Harassment in gaming

[Sadras]

OTOH, I've seen some of the behavior women get subjected to in comic and hobby shops. In one, I remember a woman mistakenly walking into the game store- it was right next door to a salon- and @5' into the place, she realized her error as the store went dead quiet and every guy (that I could see) in the store was staring at her.

This has actually happened to my wife, when I asked her to pick up my goodies at our local comic store. She was very flattered and we laughed about it afterwards, that she could have her choice of nerds

 

[Mallus]

So will your hypothetical delicate flower who heard some mean things from some big meanie a few tables over and whined like child to the first authority figure he or she could find.

Find a new hobby if this one is so full of offense.

If this was all we were talking about, I'd agree with you.

But it's not.

 

[Umbran]

I generally agree. And perhaps because I'm drawing on my experiences which can be completely anecdotal, but if I compare my wife, my friend's wives/partners and their friends - they analyse, more so than guys, every word uttered in their presence.

Maybe they are. Or maybe they are just *noticing* more, or just *speaking* on their offense more - which are different. But, either way, the phrasing was not "more" sensitive, but *overly* sensitive - implying that was something wrong with the level of sensitivity that they were showing.

And so again, I ask - why phrase it that way? Why not instead note that the guys are jerks and thick as bricks to the amount of habitual sexism in their words? Why are the women *wrong* or somehow excessive to be as sensitive as they are? Answer that, please.

For extra bonus points, answer it in a way that doesn't look like a rationalization to cover that men just don't want to have to care.

This is not a slight against the opposite sex this is just my observation.

It being your observation doesn't make it not a slight. If you set up a spring-loaded toy to go off when your co-worker opens a desk drawer, and when it goes off it pokes out their eye, the fact that you only meant it as a joke doesn't change the fact that they are out an eye. Your intent doesn't really change the impact.

My experience has shown that men brush off comments much easier than women. Again I mention this is obviously not the case with every woman or man and it is my experience with the women and men I know.

Men are in a relative position of power. They have greater social status and security, and so can afford slights more.

Except when they can't. I make a comment about how maybe men are insensitive, thick-headed boors, and... well, that doesn't go over well, does it? That's not brushed off - instead there's defense against it. Interesting...

You make mention of the words 'average' and 'correct' - what is the average amongst 5 thoughtless men and one female?

I was hoping you'd ask that. I'll ask another question in response: What's the average among white men and the rest of the population of the US? Hint: White men make up about 30% of the population of the US.

I mentioned both average and correctness because we have choices to make. We have to choose at various times what matters more - conforming to an average, or holding to some form of moral/ethical correctness whatever the average says. After my noting that they are *not* the majority of the population, the white men reading this may be thinking that the average may not be as great a choice as it may have seemed a few moments before. The average supports them only in local groups, not in the grand scheme of things.

 

[random.brown]

Perhaps my incredulity stems from my personal experiences.

I've attended gaming conventions and been active in gaming groups and events at stores in the Denver area for over 25 years, and I've just never seen anything even close to harassment. I bring my sons and daughters to events confident they'll be no issues.

So I don't like the idea of someone running to an organizer/tourney official/store owner and expecting to get a person "spoken to" or worse purely on the basis of an accusation, with no confirmation or corroboration.

 

[Sadras]

Maybe they are. Or maybe they are just *noticing* more, or just *speaking* on their offense more - which are different. But, either way, the phrasing was not "more" sensitive, but *overly* sensitive - implying that was something wrong with the level of sensitivity that they were showing.

You're absolutely right, I couldn't remember if I had used the word 'overly' or 'more' so I went back to check. 'Overly' does have a negative connotation. I should have used the word 'more'

Men are in a relative position of power. They have greater social status and security, and so can afford slights more.

Except when they can't. I make a comment about how maybe men are insensitive, thick-headed boors, and... well, that doesn't go over well, does it? That's not brushed off - instead there's defense against it. Interesting...

Actually I don't disagree with the fact that men in general are insensitive, thick-headed boors...etc. Where in my post did you believe I implied otherwise or defended it? In fact my defence is based on the fact that generally men are indeed insensitive and thick-headed boors...etc

I was hoping you'd ask that. I'll ask another question in response: What's the average among white men and the rest of the population of the US? Hint: White men make up about 30% of the population of the US.

I mentioned both average and correctness because we have choices to make. We have to choose at various times what matters more - conforming to an average, or holding to some form of moral/ethical correctness whatever the average says. After my noting that they are *not* the majority of the population, the white men reading this may be thinking that the average may not be as great a choice as it may have seemed a few moments before. The average supports them only in local groups, not in the grand scheme of things.

I'm asking you the average at a gaming table, a specific environment, majority being males. Opening it up to the general populace, a certain demographic or USA defeats that purpose as now you have a multitude of environments, culture/background diversity and the like. We have a Jew and a German at our table, the things that fly at our table are acceptable at our table certainly not for the general public. Very much politically incorrect behind closed doors.

Yes as you said it supports them in local groups, not in the grand scheme of things. I would think it naïve if you believe that the majority of male dominated gaming groups somehow all behave 'correctly' (politically correct). They don't, I would put money on that. Add a female presence into the mix at a boorish table, and the general sexist remarks have to be toned down out of respect.

 

[Umbran]

You're absolutely right, I couldn't remember if I had used the word 'overly' or 'more' so I went back to check. 'Overly' does have a negative connotation. I should have used the word 'more'

I know. That's the point. This is the essence of casual sexism, I'm afraid.

Actually I don't disagree with the fact that men in general are insensitive, thick-headed boors...etc. Where in my post did you believe I implied otherwise or defended it? In fact my defence is based on the fact that generally men are indeed insensitive and thick-headed boors...etc

This arose through the choice of "overly". It is an implicit positioning - the women are overly sensitive, so what the men are doing is okay. If we were acknowledging that what the men are doing is not okay, then we'd not be saying the women are overly sensitive to feel it. If men are being jerks, people of normal sensitivity will note it.

I'm asking you the average at a gaming table, a specific environment, majority being males. Opening it up to the general populace, a certain demographic or USA defeats that purpose as now you have a multitude of environments, culture/background diversity and the like.

Are you going to claim that how men treat women in gaming contexts, the attitudes they bring to the table arise *only* at the gaming table? I submit quite the opposite - folks are bringing attitudes and habits established largely away from the gaming table, and bringing them to game. We cannot expect to change that larger context all on our own, but we must acknowledge it, and understand how it works, as we attempt to make localized areas where people are expected to behave differently.

We have a Jew and a German at our table...

And... the Godwin approaches...

the things that fly at our table are acceptable at our table certainly not for the general public. Very much politically incorrect behind closed doors.

And how did you come by the social contract about what was okay, and what wasn't? Think about that carefully for a moment before you answer, please.

I would think it naïve if you believe that the majority of male dominated gaming groups somehow all behave 'correctly' (politically correct).

Yes. That's kind of the point of the discussion. We behave poorly. We behave as if we don't have to care about large swaths of people.

The categorization of it as "political" correctness, however, is dismissive. This is about something more like *actual* correctness and proper behavior towards your fellow human beings. You have a person at the table, not a candidate for office. They have feelings, not just political motivations.

 

[Sadras]

I know. That's the point. This is the essence of casual sexism, I'm afraid.

Are you going to claim that how men treat women in gaming contexts, the attitudes they bring to the table arise *only* at the gaming table? I submit quite the opposite - folks are bringing attitudes and habits established largely away from the gaming table, and bringing them to game. We cannot expect to change that larger context all on our own, but we must acknowledge it, and understand how it works, as we attempt to make localized areas where people are expected to behave differently.

Agreed.

And... the Godwin approaches...

I actually wasnt sure what you meant so I googled the term Godwin. I'm certainly not going down that path

And how did you come by the social contract about what was okay, and what wasn't? Think about that carefully for a moment before you answer, please.

I don't know really. I guess it starts with hot topics having been discussed, debated, argued over at the table or away from it, and each one's personal barriers pushed, with the general ribbing thrown in and I imagine the participants become less sensitive to the shocker comments. What isn't ok would be just straight up abuse or harrassment of a person where it actually affects the table or the person negatively. Which is why I mentioned in my first post that personalities, temperament etc matter just as much if not more than agreeable playstyles and is often overlooked.
The tricky part is to figure out such boundaries for someone new entering the table dynamic - will they fit in, will they be offended, will everyone else be relaxed or have to tiptoe/watch-ones-self.

Yes. That's kind of the point of the discussion. We behave poorly. We behave as if we don't have to care about large swaths of people.

True.

The categorization of it as "political" correctness, however, is dismissive. This is about something more like *actual* correctness and proper behavior towards your fellow human beings. You have a person at the table, not a candidate for office. They have feelings, not just political motivations.

I just want to point out the term 'politically correct' is not only associated with a candidate for office.

 

[MechaPilot]

That is INSANE!

I know. My initial reaction was "wait, is this really happening?" Unfortunately, it actually was happening, and then came the humiliation, the degradation, the fear, and eventually the rage that helped me grab my bag and scramble out of there as quickly as I could.

Not that this justifies it by any means, but. . .

I'm going to pause here for a moment. You are right that it is not justified. Not at all. None of the answers to the questions that follow the "but" will ever in any way justify or excuse what they did. The answers might have educational or explanatory value though, which is why I will answer them.

. . . I'm trying to wrap my head around something like this happening, what age was the DM and your co-players and how many years ago was this? Surely these guys have matured since then?
Apologies if this has already been answered earlier. I did try skimming through the thread, page spotting, but I missed this story.

I haven't really gotten into the specifics before other than how I felt while it was going on. I don't particularly like to dwell on it, which I hope is something you can understand.

There were four of them, the DM and three players. The DM seemed like he was the eldest of the group, but I didn't ask what their ages were. However, based on their appearance, that all of them drove, that more than half of them were smokers who didn't express that they couldn't buy their own cigarettes, and the fact that the DM had his own place (it was a trailer in a mobile home park, which is a common "starter home" in that area), I'm going to ballpark the entire group somewhere in the 16 to 25 age range, with at least two or three of them being 18+.

I was, I believe, 15 at the time. It happened in the first couple years of my being in high school. I know I was driving at the time (I certainly drove away from there faster than the speed limit allowed), but I think I might have had my learner's permit and not a formal driver's license. So that would make it a little over twenty years ago now.

As for whether they have matured since then, I would hope so. However, I doubt it, and I have no desire to ever meet any of them again to find out. I stopped going to the hobby shop where I met them simply because I didn't want to run into them ever again, and because I was concerned that they may have shared the story with some of the staff at the store, and I would have been mortified if any of the staff brought it up while I was shopping there.

As DMs we worry about how a character death will affect the player. PC Rape, humiliation and such like is pretty out there.

I would have rather had my character just killed outright. I actually left her sheet there when I fled. I realized that after a few days. However, I didn't lament the loss. I would have never been able to play her again anyway without recalling what happened. I almost quit playing D&D altogether after that. It was only the good times I'd had playing with friends before then that encouraged me not to just give it up for good. Despite deciding to stick with the hobby, it took me about a month or two to even get up the will to start looking for another group to play with. And that took a while, especially since I'd also lost the hobby shop where I could have hung out to look for another group.

Recently one of the characters was kidnapped and worked over by the bad guys to obtain information about the party. The entire interrogation was off-screen and no details were given. When rescued, only the mechanical effects of the interrogation and some light description was given i.e fatigued, no condition to fight, bloodied and bruised.
When we were younger we might have dealt with this scenario in a little more detail - maturity, enjoyment of all and importance of pacing the story allows us to speed past scenario's like this, where the only thing that was considered was the information obtained. In fact we played out the entire rescue with 25 cards I specifically made, their randomness brought about the story that evolved from the rescue. So the 'bad stuff' was completely glossed over.

No damage was inflicted upon the player psyche or how that character was viewed. Truthfully I cannot take credit that I had all of this in mind when I decided on that course of action with the captured PC. This conversation now with you though, has made me more aware of it, so that is a positive.

That sounds like a good way to handle it. In general, whenever a character is going to be abused in some way, I prefer to gloss over it. As a DM, I've had capture scenarios where PCs have been whipped viciously (usually as punishment for a failed escape attempt), but I never RP it. I usually just tell the player what the aftereffects are, if any. As a good example, I ran an adventure where the party was captured. They attempted to escape, and failed. When they were caught, I just told them "The guards whip you for your 'insolence' before dumping you back in your cell. It takes a couple days for you to recover enough to make another escape attempt."

 

[Hussar]

Let's not forget here too, we're talking about harassment. You don't actually have to say anything to someone to harass them. When I was in the armed forces (reserves), we had to do all sorts of harassment lectures and one of the things that came up was leering. They defined leering (because, hey, this is the army and they define everything) as staring at someone for more than 7 seconds. And we all kind of laughed and thought it was a bit stupid.

But, then we tried it out. Stare at someone and do a silent 7 count. That's a hell of a long time to look at someone. I can totally see that as making someone very, very uncomfortable. And, at least in some contexts, it is considered harassment. Now, it would be absolutely impossible to prove. There is pretty much zero chance of anyone other than the person being stared at noticing this.

So, what good is it to "investigate"? You're not going to find any witnesses, and the person doing it certainly isn't going to admit to it. It's the same as the guy whispering rape threats in the cosplay girl's ear during a picture taking. Zero witnesses, zero proof.

The idea that you have to "investigate" and "determine the truth" is ludicrous. That's NOT what harassment policies are for. The whole point of the policy is to stop the behaviour. End of story. Which means, from time to time, someone might get yelled at for no reason. Sorry, but, too bad. That's the price we have to pay because the alternative is the litany of horror stories we've seen in this thread alone.

If this actually wasn't a problem. If it was entirely made up. If the hobby community was actually 100% warm and welcoming and non-discriminitory, how do you explain the fact that after 40 years in the public zeitgeist, TV cartoons, movies, and whatnot, the hobby is still overwhelmingly white males? Comic book collectors aren't. Cosplay certainly isn't. Even board gaming and video gaming isn't. But RPG gaming? Major sausage fest.

If it isn't the insular nature of the participants, then what is it?

 

[random.brown]

I can totally see that as making someone very, very uncomfortable.

This isn't harassment.

Which means, from time to time, someone might get yelled at for no reason. Sorry, but, too bad.

So she-said/he-said automatically trumps innocent until proven guilty? Nonsense. This turns into false accusations for no reason other than the supposed "victim" felt like exercising some consequence-free power. You also made a leap from "leering = harassment" (which is ridiculous) to "horror stories." Way to move the goalposts.

If the hobby community was actually 100% warm and welcoming and non-discriminitory, how do you explain the fact that after 40 years in the public zeitgeist, TV cartoons, movies, and whatnot, the hobby is still overwhelmingly white males?

So for any field of endeavor women don't want to participate in, the reason is automatically because men are threatening the women? Nonsense.

The vast majority of anglers, elk hunters, and fly-fishers are men too--I guess the male fish must be leering at the ladies?

#StopFishSexism