Roll20 users; are my impressions right or wrong on this

[Ovinomancer]

Also: How they're treated at gaming stores, conventions, online forums, twitter, reddit, VTT's, etc...

Is this a gaming problem or a broader cultural one, though? There's an argument for male social outcasts being attracted to gaming as a safe space and then gatekeeping against women as their oppressors. This doesn't align with the current zeitgeist of privileged men and oppressed women, but it follows exactly the same pattern as saying women have been oppressed by male gamers and so its okay they erect gatekeepers so they can have a male-free safe space.

The problem with defining -isms according to a preferred outcome is that you open the door to others doing the same. At that point, you're not arguing principles anymore, but instead comparing who can yell louder. This fails to serve any real reform or to address underlying issues and instead sets up a treadmill where -isms are constantly morphing in definition, usually headed in the more and more specific direction.

Some minor social filtering is fine. No men allowed fir a group is fine, but tgen so is no women allowed. Saying you can have the one but not the other invokes Animal Farm's "some animals are more equal than others." We should strive to reach a goal of no unequal treatment, not justify other forms of discrimination in the name of reciprocity. All that does is push to reverse the roles but keep the discrimination.

This isn't to say that there aren't real, addressable problems -- there are. Improving codes of conduct are very welcome changes. Awareness is improving, as is intolerance for bad behavior. We can do better. But, things like art being a high focus? Sure, inclusive art is nice, but nowhere does it make a difference unless those affected are already playing in a group that accepts them. Art does not increase the number if gamers excluded due to duscrimination; it is a nice bennue to those already inside. By all means, do inclusive art, but ket's nit pretend tgat's anywhere near tge frontlines of combatting discrimination.

 

[billd91]

Is this a gaming problem or a broader cultural one, though? There's an argument for male social outcasts being attracted to gaming as a safe space and then gatekeeping against women as their oppressors. This doesn't align with the current zeitgeist of privileged men and oppressed women, but it follows exactly the same pattern as saying women have been oppressed by male gamers and so its okay they erect gatekeepers so they can have a male-free safe space.

It doesn't matter if it's a broader cultural problem if that problem manifests itself in behavior within the hobby. Those of us within the hobby can work to change our subculture to correct the problems we have here whether or not those are being similarly addressed in the broader culture.
But exactly what kind of good argument can be made for male-only safe spaces away from their female oppressors is beyond me.

The problem with defining -isms according to a preferred outcome is that you open the door to others doing the same. At that point, you're not arguing principles anymore, but instead comparing who can yell louder. This fails to serve any real reform or to address underlying issues and instead sets up a treadmill where -isms are constantly morphing in definition, usually headed in the more and more specific direction.

Some minor social filtering is fine. No men allowed fir a group is fine, but tgen so is no women allowed. Saying you can have the one but not the other invokes Animal Farm's "some animals are more equal than others." We should strive to reach a goal of no unequal treatment, not justify other forms of discrimination in the name of reciprocity. All that does is push to reverse the roles but keep the discrimination.

Part and parcel of dealing with any -ism out there is repairing the damage they've done. And if that means safe spaces for women, a stronger emphasis on non-sexist art, more inclusive art, or even programs in the broader culture like affirmative action, then that's what needs to be done. It's only after damages have been sufficiently addressed and we see something approaching real equality can we attain the goal of no unequal treatment. Until you reach that point, the legacy of the previous -ism still drags down the group that was discriminated against.

This isn't to say that there aren't real, addressable problems -- there are. Improving codes of conduct are very welcome changes. Awareness is improving, as is intolerance for bad behavior. We can do better. But, things like art being a high focus? Sure, inclusive art is nice, but nowhere does it make a difference unless those affected are already playing in a group that accepts them. Art does not increase the number if gamers excluded due to duscrimination; it is a nice bennue to those already inside. By all means, do inclusive art, but ket's nit pretend tgat's anywhere near tge frontlines of combatting discrimination.

The arts a much bigger deal than you think. The way a game or other work presents itself is part of the first impression it makes on people. If all the women are in sexy clothes and passive roles, that's going to make a negative impression compared to one where the women are more sensibly clothed and engaged in the same kind of heroism as the male characters. That impression may even be fatal to the potential player's interest. Certainly art isn't everything, but still worthy of a high focus even if not the worst offender.

 

[Gradine]

Is this a gaming problem or a broader cultural one, though? There's an argument for male social outcasts being attracted to gaming as a safe space and then gatekeeping against women as their oppressors. This doesn't align with the current zeitgeist of privileged men and oppressed women, but it follows exactly the same pattern as saying women have been oppressed by male gamers and so its okay they erect gatekeepers so they can have a male-free safe space.

The problem with defining -isms according to a preferred outcome is that you open the door to others doing the same. At that point, you're not arguing principles anymore, but instead comparing who can yell louder. This fails to serve any real reform or to address underlying issues and instead sets up a treadmill where -isms are constantly morphing in definition, usually headed in the more and more specific direction.

Some minor social filtering is fine. No men allowed fir a group is fine, but tgen so is no women allowed. Saying you can have the one but not the other invokes Animal Farm's "some animals are more equal than others." We should strive to reach a goal of no unequal treatment, not justify other forms of discrimination in the name of reciprocity. All that does is push to reverse the roles but keep the discrimination.

So, there are a couple of issues with this argument, the biggest is this: for the most part, women are not the reason why male "nerds" are social outcasts; that problem is by-and-large other men, and by gate-keeping women from nerdy culture they are reinforcing the very gendered stereotypes and heteropatriarchy that made them social outcasts in the first place. That's self-defeating behavior at best; at worst you're verging into incel "supreme gentlemen" territory. In no actual instances are men seriously oppressed by women, at least not in any broader cultural or structural sense. There is nothing to justify discrimination or gatekeeping against women within this or any other nerd-dominated hobby other than misogyny, either deliberate or internalized.

Creating spaces without men, however, at least in context of small online gaming groups, is an actual matter of personal privacy and safety. Sometimes those practical concerns butt heads with loftier ideals. If the levels of harassment against women on the internet, up-to and including doxxing, swatting, and death threats, were not so outrageously out of of proportion I might even be inclined to agree with you. As it is though, the dangers that women face on the internet represent such a stronger justification than "I'm worried about all the Stacys making fun of me" does that "No Women" spaces reek of discrimination while "No Men" spaces seem a perfectly reasonable precaution. Not as a matter of structure, anyway, but certainly as an accommodation on request.

This, by the way, demonstrates the difference between equality and equity. Equality seeks equality of service; equity seeks equality of outcomes. In instances where the playing field isn't level (which is most instances, but definitely includes having a defined gender identity on the internet), equity seeks approaches to make the field more level; in this instance, by allowing for spaces in which women gamers can be reasonably sure they do not have to worry for their safety while play tabletop games.

 

[Umbran]

There's an argument for male social outcasts being attracted to gaming as a safe space and then gatekeeping against women as their oppressors.

There is an argument for the Earth being flat, too. One can make "an argument" for virtually anything. Arguments are just words.

Does the argument line up with reality? Can you demonstrate with data that male social outcasts are "oppressed" by women? If not, I'm not sure it is worth listening to the argument.

 

[Shasarak]

By the rules? Moving goalpost!

We were not stipulating that the discrimination in the game was in the rules. You yourself pointed at MADD, and sure as heck they aren't in the rules.

No, we aren't talking about discrimination in the rules, specifically (though rules that limit character stats for female characters probably count), but in the hobby in general - so in the rules, in the art, in the representation of women in adventures, and how women are (or aren't) invited to join games, and how they are treated at the table.

I think that it is disingenuous to claim that because you think society at large discriminates against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups that the roleplaying hobby therefore must discriminate against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups.

It is just not true.

For evidence of that you can look at the rules themselves. The worst that you can claim is that women characters are discrinated against by having a cap put on their strength score and that you can not find any pictures of people of colour. Thats it. That is your discrimination.

What would Rosa Parks think of that kind of discrimination? There is no one telling her to move to the back of the roleplaying bus.

Lets look at real discrimination in the roleplaying hobby; BADD or Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons does not even focus on Race or Sex or Minorities or any kind. In fact it discriminates against Christians, the majority of people playing in some areas of the US. Strangely I never hear people bemoaning the fact the Christians are being discriminated aginst in the roleplaying hobby.

Or is that moving the goal posts?

 

[Shasarak]

There is an argument for the Earth being flat, too. One can make "an argument" for virtually anything. Arguments are just words.

Does the argument line up with reality? Can you demonstrate with data that male social outcasts are "oppressed" by women? If not, I'm not sure it is worth listening to the argument.

I would like to see some data.

 

[Greg Benage]

In 40 years of gaming, I've sadly known a lot of guys who wanted to gatekeep women out of the hobby. Desire for a "safe space" was never one of their reasons.

 

[Umbran]

I think that it is disingenuous to claim that because you think society at large discriminates against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups that the roleplaying hobby therefore must discriminate against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups.

Okay, hold on a second.

Because I think society at large discriminates?

For sake of this discussion, you don't accept that posit as a given? That it is I think rather than it is the case that? You call them marginalized yourself - how do you get marginalized, except by discrimination?

If you don't accept that the discrimination does happen in society as a whole... there is not a whole lot of point in continuing this discussion.

 

[billd91]

I think that it is disingenuous to claim that because you think society at large discriminates against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups that the roleplaying hobby therefore must discriminate against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups.

It is just not true.

For evidence of that you can look at the rules themselves. The worst that you can claim is that women characters are discrinated against by having a cap put on their strength score and that you can not find any pictures of people of colour. Thats it. That is your discrimination.

What would Rosa Parks think of that kind of discrimination? There is no one telling her to move to the back of the roleplaying bus.

Lets look at real discrimination in the roleplaying hobby; BADD or Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons does not even focus on Race or Sex or Minorities or any kind. In fact it discriminates against Christians, the majority of people playing in some areas of the US. Strangely I never hear people bemoaning the fact the Christians are being discriminated aginst in the roleplaying hobby.

Or is that moving the goal posts?

Wow. People have been discussing things like this for years, posts in this thread even mention other ways women get discriminated against in the hobby, and your best effort at understanding is limited to a strength cap and no ethnic minorities in the art? Women have complained about the art for years - and some good samples can be found. Avalanche Press's d20 supplements come to mind as particularly porny.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/images/Atlantis350.jpg
http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/doomofodin.jpg
http://www.avalanchepress.com/images/EndlessSands350.jpg (are they in a stripper bar?)
http://www.avalanchepress.com/images/BlackFlag350.jpg
http://www.avalanchepress.com/images/LittlePeople350.jpg (is this a D&D supplement or Penthouse Magazine?)
https://d3idt3y1vhsqn9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/02023916/pirate-pirates.png
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...rr6P_vyna84ko7ZfjWkrmw58VDH2otT1hvh4K5eMFzGKw
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...9Rg1JHqVVQEnVVbP5cC4E9mfktFBxWUT__MazSqyMjav6
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/df....jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF (which one is showing skin here? Not the men!)
https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagra...80_2104296003119605_9129159081653698560_n.jpg (same here!)

And this is just a sample that took no more than about 15 minutes to google up. Is it really lost on you that this may give women a certain impression of the hobby and the people who play it?

 

[Greg Benage]

I think that it is disingenuous to claim that because you think society at large discriminates against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups that the roleplaying hobby therefore must discriminate against women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups.

The roleplaying hobby has historically been unwelcoming and in some cases blatantly hostile to women, people of color, LGBTQ folks and other marginalized groups. That's a fact that I wouldn't have thought is in dispute. Even if the rest of society were the paragon of equality, this would still be a fact. I'm also not sure why you continue to focus on "discrimination," when it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that we're talking about being more welcoming and inclusive.

Lets look at real discrimination in the roleplaying hobby; BADD or Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons does not even focus on Race or Sex or Minorities or any kind. In fact it discriminates against Christians, the majority of people playing in some areas of the US. Strangely I never hear people bemoaning the fact the Christians are being discriminated aginst in the roleplaying hobby.

Wait...B.A.D.D. was "discriminating" against Christians? B.A.D.D. was largely a conservative Christian movement. From Wikipedia:

Pulling founded the public advocacy group "Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons" (B.A.D.D.) in 1983[5]:22 after all of her lawsuits were dismissed and began publishing information circulating her belief that D&D encouraged devil worship and suicide. B.A.D.D. described D&D as "a fantasy role-playing game which uses demonology, witchcraft, voodoo, murder, rape, blasphemy, suicide, assassination, insanity, sex perversion, homosexuality, prostitution, satanic type rituals, gambling, barbarism, cannibalism, sadism, desecration, demon summoning, necromantics, divination and other teachings."[6]

B.A.D.D. achieved some success in airing its views in the press, both through conservative Christian media properties as well as mainstream outlets. The organization distributed its materials in Australia through conservative advocacy groups affiliated with the Reverend Fred Nile, such as the Australian Federation for Decency.

[...]

Pulling authored a book, The Devil's Web: Who Is Stalking Your Children For Satan? published by Vital Issues Press in August 1989 (ISBN 0-910311-59-5).

First I've heard that this constituted "discrimination against Christians," and I was playing actively during that time. Certainly, it was an attack launched by a particular segment of Christian conservatism...