Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gender and Sexuality in Golarion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pauper" data-source="post: 7461364" data-attributes="member: 17607"><p>This is a curious paragraph in the middle of an essay, led by an assertion that gender and sexuality presentation aren't "nearly as relevant as some people think", and concluded with an assertion that "it doesn't matter much". I find it curious because it's an excuse -- a rationalization that's easy to demonstrate.</p><p></p><p>I've seen the same excuses used by groups that use blatantly sexist tropes in their gaming, with the added point that 'nobody at the table complains about it'. The reason, of course, is that there aren't any women at the table, and the few that were at the table decided quickly that it was far less trouble to simply opt out of the game than to try and deal with the rampant sexism at the table.</p><p></p><p>What you are saying when you say 'it's not that big a deal' is that it's not that big a deal *for you*, because you personally don't have an affiliation or see the lack of representation as a problem. And, because you can only get so many people at the gaming table with you, it's not uncommon for you to end up at a table that shares your default presumptions. I'm not going to claim that you're 'evil' for having such a game or wrong for choosing to play that way, but your presumptions are only the default for you and those sharing your space.</p><p></p><p>The problem is that, when those defaults become the presumed assumptions of the *game*, it stops people who don't share those defaults from participating. This has absolutely happened in gaming, and is <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11371194/tabletop-harassment-malifaux-controversy" target="_blank">still happening</a> in some spaces, solely with respect to sexism and sexual harassment -- the most basic of differences from a assumed norm of straight (usually white) male. We've made progress, sure, but we still haven't 'fixed' the basic stereotypical straight dude reaction of "ooh, cooties!" or "oh, stick close to me, sweetheart, and I'll explain everything," so it seems a bit premature to claim that more complex variations of this theme simply aren't a problem worth addressing, and that anyone who claims that it is is simply trying to send a signal.</p><p></p><p>You may not think it's a big deal, but the companies that make these games, who are looking to increase their player base (and thus their revenues) do see this establishment of defaults as a problem and <a href="https://geekandsundry.com/a-talk-about-inclusion-in-gaming/" target="_blank">have taken steps to be more inclusive</a>. Many people see this as a good thing -- it's part of why conventions like <a href="https://www.gencon.com/press/gencon50" target="_blank">GenCon are booming</a>, why <a href="https://casualgamerevolution.com/game-cons-2018" target="_blank">new conventions are springing up</a> to meet the increased demand, and why tabletop gaming is starting to exit the 'only for nerds' era and is becoming acceptable for folks of all walks and stages of life to participate in.</p><p></p><p>Except...</p><p></p><p>There are people out there for whom attempts at increasing diversity are a problem. Maybe they learned gaming at a young age and see it as a refuge for nerdy white dudes like themselves to vent about the frustrations of the world, and including women and minorities (both racial and gender) threatens their sense of having their own safe space, because women and minorities are some of the things they want to vent about. Maybe they just don't like women and minorities and want to hold them at arm's length in one clearly defined area of their lives. Maybe they're just dumb.</p><p></p><p>These bad people are a problem, but their beliefs really only hurt themselves and their games, because most folks in charge have learned to ignore those sorts of complaints in favor of the benefits of inclusiveness. The bigger problem is not those people -- it's the people who claim that inclusiveness isn't a problem we should be worrying about, because the people who claim inclusiveness isn't a problem give the truly bad people cover. You may be trying to say "why are we arguing about this when there are games to be played?", but what you are actually saying is "this is not a problem I feel is worth fixing, so why bother engaging?" You're basically dismissing attempts to fix these longstanding problems in tabletop gaming, despite the clear evidence that having game companies champion diversity is actually part of the fix for the longstanding problem of not having women, people of color, or non-standard gendered folks being treated equally at the table or in the industry.</p><p></p><p>So sure, if you don't feel that's a big enough deal to get involved in, then go ahead and sit it out. If you don't want to be a champion, that's fine. You don't even need to be an ally. But you do need to realize that your assertion that "it's not that big a deal" is not a neutral stance -- it is used as cover by those who want to keep gaming an exclusive club of barely-washed straight white dudes, and who are not interested in putting together better games or more interesting games, just games where they and their presumptions and defaults can assume their own superiority.</p><p></p><p>So maybe don't do that.</p><p></p><p>--</p><p>Pauper</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pauper, post: 7461364, member: 17607"] This is a curious paragraph in the middle of an essay, led by an assertion that gender and sexuality presentation aren't "nearly as relevant as some people think", and concluded with an assertion that "it doesn't matter much". I find it curious because it's an excuse -- a rationalization that's easy to demonstrate. I've seen the same excuses used by groups that use blatantly sexist tropes in their gaming, with the added point that 'nobody at the table complains about it'. The reason, of course, is that there aren't any women at the table, and the few that were at the table decided quickly that it was far less trouble to simply opt out of the game than to try and deal with the rampant sexism at the table. What you are saying when you say 'it's not that big a deal' is that it's not that big a deal *for you*, because you personally don't have an affiliation or see the lack of representation as a problem. And, because you can only get so many people at the gaming table with you, it's not uncommon for you to end up at a table that shares your default presumptions. I'm not going to claim that you're 'evil' for having such a game or wrong for choosing to play that way, but your presumptions are only the default for you and those sharing your space. The problem is that, when those defaults become the presumed assumptions of the *game*, it stops people who don't share those defaults from participating. This has absolutely happened in gaming, and is [URL="https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11371194/tabletop-harassment-malifaux-controversy"]still happening[/URL] in some spaces, solely with respect to sexism and sexual harassment -- the most basic of differences from a assumed norm of straight (usually white) male. We've made progress, sure, but we still haven't 'fixed' the basic stereotypical straight dude reaction of "ooh, cooties!" or "oh, stick close to me, sweetheart, and I'll explain everything," so it seems a bit premature to claim that more complex variations of this theme simply aren't a problem worth addressing, and that anyone who claims that it is is simply trying to send a signal. You may not think it's a big deal, but the companies that make these games, who are looking to increase their player base (and thus their revenues) do see this establishment of defaults as a problem and [URL="https://geekandsundry.com/a-talk-about-inclusion-in-gaming/"]have taken steps to be more inclusive[/URL]. Many people see this as a good thing -- it's part of why conventions like [URL="https://www.gencon.com/press/gencon50"]GenCon are booming[/URL], why [URL="https://casualgamerevolution.com/game-cons-2018"]new conventions are springing up[/URL] to meet the increased demand, and why tabletop gaming is starting to exit the 'only for nerds' era and is becoming acceptable for folks of all walks and stages of life to participate in. Except... There are people out there for whom attempts at increasing diversity are a problem. Maybe they learned gaming at a young age and see it as a refuge for nerdy white dudes like themselves to vent about the frustrations of the world, and including women and minorities (both racial and gender) threatens their sense of having their own safe space, because women and minorities are some of the things they want to vent about. Maybe they just don't like women and minorities and want to hold them at arm's length in one clearly defined area of their lives. Maybe they're just dumb. These bad people are a problem, but their beliefs really only hurt themselves and their games, because most folks in charge have learned to ignore those sorts of complaints in favor of the benefits of inclusiveness. The bigger problem is not those people -- it's the people who claim that inclusiveness isn't a problem we should be worrying about, because the people who claim inclusiveness isn't a problem give the truly bad people cover. You may be trying to say "why are we arguing about this when there are games to be played?", but what you are actually saying is "this is not a problem I feel is worth fixing, so why bother engaging?" You're basically dismissing attempts to fix these longstanding problems in tabletop gaming, despite the clear evidence that having game companies champion diversity is actually part of the fix for the longstanding problem of not having women, people of color, or non-standard gendered folks being treated equally at the table or in the industry. So sure, if you don't feel that's a big enough deal to get involved in, then go ahead and sit it out. If you don't want to be a champion, that's fine. You don't even need to be an ally. But you do need to realize that your assertion that "it's not that big a deal" is not a neutral stance -- it is used as cover by those who want to keep gaming an exclusive club of barely-washed straight white dudes, and who are not interested in putting together better games or more interesting games, just games where they and their presumptions and defaults can assume their own superiority. So maybe don't do that. -- Pauper [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gender and Sexuality in Golarion
Top