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

[billd91]

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.

Groups may do this, but not every group has the right to do it beyond their own little social clique. That's affording the practice a legitimacy that doesn't exist. That groups do this broadly doesn't make it a right at all. They certainly don't have the right to do it at a convention or on a web site that others have organized and are determined to make open and inviting.

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.

In the public venues in which this occurs, there are tools available that should be used including bringing in con security or other event organizers. And I, for one, am determined to do so when some cretin tries to alpha geek either my wife or daughter because they're not geeky enough for him.

Private attitudes are private attitudes. But public behavior is public behavior and can, and should, be sanctioned appropriately.

 

[Celebrim]

Groups may do this, but not every group has the right to do it beyond their own little social clique. That's affording the practice a legitimacy that doesn't exist. That groups do this broadly doesn't make it a right at all.

Err... hmmm... That may be too deep of water for me to dive into this morning on little sleep.

They certainly don't have the right to do it at a convention or on a web site that others have organized and are determined to make open and inviting.

In the public venues in which this occurs, there are tools available that should be used including bringing in con security or other event organizers. And I, for one, am determined to do so when some cretin tries to alpha geek either my wife or daughter because they're not geeky enough for him.

Private attitudes are private attitudes. But public behavior is public behavior and can, and should, be sanctioned appropriately.

That may be true, but the original guide was explicitly not a guide to gaming with strangers.

Without being an expert on Convention etiquette, I'll say this, I tend to consider appealing to authority in any situation to intervene to be a last recourse which I am very reluctant to take. I can certainly imagine it reaching that level, but I wouldn't imagine it is normal for it to reach that level. In any event though, if that is solely the issue then there are problems. You are solely dependent now on the judgment of the authority figure; you've kind of eliminated any control you have over the situation. If the solution is really going to the authority figure to have them exclude the offending party and the authority figures are good with that, then what's the problem really? What is being advocated for? "You have a right to go to the authority figure every time you feel uncomfortable."; essay complete?

 

[mythago]

billd91 said it more concisely and wisely than I would have.

Celebrim, the solution is to talk about the problem, and both as individuals and as a community, work to solve the problem. That is exactly what we're doing here. And as practical action, that means, as billd91 notes, that the "sympathetic" and "non-sexist" members of the group need to tell the Self-Appointed Guardian to knock it off when he takes it upon himself to get in the face of a new female player, instead of quietly hoping that she can pull a nerd version of a Karate Kid-style finishing move to send him packing forever. It means that a public convention need to have policies and procedures in place to deal with people who for whatever reason are harassing or "hazing" others - because, you know, if the organizers of a con really wanted some kind of hazing procedure in place for attendees, they'd probably have one, instead of expecting random people to appoint themselves that function. It also means, as gamers, being clear that what we care about is whether you want to love this hobby right along with us, and not whether you pee sitting down or go to every Gen Con or own the original edition of Chainmail.

Celebrim, you keep bursting into these angry Grand Guignol rants about "contrition" and "diversity" and "sensitivity" and calling for rallies and repeately attributing arguments to people that they have never actually made. This is strawmanning. I get the impression that you are not doing so as a deliberate rhetorical tactic, but because you have very strong feels on the subject of sexism in general, but you may wish to consider that it detracts from your position. I mean, imagine how much consideration you would give to somebody who demanded "Clearly, you think the solution is for girl gamers to politely beg for permission to game after cheerfully meeting whatever Neckbeard Trivia Tests any dude wants to throw their way"? Not much, I'm guessing (nor should you) - so why expect that others will give much consideration to your arguments cast in the same emotional, accusatory mode?

As a side note: before you start on a grand lecture about How the World Works, you might want to consider that other people, too, live in the world, and may have some experience - perhaps even more than you yourself! - on dealing with harassment, or being the a member of minority X in a group of Ys, or what does and doesn't work to handle a hostile person whose goal is to put you down and keep you out. And perhaps, in the context of the discussion, that longtime female gamers might have just a bit more experience than you about the Fake Geek Girl issue and what does and doesn't work to address it.

 

[Celebrim]

And as practical action, that means, as billd91 notes, that the "sympathetic" and "non-sexist" members of the group need to tell the Self-Appointed Guardian to knock it off when he takes it upon himself to get in the face of a new female player, instead of quietly hoping that she can pull a nerd version of a Karate Kid-style finishing move to send him packing forever.

First, the goal is never to send anyone packing forever.

Secondly, judged as a practical action, what you've suggested at best buys the group some time. I've said before that if I had one player being a jerk to another player, it was something I'd have to deal with. I've never had to deal with this particular problem, but yeah, this is a pull the player aside at the end of the session and say, "What the heck, Bob?" sort of moment. "How about we not act like a jerk toward the new player, k?" And conversely, "I apologize for Bob's behavior Sue. That was uncalled for and I'm going to talk to him about it."

But there is a very strong possibility that me coming down on Bob, especially if I do it public like isn't going to have the effect you think.

a) Bob could now be jealous of Sue. Do you like Sue more than me? Is that why you are favoring them?
b) Bob could see the fact that I've intervened on Sue's behalf, proof she's a weak link. Why do you need to protect Sue? That's just what I thought she'd do - run to daddy GM for protection. Boo hoo.
c) The other players may side with Bob. Look, we all got along before Sue came along. Clearly Sue just doesn't fit in this group. It's not that she's a woman or anything, it's just she just doesn't really have the right personality.

And you know, I don't know whether the odds are higher of all this happening if Sue is a woman, but I can tell you that its a pretty normal human dynamic even if it is a boy named Sue. It certainly doesn't happen all the time (thank God), but it's the way I've seen people behave.

At best, if Bob really is being a problem my siding with Sue is just buying some time. Ultimately Sue still needs to convince Bob she brings value to the group, and the only way to do that is .... bring value to the group. Then whatever was motivating Bob's dislike of Sue, hopefully we get a new Bob that says, "Wow, X really can bring value to the group." One person. One relationship at a time.

Celebrim, you keep bursting into these angry Grand Guignol....

+1 geek point to you.

...rants about "contrition" and "diversity" and "sensitivity" and calling for rallies and repeately attributing arguments to people that they have never actually made. This is strawmanning.

For example, contrition:

"An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes. White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized...I have no problem continuing buying from them. Gary Gygax later on said that the female strength cap was a mistake to include...What's more important is how they react to criticism."

Do you are do you not think that contrition was cited as the major reason a gaming company or group should receive our support if they were attacked? Read the original essay again. My problem with that is that there was no defined standard other than, "Someone was offended." I asked for a particular standard, "Would my romanticized African Kingdom meet your standard of 'noble savage', or am I now in the damnable category of the non-contrite content creator? How can I avoid earning your outrage in the first place, if defending my creation is not an acceptable act on my part?"

For example, diversity:

"The One Ring RPG have non-stripperific armor as the default design for women warriors in their artwork. This is progressive because many other RPGs (both tabletop and video games) design women's armor to be titillating.

The designers of Pathfinder RPG are making attempts to be racially and LGBT inclusive. And possibly one of the first RPG systems to have a transgender iconic (I don't know which one, though). Unfortunately it has stumbled in some regards (stereotypical gypsies and Darkest Africa pulps), but the designers took criticism into account and considered it valid.

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was the first Edition to alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns. Half of the PC class iconics were women (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard)."

And so forth. I think it odd that you claim "contrition", "diversity", and "sensitivity" are topics I introduced to this discussion.

but because you have very strong feels on the subject of sexism in general,

I have very strong feelings that it is a bad idea to view the world through the framework of 'isms', yes.

but you may wish to consider that it detracts from your position. I mean, imagine how much consideration you would give to somebody who demanded "Clearly, you think the solution is for girl gamers to politely beg for permission to game after cheerfully meeting whatever Neckbeard Trivia Tests any dude wants to throw their way"?

I'd like to think I'd give everyone my every consideration. But put in a less snarky light, that's not entirely a bad idea. I mean if you really think that's the dynamic that is going on, you might be surprised about how a frank question throws it into light: "I'm getting the feeling you don't want me here. I really want to play this game. May I?" If there is any chance of the two of you playing together at all, maybe you'll embarrass him into acting decent. If the answer is "No.", well then at least you've got that out on the table. Or maybe go the other way and throw some flattery at the idiot, "Really? You've been playing since the '70s? What was it like back in the day? Did you ever meet Gygax?"

There is every reason to not act in the way a jerk expects you to.

(nor should you)

I disagree.

- so why expect that others will give much consideration to your arguments cast in the same emotional, accusatory mode?

Because I'd like to think that I would. How many times have I told this board, you can't chase me away by getting angry or calling me an idiot. I can deal with your honest emotion. The only thing you can really do to belittle me is not take me seriously, or persistently misquote me, or be dishonest, or otherwise disengage from me.

As a side note: before you start on a grand lecture about How the World Works, you might want to consider that other people, too, live in the world, and may have some experience - perhaps even more than you yourself! - on dealing with harassment, or being the a member of minority X in a group of Ys, or what does and doesn't work to handle a hostile person whose goal is to put you down and keep you out. And perhaps, in the context of the discussion, that longtime female gamers might have just a bit more experience than you about the Fake Geek Girl issue and what does and doesn't work to address it.

So tell me about your triumphs. How did you go about winning acceptance? How did you get your foot in the door? How did you change people's minds? That's far more value than any politically charged essay.

And you know, the story of how you called security on this jerk and had him removed from the convention. That's a tragedy. Even if it had to happen, even if the jerk left you know other choice because he'd become threatening, I feel sorry for everyone involved.

 

[billd91]

Secondly, judged as a practical action, what you've suggested at best buys the group some time. I've said before that if I had one player being a jerk to another player, it was something I'd have to deal with. I've never had to deal with this particular problem, but yeah, this is a pull the player aside at the end of the session and say, "What the heck, Bob?" sort of moment. "How about we not act like a jerk toward the new player, k?" And conversely, "I apologize for Bob's behavior Sue. That was uncalled for and I'm going to talk to him about it."

But there is a very strong possibility that me coming down on Bob, especially if I do it public like isn't going to have the effect you think.

a) Bob could now be jealous of Sue. Do you like Sue more than me? Is that why you are favoring them?
b) Bob could see the fact that I've intervened on Sue's behalf, proof she's a weak link. Why do you need to protect Sue? That's just what I thought she'd do - run to daddy GM for protection. Boo hoo.
c) The other players may side with Bob. Look, we all got along before Sue came along. Clearly Sue just doesn't fit in this group. It's not that she's a woman or anything, it's just she just doesn't really have the right personality.

And you know, I don't know whether the odds are higher of all this happening if Sue is a woman, but I can tell you that its a pretty normal human dynamic even if it is a boy named Sue. It certainly doesn't happen all the time (thank God), but it's the way I've seen people behave.

At best, if Bob really is being a problem my siding with Sue is just buying some time. Ultimately Sue still needs to convince Bob she brings value to the group, and the only way to do that is .... bring value to the group. Then whatever was motivating Bob's dislike of Sue, hopefully we get a new Bob that says, "Wow, X really can bring value to the group." One person. One relationship at a time.

If this is the case and Bob is still being a jerk, then the problem is Bob still being a jerk. The presence of Sue may have revealed how much of a jerk Bob is, but the problem is still Bob and he's the one making it a problem for everyone else. Bob is still the appropriate target of correction. There may be some people who prefer not rocking the boat, but that's not exactly a good definition of justice in the face of unjust actions.

 

[Celebrim]

There may be some people who prefer not rocking the boat...

Do I seem like someone who is afraid to rock the boat?

..., but that's not exactly a good definition of justice in the face of unjust actions.

I'm a bit skeptical of bringing the agenda of receiving justice to my gaming table. Among many reasons this sounds likely to go wrong is one should really really be careful before appealing to Justice - you are never quite certain where it going to fall.

So far we've been going with the assumption that Bob is being a jerk and Sue is innocent. But that isn't always the case. Bob may really be jealous with cause; Sue might be getting preferential treatment. Sue might be innocent in that too (which means the problem that needs correcting might lie with neither Bob nor Sue), but then again she might not be. For all we know, the fact that Sue gets preferential treatment and attention when she games might be one of her main reasons for liking gaming. I've certainly known men that fit that standard. So far we've assumed that Sue fits no sexist sterotypes, but that might not be true. Out in the real world before we accepted that Bob is a jerk a priori, these table conflicts can look a lot more murky. Once we get beyond, "Bob is making me feel uncomfortable, can you speak to him.", to "Bob is in the wrong, I demand justice!", things get really murky.

Asking the DM to pull a Karate Kid style finishing move on Bob is also a tragedy. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm not saying there aren't times it shouldn't happen. But... sometimes we ought to be careful about crying out for everyone to get what they deserve. Making Bob the target of correction would give me no satisfaction, and not every group would survive that even if they generally agreed he deserved it.

 

[billd91]

Do I seem like someone who is afraid to rock the boat?

I dunno. Based on my reading of your posts, you seem to be making a lot of excuses for bad behavior because that's simply how the world works, that's how people behave, or because there may be unintended consequences. It may be a misreading on my part, but the only element you seem to want to confront in this thread is any attempt to not just describe how things work but efforts to change them.

I'm a bit skeptical of bringing the agenda of receiving justice to my gaming table. Among many reasons this sounds likely to go wrong is one should really really be careful before appealing to Justice - you are never quite certain where it going to fall.

So far we've been going with the assumption that Bob is being a jerk and Sue is innocent. But that isn't always the case. Bob may really be jealous with cause; Sue might be getting preferential treatment. Sue might be innocent in that too (which means the problem that needs correcting might lie with neither Bob nor Sue), but then again she might not be. For all we know, the fact that Sue gets preferential treatment and attention when she games might be one of her main reasons for liking gaming. I've certainly known men that fit that standard. So far we've assumed that Sue fits no sexist sterotypes, but that might not be true. Out in the real world before we accepted that Bob is a jerk a priori, these table conflicts can look a lot more murky. Once we get beyond, "Bob is making me feel uncomfortable, can you speak to him.", to "Bob is in the wrong, I demand justice!", things get really murky.

Asking the DM to pull a Karate Kid style finishing move on Bob is also a tragedy. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm not saying there aren't times it shouldn't happen. But... sometimes we ought to be careful about crying out for everyone to get what they deserve. Making Bob the target of correction would give me no satisfaction, and not every group would survive that even if they generally agreed he deserved it.

If Sue is actually being a problem because of her behavior, then deal with her. But your own hypothetical, to which I was responding, was written with Bob as the jerk. Why change the hypothetical now? The point is to deal with people in the way they deserve to be dealt - that's being just. And if it is Bob being the jerk, then Bob needs to be dealt with rather than make excuses for him not responding in a positive way to the message that he needs to stop being a jerk.

 

[Le Noir Faineant]

But we haven't even gotten to the question of whether 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse' is or is not sexist (and you seem to be assuming that I do, in fact, think it is, which I have not said). You argued that because Shades of Grey is a novel written by a woman and with a female targeted audience contains very explicit sex scenes, any female player who is bothered by 'the dwarves and hobbits go to the whorehouse' is engaging in a double standard. I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second, and you still haven't explained it.

By Hextor... So, if a man had written Shades, targeting a male audience, what would it be, in your opinion?

 

[Celebrim]

I dunno. Based on my reading of your posts, you seem to be making a lot of excuses for bad behavior...

I'm not excusing anything. If I was excusing Bob's behavior, I wouldn't be describing it as being a jerk.

It may be a misreading on my part, but the only element you seem to want to confront in this thread is any attempt to not just describe how things work but efforts to change them.

First, I'm not confronting 'Bob', because he isn't in this thread. 'Bob' already got sent from the room. The only things I can confront are the things that are actually in the thread. And I'm not confronting efforts to change things. The world is clearly broken and needs to change. I'm confronting the notion of how we change things. Just because I don't approve of the particulars of your plan, doesn't mean I disagree that things or broken or that I approve of the thing you are trying to confront.

The point is to deal with people in the way they deserve to be dealt - that's being just.

It is a rare person these days that actually knows the definition of just. It's actually refreshing.

And if it is Bob being the jerk, then Bob needs to be dealt with rather than make excuses for him not responding in a positive way to the message that he needs to stop being a jerk.

For the purpose of the original example, if I approach Bob and say, "Dude, what was that? How about we not act like a jerk to the new player?", and Bob comes back with, "How about we don't invite ***** to the gaming table?" Then, I'm like, "Sorry Bob. I can't really work with that, until you can learn to behave and treat other people like people out the door you go."

But not only do I insist that's still a tragedy and not a moral victory, I'd also insist in general that's probably the rare case where you can make a clean judgment of what the problem is and that there is no real way to solve it (or no better way to solve it). Or that Bob is so clearly in the wrong, and has so clearly placed himself in a neat little stereotype with neat little biases.

But maybe most of all, there is no change here.

 

[Le Noir Faineant]

I still don't understand what you are taking offense to? I am serious I don't understand your point at al.

Fair enough, I'll try again, then. Also, please understand that I appreciate you as a woman (if the "witch" in your nick is gender denominator, as much as the "Le" is in mine) speaking out soundly on the topic: While I disagree with the way things are said, we're perfectly on the same page when it comes to confronting sexist outings agressively.

What bothers me about the debate is that the OP did mix a plethora (yes, I am going there) of displays of sexist behavior, and that most of the posters in the thread followed up, without making a distinction. That makes most of this thread just the usual "mean men stories", which in my opinion misses the mark. As in, different forms of sexist behavior have been mentioned in this thread, and the arguments cross over in ways that are neither helpful, nor, frankly, appropriate.

Sexist game-writing - Very much open for interpretation. What about narrative functions, what about the author's intentions, and, more importantly, what about free speech?

Sexist roleplaying - Very much open for interpretation, as well. "Am I a murderer because my character murders somebody?" - I think we know the answer to that one.

Sexism within gaming groups - NOT open for interpretation. There's banter, and there's serious offense, of course, but, really, a normal person can tell when a line is crossed.

Sexism within the roleplaying community in general, or, sexism between people that don't know each other - also, NOT open for interpretation, and rarely excusable. Possibly criminal acts, really.


Those are different topics that should be addressed separately, in my opinion.



Now, what I find very problematic about this discussion, and about public discussions of sexism in general, is that there's always a certain notion that men need to be told. - In my experience, an average man, in adulthood, with responsibilities, with a job, with a formation, with an education, with manners, with life experience, with sexual experience, with relationship experience, with female family members, with female peers, with female coworkers, aaaaaaaaaaaand with or without a female sentimental partner, knows ABOUT AS WELL how to treat a woman, as women in general know how to treat men.

So, let's just not equate boys, or losers, or nutjobs, or creeps with normal men. Because for every chauvinist, or harasser, or stalker that you show me, I can show you a hundred men that are none of this. And not because they would be suppressing our innate bestial urges, but because men are just about as capable of civil conduct as women are.

Tika's chainmail bikini isn't the bane of modern women. Immature men are. But thank goodness there are less of them than women probably like to think.