Harassment in gaming

[Rottle]

Maybe I am just too old school but it baffles me that such behavior isn't stopped by others who see it happen. You just don't ever let someone get harassed without stepping in. Maybe they don't recognized it as harassment.

I would ask if you feel your being harassed please speak up right away, maybe I am dim or don't understand but I do promise I and I think most others will step up to stand with you. I don't care your gender, race, age, or well anything else. If you feel your being harassed thats enough, say so clearly and I really have faith others will stand with you even if they don't understand. I believe in people and even if they don't understand they will not allow someone's request for help to go unheeded.

It is time we talk solutions. Being ready to stand with those harassed is a start. Making sure others know when you are being harassed is another. What other ideas do we have to stop this repugnant behavior?

 

[Umbran]

What other ideas do we have to stop this repugnant behavior?

Make sure the conventions or game stores you frequent have clearly stated and posted harassment policies. If they don't have them, ask them to post them. If they refuse, ask why. If they cannot satisfy you with an answer (and it should be very difficult to satisfy you, right?) make it clear to your local friends. Give a Yelp review about it, or raise the point on their Facebook page.

 

[Gradine]

You don't understand. This issue here is not whether or not you believe these things happen. I quite clearly - even in the assessment of the person I'm not agree with - believe these things happen, that they are serious, and that they should not happen.

This hasn't dented your confidence in the simple binary narrative of either you believe or you don't believe in the slightest. Why?



Now we get down to the real brass tacks. This is where almost all the disagreement actually is.

I mean, to put a trivializing spin on this, one could argue from what I've said that the 'solution' to this problem is simply for men to beat the living tar out of any man they see doing this at a con or a gaming store, and then for the whole community to applaud that as the (as I put it) "human filth" were thrown out the door a bloody mess. But, it should be obvious at some level that not only was I not seriously advocating that as a solution, but speaking out of my anger at the whole idea this would happen, but such a 'solution' would have more than a few problems of its own. It certainly doesn't have the problem of not stepping up and tolerating this crap, but it has its own problems. And while I am trivializing my own words on this subject here by giving a straw man example of behavior in response to this, ultimately when we get down to pragmatics, a lot of the things we'd try to do have serious issues.

More over, there is a deeper level that we don't agree on, which for lack of a better term lets call 'alignment', and even all of us in the "not evil" camp that are like, "This is a bad thing", don't construct our view of the world, society, or even the idea of identity in the same fashion. The only thing we basically agree on is, "Don't be a jerk", but when we try to implement that I think we are going to be immediately shocked by what different people put not just in the jerk category but in the down right "not good" category.

To be quite frank about how deep this divide goes, there have been responses in agreement to me that I consider morally equivalent to a KKK ranting about racial superiority, and I feel pretty sure that other people have probably got the same view of things I'm saying. Even speaking in a common language that the other won't because of culture differences and assumptions won't find offensive is very hard, even when everyone in the conversation is committed to "doing something about" sexual harassment.



Unfortunately, they are not, and this thread is a good example of why. For example, after saying that, you go right back to:



You can't engage in a productive conversation on this topic if your assumptions are completely obdurate to what anyone is saying. Get through your head, the source of what we disagree over has nothing to do with whether or not this stuff happens or whether I believe it happens. Consider, you've decided to construct the argument that you just did, directly quoting a conversation between me and someone else where we both agree that the incidents in question happen, and yet you still constructed an argument based around a binary of whether or not someone believes this stuff happens. You had to have read the thread and paid close attention, or you couldn't have quoted it. But what you read had to figuratively bounce off your presumptions about this subject in order for you to respond the way you did.

The remainder of your argument is equally insulting and oblivious, so I won't even go to the trouble of responding to it. Why would I bother when its so completely clear that there are more fundamental problems here that you are still framing the debate in this manner?

Again, if we have to get our world views to line up in order to solve this, then we don't have much hope. If for example, whether we can work together to stop sexual harassment is predicated on us both constructing the notion of identity in the exact same way, and we first have to hash that out and if we can't we are reduced to shouting that the other is a "terrorist", then yeah, let's just close the thread.

I apologize if I have misread your statements or arguments. It appears I was making some assumptions about where you were coming from based on your overall position, and more to the point conflating the argument you've been having with other discussions happening in this thread, which is obviously not something I should be doing while trying to engage in a productive conversation. As someone who hates when my own statements are misread or when people make incorrect assumptions by erroneously "reading between the lines", I again apologize, sincerely, for misrepresenting you specifically.

However, I feel like I too have been misrepresented here. To write off the rest of what I have to say as "insulting and oblivious" is the very definition of being insulting and oblivious yourself. Part of that is my fault; I did address (if indirectly) a lot of this messaging towards you specifically when it actually appears it was intended towards other individuals in the thread. That said, nothing I have said is not absolutely true; it most certainly is. I just misplaced your particular argument as one being about belief (where I do sincerely believe constructive dialogue is unlikely if not impossible until one side demonstrates the ability to practice basic levels of human empathy); where instead it seems like your argument falls more in line with the merits of the scope of and possible solutions to the problem, which I think is a productive dialogue.

That said, there is an element of "belief" that has created a sticking point, and this is what you would refer to as "identity politics" and the notion of privilege. It's a significant sticking point because sexual harassment and violence against women in gaming communities is not isolated problem that exists in a vacuum; it's intractably linked to all sorts of broader societal issues that I and others believe need to be addressed to see any progress but you can feel free to roll your eyes at as I list them: toxic masculinity ("we'll kick their asses to protect our women!"), the objectification of women (women as victims/sexual trophies, to bring it back to gaming), rape culture (which is an idea not even all anti-rape activists have gotten on board with at this point so I'll forgive the eye rolling), the inherent distrust of women ("obviously every story here is fictional"), etc. It's my belief that any conversation about the scope of the problem or any possible solutions cannot prove effective unless each of these issues (and more) are addressed as well. You obviously disagree. So yeah, that's a pretty big sticking point, but not nearly at the level of the "none of these issues are true/men standing up for this aren't real men" nonsense that happened further up-thread. We're still in the scope/solution stage at this point.

It is worth mentioning, though, that unless I'm missing anything (feel free to tell me if I have), but the only person referring to you as a terrorist for not 100% aligning yourself with the base assumptions of the article's author or anyone else in the thread is... well, you. This sort of self-victimization and defensiveness does derail the conversation (see the tone policing of the article's author, also in this thread) and detracts from the real issues you yourself seem to agree are much more important. I'm going to address this next statement to entire thread/board, because I'm truly not singling you out here: but if you read the entirety of her article and thought she was defining you, personally, as a terrorist, then that probably is something that you should take a moment of self-reflection about, which if I had to guess I would say was entirely intentional on the author's part.

So yeah, I apologize again for lumping your argument with some of the more intractable and unreasonable stuff up-thread. I still not certain there's a middle ground to be reached between you and others until you're willing to give even a smidgen of an inch on some of the gender politics stuff that myself and others feel is undeniably linked to this issue, but I'm hopeful and I certainly don't think the discussion is not worth having. I mean, you obviously seem to give some sort of credence to the notions of identity politics and privilege or else you wouldn't have dragged dannyalcatraz into your comment about white accusers (intersectionality!). I certainly should not have declared you bereft of empathy; I'm sorry for that. Again, those comments were really directed at others in this thread, it's simply the timing of when I came to the thread and my own misreading that I ended up directing them at you instead.

 

[Rechan]

(I did a global ENWorld search and didn't see any mention of this topic, and since it's kinda related to this thread, I thought I'd bring it up here. This thread has been mainly related to women, but there's other people who can be harassed.

Last week, Baldur's Gate 2 received a DLC, Siege of Dragonspear. In it, there's a character who in a few lines of dialogue, mentions that they are transgender. The response has not been pleasant. The argument is that A) tthe existence of a trans character in the game is a break of suspension of disbelief, and 2) the inclusion of one is facilitating an agenda.

My point in bringing this up is: what do you think this says to any trans person whoeven remotely thinks about getting involved in gaming? Let alone any that might want to get into game development?

I do give enormous props to game studio, Wizards of the Coast, and even Ed Greenwood himself standing firm with the inclusion of the character, and the developer who wrote the scene/character. WotC included mention of various LGBT characters in the 5e core, and hell, Paizo has a TG iconic character, so I am so proud the big guys are behind this.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In a perfect world, one of infinite time, attention, resources, and goodwill, nobody would have to. In *this* world, we must prioritize. Walk into an emergency room on a busy Saturday night with a skinned knee among the gunshot wounds and drug overdoses, and you'll see what I mean. It isn't that your issue isn't an issue, but you may have to wait for it to be addressed. It isn't that they are "bigger victims" - that sounds like an emotionally loaded phrase. It is simply that the injury they suffer is greater than yours.

I think this is a good description of "societal triage".

 

[MechaPilot]

I was inspired by this conversation to ask two of my male coworkers, who are also friends of mine as well as convention-goers, about the topic.

One of them said that there is harassment and assault, but no more so than you would find at a concert or other such event where you get a lot of people together in a relatively close space.

The other said that harassment and assault happens often at cons, and he specifically stated that it happens more frequently at gaming cons and anime cons. In particular, he stated that female cosplayers often have to deal with assault in the form of unwanted touching/groping, as if there were a general assumption that it's okay to touch the cosplayers without asking.

Now, I wouldn't say that either of these friends is extraordinarily sensitive to women's issues, or that either of them self-identifies as an old-school feminist* like I do: I also wouldn't say that either of them is anything close to being a misogynist. This is actually the first time we've spoken about a womens' issue, I was the one who brought it up, and both of them seemed sort of bummed out by the answers they gave (given what I know about them after working with them and being friends with them for years, I'm certain they found the idea of women being harassed and assaulted at cons for the things they enjoy to be distasteful). However, I will say that the second friend is more of a people-watcher than the first, so it may well be that the first friend didn't notice as much of it going on as the second one did. The first friend actually attended a con recently with his girlfriend, and I'd be most interested to get her perspective on it.

* old-school feminism meaning advocating for equality between the genders, but not for special treatment for women, and not overreacting to things like the leaked Suicide Squad set photo of the Joker slapping Harley.

Now, I'm a shy girl. I've had people tell me that conventions are fun, and that I'd probably really like playing D&D at a convention if I went and played. I've always been held back in that regard by my shyness. However, I now have a reason to not even try to overcome it. Based on everything that I've read and heard, even if I was able to overcome my shyness issues I really don't think I'd feel welcome, comfortable, or safe at a convention.

Years ago I had an experience that almost caused be to quit playing D&D. My DM relocated, so I had to find a new group to game with. I found a group, but I didn't really know anyone there. During the game, the party bit off more than it could chew, and we were captured. I was the only female player, and I played the only female character in the group. The DM proceeded to have our captors rape my character. He even pushed me to roleplay the scene, describing what the rapist was doing to my character and asking me what my character was doing.

I was horrified to the point of silence.

When I looked around the table for support, the other players just stared at me and watched as my face turned pale, glancing back to the DM as he described the "action." Once I realized that yes, this was actually happening and they expected me to be a part of it, I grabbed my stuff and left as quickly as I could.

It was humiliating, terrifying, and degrading (I could only assume they were imagining me going through what was being done to my character). In retrospect, I think I was very fortunate that I didn't suffer a real life assault that night. However, as fortunate as I may have been that night, it was also a very scarring experience that informs my decisions about playing with strangers to this day. That's how I almost quit D&D for good, and I have no desire to relive that situation ever again, especially not at a convention where more people can gather around to witness my being raped by proxy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Maybe I am just too old school but it baffles me that such behavior isn't stopped by others who see it happen. You just don't ever let someone get harassed without stepping in. Maybe they don't recognized it as harassment.

There you go. That's it in a nutshell. You have the offenders, and the you have the ones who- while they may not be offenders themselves- don't see the problem and thus, don't take any action to change the situation. This silence becomes complicity: it maintains the environment in which the offenses can continue without repercussions.

In the late 1990s, a new seafood restaurant opened in my neighborhood. We went in at an off-peak time, so the place was empty. We ordered our food and it was pretty good. Mid-meal, however, some others came in and out in their orders. One walked over to the juke box and put some money in, so we were treated to the David Allen Coe song, "My Wife Ran Away With A ".*

The owner shot the other group (laughing like hyenas) a dirty look as we left, never to return, but...who is responsible for buying/renting and installing the jukebox in the first place? What business loaded that song into the machine to make it available to purchase? DAC claims he's not a racist- his drummer's wife is black- but why record that song?**

There was a whole chain of actions and inactions that made that moment possible.







* which, BTW, is something I actually appreciate about Southern bigots- they often tell you who they are. They almost can't help themselves. Makes them easier to avoid. In the North, they generally keep themselves concealed more often than not, and simply sabotage you.


** and others. See his Underground Album, which was called one of the most racist, misogynistic, and homophobic albums ever by one reviewer.

 

[billd91]

Years ago I had an experience that almost caused be to quit playing D&D. My DM relocated, so I had to find a new group to game with. I found a group, but I didn't really know anyone there. During the game, the party bit off more than it could chew, and we were captured. I was the only female player, and I played the only female character in the group. The DM proceeded to have our captors rape my character. He even pushed me to roleplay the scene, describing what the rapist was doing to my character and asking me what my character was doing.

I was horrified to the point of silence.

When I looked around the table for support, the other players just stared at me and watched as my face turned pale, glancing back to the DM as he described the "action." Once I realized that yes, this was actually happening and they expected me to be a part of it, I grabbed my stuff and left as quickly as I could.

It was humiliating, terrifying, and degrading (I could only assume they were imagining me going through what was being done to my character). In retrospect, I think I was very fortunate that I didn't suffer a real life assault that night. However, as fortunate as I may have been that night, it was also a very scarring experience that informs my decisions about playing with strangers to this day. That's how I almost quit D&D for good, and I have no desire to relive that situation ever again, especially not at a convention where more people can gather around to witness my being raped by proxy.

That's obnoxious. I'm sorry you were subjected to that.

 

[Rottle]

I don't have the words or the idea to solve this. Every time someone posts how it happened to them I just get more frustrated I cannot stop it.

I recall the guardian angels used to patrol the subways all in red so they could be easily seen. Maybe I don't know maybe some gamers with the courage to stand out could do that. Don't get physical or anything just have your phone ready to call for help if that is needed or just be there to assure others they are safe. Maybe that isn't a good idea but it's so frustrating to know this happens.

 

[Celebrim]

@Grandine: Yes, I'm doing a lot of eye rolling over here, but again, perhaps not for the reasons you believe.

You have to understand that I have repeatedly in this thread tried to get other participants to view my ideas in a favorable light, by highlighting where how I see things overlaps with how I suspect they see things. And I have even at times allowed myself to use language which I think they would understand to express these ideas. But you ought not to assume that in doing so I am in any sense endorsing how that language is generally employed, or that my thinking on this subject comes from a similar place that yours does.

Or to put it another way, I'm trying to practice tolerance toward persons, even though I'm actually very intolerant of some of the ideas being discussed here and do not think the ideas deserve any more toleration than I would extend toward someone who came here and started saying that for example, women secretly like to be raped. So when you push an idea like "intersectionality" to describe what I'm actually thinking, understand that I actually categorize the entire concept of intersectionality in the category of "things that are inherently hateful and immoral".

To understand why, consider two different ways of constructing identity: let's call them Idem and Isum. (Though I'm sure I can come up with better terms if I've given some time to think about it) Idem says that what makes each person themselves is something individual to them. You can think of Idem as saying, "I know who you are by looking at your signature, or your fingerprint, or your face. These things are inherently unique to you." Under Idem, I can't say I know anything about a person until I actually know the person and get to know their distinct individual traits.

Isum says that what makes each person knowable is the list of categories that they belong to. Isum sees each individual as a list of descriptors that are applied to them. If you apply enough descriptors to the person, then you know the person. You can think of Isum as saying that, "I know your identity because you are 6'2", blond haired, brown eyed, Caucasian, male, etc." If you apply enough descriptors to the person, then you can say, "I know that person." And the problem with Isum is that while it can be at times useful, it's inherently wrong. It's inherently wrong because it's not factual. Each person is more than the list of categories that they belong to. It's inherently wrong because the list of categories is assigned to the person, sometimes by choice, and sometimes without choice. It's inherently wrong because the categories that are assigned to the person as important are arbitrary. It's inherently wrong because it denies the individual worth, individual identity, and individual rights of the person.

Yet "Intersectionality" instead of studying the Idem of the person, seeks to know the person by studying the Isum of the person. And in doing so it reinforces the creation of the idea of categorization. The mental mode of thought behind it is inherently racist, sexist, and ultimately hateful and denigrating. It is also something that ought to be rejected on its own terms. If you think you know me because I'm a "white male", you are just ignorant. Full stop. Because you'd never accept the claim that I know someone else because I knew they were a "black female". "Intersectionality" maybe useful to certain disciplines, because it formalizes a structure in which academic disciplines receive approval to treat people as statistics and homogenous political units, instead of messy individuals. But that used to be called racial essentialism about 100 years ago. "Intersectionality" is just an umbrella terms that makes that sort of thought politically acceptable and allows it to pass in polite company.

So no. I'm not going to budge an inch. Nor will I stand aside and allow that sort of thought to drag us back into a dark place. Nor will I stand here and endorse irrational muddled thinking that in one sentence uses identity to mean idem, and then lacks sufficient self-awareness to see in the next sentence it's used the word 'identity' to mean the antonym of idem. Nor will I endorse using the word privilege to mean its opposite or another sort of Ingsoc lobotomizing of the language. Such thought needs to be lampooned, rather than celebrated or promoted.