D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Obryn]

I have never seen a complicated social problem explained so succinctly. Excellent points, Obryn.

Hahah, thanks.

Strong statements are "bothering to do something about it." They just might not be bothering to change the mind of the person on the butt end of the statement.

Strong statements have the function of:
* Excluding bad actors from a community. "You gonna act that way? Great, we're done, you're not welcome here anymore." It doesn't always work, but sometimes it works. Maybe they'll go find another community to be a part of.
* Reminding people in the community that you have their back and their interests at heart. That, despite the actions of some, the people you want in your community are welcome there.

When a woman gets hired for a design position at Wizards, and there is an immediate vocal outpouring of speculation about her qualifications, many people see that and say, "I don't feel welcome in that community. That community is hostile to women." By coming and saying, "Nah, screw those sexist s, we don't want them around here and don't care what they think," Mearls is saying, "We do want you here, and we're willing to risk alienating potential customers to make that clear."

Yes! There's more purposes to statements than explicitly trying to persuade the person you're calling out. One of those is showing support to other people.

See my clarification post. But hey, if we're going for sound bites, I'm insisting that it'd be lot quieter if folks did more and shouted less.

..but really, I'm challenging the action and questioning its effectiveness while attempting to highlight how such action can be detrimental and in conflict with promoting healthy, meaningful change*.

* ..for those at the back, this is a gross simplification, as one would expect from a line or so summary of numerous posts!

No, because that's a myopic view of the purpose of speech. See redrick's post for one example. If someone's being attacked - which was in fact happening here - it's crucial to show support. Publicly. Loudly. Both for the target's benefit, and as shelter for other folks who want to show support. If some misogynists get called out along the way, welp.

And, frankly, you're promoting engaging with trolls. There's a huge effort gap between 'being a troll' and 'trying to constructively engage and have meaningful dialogue with trolls.' For women - who are very often the targets of misogynistic trolling - giving out a Feminism 101 lesson to each and every one of them, answering the same. damn. questions. time. and. time. again. and returning to first principles for every new dude who pops up with 'fake geek girl' nonsense ... well, it's not only unrealistic and wearying, it's downright absurd. If it's not specifically victim-blaming, it's victim-blaming's first cousin.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Believe it or not, I think there is a middle ground being missed here, and points on both sides, and I don't want it to get lost. So can we agree:

* sexist or bigoted behavior should be called out
* unless someone has actually studied the topic of privilege, they probably are totally unaware what they may be doing is an example of it. Pointing it out doesn't mean you're disparaging their character, and people engaging in it aren't automatically bad people (it only becomes problematic behavior if they become aware of the problem, but double down on it)
* it is not the victim's responsibility to change the minds of those in the wrong, but pointing out something the person might not be aware they are doing is helpful
* making comments about how people in power (like white men) cannot be the victims of discrimination is just as harmful to the discourse as saying WMP doesn't exist

Can we agree on the above?

 

[Zardnaar]

Strong statements are "bothering to do something about it." They just might not be bothering to change the mind of the person on the butt end of the statement.

Strong statements have the function of:
* Excluding bad actors from a community. "You gonna act that way? Great, we're done, you're not welcome here anymore." It doesn't always work, but sometimes it works. Maybe they'll go find another community to be a part of.
* Reminding people in the community that you have their back and their interests at heart. That, despite the actions of some, the people you want in your community are welcome there.

When a woman gets hired for a design position at Wizards, and there is an immediate vocal outpouring of speculation about her qualifications, many people see that and say, "I don't feel welcome in that community. That community is hostile to women." By coming and saying, "Nah, screw those sexist s, we don't want them around here and don't care what they think," Mearls is saying, "We do want you here, and we're willing to risk alienating potential customers to make that clear."

Could it backfire? Maybe. The asshats could be emboldened by the resistance and step up their campaign. Some people who were on the fence, "Maybe I should stop holding women to an absurd double standard and excluding them implicitly and explicitly from my community," may have gotten mad at Mike Mearls and said, "Screw that guy. I'll show him. I'm gonna go all in on hating women now." We'll keep our eyes out.

I don't think its sexist to wonder about her qualifications when she has not actually worked on any D&D related RPGs in any major capacity. Designing RPGs is more of an art form though and its not like all of TSR's hires were actually experienced D&Der's either but they had worked on other RPGs (well some of them had probably not all). Gygax is also another example, he could write an adventure, maybe not the best at writing an actual rulebook but he gets a free pass as he invented the genre.

Personally I do not know much about her, don't really care one way or the other, either way let her work speak for itself maybe she will go on to get major design credits in a D&D book or leave in 2 years time I have no idea. In the good old days TSR employed people via Dragon and/or Dungeon work, I think Mearls got int via 3pp first then Dungeon then ground floor. He was also one of the last to have that option/path as the Magazines have been out of print now for 10 years.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I may regret getting into this thread, but there's something I always think about whenever the subject of "gatekeeping" against "fake geek girls" comes up. I'll try to put this as delicately and neutrally as possible.

It is my experience that the impulse to "gatekeep" is not applied universally to every being with two X chromosomes.

It is my impression, although this is anecdotal and I could be wrong, that the impulse is typically applied to those who have two X chromosomes and are physically attractive. Possibly because those who harbor the impulse to gatekeep feel threatened by such beings.

Which kind of further suggests that not getting this treatment is its own sort of insult.

I'd love to be wrong. If others have different explanations, I'm interested in hearing them.

It does seem to focus on them more, but also look at the Critical Role fandom, and how they treat the women on screen. Ashley and Laura get a pass on a lot of behaviors that get used to on Marisha. All three are extremely attractive, but Marisha isn’t the sort of “soft, cute” attractive that sexist morons find nonthreatening.

She’s no more abrasive, assertive, etc than the guys, but they get literally no complaints for those things while she gets trashed on constantly.

So it’s not just attractiveness, but also how well they fit a mold that nerd boys are comfortable with.

 

[Obryn]

Believe it or not, I think there is a middle ground being missed here, and points on both sides, and I don't want it to get lost. So can we agree:

* sexist or bigoted behavior should be called out
* unless someone has actually studied the topic of privilege, they probably are totally unaware what they may be doing is an example of it. Pointing it out doesn't mean you're disparaging their character, and people engaging in it aren't automatically bad people (it only becomes problematic behavior if they become aware of the problem, but double down on it)
* it is not the victim's responsibility to change the minds of those in the wrong, but pointing out something the person might not be aware they are doing is helpful
* making comments about how people in power (like white men) cannot be the victims of discrimination is just as harmful to the discourse as saying WMP doesn't exist

Can we agree on the above?

Eh, for the most part. On that last point, it's absolutely true that white guys can be the victims of racial or gender-based animus. But I would like to distinguish that point from the overall concepts of institutional racism and sexism.

Also, for real, when someone's behavior is called out as racist or misogynist, that's not inherently a conversation-ender. This idea that it's some kind of nuclear weapon for the shutdown of all discourse is being pushed mostly by institutions that exist to provide cover for racism and misogyny. I'm not perfect - if I'm being racist, misogynistic, whatever - I want to hear about it so I can try and correct it, because I believe that working towards not being an intolerant ass is a life-long goal worth working towards.

I don't think its sexist to wonder about her qualifications when she has not actually worked on any D&D related RPGs in any major capacity. Designing RPGs is more of an art form though and its not like all of TSR's hires were actually experienced D&Der's either but they had worked on other RPGs (well some of them had probably not all). Gygax is also another example, he could write an adventure, maybe not the best at writing an actual rulebook but he gets a free pass as he invented the genre.

And yet for some reason she's the first WotC hire in recent memory to earn this degree of scrutiny and uproar! How weird!

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

No, because that's a myopic view of the purpose of speech. See redrick's post for one example. If someone's being attacked - which was in fact happening here - it's crucial to show support. Publicly. Loudly. Both for the target's benefit, and as shelter for other folks who want to show support. If some misogynists get called out along the way, welp.

And, frankly, you're promoting engaging with trolls. There's a huge effort gap between 'being a troll' and 'trying to constructively engage and have meaningful dialogue with trolls.' For women - who are very often the targets of misogynistic trolling - giving out a Feminism 101 lesson to each and every one of them, answering the same. damn. questions. time. and. time. again. and returning to first principles for every new dude who pops up with 'fake geek girl' nonsense ... well, it's not only unrealistic and wearying, it's downright absurd. If it's not specifically victim-blaming, it's victim-blaming's first cousin.

You keep telling me what I'm for. Again, I'll try to clarify:

The purpose of my initial response and my further responses having nothing to do with keep folks quiet, silencing those standing together and the like. Stand up to attackers - awesome.

If you re-read what I wrote, I hope you can see for yourself that I started with how catch phrases such as, 'check your privilege!' being spouted be the worst part of a vocal minority can do more harm than good. I elaborated on this point, highlighting how such action can work against what I believe to be a healthy intent. There's more there, but this is the crib notes - you'll have to actually read the post if you want more.

Then, in further responses, I moved on to discuss ways of promoting positive change in others - and the importance of recognizing that said change must come from them. I further elaborated this point to include how confrontational attitudes and gestures can be detrimental to promoting such healthy change.

Finally, I moved on to throwing my support to those that make the effort to do more than just speak/post/tweet. Perhaps you believe the I'm saying that the efforts of those that do show support by speaking up/posting/tweeting and the like have no merit? Of course not. I do, however, have more respect for the efforts of those that go further, actively engage with others in an effort to encourage them to change.

This is all. Anything else are your own conclusions, as healthy and precises as your make them.

 

[redrick]

I don't think its sexist to wonder about her qualifications when she has not actually worked on any D&D related RPGs in any major capacity. Designing RPGs is more of an art form though and its not like all of TSR's hires were actually experienced D&Der's either but they had worked on other RPGs (well some of them had probably not all). Gygax is also another example, he could write an adventure, maybe not the best at writing an actual rulebook but he gets a free pass as he invented the genre.

You might not think it's sexist. I do. And when I showed some of the posts on her hiring forum to my wife, like the one where a poster pasted in the entire job posting and encouraged people to "judge her qualifications for themselves," she was appalled. Well, not exactly appalled, because, "what do you expect from those people?" but it definitely read as unqualified sexism. Not to mention that several posters went further and specifically claimed that her gender and appearance were her only qualifications.

When I read the accounts of women and harassment in the workplace, one of the first things that gets highlighted is the endless interrogation about one's qualifications from everybody. It's a pattern of hostility that women face. This is has been elaborated on in great detail upthread. So, maybe some of the people interrogating her qualifications don't have a shred of bias in anything they do, ever. They take a long hard look at every Wizards hire, dig up the original job posting, make wild speculations about the persons' qualifications based on limited knowledge (yeah, ok, we know she plays D&D a lot, but I've never seen a podcast of her DM'ing, so that means it must not happen!), regardless of gender. Good on them? I guess? Or, maybe, that person could appreciate the repercussions of needlessly hounding a woman about her qualifications and, armed with that knowledge, behave differently. Just because the behavior wasn't meant with hostility doesn't mean it doesn't have the effect of hostile behavior.

 

[jayoungr]

It does seem to focus on them more, but also look at the Critical Role fandom, and how they treat the women on screen. Ashley and Laura get a pass on a lot of behaviors that get used to on Marisha.

Like what? I don't watch Critical Role. (I know, I know! It's on my "I'll get around to it at some point" list.)

 

[nswanson27]

You keep telling me what I'm for. Again, I'll try to clarify:

The purpose of my initial response and my further responses having nothing to do with keep folks quiet, silencing those standing together and the like. Stand up to attackers - awesome.

If you re-read what I wrote, I hope you can see for yourself that I started with how catch phrases such as, 'check your privilege!' being spouted be the worst part of a vocal minority can do more harm than good. I elaborated on this point, highlighting how such action can work against what I believe to be a healthy intent. There's more there, but this is the crib notes - you'll have to actually read the post if you want more.

Then, in further responses, I moved on to discuss ways of promoting positive change in others - and the importance of recognizing that said change must come from them. I further elaborated this point to include how confrontational attitudes and gestures can be detrimental to promoting such healthy change.

Finally, I moved on to throwing my support to those that make the effort to do more than just speak/post/tweet. Perhaps you believe the I'm saying that the efforts of those that do show support by speaking up/posting/tweeting and the like have no merit? Of course not. I do, however, have more respect for the efforts of those that go further, actively engage with others in an effort to encourage them to change.

This is all. Anything else are your own conclusions, as healthy and precises as your make them.

Maybe to put another way - if someone is trying to defend the due respect and honor of someone, yet in the process of that are being disrespectful and dishonoring to someone else, it's a good chance that they aren't going to be taken very seriously... even if what they are trying to do is in fact noble.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Related to this, by not calling out abhorrent behavior and beliefs, it normalizes it, and emboldens people with said beliefs to be more vocal and think that their views are no longer extreme, but normal. Just look at the past 2 years in the US, and how the rhetoric has changed. Alt Right (White supremacist) views have now been considered an actual official platform as valid as any other major platform. Largely because people are afraid for calling out blatant racism for what it is, and anyone who does, is immediately attacked and racist tries to shift to make it sound like they are the actual victim.

*Before someone says that alt right isn't white supremacy, I should point out how the term was created by Richard Spencer (avid white nationalist) intentionally as a way to "soften" the white nationalist views and trick people into thinking they aren't as bad, because "alt right" doesn't sound nearly as bad as "white nationalist". But they are very much the same thing.

Its part of the wonders of America! All kinds of scum get to speak, Marxists, Nazis, fans of gnome paladins, etc.