer-friendly gaming group like?
Sort of like any other group; someone being queer makes about 0 impact at any table I have ever played at. We've had a few QUILTBAG players and it has never been an issue nor even something that anyone thought could/should be an issue.
I guess you wont KNOW if your group is or isn't until you ask "Hey, whaddyareckon...?"
I can say that none of the groups I have played with have had a problem.
I've been known to have nations ruled by lesbians, drag queens, gay men, and so on... All played seriously, most avoiding stereotypes, and all actually being good rulers in their own way. Most players didn't even blink.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been known to have nations ruled by lesbians, drag queens, gay men, and so on... All played seriously, most avoiding stereotypes, and all actually being good rulers in their own way. Most players didn't even blink.
And why not I say! :)
The above have happened through human history and make interesting fare for a fantasy setting, especially when played seriously. Of course, taking things less seriously can also be a lot of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What society is is not reducible down to simply "people." People interact with institutions, knowledge, power (power/knowledge), etc which taken all together makes up society. I was identifing a broad range of cissexist, heterosexist attitudes, institutions, media, knowledges, values, and meanings that coalesce into our society.But can you talk about a group of people like that and say anything without writing a medication disclaimer parody and without sending everyone else googling your terminology?
Normal might be, by implications, insulting by implying there's something wrong with people not nestled firmly into the depths of a bell curve but ignoring the trend can be just as erroneous as ignoring the exceptions.
Do you mean "can't you talk about [queer life in heterosexists, cissexist society] by appealing to the heterosexist, cissexist language"?
Because the answer is an obvious: No. Not if I intend to destabilize the heterosexist, cissexist "normal" for the betterment of queer life.
Hmm. Dstabilizing their normal. Is that a bit like redefining?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been known to have nations ruled by lesbians, drag queens, gay men, and so on... All played seriously, most avoiding stereotypes, and all actually being good rulers in their own way. Most players didn't even blink.And why not I say! :)
The above have happened through human history and make interesting fare for a fantasy setting, especially when played seriously. Of course, taking things less seriously can also be a lot of fun.
Right on. It's all in what your group can handle and is willing to try. If you have a group that cannot go five minutes without getting the giggles because someone said boobies, then you adjust accordingly. I've noticed that when we had a predominately female heavy group that sort of thing got quashed really fast -- not to say that they didn't make their own jokes, but some of the more sophomoric interplay dwindled. I've noticed that most groups are much more open to new people these days regardless of <insert thing here>. People just want to play, I think, and what you are and what you do in your spare time means less.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is fascinating to watch this thread wend its way around the original topic. I think that the tangents have been every bit as revealing as the direct replies.
Although some people might use the term "privilege" as a weapon, it is merely a tool, helping to measure how much we might tend to assume that "labels" (ie. differences of race, class, sex, gender, etc.) matter to us, at the gaming table or beyond.
The OP asked us to think about the composition of our gaming groups. Gamers with non-normative identities -- that is, LGBTQ, people of colour, etc. -- probably think about this issue a LOT. In life, they frequently have their differences used against them, and so when they sit down to have fun at the table, they are likely more sensitive to potential divisions or conflicts.
If you have never thought about these issues -- if, indeed, all gamers are just "people" to you no matter what -- then you are probably not in a position where you have to check in constantly, to see if you are surrounded by males, or straight males, or straight cis males.
In short, you are probably gaming from a position of privilege. It's not an insult; it just means you have now been measured, like everybody else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, you are probably gaming from a position of privilege. It's not an insult; it just means you have now been measured, like everybody else.
Are you saying you don't mean it as an insult, or that you are invalidating peoples feelings of being insulted?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, you are probably gaming from a position of privilege. It's not an insult; it just means you have now been measured, like everybody else.
How can you possibly, in the same breath, insist that you're not insulting anyone with the term and assume that anyone with "privlidge" is measuring everyone else?
The process started a few billion years ago with sexual differentiation. Societies aren't making something up out of whole cloth when they describe gender, they're describing something real. While the universe isn't forcing the term on us, it definitely is giving us something to work with.But to take you example of "him her he she etc." These words aren't timeless inevitabilities foisted on humanity by the laws of the universe. Gendered pronouns came about through some sort of process that is larger than any individual action
The inevitability of gendered pronouns (if we're going to stay on this narrow example) is just factually incorrect. There are plenty of languages that don't have gendered pronouns, Persian being just one of them.
There also have been plenty of incidences where English speakers have developed and used gender neural pronouns (see Spivak pronouns). They may be rare, but it proves that we can do it.
but it does not follow that "him her he she etc" can't be undone or subverted somehow. I disagree that these things can't be changed.It seems incredibly difficult to do and I'm not entirely sure what the gain is.
For some queer people, it gains quite a lot.
But if we wanted to talk about potential gains in roleplay: I've run a game where using gender neutral pronouns enabled a character to go without gender. It was pretty cool, and the PC was loved by all.
I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.
And I think the need to launch vague, unwarranted and almost random insults is a sign that someone is out of good points to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.And I think the need to launch vague, unwarranted and almost random insults is a sign that someone is out of good points to make.
That's fine. I made my post: you were wrong about the inevitability of gender in language, and I was right. There isn't really anywhere else to go from here, so this is a good place to stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine. I made my post: you were wrong about the inevitability of gender in language, and I was right. There isn't really anywhere else to go from here, so this is a good place to stop.I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.And I think the need to launch vague, unwarranted and almost random insults is a sign that someone is out of good points to make.
Now for bonus points ... Show one example, ever, where something like that has been changed intentionally and artificially and it has ever stuck?
Epic stream of consciousness ping pong.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have never thought about these issues -- if, indeed, all gamers are just "people" to you no matter what -- then you are probably not in a position where you have to check in constantly, to see if you are surrounded by males, or straight males, or straight cis males.
Or, you can have already thought a long time about these issues and concluded that a strategy of calling gamers "just people" is the best solution.
I'm Mexican-American. I look and sound white. I've heard plenty of people insult "them" to my face, assuming my ethnicity. I've attended Latino events where I'm approached by other Latinos who ask, "So, why are you here?" Believe me, I know what a half-elf feels like.
I have alopecia. I spent my childhood unable to have control over my appearance because my hair was constantly falling out and growing back in in random patches. I took the stares and differences and inability to fit in no matter what in stride, because I had to.
And heck, I'm not even bringing up my D/s tendencies. That, at least, doesn't matter 99% of the time.
Am I going to look for mixed-race individuals with skin conditions in order to find comfort in who I am? No. I am going to be a person and look for people. Anyone who can't take me, doesn't get to stay around me. That's the start and the end of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now for bonus points ... Show one example, ever, where something like that has been changed intentionally and artificially and it has ever stuck?That's fine. I made my post: you were wrong about the inevitability of gender in language, and I was right. There isn't really anywhere else to go from here, so this is a good place to stop.I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.And I think the need to launch vague, unwarranted and almost random insults is a sign that someone is out of good points to make.
The transition from using "stewards/stewardesses" to using the gender neutral "flight attendant."
The transition from using "stewards/stewardesses" to using the gender neutral "flight attendant."Now for bonus points ... Show one example, ever, where something like that has been changed intentionally and artificially and it has ever stuck?That's fine. I made my post: you were wrong about the inevitability of gender in language, and I was right. There isn't really anywhere else to go from here, so this is a good place to stop.I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.And I think the need to launch vague, unwarranted and almost random insults is a sign that someone is out of good points to make.
Changing 'a word for a single profession' is not anywhere near in the same galaxy and scope as excising gender specific pronouns.
Do you need help moving those goalposts? They look awfully heavy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The transition from using "stewards/stewardesses" to using the gender neutral "flight attendant."Now for bonus points ... Show one example, ever, where something like that has been changed intentionally and artificially and it has ever stuck?That's fine. I made my post: you were wrong about the inevitability of gender in language, and I was right. There isn't really anywhere else to go from here, so this is a good place to stop.I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.And I think the need to launch vague, unwarranted and almost random insults is a sign that someone is out of good points to make.
If your point is to say "no one has ever changed common usage gendered pronouns to gender nutral pronouns, therefor it can't be done," then my response is "that doesn't follow." Just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done.
In 1968, no one had been to the moon. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to go to the moon. In 2014 it may seem impossible to do away gendered pronouns, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to do away them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But to take you example of "him her he she etc." These words aren't timeless inevitabilities foisted on humanity by the laws of the universe. Gendered pronouns came about through some sort of process that is larger than any individual action: but it does not follow that "him her he she etc" can't be undone or subverted somehow. I disagree that these things can't be changed.
White, cis, hetero Gen-X'er here, but personally, my pronoun of choice, in both speech and writing, has been "they" since I was in high school. Writing "he/she" or "s/he" has always struck me as pedantic and unsightly, and picking the pronouns for just one gender (when speaking generally) has always seemed weird to me. I guess my line of reasoning as a progressive teenager was: "Why should men have to sacrifice their pronouns as being gender-neutral, and how would it be any better to do the same with women's pronoun?"
At any rate, while I know Paizo authors their class write-ups based upon the gender each iconic presents as, I've always thought it would have been more progressive to standardize on "they" instead.
As far as MagusJanus' hypothesis that one risks alienating allies thru the use of certain jargon, it does feel weird to have words ending with "-ist" being directed in my direction, even if only in the general sense. It's not the sort of thing that would get me to abandon my QUILTBAG friends, or to stop petitioning politicians on matters of equality and diversity, but it is somewhat disheartening to be labeled [by default] in a way that seems very reminiscent to how I might describe racists or misogynists.
While reading such dialog on a forum in a sort of 'academic' discussion might be enlightening, I'm inclined to agree with MJ that bandying about such terms in mixed/unknown company in RealLife™ might very well come across as unwelcoming and exclusionary. Although I don't think it would turn any sincere allies into enemies, there are some people whose unfriendly beliefs would only be galvanized by talk of "destabilizing the 'norm'". IME, people are much more receptive to the idea of sharing what they have than the concept of having what they enjoy disrupted because others can't enjoy it too. Remember, unlike competing for consumers' money or people's souls, equality is not a zero-sum game. By that I mean that I don't need to lose the right to someday marry a woman in order for my gay and lesbian friends to gain the right to marry someone of their same gender.
Anyhoo, as far as my rather gender-mixed group goes, we just like to game and dine out with people who are fun to be around, and who don't cast aspersions*. Because we are friends, even those of us whose privilege might otherwise exempt us from such concerns are still affected to an extent. Why? Because what's bad for my friend is bad for me, and vice-versa.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The process started a few billion years ago with sexual differentiation. Societies aren't making something up out of whole cloth when they describe gender, they're describing something real. While the universe isn't forcing the term on us, it definitely is giving us something to work with.But to take you example of "him her he she etc." These words aren't timeless inevitabilities foisted on humanity by the laws of the universe. Gendered pronouns came about through some sort of process that is larger than any individual action
The inevitability of gendered pronouns (if we're going to stay on this narrow example) is just factually incorrect. There are plenty of languages that don't have gendered pronouns, Persian being just one of them.
There also have been plenty of incidences where English speakers have developed and used gender neural pronouns (see Spivak pronouns). They may be rare, but it proves that we can do it.
but it does not follow that "him her he she etc" can't be undone or subverted somehow. I disagree that these things can't be changed.It seems incredibly difficult to do and I'm not entirely sure what the gain is.
For some queer people, it gains quite a lot.
But if we wanted to talk about potential gains in roleplay: I've run a game where using gender neutral pronouns enabled a character to go without gender. It was pretty cool, and the PC was loved by all.
I think the assumption that gender is inevitable is a sign of a starved imagination.
Something like 2-5% of the US population is transgendered. IF you think that 2-5% (and I doubt even within that fraction of the population would support be unanimous) of the population can make the rest of the English speaking public give up using the term he/him/she/her, well good luck with those efforts, but hope you enjoy disappointment.
Best chance would be to add a new gender pronoun, although you are probably going to run into the same problem as the term cis...most of the world will have no idea what that new gender pronoun is unless you can go an a massive education blitz.
Again...a lot of arguments seem to ignore that minority viewpoints/issues will always be singled out and contrasted versus the majority. There is, for better or worse, "a normal" for everything. If you don't fall into whatever box "normal" contains, than yes, special language will probably be invented to describe those differences. I don't think that is demonization of things outside of normal...it's human nature. What we can work on is making sure those phrases and terms don't get picked up as insults, and make sure those terms are not loaded with misconceptions and stereotypes that cause more harm than good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyhoo, as far as my rather gender-mixed group goes, we just like to game and dine out with people who are fun to be around, and who don't cast dispersions.
I agree with most of what you said, but I got a good chuckle at this part. Are you sure they cast dispersions? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Annabel, I agree that removing gendered pronouns from language is definitely possible, but I doubt that it would result in a reduction of gender roles.
Japanese, for example, doesn't really have gendered pronouns, but gender roles are still very strong in Japanese culture. Farsi is also grammatically genderless, but gender roles are extremely strong in Iran.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyhoo, as far as my rather gender-mixed group goes, we just like to game and dine out with people who are fun to be around, and who don't cast dispersions.I agree with most of what you said, but I got a good chuckle at this part. Are you sure they cast dispersions? :)
To quote Roy and Jen from IT Crowd, "Everybody's got their blind spot!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Annabel, I agree that removing gendered pronouns from language is definitely possible, but I doubt that it would result in a reduction of gender roles.
Japanese, for example, doesn't really have gendered pronouns, but gender roles are still very strong in Japanese culture. Farsi is also grammatically genderless, but gender roles are extremely strong in Iran.
In entertaining the line of conversation about gendered pronouns, I wasn't asserting that gendered pronouns are the fulcrum on which gender and sexuality turn. I was discussing it specifically mostly because it was an easy concept for others here to grasp, so I went with it. I recognize that whatever makes up the broader system of cissexism, heterosexism, and sexism, it is more than just pronouns.
Do you need help moving those goalposts? They look awfully heavy.
More apt analogy is punting the ball from your own twenty and calling it a field goal because it was in the same general direction as the goalposts ...
In entertaining the line of conversation about gendered pronouns, I wasn't asserting that gendered pronouns are the fulcrum on which gender and sexuality turn. I was discussing it specifically mostly because it was an easy concept for others here to grasp, so I went with it. I recognize that whatever makes up the broader system of cissexism, heterosexism, and sexism, it is more than just pronouns.Annabel, I agree that removing gendered pronouns from language is definitely possible, but I doubt that it would result in a reduction of gender roles.
Japanese, for example, doesn't really have gendered pronouns, but gender roles are still very strong in Japanese culture. Farsi is also grammatically genderless, but gender roles are extremely strong in Iran.
Well thats good anyway; I find Whorfian linguistic theories faintly ridiculous ...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have never thought about these issues -- if, indeed, all gamers are just "people" to you no matter what -- then you are probably not in a position where you have to check in constantly, to see if you are surrounded by males, or straight males, or straight cis males.
I'm as non-normative as they get when it comes to gender. And I've talked to lesbian, gay, transsexual, and other players that are considered non-normative before...
What did most of them tell me? They don't think about it unless it comes up. I also don't think about it unless it comes up. So, basically, you just insinuated that anyone who doesn't think about it isn't actually part of those groups considered non-normative.
Doesn't that sound like you are trying to dictate the sexuality and gender of others?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm following this thread to educate myself. But the tone being used to supply the information makes it difficult for me to want to continue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally understanding MagusJanus' point of view on this. Yes, it's true that someone in the majority might not appreciate the problems, and want to treat everyone with the same respect, and be done with it.
Then there are people who don't themselves have a minority, and so can't look for a special-case category, and end up discovering themselves also that it's better to end up seeking equal respect for everyone.
Back when my father was in college, one of his classmates, a Samoan, discovered that there was financial aid available for minorities. The classmate decided, hey, he should apply for financial aid under this program. He was turned down. When he asked why, it was explained that there weren't enough of him around to be classified as a minority.
People who are so rare that they can't find groups of their own do exist. The Samoan example was 50 years ago, but the same basic idea applies. Let's find ways to accept and respect each other, no matter what we consider ourselves to be.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A brief look at the first dozen or so of entries in Google for "check your privilege" does not paint it in a positive light. That being said, I imagine it is less misunderstanding and just not taking it in the manner you'd prefer. As for being an ally, it is less about you and more about the movement/cause and others involved. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends who are happy to have one of those nasty straight white males on their side.Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?
If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?
While, like any word, "privilege" can be used in an insulting way, it's not inherently insulting, and the idea that acknowledging its existence is somehow insulting the people who have it is insulting is... well, it makes me uneasy about the intentions of the person claiming that it's an insult.
But, since it seems to get misunderstood even by people with good intentions, I wrote a piece on it: http://jessicalprice.tumblr.com/post/67545044825/privilege-doesnt-mean-easy
I have found through things both online and off that the meanings of terms and labels changes at a rate so fast it can hardly be measured. I find that this has happened to the concept of privilege moreso than anything else of late. Through weirdness at both my day job and my night job as well as with debates with friends in every type of self identified spectrum, the term has mutated from a way to describe a social phenomenon one may be blind to, to a direct insult, to an ugly way to publicly pity someone. Nowadays, I find it more a left handed comment, you filled with negative innuendo and quiet accusations. I prefer to avoid using it overall.
I have found through things both online and off that the meanings of terms and labels changes at a rate so fast it can hardly be measured. I find that this has happened to the concept of privilege moreso...A brief look at the first dozen or so of entries in Google for "check your privilege" does not paint it in a positive light. That being said, I imagine it is less misunderstanding and just not taking it in the manner you'd prefer. As for being an ally, it is less about you and more about the movement/cause and others involved. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends who are happy to have one of those nasty straight white males on their side.Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?
If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?
While, like any word, "privilege" can be used in an insulting way, it's not inherently insulting, and the idea that acknowledging its existence is somehow insulting the people who have it is insulting is... well, it makes me uneasy about the intentions of the person claiming that it's an insult.
But, since it seems to get misunderstood even by people with good intentions, I wrote a piece on it: http://jessicalprice.tumblr.com/post/67545044825/privilege-doesnt-mean-easy
++++++++++++++++!!!!!!!!!
And why is complaining a bad thing? If it were not for people complaining about taxes, the U.S. would not exist.Like many things about the Revolution, this is partially a myth, along with the idea that it was a majority supported decision.
England had incurred enormous expenses in defending the colonies during the French and Indian wars. Naturally it wanted to recoup some of those expenses through taxation.
The idea of breaking away from the mother country was essentially pushed through by a minority of wealthy land owners over the majority of the colonial population, who had no problems remaining British. (When we tried to make them forcefully choose, the Canadians decided that they'd rather be British than American. Taxes were a pretext. More than likely independence would have come out either way the way it did for the bulk of Britain's colonies.
It really comes as no shock that, when the First Continental Congress tried to surrender before the war even started, the British government was so exasperated with them that it wasn't willing to accept any of their terms and just wanted them to sit down, shut up, stop being jerks, and pay for the war they caused.
In the history of trolling, that entire sequence of events pretty much puts those landowners at the top of the list of greatest trolls to ever live. Not many people can successfully say they trolled an empire and lived to tell about it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue of whether or not a term is a slur or pejorative can't be based upon the speaker, but must be based upon whether or not the "labelee" takes offense.
Altho "cis' may have started with good intention, it is now used with such anger and negative connotations by so many, that I have to take offense at the term and consider it a pejorative. And, "privilege" is starting to look that way also.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right with you there Dr Deth, I greet the terms 'Cis', 'Privelege', and 'Heteronormative' with the same sense of trepidation as when I hear the words "I'm not racist, BUT..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Altho "cis' may have started with good intention, it is now used with such anger and negative connotations by so many, that I have to take offense at the term and consider it a pejorative.
So the context in which the word "cis" is used no longer matters? You'll take offense at the term no matter how it's used?
I use the term amongst my non-trans friends all the time when trans issues are being discussed. None of them are offended. I don't use it in anger, or as a pejorative. Not everyone does.
It's a simple word with a simple definition that fills an existing gap in our vocabulary. Nothing more.
Edit to add: What would you suggest as a replacement?
Altho "cis' may have started with good intention, it is now used with such anger and negative connotations by so many, that I have to take offense at the term and consider it a pejorative.So the context in which the word "cis" is used no longer matters? You'll take offense at the term no matter how it's used?
I use the term amongst my non-trans friends all the time when trans issues are being discussed. None of them are offended. I don't use it in anger, or as a pejorative. Not everyone does.
It's a simple word with a simple definition that fills an existing gap in our vocabulary. Nothing more.
Edit to add: What would you suggest as a replacement?
Let us follow the gnice Gninja's advice.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since moving back to NH, all of my players have been straight, white and cis.
When I was in Boston, I played more with gay and non-white ethnicity players.
Females players have always been represented. I have trans comrades, but I've never had a trans player at my home table. Played with some at cons, however.
But, blah blah blah. I only put that in there so I can get to what I'm really interested in:
"In my experience working with a multitude of anti-racist organizing projects over the years, I frequently found myself participating in various workshops in which participants were asked to reflect on their gender/race/sexuality/class/etc. privilege. These workshops had a bit of a self-help orientation to them: 'I am so and so, and I have x privilege.' It was never quite clear what the point of these confessions were. It was not as if other participants did not know the confessor in question had her/his proclaimed privilege. It did not appear that these individual confessions actually led to any political projects to dismantle the structures of domination that enabled their privilege. Rather, the confessions became the political project themselves."
It still seems to me that the best way to increase diversity at the gaming table is to make sure that you aren't getting angry at groups in any direction.
Exclusive behavior is exclusive.
Now, there's something about the diverse gaming table that is of interest to me. We gather a group of people with different life experiences together to game. However, the world of the game is still very much under the purview of the game master, who may or may not personally have benefited from the diversity. Even if the GM is sensitive to the different cultural experiences of the players, he might still be unable to effectively weave the diversity experience of others (and not himself) into the game narrative. We could leave the bulk of the introduction of the diverse viewpoint to the player who establishes it through the PC, but then we run the risk of simply creating the ever-so-popular "special snowflake", an individual who is surrounded by only people of another culture, with no chance of meaningful social interweaving with the game world's society.
How should we best leverage the experiences of the diverse gaming table into an enjoyable and meaningful game experience, above and beyond the game of a monocultural table?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How should we best leverage the experiences of the diverse gaming table into an enjoyable and meaningful game experience, above and beyond the game of a monocultural table?
You shouldn't.
The problem is that, historically, multicultural nations have been inherently unstable. Take a look at the Roman Empire; yes, they lasted quite a long while. They were also plagued by frequent civil wars. Even the United States is struggling, as a nation, to maintain at least some basic form of unity, and in recent years has found major unifying events tend to be followed by the unity they inspire decaying rapidly. Multicultural groups in real life tend to suffer the same problem, in that they either require some singular cultural aspect to unify them or they get ripped apart by infighting. That is why the United Nations is generally ineffective on the whole, but several of its subdivisions can be highly effective.
What you instead need to do is build a monocultural table that is inclusive. Some people would say that is not possible; however, there are numerous inclusive monocultural nations that exist today. Canada, for example. You just have to define what makes up the monoculture carefully.
So the instability inherent to the multicultural nation applies to the gaming table as well? I would imagine that yes, over a million people, assortation and factionalization will occur, but is it inevitably along cultural lines in a gaming table to 5-7 individuals?
According to my experiences? Yes, it does.
The reason why I've moved from group to group over the years is because they were multicultural in setup. In time, arguments and infighting would create divisions within the group that eventually caused the group itself to splinter. The successful groups I've seen have actually instead worked toward creating a group monoculture.
According to my experiences? Yes, it does.
The reason why I've moved from group to group over the years is because they were multicultural in setup. In time, arguments and infighting would create divisions within the group that eventually caused the group itself to splinter. The successful groups I've seen have actually instead worked toward creating a group monoculture.
Aha, there's the term! "Toward a group monoculture"! I agree with this, but what this says is that you can start with diverse individuals with very different backgrounds, and it is the effort of the individuals to create a gaming group that allows for stability of the group.
Now, if we assume that the individuals to form the group are pulled from a diverse basis or a monocultural basis, can we then actually say that one group or the other is actually worse to pull from, or is the interest of the individuals in creating a new group paramount, regardless of the background of the individuals?
To be honest, the backgrounds don't matter if the individuals are working toward creating a new group paramount. A singular group paramount that accounts for the differing backgrounds and includes them in a cohesive whole tends to be extremely stable. The resulting group monoculture is adaptive, inclusive, and capable of evolving as the group itself changes.
If it is a diverse basis or monocultural basis doesn't seem to have any effect on group stability for a group creating its own monoculture. And just as it works on the small-scale level, it also is so far working on the international level.
Since moving back to NH, all of my players have been straight, white and cis.
When I was in Boston, I played more with gay and non-white ethnicity players.
Females players have always been represented. I have trans comrades, but I've never had a trans player at my home table. Played with some at cons, however.
But, blah blah blah. I only put that in there so I can get to what I'm really interested in:
"In my experience working with a multitude of anti-racist organizing projects over the years, I frequently found myself participating in various workshops in which participants were asked to reflect on their gender/race/sexuality/class/etc. privilege. These workshops had a bit of a self-help orientation to them: 'I am so and so, and I have x privilege.' It was never quite clear what the point of these confessions were. It was not as if other participants did not know the confessor in question had her/his proclaimed privilege. It did not appear that these individual confessions actually led to any political projects to dismantle the structures of domination that enabled their privilege. Rather, the confessions became the political project themselves."
I still have my copy of Smith's Conquest from a freshman sociology course. Conquest makes some seriously radical arguments for social change that bridge gaps between marxism, feminism, and critical race theory. Growing up in the pacific northwest, her words helped me coalesce a lot of things I experienced growing up. She's brilliant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |