Roll20 users; are my impressions right or wrong on this

[Xaelvaen]

For the sake of devil's advocate, and only for that reason, yes - "safe space" was a reason for "boys" to keep "girls" out of their nerdy interests. Now to graduate that to "men" and "women" is an entirely different question entirely. There is a maturity question to analyze, obviously.

It wasn't just jocks picking on the nerds, but also the women attracted to the type that would demean and demoralize - don't think all women/girls of the times were innocent. Influenced by the overly male dominated culture? Sure, but far from innocent. That likely had a major influence on how it all emotionally graduated.

However, I'll reiterate, I'm completely against all discrimination, period, without exception. Anything else is just uncivilized. My wife told me if I ever do anything for her just because she's a female, she'd rather me do it for a man - they need the help more than she does. I am, however, allowed to do nice things for her because she's my wife. She hates being treated different for being born with a specific gender. So, she wants equality, not special treatment, and I like to treat all people on God's green earth just that way. My equal.

 

[Gradine]

For the sake of devil's advocate, and only for that reason, yes - "safe space" was a reason for "boys" to keep "girls" out of their nerdy interests. Now to graduate that to "men" and "women" is an entirely different question entirely. There is a maturity question to analyze, obviously.

It wasn't just jocks picking on the nerds, but also the women attracted to the type that would demean and demoralize - don't think all women/girls of the times were innocent. Influenced by the overly male dominated culture? Sure, but far from innocent. That likely had a major influence on how it all emotionally graduated.

Internalized misogyny is a hell of a thing.

I can think of few demographics in our culture more proselytized to, torn in more (often contradictory) directions and held to more (often contradictory) ideals, more demonized and infantilized and vilified and lionized as teenage girls. That anyone is able to emerge from that gauntlet with a strong sense of identity and self is a constant source of amazement for me.

 

[billd91]

For the sake of devil's advocate, and only for that reason, yes - "safe space" was a reason for "boys" to keep "girls" out of their nerdy interests. Now to graduate that to "men" and "women" is an entirely different question entirely. There is a maturity question to analyze, obviously.

It wasn't just jocks picking on the nerds, but also the women attracted to the type that would demean and demoralize - don't think all women/girls of the times were innocent. Influenced by the overly male dominated culture? Sure, but far from innocent. That likely had a major influence on how it all emotionally graduated.

That might have made sense if it weren't for that fact that girl nerds were being picked on just as much by the jocks and mean girls. It doesn't explain how nerd boys needed a safe space from nerd girls.

 

[Greg Benage]

That might have made sense if it weren't for that fact that girl nerds were being picked on just as much by the jocks and mean girls. It doesn't explain how nerd boys needed a safe space from nerd girls.

It's a nonsensical argument. In my extensive experience, at the same time these types would try to keep all girls out, including those experiencing the same kind of harassment they were, it'd make their semester if a male jock or popular boy wanted to join their game, even though this was the crowd that targeted them in the hallways.

If I had to find a common thread, it'd be the way the would-be gatekeepers invariably treated female NPCs in those games. I guess sometimes you just don't want "those people" harshing your fantasy.

 

[Xaelvaen]

Internalized misogyny is a hell of a thing.

I can think of few demographics in our culture more proselytized to, torn in more (often contradictory) directions and held to more (often contradictory) ideals, more demonized and infantilized and vilified and lionized as teenage girls. That anyone is able to emerge from that gauntlet with a strong sense of identity and self is a constant source of amazement for me.

Don't get me wrong, we never had that whole 'girls are bad' thing going on in my gaming group, we were quite diverse with who played - so I was merely stating what I had observed. Lots of the 'nerdy' guys really were picked on by the ladies from my observations when I was growing up, so I can get why they would simply avoid them as opposed to confront them, and I also see how they may have never grown out of that as adults. People can go their entire lives without change and "character development" in this world.

I merely wanted to point out that it was a possible reason for the behavior having existed, not that I condoned it in any way.

 

[Gradine]

I merely wanted to point out that it was a possible reason for the behavior having existed, not that I condoned it in any way.

That's fair; though if your intent isn't to condone behaviors/attitudes you might want to avoid playing devil's advocate. Would clear up a lot of confusion that way

 

[Xaelvaen]

That's fair; though if your intent isn't to condone behaviors/attitudes you might want to avoid playing devil's advocate. Would clear up a lot of confusion that way

But I was playing Devil's Advocate. "I'm a humanist. Maybe the last humanist."

More specifically, a previous post had declared that in 40 years of gaming, they had never seen girls excluded being for the reason of 'safe space', thus I was playing devil's advocate - it was a 'less accepted' reasoning. I was championing the cause, only as fact, not that I support it having happened. I can believe it to be real, without being proud of the fact it happened, heh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Of course it matters. This is saying that the culture of the hobby is divorced from the mainstream. This is very much not true. Arguing that you can change the hobby in spite of broad cultural norms is barking up the wrong tree. It's a hobby -- ie, something people do for entertainment. It's not a closed culture, but one where the members spend most of their time in the mainstream and then visit the gaming culture. Very, very few people can actually engage in gaming culture full time. The ones that do are usually the ones the rest of us avoid already.

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.

I disagree on 'repairing' and prefer 'ending the causes of the damage they do.' I'm all for safe spaces for women. I'm all for inclusive art. I'm not for affirmative action (outside of a short-lived effort to correct for unfair practices already accomplished) -- it's not shown to have a positive long-term effect on minority being compensated. We all have to deal with the past -- it won't change. Insisting that future effort must account for and correct for the past is silly -- future action should be towards a goal of mutual respect and accommodation without regard to the basis for the -isms (race, sex, etc.).

This is the fundamental difference in approach we seem to have. I'm looking to establish a society where discrimination of any kind isn't accepted. In terms of privilege (which I find problematic, heh), the goal shouldn't be for me to acknowledge my privilege and account for it, but instead that everyone have the same privilege I do. And, that privilege is that I, in the US, don't have to deal with racial discrimination (mostly). To me, that's not a privilege, that's the goal -- for everyone. Critical theory is useful to find out where there are points and areas of unfairness, but it utterly fails to describe how to fix those points or to even identify base causes of the issues. But, the usual mantra is to stop at the identification, label and bin the subjects into categories of guilt, and then insist that the guilt must be paid off directly according to the bins and labels. That's just moves the problem around, it doesn't fix anything.

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.

Again, art doesn't attract new players. They're already pretty much in the fold before the art has an impact. As I said, it's still a good thing, and we should continue to pursue inclusive art. But we should stop thinking it has that much impact on bringing in new players. It doesn't, much. It helps once their already inside the hobby.

The number of times someone is genuinely interested in RPGs, picks up one book, leafs through it, and decides it's actually not for them because of the artwork is vanishingly small. The number of times someone already in the hobby picks up a book and is pleased to see representative art in it is far more common.

EDIT: I would like to sincerely thank you for your engagement. It was reasoned and well spoken. It also avoided implying I was part of a detestable grouping to refute my arguments or in creating strawmen to attack. That's uncommon when discussing this topic. So, thank you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

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.

Marketing data from companies like Mattel- such as when they started making non-Caucasian Barbie dolls- show us that inclusive product lines increase sales as they 1) draw in new customers and 2) drive some increase in repeat sales.

Other studies of TV, movies and other visual arts show similar trends: increase diversity and you broaden your market.

Now, per your assertion of whether the flipside is true- do non-inclusive visual aesthetics drive the excluded from participation? Truthfully, I know of no data beyond the existence of modern backlashes to whitewashing.

I DO know anecdotally there were reports of parents who were frustrated with a dearth of minority dolls for girls and started buying other gifts- a subject covered in the comedy show, Black-ish. And that some of my extended family were often concerned/dismissive of my playing D&D as a “white man’s game”.*. And for myself, I can say that the non-inclusive art has been corrosive to my enjoyment, but I got past it for the love of the game and enjoying time with my friends. In most RPGs, it isn’t a deal-breaker...but some few that traded in stereotypes and objectification were definitely left on the shelves- not just by me.

Back in the 1990s, there was a 3rd party product line of FRPG adventures that featured cover art of extremely voluptuous, underclad cheesecake-y female characters. The store managers at my (then) FLGS didn’t care for them: the mothers and fathers who brought in their kids for this, that or the other frequently complained. Even most of the older players who MIGHT have bought them acted as if they were Playboy magazines for sale at the newsstand in front of a church. Most of those things stayed on the shelves until they hit the store’s final clearance bin.






* also, that whole “Satanic” thing

 

[Gradine]

I'm looking to establish a society where discrimination of any kind isn't accepted.

I think we can all agree that this is a lofty and worthy goal. There are a number of flaws in your arguments however, most of which hinge around the fact that this isn't the society we live, and in fact has never been the society we live in.

Of course it matters. This is saying that the culture of the hobby is divorced from the mainstream. This is very much not true. Arguing that you can change the hobby in spite of broad cultural norms is barking up the wrong tree. It's a hobby -- ie, something people do for entertainment. It's not a closed culture, but one where the members spend most of their time in the mainstream and then visit the gaming culture. Very, very few people can actually engage in gaming culture full time. The ones that do are usually the ones the rest of us avoid already.

So, I think your argument here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's not worthwhile to confront this issue within gaming culture, because the issue is part of the broader culture as a whole. The issue with this line of thought is twofold:
1) The issue routinely comes up within our hobby, and thus we do have the obligation to address it those spaces. Just because a thing is a problem everywhere doesn't absolve us of any responsibility to attend to it in the spaces where we most frequent
2) Cultural change is not some broad, monolithic, easily definable event. It doesn't happen from the top down; it happens from the bottom up. Cultural change starts at dinner tables and classrooms and restaurants and bars and the internet and, yes, at the gaming table (and conventions, and stores, and VTT's, etc.)

I disagree on 'repairing' and prefer 'ending the causes of the damage they do.' I'm all for safe spaces for women. I'm all for inclusive art. I'm not for affirmative action (outside of a short-lived effort to correct for unfair practices already accomplished) -- it's not shown to have a positive long-term effect on minority being compensated. We all have to deal with the past -- it won't change. Insisting that future effort must account for and correct for the past is silly -- future action should be towards a goal of mutual respect and accommodation without regard to the basis for the -isms (race, sex, etc.).

This is the fundamental difference in approach we seem to have.

This is correct in the fundamental difference in approach; you seek equality, I seek equity. The former is certainly more ideologically pure; the latter is more messy, more chaotic, but also more practical. The thing about equity is that it takes the world, our nation, our states, our communities are they are, warts and all. Real life, as it turns out, is also messy and chaotic. Equity, as an approach, recognizes that the playing field has never been level, and it turns a blind eye neither towards the causes of that imbalance nor towards its current impacts.

Affirmative action is a key example, and your parenthetical regarding the "short-lived effort to correct" hints to me that I think you might be more amenable to the concept of equity than you might think. One might argue, and I myself used to argue, that affirmative action is a pretty bad bandage that does little to address the underlying illness. This is still pretty true, in fact, from a purely theoretical perspective. But the trouble comes from the fact that pure theory doesn't put food on the table; it doesn't lift millions of lives out of abject poverty.

"Insisting that future effort must account for and correct for the past" is not silly; and to argue that we should abandon this effort is to meet Einstein's definition of insanity. This is what we've been doing since at least probably the end of Reconstruction. This was the failure of Post-Reconstruction. This was the failure of the Civil Rights movement. Hell, this was the failure of Brown v. Board of Education; after all schools are more segregated now than they were at any point past 1970, and are getting worse. You can't just end legalized discrimination and call it a day. That discrimination has existed for centuries, and its impacts have left a lasting impact that still contributes to inequality to this day. "Mutual respect and accommodation" is great in theory but it doesn't help the kids who are stuck in underperforming, segregated schools today because their parents never got a chance to go to college because their grandparents didn't own a home they could mortgage to pay for it because their great-grandparents didn't meet the skin-color requirements for a housing loan for a home they could pass down.

We've made some pretty great strides, as a country, in enabling everyone a chance to race on the same track. The problem is we haven't fixed all of the problems that are putting some people farther away from the starting line than others.