Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by shilsen

Interesting. Do you eliminate sexism in SciFi settings?

For the most part. Although we had a setting once where women were the ones sexist towards men, based on the assumption that it was males who destroyed earth and caused the human race to have to leave home. Ironically, it so happened that it had been a women ultimately responsible for the final straw.

Actually, that sounds like at least 50% of the female gamers I've met

No wonder.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

The essence of comedy is timing.

I had no issue with the timing and am rather confused now.

[Starfox]

We have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.

This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.

This is not a bad thing. Girls gave a right to their own games. But maybe boys do too? Maybe its ok to have games that pander more to one gender than to the other? Where you get to play around with stereotypes without getting bashed for it? Or is the political climate today such that only girls can do this? Isn't that even more sexist?

Of course, there is a difference between sexism-as-a-genre of witch girl adventures and the sexism-as-an-institution this threat attacks. I'm not blind to the fact that most sexism is still directed towards women. And games like fatal are not just sexist - they showcase a lifestyle of disregard for sentient life that goes way beyond simple sexism. Still, I wanted to make the point, show that sexism is a wider issue than people might think and that it swings both ways. Attacks on perceived sexism can actually be sexist themselves.

As an illustration from real life: In the Swedish schooling system today, girls do better than boys. Not just a little better, but a lot. Most of our university students are now women. There have been many school reforms in Sweden aimed at promoting "softer" values in school - to the point where I now actually consider our school system sexist towards boys.

[resistor]

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

Excuse me?

...

I've met a bunch of males who were turned off by all the numbers, I don't think it has anything to do with what women prefer.

OK, I'm not picking on you in particular (several other posters have said the same thing), but this touches on a peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up, which is that I find this type of response somewhat hypocritical.

The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women. This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.

But as soon as someone suggests designing for/marketing to women, the "We're all special snowflakes!" argument comes out.

Yeah, well, me too. I mean, I don't give a **** about cars, get nauseated by excessively violent media, and don't find the big breasts/no waist combo especially attractive (OK, I'll admit, explosions are kind of cool ). And yet nobody has a problem taking for granted that these stereotypes define what men like and/or how to market to/design for them.

It's fine (in fact, probably a good thing) if we want to go this route, but that means you can't talk about male stereotypes either, which undermines one of the core assumptions of this discussion.

[Dice4Hire]

Unfortunately that is how discourse works on these sensitive topics. You can malign the majority, but need to pussyfoot around minorities. I know that history is against minorities, but it sure makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

My feeling for 4E is thatis is remarkably non-sexist, and indeed the points-of-light makes it even mroe so as there are no 'medieval' mindsets going on there. Good for WOTC

However, to try and ignore the fact that we have two different sexes in this world (or more, if you go for subtle variations) and treat all people as one same thing is a disservice. I find reading about how men and women handle things fascinating, from child-rearing, to logic/problem solving, interpersonal relationships, and stranger things.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by Starfox

I don't know if its been mentioned here - too many pages of text for one read - but we have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.

This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.

Yes, it is a sexist game, one that should have never been published IMO. This whole girly witch stuff is not something I'd like to introduce my daughters to - if i had any. It would be somewhat ok if there was at least some useful option for a male character but this way I think it is condescending in both ways.

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

Stupid question: the character she's bringing in to the game *is* female, right?

Player gender and character gender don't always follow suit.

Lan-"I'm male; the ratio of PCs I'm currently playing is female 2, male 0"-efan

Yes, she is playing a female character.

[Lwaxy]

Originally Posted by resistor

OK, I'm not picking on you in particular (several other posters have said the same thing), but this touches on a peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up, which is that I find this type of response somewhat hypocritical.

The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women. This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.

But as soon as someone suggests designing for/marketing to women, the "We're all special snowflakes!" argument comes out.

Yeah, well, me too. I mean, I don't give a **** about cars, get nauseated by excessively violent media, and don't find the big breasts/no waist combo especially attractive (OK, I'll admit, explosions are kind of cool ). And yet nobody has a problem taking for granted that these stereotypes define what men like and/or how to market to/design for them.

It's fine (in fact, probably a good thing) if we want to go this route, but that means you can't talk about male stereotypes either, which undermines one of the core assumptions of this discussion.

Good point.

Personally, asides from the weird art of female fantasy figures, which as someone has pointed out is done by male and female artists alike, I haven't seen much of either gender based stereotypes in RPGs other than we create ourselves. I think I mentioned that before Yet I don't mind talking about stereotypes, I'm just somewhat opposed to assumptions as the one I responded to. Of course now I realize that the poster I responded to might have had different experiences.

However, if I was to stereotype males in the same way, I'd probably claim that you cannot have an rpg setting without half naked barmaids, heroines (or fast, big vehicles in a modern setting). I haven't seen a male player wanting any of this in our campaigns either so I consider it not very likely many gamers like that exist.

[Hairfoot]

Does the leathered, buckled, dungeonpunk male beefcake style of 3E/4E art appeal to women?

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by Nifft

IMHO, and with apologies for abusing some other dude's terminology, the emergence of sexism in RPGs is a function of two things: Simulationism and [/b]Narration[/b]. That it has been largely removed from many of the most popular RPGs is a function of the triumph of Gamism.

Interesting point. I hadn't considered phrasing the issue using those terms, since I tend not to use them much.

Basically, simulationism demands that the difference between girls and boys be quantified.

Depending on what you're interested in simulating, of course.

Narration demands that certain roles be filled -- and the maiden in distress role may be just as important as the knight in armor role, but one's just a bit more fun to enact.

Again, I think that depends on what you're choosing to narrate and how. My games regularly feature people in distress and people in armor, but neither of those roles map onto gender.

Originally Posted by ajanders

Shilsen:
To address some of your points.

1. Non-sexist advertising.
Frankly, the first thing that comes to mind is that there should be some advertising. Anywhere.

...

2. Non-sexist presentation of people.

...

3. Non-sexist treatment of people.

Have I missed a "Beer and Wenches" D&D ad?
Cos otherwise, I'm not seeing any reason for you to be unhappy.

I should clarify that (as I think I mentioned earlier) I'm not really unhappy with D&D's current status and I do think that 3e and 4e are much more egalitarian in their treatment of the sexes than any earlier edition. I'm just pointing out that they could do better.

As for advertising, I didn't refer to it in the original post (I think) and if I did later then I was in error. I've been referring to the presentation of the game, by which I mean things like the artwork, the miniatures, the modules, etc. I think these are the areas which tend to be much more gender-skewed, even if the core rules and mechanics are completely egalitarian. For example, modules and campaign setting pantheons tend to be heavily skewed towards males (which, in contrast, the PHB pantheon isn't). Small things, which most people don't notice or care about, of course.

Originally Posted by Eric Anondson

Interesting discussion.

Something I've been thinking though, while there have been elements of discrimination (sexism) in D&D against women, it has been my experience that there far greater amounts of discrimination (especially in intensity) towards D&D by women.

I'm not saying it's two-way, nor that there is cause and effect (though maybe there is). But I've met for more women who have a visceral negative reaction against TRPGs than I have met male hobbyists who have even mildly sexist reactions.

That's a damn good point. I think a big part of the reason for that is the social idea of D&D as a retreat for socially inept men. That's something else which I'm interested in seeing the hobby overcome, and I think in some ways it's doing better in that area than it has before, just like with the sexism. And similarly, as with the sexism, there's still space for improvement.

It made me think that in this current rule set, which angle would be the easiest to work upon to bring more women to the hobby.

Tough question. I think there have been some decent answers in this thread, and it's probably a combination of many things.

Originally Posted by Bumbles

BTW, I just did a quick scan of the art in the core books for 1e and 4e.

In 1E, I noticed 2 pictures of females in the PHB (one a female elf with the race pictures, the other a caster type at the end), maybe 8 or so in the DMG (I'm not sure whether or not to count the images at the bottom of the RDG page as one or many), and the MM had like 2 females that weren't on pages of monsters that were explicitly female.

In comparison, the 4E books had males and females for each of the races in the PHB, and females throughout the rest of the book, same for the DMG. For the MM, many of the monster pictures had male and female examples, including the player-character races, but some others like Goblins and Bugbears as well.

Note, I'm not bothering to compare the quality/style/amount of the art, just doing a quick look through the books for some perspective. And I really don't want to go through all the editions, but if somebody else does, hey, more power to you!

Thanks for that. I never actually played 1e, but I'm not at all surprise by what you noted. Some of my comments in the original post and later in this thread are inflected by my opinion about the nature of the art rather than just the quantity (it's still way more common to sexualize females in 4e art than men, for example), but just having more equal representation is a step forward.

Originally Posted by Hairfoot

I've opened similar threads on previous incarnations of ENworld, but I've mellowed since.

Fantasy worlds are usually sexist, but rarely downright misogynistic.

Probably true, but I tend to have issues with the former too, and think it's often just a milder/subtler form of the latter. Obviously many will (and, as this thread indicates, do) differ.

I will, however, never regard chainmail bikinis as legitimate, simply because they're absurd as fighting garb.

Agreed Though that charge can be leveled at a lot of other armor in the books too, which seem specifically designed to show off some fairly vulnerable parts of the human (almost invariably female) body.

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

As for the 'evidence' given in the OP, in the vast majority it was people (including at least one moderator) takin' the proverbial pee, or just being harmlessly jocular. Otherwise, (maybe) one or two poor ignorant sods who truly probably don't know better. . . yet. Who knows, in a few years, growing up might sneak up on them. *shrug* Anyway, the targets here seem. . . odd choices indeed.

I think I'm referencing a much subtler form of sexism in my original post and elsewhere in this thread than what you're referring to, the (to borrow a phrase used by Jeff Wilder earlier) so-subtle-we're-not-even-aware-we're-sexist variety. Which, admittedly, is something possessed by lots of people in the real world, which is why I tend to note it here too. Many, of course, don't and/or simply disagree.

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

*raises hand*

I don't advocate diceless RP, since I enjoy the random aspects. But if there were an easy way to never utter a number aloud, and instead somehow convey the numbers instantly and only ever describe the effects via the narrative, I'd be all over it.

Wait - so you're not actually working on this new system yet, Ari?

[NewJeffCT]

Originally Posted by shilsen

That's a damn good point. I think a big part of the reason for that is the social idea of D&D as a retreat for socially inept men. That's something else which I'm interested in seeing the hobby overcome, and I think in some ways it's doing better in that area than it has before, just like with the sexism. And similarly, as with the sexism, there's still space for improvement.


Thanks for that. I never actually played 1e, but I'm not at all surprise by what you noted. Some of my comments in the original post and later in this thread are inflected by my opinion about the nature of the art rather than just the quantity (it's still way more common to sexualize females in 4e art than men, for example), but just having more equal representation is a step forward.

A few years back, the WotC boards had a thread on attracting more women into the hobby... as a follow-up, I had posted a thread on a non-gaming forum that I frequent about the impression women had of people who play D&D:

I got a wide variety of responses - some who still remembered the 1E artwork as being sexist, while others who were pretty open-minded about the game. But, there is still the impression that it's sort of a "Boy's Club"

[Starfox]

Originally Posted by resistor

The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women. This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.

One of the bad things about traditional sexism is that it strikes both ways; not only does it punish women for not confirming to male values; it punishes males who do not confirm to male values either, and much harsher.

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

For the most part. Although we had a setting once where women were the ones sexist towards men, based on the assumption that it was males who destroyed earth and caused the human race to have to leave home. Ironically, it so happened that it had been a women ultimately responsible for the final straw.

Nice. If I'm going to see sexism, then I'm all for equal opportunity sexism.

That's one of the weird things I've noticed with the campaign settings out there. They either shoot for some type of egalitarianism (and usually miss, other than Eberron) or have males as the gender in power. I never see women as consistently in power in a setting, and sadly the only real matriarchy which comes to mind in D&D is the drow, and that's got all sorts of weird sexist (and I'd argue downright misogynist) crap going on.

Actually, that sounds like at least 50% of the female gamers I've met

No wonder.

I know I've had a couple of female gamers tell me that when they got into gaming they felt they needed to emphasize such qualities to be accepted as one of the boys. And then I had my all-girl group which regularly embarrassed the hell out of any male added to the group by their crudity

Originally Posted by Starfox

We have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.

This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.

I've been watching - and posting in - that thread, and while I've seen some comments by the publisher there about how they're planning to cater to male players too, I agree that it's primarily, and almost exclusively, catering to female players.

This is not a bad thing. Girls gave a right to their own games. But maybe boys do too? Maybe its ok to have games that pander more to one gender than to the other? Where you get to play around with stereotypes without getting bashed for it? Or is the political climate today such that only girls can do this? Isn't that even more sexist?

Of course, there is a difference between sexism-as-a-genre of witch girl adventures and the sexism-as-an-institution this threat attacks. I'm not blind to the fact that most sexism is still directed towards women. And games like fatal are not just sexist - they showcase a lifestyle of disregard for sentient life that goes way beyond simple sexism. Still, I wanted to make the point, show that sexism is a wider issue than people might think and that it swings both ways. Attacks on perceived sexism can actually be sexist themselves.

Agreed. But I would suggest that sometimes when dealing with sexism (and many other -isms) where one group is presented as the default or norm, one has to do so by catering to the underrepresented group(s) in a way that might seem sexist in itself. Emphasis on seem. If gaming and RPGs were generally marketed equally towards men and women, I'd say that a game like Witch Girl Adventures is very sexist. But since gaming and RPGs are, in my estimation, marketed disproportionately towards men already, I'd say something like Witch Girl is only redressing the balance.

That said, I do have some issues with that kind of an approach, even though I can see why one would go that route and think that it (possibly) might bring a lot more people into gaming.

Originally Posted by resistor

OK, I'm not picking on you in particular (several other posters have said the same thing), but this touches on a peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up, which is that I find this type of response somewhat hypocritical.

The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women. This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.

But as soon as someone suggests designing for/marketing to women, the "We're all special snowflakes!" argument comes out.

Yeah, well, me too. I mean, I don't give a **** about cars, get nauseated by excessively violent media, and don't find the big breasts/no waist combo especially attractive (OK, I'll admit, explosions are kind of cool ). And yet nobody has a problem taking for granted that these stereotypes define what men like and/or how to market to/design for them.

It's fine (in fact, probably a good thing) if we want to go this route, but that means you can't talk about male stereotypes either, which undermines one of the core assumptions of this discussion.

Actually I think one should definitely talk about male stereotypes where these conversations are concerned, and I doubt I'm the only one. A lot of the things you mentioned are issues I was thinking of when making my original post. But if I wanted to cover each and every one of these avenues, I'd have to write a manifesto, which nobody would read and we wouldn't have this conversation. Whereas with a shorter post (albeit one which leaves out or barely touches on certain important issues) we can have a conversation like this one, which can then develop and touch on other issues, as I think it already has.

Originally Posted by Dice4Hire

Unfortunately that is how discourse works on these sensitive topics. You can malign the majority, but need to pussyfoot around minorities. I know that history is against minorities, but it sure makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

I run into that issue a lot, but I think it's possible to both be polite and respectful (to both majorities and minorities) and have intelligent discourse. Sure, it's complicated and it's difficult, but I don't think that makes it worthless or impossible.

However, to try and ignore the fact that we have two different sexes in this world (or more, if you go for subtle variations) and treat all people as one same thing is a disservice. I find reading about how men and women handle things fascinating, from child-rearing, to logic/problem solving, interpersonal relationships, and stranger things.

I'm one of those people who believes that there's far too much variation between the individuals within each sex to generalize about any sex, esp. since what any sex is conceived of as changes drastically based on their positioning, whether cultural, historical, geographical, etc. Hell, the actual number of sexes or what they are changes depending on what part of the world you're in. I'd rather just deal with people as individuals. Which may make my original post a little ironic, except that I'm arguing that D&D subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, is exclusionary towards certain individuals by placing them in particular groups.

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

Yes, it is a sexist game, one that should have never been published IMO. This whole girly witch stuff is not something I'd like to introduce my daughters to - if i had any. It would be somewhat ok if there was at least some useful option for a male character but this way I think it is condescending in both ways.

I can see why you'd say that, and I doubt any of the women I've ever gamed with would want to play it, but I think one reason why a game like that is produced is the nature of gaming and the gaming population right now. If gaming is something which was equally welcoming to everyone, irrespective of gender, I don't think a game like Witch Girl would be able to (or have to) show up.

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

Yet I don't mind talking about stereotypes, I'm just somewhat opposed to assumptions as the one I responded to. Of course now I realize that the poster I responded to might have had different experiences.

One of the interesting things about such discussions for me is what it displays of the varied assumptions each of us brings with us to the gaming table. If it seems like I'm bashing D&D in this thread, I'm really not, since I think it's fascinating that it's a forum where people with such diverse tastes and opinions can meet to do creative, smart, fun things together. The same goes for ENWorld, which is one of the reasons I hang out here so much.

Originally Posted by Hairfoot

Does the leathered, buckled, dungeonpunk male beefcake style of 3E/4E art appeal to women?

Search me. In general, I've heard very few women or men who say that it appeals to them. Or maybe I'm just thinking of Hennet

[roguerouge]

Originally Posted by Starfox

We have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.

This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.

So? You're going to need more evidence than that to claim that the thread is sexist, let alone that it's VERY sexist. And, if that is your evidence, is Smith College sexist to you? Is the very notion of any special-gender time or activity sexist to you?

Edit: And, since straight and gay men pretend to be women all the time in real life, cosplay, cross-dressing pageants and in MMORPGs, I'm going to need more evidence that men cannot play this game. I'll agree that it drives off insecure men, but beyond that...

Originally Posted by Lwaxy

This whole girly witch stuff is not something I'd like to introduce my daughters to - if i had any.

Is it the girly part or the witchy part?

If your daughter wanted to be femme, would you actively try to thwart her desire to express herself? Or if she was merely curious about what being femme was like, and wanted to try it out in her imagination through this game?

If it's because the girly and the witchy parts are combined, well, then what do you want for representation of witches: back to green hags only?

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you're reacting this way, because you've not presented any evidence for your position beyond the fact that it's girly.

[Nikosandros]

Originally Posted by Nifft

I think there's sexism because girls have an Int penalty.

Powers and Perils, the old RPG from Avalon Hill, actually has a int penalty for females...

Well, to be technically precise it grants human males a bonus to int, but it is functionally the same.

[Tuft]

Originally Posted by Starfox

One of the bad things about traditional sexism is that it strikes both ways; not only does it punish women for not confirming to male values; it punishes males who do not confirm to male values either, and much harsher.

Yes. In how many cultures and subcultures isn't saying that someone is acting like the other gender one of the worst insults you can make? Especially that someone male is acting like a female.

Insults and curses got to be one of the most telling and exposing ways in which a culture shows its true values...

[Tuft]

Originally Posted by roguerouge

So? You're going to need more evidence than that to claim that the thread is sexist, let alone that it's VERY sexist. And, if that is your evidence, is Smith College sexist to you? Is the very notion of any special-gender time or activity sexist to you?

I think the point here is that if a boys-only club is sexist, then a girls-only one ought to be sexist too.

If marketing something to a male audience using imagery that attracts males is sexist, marketing something... well, fill in the rest.

[WayneLigon]

Originally Posted by Proserpine

Part of the point is that there's no inherent reason for D&D to cater mostly to its male audience. Well, minus the fact that it came out of war gaming, but that's not a valid excuse - D&D has evolved a lot since then, and is a much different game now.

Given the demographics for GenCon, mmm, maybe not. It was 81% male in 2008. While things have gotten better over time (I'd be guessing it was closer to 95% in earlier years*), I'd say the smart money would be on all of the major cons containing substantially more males than females. I'd say that gives us about a good a cross section of fans as we're likely to get without PHBs that read DNA and contact a server everytime they're touched.

* Oh, a thought. It might not have gotten better. The average age of gamers has kind of shifted upwards, making it more likely that SO's and wives will attend and we can't guarentee those were gamers as well though it would see safe to assume that more were than were not - those we still need a demographic that covers the people actually there for the gaming.

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but it's been a fascinating read.

My own experiences with sexism in games are varied, but I can point out a couple of things in my own experience. I was playing in a 3e game, and a female member of the group was told, to her face, that her female character would find it harder to get recognition for her deeds in the game-world, purely because she was female. When challenged on this by several members of the group, the DM reiterated that he felt this accurately reflected the real-world, and in particular the historical area he wanted to portray, and that it shouldn't be a problem. When challenged again that this was a game, and that it was unfair to apply a real-world piece of politics to characters in this game, he refused to discuss it. The female gamer in question left the group not long after.

More broadly, I can certainly appreciate that as a hobby gaming (and in particular, D&D) is male-centered. The game that I run is certainly combat-heavy, light on role-playing (at least, in terms of deep immersion, character driven plots) and fairly loud and boisterous. Whether that would be off-putting to a female player, I'm not sure. Should I be approached by one (and I would need to be approached because I'm not looking for any more players right now) then I'd be clear about it, and if they weren't interested I'd ask what sort of game they did like and see if I could help them find a group that was more suitable to their tastes. But then, frankly, if I was approached by a male gamer with the same problem I'd offer the same solution.

I would also like to re-emphasise something that some other people have mentioned, and it is this:

If you cannot see or understand that there is a problem with sexism in RPG's, in terms of the marketing, the assumptions, the behaviour of gamers (both in games and at conventions), then you are part of the problem.

In addition to that, I would like to state this:

If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one.

I appreciate that the second statement there is going to provoke some comments. I'm happy to discuss this view.

I do also find it slightly hilarious that in a hobby which is dominated by men, has products that are nearly entirely aimed at, written by and marketed to men, finally gets around to writing a game aimed at and marketed to women, that the response isn't "Oh, about time" but "This is sexist! It excludes men! I am excluded! I feel oppressed!"

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Mathew_Freeman

If you cannot see or understand that there is a problem with sexism in RPG's, in terms of the marketing, the assumptions, the behaviour of gamers (both in games and at conventions), then you are part of the problem.

Let's see now. . .

If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one.

Oh, and it gets better.

Are you male?

If so, you have just shot yourself in the foot with the other one in your mouth.

Nice shootin'.