Harassment in gaming

[Darkwing Duck]

I thought this was going to be some lame ass comment about chain mail bikinis. But, it isn't. The incidents reported in this site are horrendous, absolutely horrendous and heart breaking.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

“Do you have any models that look like me?” the woman asks.

“We only have normal models,” my co-worker titters, “I can order you the noble savage.”

The woman leaves. We never see her again.

Are there pewter companies that offer a lot of non-European figs? Not just African, European, and Asian, but Native American (without the stereotypical gear), Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, Amazonians, MesoAmericans, Innuit, etc.?

 

[Lord Twig]

I'm going to have to disagree that this has nothing specific to do with RPGs. There are a few RPG specific factors, particularly related to fantasy RPGs like D&D, that would seem to me to be relevant.

1) Most fantasy RPGs take place in a pseudo-medieval setting.

There's nothing wrong with this being the default for most frpgs. Indeed, some frpg settings even make a point of mentioning that there is a greater level of gender equality in those settings than would have existed in our medieval era. Thank God for that: the medieval era (to my understanding) was not particularly kind, especially to women.

This can really become an issue when DMs try to inject a more authentic feel to the setting by adopting more of the aspects of reality and of our medieval world.

I think the "pseudo" part has made this a lot better today than in the past. All of the current settings I'm aware of have gender equality in their societies. The only exception being the Drow, which is a matriarchy.

2) Sexualization of women in gaming art.
Note: This is not going to be a rant about art in gaming. However, I am going to address it because it is a relevant topic.

All art is subjective, and I like some of the pin-up style art (regardless of the gender involved). However, for a long time there was a trend in gaming art to sexualize the females presented therein. There are many examples of this:

(a) The overused chain-mail bikini. This is fine as part of a pin-up style picture, but we really shouldn't pretend that it provides any real protection when men wearing chain armor are draped in entire shirts of the stuff. Also related to this is female armor that covers more than the CMB but fails to cover as much as the equivalent armor does on a man. Depending on how it's done, I can see this as being more forgivable outside of the pin-up style than the CMB is, but it does establish that even female armor is intended at least as much to make a woman look good as it is to protect her.

(b) The dress of casters. Most female casters seemed like they were wearing what amounts to the slave Leia outfit, with some see-through cloth hanging from it. By contrast, male casters wore robes raging from the simple robes we see Gandalf wearing in the first LoTR film to elaborate robes befitting royalty, or the ceremonial garb of priests, bishops, popes, etc.

I could go on, but I think those two example make my point about the art (and I don't want to belabor the art issue any more than is necessary). The main point of the art example is that the art already, on a subconscious level, sets women in the gaming sphere up to be seen as sexual objects.

I think the chain mail bikini isn't as overused as many people think. It's just the worst (best? You know what i mean. ) example of the "scanty armor" problem. It's probably about as common as the armored loin cloth the men are portrayed as wearing. That said female armor in general has a problem with showing off skin at the expense of protection. Far more so than armor for men. So it is a problem.

But should the chain mail bikini/loincloth and the like be removed from games entirely? Sure there should be competent, sensibly armored female characters portrayed just like male characters. And we are getting more of that now. But there is still a market for attractive characters (of both sexes) that are showing some skin.

Honestly of all the disappointing art in D&D 5e, the one that bugs me the second most (after Halflings) is the barbarian. It's just some guy in plain pants and a shirt with an axe! What the heck? Where are the rippling muscles and rage? It looks like his is just taking a Sunday stroll through the park.

I will admit that we need more sensibly dressed female wizards/sorcerers. They are out there, but there needs to be more. I will also say that I would like to see more young, attractive male wizards showing off their physique. I need more images for my characters.

In the ShadowRun games I played an equal weight was given to style as well as function, and I don't think it is that different in fantasy games. Many people like to have their characters look good. And yes, they even want them to be sexy. People are sexual creatures. That doesn't automatically make them sexual objects.

3) The virgin and the harlot.

A lot of fantasy has a kind of two-faced view of women, with all women either being frail virginal flowers in need of protecting, or being harlots or seductresses. This also potentially sets up a subconscious expectation that I've seen time and time again in gaming, mostly expressed in the belief/assumption that a female character (PC or NPC) who expresses any interest in sexuality is a harlot and not just a rounded out person.

I agree with this 100%. I think the current game industry has made great strides in this area though. In some cases they have gone so far that it would seem that seductresses don't even exist. But that's okay. A break from the trope is probably needed right now.

Of course despite what the game companies do they can't control what the players do. And players will make characters of all sorts. Some of which should probably not have been made. And, to bring this all the way back to the original topic, most of those players will be white males. (Full disclosure, I'm a white hetero male.)

That said, this is not just about the problem existing in the RPG community, but in the overall gaming community (of which rpg players are part), and female cosplayers are often faced with significant sexual assault and battery.

Agreed, and more should be done to stop it. Probably the fist step would be better training for those responsible for running the conventions and for those providing security.

 

[Springheel]

We then asked folks to *look beyond* that, so we could discuss the actual issues. Because, to be honest, continuing to address that is a form of misdirection - it is making the discussion about all those poor white men who aren't terrorists, instead of about the women who are getting harassed. This misdirection is actually a logical fallacy

Since this is a public thread of over 50+ pages, it's a little difficult to argue what should or shouldn't be the main focus of conversation. There are at least half a dozen different topics running throughout, all of which are directly related to the article in the OP, not to mention the spin-off conversations that are only tangentially related.

However, looking at what you claim is the "actual issue", the thread is full of statements from people expressing their support for anti-harassment policies at conventions, and a general agreement that physical harassment of any kind should not be tolerated, at least as far as I can see. Do you not see it that way or are you looking for something more than that?

 

[MechaPilot]

I think the chain mail bikini isn't as overused as many people think. It's just the worst (best? You know what i mean. ) example of the "scanty armor" problem. It's probably about as common as the armored loin cloth the men are portrayed as wearing. That said female armor in general has a problem with showing off skin at the expense of protection. Far more so than armor for men. So it is a problem.

I agreed with much of your reply to my post (hence the Xp award), but I wanted to highlight this part because I feel that you've fallen into a common trap in the comparison of scantily clad fantasy art. The big, muscly men are not eye candy for us ladies: they are wish-fulfillment for male gamers, many of whom are "nerds" and lack the powerful physique of the jocks that used to torment them in school (the scantily clad men could also possibly be eye candy for a subset of the male gamer audience). Everyone certainly has their own preferences, so nothing is universal, but by and large most women prefer the lean and toned physique (like a runner or swimmer) to the Mr. Universe physique. Even a less toned look is apparently preferred: somewhat recently on the radio I heard about the "dad bod," a little muscular but not terribly toned, being rather popular with ladies. As Dannyalcatraz pointed out (either in this thread or the other harassment thread), Sean Connery, who was seen as a sex symbol when he played James Bond, had a physique similar to the aforementioned "dad bod."

Maybe I've rattled on a bit longer than I should have, but the point remains that the Mr. Universe look hearkens back to the wish-fulfillment seen in superhero physiques and has far less female appeal than the Michael Phelps, Bruce Lee, or Bond-era Connery looks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems to me that most of us aren't really defending the article, per se, so much as recognizing that however the article is written the issue that inspired it is real. In fact,I think several of us noted early on (as in on the *first page* of the thread) that the article was overstated.

We then asked folks to *look beyond* that, so we could discuss the actual issues. Because, to be honest, continuing to address that is a form of misdirection - it is making the discussion about all those poor white men who aren't terrorists, instead of about the women who are getting harassed. This misdirection is actually a logical fallacy - discarding a point due to the way it is presented, rather than the actual content, similar in form to an ad hominem, where you dismiss the point due to some personal flaw of the speaker.

The basic issue occurs, whoever wrote it, and whether or not they said it in the best way.

But, a bunch of people don't seem willing to look beyond the statement. That's unfortunate that priorities fall out that way, still after 50+ pages of discussion.

This is Kafkaesque. "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing." The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior. It relies upon painting a situation where the reader will kneejerk away from the concept of being an accomplice to behavior they find horrible so that they will accept general guilt and culpability - in this case membership in a group with a terrorism problem. It's set up so that it hides the fact that you can reject the argument altogether and not accept culpability for acts you did not commit. I neither have to stop pointing out that inflammatory language is inflammatory, nor do I have to accept that I am part of the problem you've painted. I do not harass, I do tolerate harassment, and I agree with the concept and execution of reasonable harassment policies. I also think that saying things like 'white male terrorism' is counterproductive and cancerous to continuing to reduce harassment. I do not have to fall into your binary.

And accepting that kind of language is cancerous on two fronts. Firstly, if you do fall into the kafkatrap above, you are either marginalized in the discussion by falling silent to avoid the opprobrium or you internalize the flawed logic and begin to use the same kafkatrap on others. Thus, more and more people are exposed to it and it's flawed statement of guilt (and, make no mistake, any choice within the fallacy applies guilt -- you either accept that you're guilty as a member of the group or you have guilt thrust upon you for being complicit if you fail to accept the group guilt). And that's just messed up and unhealthy. There are other ways to approach and deal with the problem to do not require people to accept that they have guilt as a member of a class of people.

The second front is that it internalizes the exact behavior that's meant to be addressed at the core of the effort. If you're aiming to end sexism, racism, gender harassment, etc., then allowing sexist, racist, gender harassing inflammatory language to be defended because it's coming from the movement is cancerous. That's a deep, dark, malignant cancer that you're allowing close into the heart of the effort. People that do that are have either accepted the guilt already or are making an effort to instill a new form of -archy and privilege that favors them. It's possible to approach the problem from a respect point of view for everyone and not malign with generalizations and stereotypes. It's even possible to do that AND acknowledge that the harassment is mostly one-way right now. In fact, I think it's critical to do so to build a base that won't allow the harassment to switch direction if the minority group becomes the majority. Process matters, means matter, and ignoring bad behavior because it's aimed generally at your desired goal is counterproductive.

And, finally, will you please stop misusing the tone argument fallacy? The proper form of the tone argument is dismissing an entire argument because of the manner in which it's stated. No one has done that. Instead, everyone seems pretty on-board with the idea of stopping harassment and that the things related in the article are not acceptable. The argument hasn't been dismissed based on the words used or the tone of the argument. Thus, no tone argument fallacy. Instead, what's happened is that people have taken specific issue with the specific terms used, and, make no mistake, those terms are heavily laden with lots of meaning. And they've taken issues specifically, and not to the detriment or dismissal of the larger issue. You can claim that's a distraction -- that's a fine argument, if you're ends oriented, but it's not the tone argument fallacy.

 

[Morrus]

This is Kafkaesque. "You cannot be upset or speak against the inherent accusation of wrongdoing because, by doing so, you are aiding the continued perpetration of that wrongdoing." The attempt here is to create a binary choice -- either shut up about inflammatory language you disagree with (and that is frankly cancerous, more on this in a minute), or become a de facto accomplice to horrid behavior.

No, that's not correct. There's a third choice. Take the side discussion to another thread, and not have every thread that attempts to discuss the harassment be hijacked into 40 pages about the phrase used to bring the issue to peoples' attention.

So folks can have 1000 posts about the use of the word "terrorist" if they want to. But taking it to another thread is reasonable, because, as yet, the discussion about harassment of our fellow gamers *still* hasn't happened. Every attempt becomes 40 pages about how white men got called a meanie. Which would be fine if it didn't prevent the harassment discussion happening every single time, over and over again.

It's a Catch 22. Don't use inflammatory language and nobody notices. Use it, and the discussion is only about the language. Folks are still searching for the magic formula which allows the actual harassment - the actual issue that's harming people - to be discussed.

I don't know how to do it. I'd love it if that conversation happened, but to my knowledge it has not yet ever actually happened. It's not allowed to.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Speaking as a gay man, I have the ability to look at a chain mail bikini and not objectify women.
That being said, there are plenty of opportunities in fantasy to objectify men. That's been going on for a very long time.
examples
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZzJqLhRuDYM/TYWuowCOpYI/AAAAAAAAFdo/iCOAjZb_2wY/s1600/beastmaster_1.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/BeastMaster_cast.JPG

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...rceress.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110805204245

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/jason-momoa-conan-barbarian-workout__oPt.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/cghceiofo4jb8io9dzco.jpg

and, yet, not once have I had a problem viewing these characters as more than sex symbols. So, I can easily believe that straight men are the same way with regards to chain mail bikinis.

And that's the problem. Because as long as feminists are complaining about chain mail bikinis, they are undermining their own credibility. No one is going to listen to someone who undermines their own credibility EVEN WHEN that someone is discussing other issues which are real and significant.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, that's not correct. There's a third choice. Take the side discussion to another thread, and not have every thread that attempts to discuss the harassment be hijacked into 40 pages about the phrase used to bring the issue to peoples' attention.

So folks can have 1000 posts about the use of the word "terrorist" if they want to. But taking it to another thread is reasonable, because, as yet, the discussion about harassment of our fellow gamers *still* hasn't happened. Every attempt becomes 40 pages about how white men got called a meanie. Which would be fine if it didn't prevent the harassment discussion happening every single time, over and over again.

It's a Catch 22. Don't use inflammatory language and nobody notices. Use it, and the discussion is only about the language. Folks are still searching for the magic formula which allows the actual harassment - the actual issue that's harming people - to be discussed.

I don't know how to do it. I'd love it if that conversation happened, but to my knowledge it has not yet ever actually happened. It's not allowed to.

I must have not missed something. I've seen a bunch of posts discussing and acknowledging that harassment happens. I've seen a bunch of posts from people waking up to the extent and scope of the problem. I've seen a bunch of posts talking about effective anti-harassment policies (and some not so effective and some counterproductive, even). I've seen LOTS of discussion about the problem and even positive steps to addressing it. Either we're reading different threads or we have a different idea of what a discussion of the problem is. So, let's solve that: what does a discussion have to have to be a discussion that isn't occurring in this thread?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So folks can have 1000 posts about the use of the word "terrorist" if they want to.

As a gay man, I'm very familiar with the rhetoric which attempts to reverse hatred in order to be heard. It is cheap. It is lazy. It is unproductive and it actually _increases_ the amount of harm being done.

If you are unable to write effectively without stooping to the level of cheap shots (like using words like "terrorist"), that's really all about your lack of writing persuasively. Get better.