Sexism in Table-Top Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It

[Alzrius]

The irony of "politically correct ideology" as a phrase is that it is, itself a politically-correct euphemism, and ultimately a self-serving one, meant to turn that frown upside down and turn what we might, less-euphemistically, characterize as anything ranging from unconscious short-sightedness to outright bigotry as a kind of brave, individualistic rebellion against rigid and punitive groupthink. Can we avoid this, please? We're grownups and don't need euphemisms.

I disagree with your characterization of the term. It's not a euphemism, but rather a shorthand. You may find it to connote a pejorative meaning towards issues of social justice, but I don't concur with you there; calling something "politically correct" does not imply that that which isn't politically correct is the purview of some sort of free-thinking radical who's fighting against oppressive group-think. As such, I feel no particular need to abandon the term.

Your argument is an odd one, as it presupposes that because we cannot actually read minds, communication is useless; further, that the only possible way to engage in a dialogue about contradictory rules is confrontational and accusatory. Instead of "Hey, Steph, why do you hate women?" one could just as easily ask "Why have a strength cap for females because of 'real world' human limitations when we don't apply those 'real world' limitations to, say, falling damage or fireballs?" or even just "Why is there a strength cap?"

The problem with your reasoning here is that you've extended my original point to a ridiculous conclusion - you seem to think that I'm saying that because we can't objectively know someone else's thoughts and feelings, that all of communication is impossible. It's not; that's a fairly silly assertion to make, and it's not the one I'm making. I'm simply saying that making a leap between what people create, or consume, or enjoy has nothing to do with their attitudes and beliefs towards other people.

It's also important to point out the illogical leap you made between this and discussing "illogical" rules - that being a somewhat loaded term where most games are based around inductive reasoning, if not abductive - as the two aren't related (something which I pointed out in my previous post). That's without even getting into the weird presumption you made that it must be confrontational; again, you're reading too much into my example - that was only to point out that even with a direct question-and-answer session on the topic, you can't know what someone else's motivation is.

To that end, the other example questions you've posted don't really make any sort of point. Again, you can phrase the question any way you like, but when you're asking about someone else's opinions and beliefs, you aren't ever going to be sure that you're getting the truth from them. Hence, any kind of presumption - from a guess to them telling you outright - remains just a presumption, and as such has no informative value. If you think that a person is instituting a Strength cap for female characters because of prejudice, then there's no way for them to "prove" that that isn't the case.

Since we're talking about communication between people who get along well enough to game together, again, this is a dialogue, not a trial. Perhaps Stephanie will realize that, in the context of her game, it doesn't make sense to insist on strict real-world limitations on upper-body strength while handwaving similar limitations on how human skin reacts to fire. Perhaps instead she'll explain that there is a good in-game reason that would be spoilers to explain right now (such as the curse of an evil god on all womankind, and the players will eventually defeat this evil god).

I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here. I've never held that there isn't any value in the exchange of information and ideas - there is. I'm just saying that you can't use anything as a definitive indicator of their beliefs. That doesn't undercut the value of communication. Likewise, I'm not saying that things should be "like a trial" - you're again reading too much into the example I posted before.

I mean, let's take this out of the issue of gender for a moment, and assume that Stephanie the GM's boyfriend joins the game as a regular player. STGMB regularly gets treasure, positive NPC interactions and cutscenes that the rest of the group doesn't and hasn't gotten. Can I read Stephanie's mind? Of course not. Might there be good reasons for her actions? Of course. But I doubt anybody would advise me to STFU and hope that someday the reasons would become clear; I rather suspect that most, if not all, of the advice I would get here (other than "leave the game") would be to talk to her, to express my concerns in a constructive manner (because "Stephanie, stop letting your bedwarmer hog all the game time" is going to get us nowhere) and listen to what she says. It may be that Stephanie had no idea she was actually giving Bob special treatment! Or perhaps Bob has been doing particularly smart things with his character that I didn't notice, and Stephanie will point this out to me. Or perhaps there is a good in-game reason for all this that she can either explain, or tell me I will discover in the next few games, and asks me to trust her on this. (Or perhaps the response is angry denial and personal attacks, or weird evasiveness. That kind of response, in and of itself, is an answer.)

Again, you're arguing against a position that I've never taken. I said that when the GM violates a limitation that they've set down, you can hold this up to reasoning to the point of determining the objective question of why that's so. Now, I did personally advocate that you give the GM some breathing room to showcase that reason, and so reconcile the that exception to a limitation in a manner that satisfies internal logic and consistency...but you don't have to do so. If you want, you can just ask her why that is - and again, it goes without saying that you should do this in a non-confrontational manner (I've never suggested otherwise) - either way, the point is that this is something that can be subject to verification.

Yes, that would be the point of engaging in dialogue - so one does not make presumptions. "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time", btw, which you advocate as an appropriate position to take when a GM or a rules system appears to be in contradiction, it itself a presumption about a person's attitudes and beliefs.

It's all a presumption - asking them what their motivation is simply extends the presumption to "they're telling the truth" rather than "I've inferred their motivations based on their game." If that's enough for you, then that's fine.

That said, you're idea of "I'm sure they mean well and it'll all be revealed in the fullness of time" is a hideous conflation - for the second time - of two separate ideas. The reconciliation of a limitation and an exception to that limitation is something that can be verified, and (I think) a good GM will make that clear over time. But "I'm sure they mean well" is just another guess that you've made about their motives.

If there is trust in the GM, shouldn't there be enough trust to be confident that one can ask "Wait, I thought the rule was X but this thing seems to violate rule X?" This is especially so when problem is less an exception to a particular rule (dwarves can't be wizards, women have a strength cap, but *this* NPC is unusual for specific reasons), but is an inconsistency in the underlying logic of the game. If a GM says that the milieu is going to adhere strictly to the social mores of Tokugawa-era Japan, then the players ought to be surprised if samurai are cheerfully running around shooting handguns without anyone batting an eye about it. That would be different from a game in which a particular samurai pulls a handgun on the players. ("Wait, I thought this was forbidden? Oh wait, Evil Lord Hoshio probably doesn't give a rip about the code of honor. Okay then.")

By all means, ask. The question of when the GM presents the reconciliation of limits and exceptions to those limits is less important than there is one at all; I personally feel you should give the GM some breathing room in that regard, but it's fine if you need to know why that's happening the instant that it happens.

Certainly the latter can be answered objectively; one may disagree with the reasoning, but I don't see why it is impossible to answer objectively.

It's impossible to answer objectively because when you ask someone why they did something, you don't know if there answer is true or not. You can't ever know. Are they telling you their honest feelings, or are they making an argument to reconcile with what they think will satisfy your (presumed) objection? It can lead to a useful exchange of ideas, but ultimately you're going to have to decide if what their telling you is their honest feelings or not, and that's just a guess.

 

[Lwaxy]

I don't find the topic disgusting I do find the novels badly written.

Maybe it's the combination of topic and writing style for me but... waah

 

[Libertad]

I would greatly appreciate if people would stop mixing up sexual harassment and sexism. This, I find extremely offensive towards men. Some posters here have written six or seven letter-sized pages of text on male sexism; what about discussing female double standards, while we're at it?

For example, the fantasies expressed in the worldwide bestseller Shades of Grey dwarf any display of sexual encounters I have ever witnessed in any game. Yet, it's socially acceptable, for whatever reason. But, no, we sexist pigs, having our dungeon-looting party of dwarves and hobbits celebrate in the Waterdeep whorehouse, that is so GROSS!

In regards to sexual harassment, it can be related to sexism in incidents with overwhelming gender disparity, or when one party feels that they can "get away" with their behavior because of "she shouldn't complain for dressing that way!" or "he's a guy, of course he wants it!"

But in almost all countries in the world, and in the tabletop fandom, sexism towards women is much deeper, more pervasive, and more systemic. Thus the focus on my original post; people who talk about sexism against women are not denying incidents of sexism against men or saying that they're not important, just like how people who focus on one problem in society are not denying other problems by default.

In regards to sexual themes in gaming sessions, it depends upon the comfort and context. It can become harassing behavior if one player becomes the butt of unwelcome sexual jokes and in-game advances to make him/her uncomfortable.

In the case of conventions, it has to do with some men who think that since a woman is dressed all sexy that gives them the right to make unwelcome advances towards them.

Shades of Grey is different in that it's a media consumed in private. And the reader is reading it of their own free will.

The difference is about consent.

Maybe it's the combination of topic and writing style for me but... waah

Well, it IS Twilight fanfiction!

 

[Elf Witch]

Maybe it's the combination of topic and writing style for me but... waah

I was beaten to the comment about it being Twilight fanfic. Though I give props to the writer for making something that brought her in income. The same with Stephanie Meyers. I don't judge what other people read. I have been judged and told that despite the hundreds of SF and Fantasy sitting on my shelves the fact that I enjoy a romance novel now and then means I am not a true geek.

One of the things I have noticed that woman get subjected to a lot more than guys is the "true geek" crap.

Over the years I have been told that I was not a true geek because I like make up and have an unholy passion for shoes. Though thanks to the Goths this has eased up and is not as bad as it was in the 70s and 80s. Now I get you are not a true geek because your knowledge of the Avengers comes from the movies. The fact that I read other comics like every issue of Birds of Prey, Witchblade, Wonder Woman doesn't count to these jerks.

I was at a Doctor Who con and watched some guys savage a young girl because she was a not a true fan because she has only seen new Who.

 

[Umbran]

One of the things I have noticed that woman get subjected to a lot more than guys is the "true geek" crap.

Oh, goodness, yes. The "true geek" and the related "fake geek girl" crud needs to die.

 

[Lwaxy]

the fact that I enjoy a romance novel now and then means I am not a true geek.

I got the same about liking mystery and criminal stories. And of course, considering the fact that I hate superman/batman/all other superhero stuff and read few comics, I also got the "not a true geek" comment a few times. I usually just throw it back at them for not liking Star Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5/Faerun etc

Not sure as this is that much more of an issue with women, my husband keeps getting "not a true geek" a lot, too.

 

[Celebrim]

Not sure as this is that much more of an issue with women, my husband keeps getting "not a true geek" a lot, too.

My wife likes to say she is a 'half-geek'.

I'd guess that this is a pretty common point of mild but still annoying and unacceptable sexism that women have to put up with more than men. By the same standards, I'm not a true geek - but my geek credentials are rarely doubted. I suspect my departure from mainstream geekdom would get more questioning if I was a woman though.

My advice is to treat this as the sort of minor hazing any cultural group does when trying to evaluate potential membership and go, "I'm geekier than thou" on them. Don't focus on the sexism, since at least some of the time you'd be wrong - men would get the same treatment at least some of the time. Throwing it back at them is the appropriate response.

For example...

a) I don't like Star Trek. If given the 'you aren't a true geek' over this, I respond with a detailed critique as to why a true geek shouldn't like Star Trek - technobabble, soap opera in space, zero sum plots, self-contradiction, illogical and frequently bad movies, thrown away plot points, mass marketed appeal, frequent lack of depth, Voyager, etc. Babylon 5 and the lamented untimely killed Firefly were better.
b) I don't like Dr. Who. Sorry. If you like Dr. Who, and it's not because your British and filled with nostalgia, its only because you are so starved for Sci Fi that your willing to swallow British treacle and dreck. If you want British sci-fi TV, you should watch Red Dwarf, which by virtue of being aware it was schlocky, silly and campy managed to be both more fun and more thoughtful.

And so forth. Basically, you only need a geek reason for not liking something, and to point out your affection for something further from the mainstream to totally blow up charges of you lack true geek cred. At the worst, you'll end up in the sort of passionate argument about trivia that geeks love.

 

[Lwaxy]

Hehe we totally agree on Dr. Who and would probably get into an extensive discussion over Star Trek

Being geeky became ok, if not cool, so I think we'll see the "true blood" geeks trying to separate from the perceived "half-bloods" even more in the future. "I got mundanes in my geekdom" kind of stuff. And of course, with more fans for any franchise this also means more women. And the % is females playing, albeit sometimes different RPGs, goes up.

 

[mythago]

I'd guess that this is a pretty common point of mild but still annoying and unacceptable sexism that women have to put up with more than men. By the same standards, I'm not a true geek - but my geek credentials are rarely doubted. I suspect my departure from mainstream geekdom would get more questioning if I was a woman though.

Yup. That's the point of the "fake geek girl" nonsense - the assumption that women can't really be geeks and/or must have some ulterior motive for involving themselves in geekdom, such as undeservedly absorbing praise from lonely neckbeards.

My advice is to treat this as the sort of minor hazing any cultural group does when trying to evaluate potential membership and go, "I'm geekier than thou" on them. Don't focus on the sexism, since at least some of the time you'd be wrong - men would get the same treatment at least some of the time. Throwing it back at them is the appropriate response.

While I appreciate that you're trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I respectfully disagree that this is a workable solution, particularly given the actual experiences of women on the receiving end of the Fake Girl Geek nonsense.

First, the analogy of 'hazing' is inapt. Hazing is what happens when people who are in a particular group have the power to admit or deny entry to that group, and impose some hurdles on all new members - which they, themselves, went through when they were new - to make sure the applicant is worthy and membership is "earned". Geekdom isn't a group with a limited membership, where more experienced geeks all had to get quizzed on Dr. Who knowledge or THACO tables to be allowed to call themselves geeks, and now have the right to require the same of others.

More, the idea of an exclusive Studio 54-type of club is pretty much anathema to the whole idea of geekery. (That point, along with an excellent takedown of the concept of Geekier Than Thou, was done much more cleverly than I could here.)

The nature of the community aside, the point of this Fake Geek Girl harassment isn't to test and include. It's to exclude. She's not really a geek; she's pretending to be a geek, and must be exposed for the fraud she is! And how do we know she's a geek? Why, because she's a girl, or at least a girl who doesn't fit the stereotype of what an actual Geek Girl is like, presuming that the self-appointed Champion of Geekery admits such could exist.

(By the way, this is why it's sexism even if it were hazing; because women are assumed to be newbies merely by virtue of the fact that they are women.)

So, no, trying to out-geek is not a solution. For starters, it's utterly useless to someone who is a geek, but whose experience/familiarity/obsession doesn't match the Self-Appointed Champion's. You or I would probably not even blink at the idea of an 18-year-old who has been gaming since she was old enough to pick up a dice bag calling herself a "gaming geek", but she isn't going to "out-geek" the guy three times her age who cut his teeth on the original Traveler. And the Self-Appointed Champion, the type of person who really thinks there is a problem with Fake Geek Girls, is not likely to be the sort of person to graciously admit defeat and declare he's been outgunned, as opposed to, say, continuing to be hostile, or finding some other "reason" the Girl in question is truly a Fake Geek.

And going right back to the subject of the thread: There's a more important reason, though, that "just out-geek 'em" is not a solution. It's that the Fake Geek Girl Inquisition is the problem. When a community has a culture in which it's accepted, or at worst tolerated, to assume that women don't belong and have to prove their right to participate to anyone who feels like making it an issue? When participating in one's beloved hobby with others means having to deal with being treated as a malicious "fake" because one has the temerity to have boobs? That is a problem, whether or not any individual woman is able to run the trivia gauntlet.

I suspect at this point you may be bursting to tell me that the guys who pull this BS are a minority; and that is probably true. But even a minority of badly-behaving people can poison a group, especially if the group seems to ignore or tolerate their behavior or treat it as something one just has to deal with, shrug.

 

[Celebrim]

While I appreciate that you're trying to give folks the benefit of the doubt, I respectfully disagree that this is a workable solution, particularly given the actual experiences of women on the receiving end of the Fake Girl Geek nonsense.

Not only is it the workable solution, it's the only workable solution. You think you are going to come into a social group and dictate terms to them? Really? That's your idea of how to gain acceptability?

First, the analogy of 'hazing' is inapt.

No it isn't.

Hazing is what happens when people who are in a particular group have the power to admit or deny entry to that group, and impose some hurdles on all new members - which they, themselves, went through when they were new - to make sure the applicant is worthy and membership is "earned". Geekdom isn't a group with a limited membership...

Sure it is. All social and cultural groups have limited memberships and while you can't be denied entry into geekdom, you can be denied acceptance into it. This is true of any cultural group, but its also true of any group of strangers. Your acceptance is always predicated on your ability to impress the group that you belong. To a certain extent, this is precisely how geekdom got started - the geeks were unable to impress any other group that they belonged. Your membership to a certain extent depended on having that experience as a shared experience.

But every social and cultural group has a high percentage of members that desire exclusivity because it fosters high commonality and trust between members of the group. You are threatening the groups cohesion when you try to force change on them, and frankly you are telling the groups 'it's me or you'. That's not a very workable solution.

where more experienced geeks all had to get quizzed on Dr. Who knowledge or THACO tables to be allowed to call themselves geeks, and now have the right to require the same of others.

Every group has the right to screen its membership and decide whether you have a right to participate socially, and even if you deny that they have that right it doesn't change the reality of the fact that they do behave this way - right or not. This is true of cheerleaders, Hassidic Jews, feminists, communists, conservatives, jocks, construction workers, goths, etc. You might get more harassment joining a construction crew as a woman, but harassment wouldn't be exclusive to you being a woman. Believe me, it was a major obstacle for me to convince them an 'egghead' belonged in such a group.

You want a challenge, you try fitting into social groups where you are the only member of your racial group. Or try fitting into a group of inner city northerners whose only experience of the south is The Dukes of Hazard as a rural southerner. You try convincing some Appalachian good old boy in his hunting cabin, that he can talk to you while you are wearing a federal agent badge because you are a member of his social group and sympathetic to his concerns. You think you get him to accept you, call off his dogs, by expressing your outrage over his stereotyping? It doesn't work that way.

The nature of the community aside, the point of this Fake Geek Girl harassment isn't to test and include. It's to exclude.

The nature of all harassment and testing isn't to include, but to exclude. All social groups are inherently exclusive and not inclusive. This includes the geeks, who have long since left the domain of when it was solely the group for people who didn't belong anywhere else. Geekdom is increasingly 'cool', and the geeks with that old common culture experience are like, "What are you doing here?" Ultimately, this isn't solely being motivated by fear of women, and I think it's wrong to view it that way. It's fear of change. Fear of social dissolution. Your dealing with people many of whom are on the edge of being autistic wondering where there comfortable predictable social environment went, and you are telling me that the 'workable solution' is what? Because I see a lot of criticism and outrage in your post, but not a lot that looks like a solution.

And the Self-Appointed Champion, the type of person who really thinks there is a problem with Fake Geek Girls, is not likely to be the sort of person to graciously admit defeat and declare he's been outgunned, as opposed to, say, continuing to be hostile, or finding some other "reason" the Girl in question is truly a Fake Geek.

And you really think that someone uncomfortable with your entry into a social setting is going to be more likely to admit defeat and cease being hostile if you .... what? Hold a rally? Call for diversity training? Angrily denounce his sexism? Challenge him for membership in the group? Threaten to exclude him? Appeal to the other members of the group for sensitivity? What do you think this is Survivor: GenCon? You really think even the sympathetic people of a group, the non-sexist people of the group, are going to be really sympathetic if you try to rally them against their friend on account of his sexism? You think this is a more workable solution than showing what you have in common? You think that's a better solution than showing you can't be put at unease and that your are good natured regardless of whether you are treated poorly? You think that's a better solution than showing you are emotionally tough and that you can give as good as you get? Because I promise you it's not, whether we are talking entry into a gaming group or a business situation or a position of leadership.

It's that the Fake Geek Girl Inquisition is the problem.

It doesn't matter what the problem is. Problems abound. They won't stop. What matters are the solutions, which you are very much not offering.

When a community has a culture in which it's accepted, or at worst tolerated, to assume that women don't belong and have to prove their right to participate to anyone who feels like making it an issue? When participating in one's beloved hobby with others means having to deal with being treated as a malicious "fake" because one has the temerity to have boobs? That is a problem, whether or not any individual woman is able to run the trivia gauntlet.

The world is filled with evils. You will be excluded for all sorts of reasons, being a woman just one among many. The geeks aren't so different from the rest of humanity as all of that.

I suspect at this point you may be bursting to tell me that the guys who pull this BS are a minority...

No. That would be ridiculous. It may be true, I don't really know, that the guys that pull this BS simply because you are a woman are in a minority. I suspect that is true because at some level most men, sexist or not, are going to be more accepting of you and more desirous to include you because you are a woman - which has it's own set of problems, not the least of which is feelings of jealousy and lost social status by some other members of the group. But then again, it may not be. It may be that most geeks are sexist. I've never known 'most geeks'. No, what I would tell you is that the percentage of people who 'pull this BS' is nearly 100%. That you can pick up journal articles that discuss why membership in exclusive groups are favored and why all people like to feel that their groups are more exclusive than inclusive. This is the reality of human interaction. Some people are naturally good at it. Most geeks are not. I'm certainly not. I can succeed by approaching the problem intellectually, and well, role-playing.

seems to ignore or tolerate their behavior or treat it as something one just has to deal with, shrug.

It doesn't really matter in that since whether it's ignored or tolerated or not, one just has to deal with it. That's one of the commonalities of the geek experience, I would think. We've all had to deal with rejection. You want to insist and believe that the hurdles are too high and you'll never get across them because every one is just so sexist? That's not a solution. Are you saying that the in crowd needs to champion you in order for you to gain admission? That's not a solution either.