Harassment in gaming

[billd91]

I disagree that there is such thing as a "culture of terrorism", which is the main thing that causes me to disagree with the other side. I think physical abuse of any kind is wrong. I think we should stop assaults, we should band together to make sure violence never happens. I believe our actions should reflect our equal and mutual respect for all other humans on the planet regardless of race, gender, or any other factor.

I don't believe words constitute violence or contribute to a "culture of terrorism". And that point appears to be the battlefield that most of these battles are fought over. I believe people can disagree, they can say things that are even kind of offensive. We have the right to stop hanging around that person because they are a jerk. Or we can overlook them being slightly offensive because overall, we like them. In the same way that I can overlook people with different religious or political views that I have even while I simultaneously view some of thei opinions as offensive.

I live by the motto "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That includes offensive things.

It does not, however, include threats. They go beyond simply offensive acts and into criminal ones and are not at all protected as a freedom of expression. There is no right to be defended in those situations. And it's clear that there are areas around women in gaming, particularly computer gaming, where death and rape threats are made. While I too am reluctant to call it terrorism (since that word is used far too often these days), participants clearly contribute to an environment of intimidation directed at women. So the leap to calling it terrorism when it is clearly intended to sow fear? Not that far a leap, I'm forced to admit.

 

[sunshadow21]

It does not, however, include threats. They go beyond simply offensive and into criminal and are not at all protected as a freedom of expression. There is no right to be defended in those situations. And it's clear that there are areas around women in gaming, particularly computer gaming, where death and rape threats are made. While I too am reluctant to call it terrorism (since that word is used far too often these days), participants clearly contribute to an environment of intimidation directed at women. So the leap to calling it terrorism when it is clearly intended to sow fear? Not that far a leap, I'm forced to admit.

And those that make the threats are being stupid and deserve everything they get. The key is that it really isn't that hard to prove genuine threats, so I don't get why so many people are hesitant to share details. If it is a genuine threat or act of physical abuse, sharing the details to allow the proper people to act upon those details is going to make for a more secure environment in the long run, even if it might mean some additional short term stress.

 

[billd91]

And those that make the threats are being stupid and deserve everything they get. The key is that it really isn't that hard to prove genuine threats, so I don't get why so many people are hesitant to share details. If it is a genuine threat or act of physical abuse, sharing the details to allow the proper people to act upon those details is going to make for a more secure environment in the long run, even if it might mean some additional short term stress.

You have to understand that intimidation often works. In an environment of fear and threats, how many people really want to be the ones making the reports? If you're already out in the public and being directly threatened like Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian, you may have nothing to lose by reporting it. But then look at what happened to Felicia Day when she spoke out against the threats - she became a target and her security compromised. That's the point of the threat in the first place - to make it too costly in stress and compromised security to speak out or report incidents. It's pretty easy for the terrorists in this situation, if we choose to use that word, to win.

To illustrate this with a bit of history - look how easy it was for the Soviet and other Warsaw Pact governments to control dissent. You set up an atmosphere promoting denunciation and back it with state power to make people disappear or head off to prison camps and pretty soon, you don't have a lot of criticism. These maladjusted goons making threats in male-dominated nerd hobbies may not have that kind of coordinated power, but the potential for a lone nut job to make good on one of these threats is still a concern. Most of them are just talk, but can you really afford to ignore them all?

 

[sunshadow21]

You have to understand that intimidation often works. In an environment of fear and threats, how many people really want to be the ones making the reports? If you're already out in the public and being directly threatened like Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian, you may have nothing to lose by reporting it. But then look at what happened to Felicia Day when she spoke out against the threats - she became a target and her security compromised. That's the point of the threat in the first place - to make it too costly in stress and compromised security to speak out or report incidents. It's pretty easy for the terrorists in this situation, if we choose to use that word, to win.

Not if you have the courage to look past the initial pain. Almost every victory that has ever been achieved in the eternal battle against oppression came because someone decided to focus on the long term goal, not the short term pain. The "terrorists" are relying on their victims to focus almost entirely on the short term pain, and almost always succeed with almost no effort because society has become very short sighted in it's concerns, goals, and preferences for how to implement them. I make no claim that it is an easy process, but expecting everyone else to tip toe around the pain of the victim really isn't all that great either. Personally, if I ran into a situation that bothered me that much personally, I would rather absorb the pain knowing that the enivonment afterwards would be a much more welcoming one, if not for me, than at least others like me. The idea of keeping it all bottled up inside as something I'm so terrified to even acknowledge that I can't be out in public without risking a stranger making a comment that will trigger an uncontrollabe reaction to be far more unpleasant.

 

[billd91]

Not if you have the courage to look past the initial pain. Almost every victory that has ever been achieved in the eternal battle against oppression came because someone decided to focus on the long term goal, not the short term pain. The "terrorists" are relying on their victims to focus almost entirely on the short term pain, and almost always succeed with almost no effort because society has become very short sighted in it's concerns, goals, and preferences for how to implement them. I make no claim that it is an easy process, but expecting everyone else to tip toe around the pain of the victim really isn't all that great either. Personally, if I ran into a situation that bothered me that much personally, I would rather absorb the pain knowing that the enivonment afterwards would be a much more welcoming one, if not for me, than at least others like me. The idea of keeping it all bottled up inside as something I'm so terrified to even acknowledge that I can't be out in public without risking a stranger making a comment that will trigger an uncontrollabe reaction to be far more unpleasant.

You say that now, but it's kind of easy to say that you'd stand up to the challenge when you're not being threatened. You ever been the subject of multiple death or rape threats and then had your address posted online?

 

[sunshadow21]

You say that now, but it's kind of easy to say that you'd stand up to the challenge when you're not being threatened. You ever been the subject of multiple death or rape threats and then had your address posted online?

I can say quite easily that the alternative would be worse. I've been through challenges of my own, and I've dealt with them both ways. The ones that no longer bother me are the ones I finally confronted and dealt with; they may not have involved death threats, but you couldn't have convinced me that the pain was that much different while I was going through it. Keeping things bottled up always took more effort and caused more pain than simply dealing with it, no matter how severe the pain was to do so. I will say that I was very lucky in one key regard; I have a reliable and trustworthy network of family, friends, and associates that enabled me to deal with the worst of it. If someone lacks that, that is the very first thing to focus on, not whether some stranger made a comment that made you comfortable or not.

 

[Gradine]

I disagree that there is such thing as a "culture of terrorism", which is the main thing that causes me to disagree with the other side.

I fail to understand why anyone claims to be the arbiter of whether people other than themselves feel "terrorized." If a person or group claim they are being terrorized... they are being terrorized. That's kind of the definition. Now whether that terrorism is intentional or unintentional is a worthy topic of debate of debate and pretty important when it comes to determining what's to be done about it. But you don't get to decide whether someone else feels terrorized or not. You can refuse to believe them, but make no mistake; that's an entirely different can of worms from "disagreeing" with them. You either believe them when they say they are victims of terrorism (thus, said terrorism actually exists, again whether intentional or otherwise); or you don't, in which case you feel they are being dishonest in their claims. If there's some middle ground you feel you occupy, I don't really see it.

I don't believe words constitute violence or contribute to a "culture of terrorism". And that point appears to be the battlefield that most of these battles are fought over. I believe people can disagree, they can say things that are even kind of offensive. We have the right to stop hanging around that person because they are a jerk. Or we can overlook them being slightly offensive because overall, we like them. In the same way that I can overlook people with different religious or political views that I have even while I simultaneously view some of thei opinions as offensive.

I have to admit, I have a hard time taking seriously any person who is any kind of writer or storyteller (a group which I believe all DMs, if not all roleplayers, certainly belong to) when they pull out the "they're just words" argument. Okay, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously over that argument, but storytellers especially have absolutely no excuse to peddling that hogwash. I mean, seriously? You mean to tell me you believe you have the power to whisk a group of players away to a fantastical realm of heroes and villains, for hours at a time, and over a period of months (if not years) invest those players in their characters and their deeds and the people they meet and world(s) they interact with, and then say with a straight face you don't think words have the power to invoke real fear in others? If you truly believe words don't have the power to truly impact people what are you even doing here?

Of course words have power. Words have the ability to invoke any number of very real emotions in every single person. Have you never felt sorrow, shed a single tear over any work of fiction or poetry? Or non-fiction, for that matter? Have you and your players never laughed at a particularly hilarious moment in your games? Have you, honestly, never once tried to evoke or illicit actual fear in your players by presenting them with a particularly frightening foe or circumstance?

Has nobody ever once made you hurt, or upset, or angry, over something they said to you? Something deeply personal? Has nobody ever really crossed that line to you, personally, not once in your life?

I refuse to believe anybody who says they think words have no power. I do believe what they're really saying is that they believe certain people should not let certain words have power over them, and way more often than not, it is someone proscribing to other people, whose personal experiences they generally know little to nothing about, how they should or should not react. It is almost always completely unfounded and always extraordinarily condescending.

I live by the motto "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That includes offensive things.

In my experience I've found that people have a much easier time living by this motto when their entire lives have not been directly impacted by hate speech. My motto is "Hate has no place in my community." Of course I don't think hate speech (and the kinds of things we're talking about in this thread certainly constitute hate speech) should be illegal, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate it in my communities. Not tolerating hate speech is pretty much essential to creating an inclusive space, by the way. Tolerating hate speech in your community as a matter of fact excludes any individual from your community who is negatively impacted by the kinds of hate speech you tolerate.

But all these assume a level of evil I don't believe is happening. When things happen that I consider bad enough to act, you bet I'm gong to act. People who are being attacked, hurt, assaulted, I will be there to stop it immediately. If people are complaining that a guy playing at their table called them beautiful and they didn't ASK for that compliment so they shouldn't have to put up with people sexually harassed like that...I'm going to shrug and say that's not that big of a deal.

Bystander intervention is extremely important, and you and other remaining committed to that idea should be commended for it.

As to why, specifically, unsolicited compliments are probably a bad idea (particularly towards women and particularly regarding their appearance), there's a wealth of excellent information throughout internet on exactly why, but here's a good primer: http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutere...that-random-girl-on-the-street-that-shes-hot/

But I feel like I have to touch on the most significant part of your comment, that last part. I think it clarifies a lot of why there is always so much push back on stuff like this. I'm going to spell out to you (and any others) in big bold letters so it's clear to everyone, because this is what I think is the biggest holdup on there ever generating any kind of real, significant change (on a community-wide basis, anyway) on topics such as these.

I'm going to shrug and say that's not that big of a deal.

YOU DO NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE A BIG DEAL TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN YOURSELF.

That hypothetical woman in your example? She is coming to you because to her it is a big deal and you, being in the position of authority that she is coming to you about, then get to make a decision to either treat her with respect or disrespect. You refusing to confront the other individual about it says that you expect that he will be unable to have an enjoyable time at your table unless he is able to tell other women how pretty he thinks they are, and that his right to be able to do that in order to feel comfortable at your table supersedes her right to feel comfortable at your table by not receiving unsolicited commentary on her physical appearance. In fact, your sample response to just shrug and basically tell her to get over it is an obvious sign that you do not, at all, respect her, her experiences, or her right to have an enjoyable time at your table.

And you wonder why you feel like you're being treated as if you're part of a problem?

Look, this is simple folks. You either respect everyone, including their right to feel comfortable playing in your game, or you only respect that right for a certain kind of player. How you choose to act in your home game is obviously your prerogative; but you how choose to act in public spaces designed for your community is fair game for discussion by the broader community.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

However, what comes across in things like the blog in the original post and similar things that are being posted lately is that the general opinion has turned from "everyone should be respectful and try not to offend anyone" to "you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful. No one is. Be MORE respectful. Don't expect us to tell you what we find offensive, that sounds like you are blaming me. That shouldn't be my responsibility.

I get it. Believe me, I do.

When you're getting piled on, especially if you're a guy, it's natural to get defensive. However, think about it from a woman's point of view: women are getting harassed and men aren't doing much about it, so they have a good reason to be pissed off.

The fact is that men aren't holding up their end of the basic social contract we all sign when we take the first step out of the door each day.

I don't think being defensive is an indictment of character.

What I like about the article I link to in my signature is that it recognizes that reacting defensively is both normal and natural, and then it goes on to say (in so many words), "Now lets move past defensiveness and talk about what we can do to address the problem of harassment in gaming."

ASK women about their experiences in gaming. A large chunk of the problem’s persistence is that a woman who gets offended/hit on/etc. and leaves doesn’t actually cause the majority of sensible male gamers to DO ANYTHING. “Oh, yeah, Stephanie…nobody’s seen her in two weeks? I guess she got a new job or something and didn’t tell us.” Smiling monsters rely on your not following up with their victims to get the space they need to operate.

LISTEN to what they say. Remember, they’re feeling isolated, and they feel like nobody will believe them over the other men at the table. Don’t accuse them of exaggerating. Don’t “put them in the witness box” — just listen. It won’t be comfortable. Time and time again, I’ve been told that the single most valuable thing I ever did was listen, so that she didn’t feel she was facing this alone. As a guy, it’s REALLY hard to believe that _just_ listening is that helpful, but it’s observably true.

WATCH for signs of discomfort. Women take up different body language when they feel threatened. They close their bodies off; they cross their arms in front of their chest as if they expect to get hit. They move to a chair on the other side of the table to get away from someone. They lean away from someone at a table to maximize the space between them or to preserve their personal space. These are all cues. If you see these signs, go back to “ASK” — you can ask “Are you OK?” If someone is getting close to a woman showing these body language cues, ask him “Hey, wait a minute. Do you know her?”

PAY ATTENTION to what other people are saying. We get it. Guys in the gaming hobby treat it like an old boy’s club, or chatter in the gym locker room. They can talk about whatever they feel like! They can crack rape jokes. They can crack blonde jokes. They can make comments like “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.” The uncomfortable woman probably won’t make a confrontation, because she’s unsure if she’s got any support in the room at all. That’s your job. Let her know that she’s NOT ALONE in thinking this is unacceptable behavior.

LOOK FOR ESCALATIONS. A lot of guys think that bawdy humor is “just part of gaming.” It absolutely can be with a group of people who know each other well. Unfortunately, at conventions and in game stores, bawdy humor is used by smiling monsters as a way to “gain permission” to do more. The pattern looks like this: Tell an edgy joke, see if anyone looks nervous before they laugh. Wait for people to calm down a bit, and tell a slightly more sexual joke. Repeat, and each repetition, escalate to more sexually explicit humor. Try touching a shoulder to “reassure.” Smiling monsters take laughing at raunchy jokes as evidence that they’re concealed by the social contract. They also get a thrill out of pushing the boundary of the social contract; it’s how they “win the game” in their head.

COMMUNICATE with someone who looks uncomfortable. Don’t let them wander off feeling like nobody cares. Ask simple things like “Are you OK?” and listen to what’s said. If they need to go to convention security, get them to convention security. If they just want to leave, separate them from the people harassing them and let them leave on their own, or ask the harasser to leave. It’s the person who’s made uncomfortable’s choice about who leaves the situation, not yours.

CALL PEOPLE OUT on bad manners. Explain that bad manners have consequences. Explain that this is a public space, and they can either conform to the expected standards of behavior or they can leave. Or you can threaten to leave — this is a pedal democracy; people show their displeasure by leaving. I’ve told gaming tables “You can have me playing, or your rape jokes. Choose now.”

KEEP AN EYE OUT for smiling monsters. Once you learn to spot them, they’re easy to recognize. They don’t make eye contact with other men or figures of authority, until they’re confronted. They tend to have head gestures (nodding or shaking their head) that are completely opposite of what their words are saying. They’re not prepared for follow-up questions. They get nervous when you talk to their prey, and start edging away. They escalate on raunchy humor, like what’s described above. They have a habit of boldly invading the personal space of anyone female, in ways that they wouldn’t do to a man.

This, right here, is where we should be at in this conversation.

But we can't, because some people still can't bring themselves to act on a problem they're willing to agree exists, because they're afraid of being kicked out of magic tournaments or to opening the door to liberal conspiracies, or something.

I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader. I will treat everyone equally based on their merit.

The problem is that the prevailing attitude has becoming one of "if you aren't crusading for our cause, you are part of the problem. There's no middle ground. Either you're with us or against us."

It's not necessary to be a crusader. That word skews what's being asked of male gamers.

Just keep an eye out. Be aware. Be prepared to act when you see harassment, and be confident you are capable of seeing it.

 

[Rygar]

This, right here, is where we should be at in this conversation.

But we can't, because some people still can't bring themselves to act on a problem they're willing to agree exists, because they're afraid of being kicked out of magic tournaments or to opening the door to liberal conspiracies, or something.

It's not a conspiracy when it's happening frequently.

You really should take some time out and google around about convention ejections, microaggressions, college student's demands, etc. This conversation is very different than what you're thinking it is, it has a great deal more to do with politics than it does harassment. In fact, this isn't even a new conversation, it's been going on since August 2014 when video gaming refused to adopt certain people's politics. Heck, I suspect that whole quoted block of instructions you have there is paraphrased from Anita Sarkesian's/Jon Macintosh's attempt to push into video gaming.

 

[Springheel]

You either believe them when they say they are victims of terrorism (thus, said terrorism actually exists, again whether intentional or otherwise); or you don't, in which case you feel they are being dishonest in their claims. If there's some middle ground you feel you occupy, I don't really see it.

You can accept that someone FEELS terrorized without accepting that there is actually any terrorism involved. This is the point several people, including myself, have been making for the past ten pages. Feelings are completely subjective. They may or may not correlate with anything in reality. One of the many specific examples put forward was the person who misheard "minstrel" as "menstrual". She felt offended, but her offense was based on her mishearing. It was NOT based on anything in reality. You can't immediately assume that just because someone TOOK offense, something actually offensive must have been said.