Harassment in gaming

[MechaPilot]

It's certainly not about "women getting their butts grabbed".

It certainly is about people being sexually assaulted. It's not ONLY about that, but any discussion of women in gaming being sexually harassed is going to be interlinked with the related issues of women being sexually assaulted & battered, or raped. This is one of the reasons why I suggested that greater security camera coverage would be beneficial, because without a culture that refuses to tolerate tolerate these things and will stand up as witnesses when they happen, camera footage is the best way to prevent things like gropings from being he said she said situations that cannot be adequately prosecuted.

 

[tomBitonti]

It certainly is about people being sexually assaulted. It's not ONLY about that, but any discussion of women in gaming being sexually harassed is going to be interlinked with the related issues of women being sexually assaulted & battered, or raped. This is one of the reasons why I suggested that greater security camera coverage would be beneficial, because without a culture that refuses to tolerate tolerate these things and will stand up as witnesses when they happen, camera footage is the best way to prevent things like gropings from being he said she said situations that cannot be adequately prosecuted.

Eh, but that creates problems of its own. I'm all for more accountability and respectfulness, but not sure to what extent I'm for adding cameras.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Although, if you outright admitted that you won't allow "those types of people" at your table, that's a red flag. Not allowing folks "not good" at role-playing? What does that even mean? How do you tell somebody that they are just not good enough at roleplaying to stay at your table? Now, if you really are just asking folks that share a similar style to you to game with you in your private games, that's fine I suppose . . . but the language you use sounds suspect to me.

No, I disallow people from joining my group if I think they'll make my group worse for any reason. Sometimes it's because someone talks way too much or they can't stop using their phone, or they keep bringing up politics or religion at the table and it keeps causing us to become distracted and start fights(I'm about "this" close to kicking someone out of my group for that right now). Sometimes it's because they are constantly questioning my rulings or they seem incapable of grasping the rules even when they've been explained the rules 10 times. Sometimes I just prefer some people over others and there's only 6 spots free. So, I'll take the player who comes up with thoughtful characters who have interesting personalities and motivations and puts on silly voices over the one who sits in the corner not saying anything and barely contributing.

Sometimes this means that, indirectly, I'm not allowing "those types of people" in that "those types of people" are very quiet people or way too talkative people or the kind of people that do other things that annoy me.

If you are blocking folks from your table at a gaming convention, in an open-gaming section . . . that would be harassing and if I were the event organizer, that would be your last table to GM at.

I've never said no to someone joining us in public. I wouldn't. I've wanted to a number of times as there was at least a couple of people who annoyed the crap out of me, but I let them play anyways and was very patient with them.

 

[Umbran]

I think the problem here is that most people believe they are already being mindful. I would never say anything in public that I thought would overly offend someone.

Of course not. But do you have the personal experience to know with reasonable certainty what would offend? The point is that the white men generally don't, and therefore misjudge what would offend someone. This is merely ignorance, and not a moral failing in and of itself.

If I say something that offends you, I expect you to point that out to me so I know your tolerance level is lower than most and I can try to be more careful.

Claiming that the person offended has "lower tolerance than most" is eschewing any responsibility you might have, and ascribing a weakness to the victim - oh, it can't be that you screwed up, they are just really, really touchy!

Problem: While *you* may deal with such things pleasantly, as has already been mentioned, men in general frequently don't. When faced with what they read as an accusation, they instead push back, and dismiss or blame the victim - just like you did above, probably without even realizing it. So, the victim must do a risk assessment - do they just take the offense, or risk having the guy jump on her for being offended?

"...you aren't doing a good enough job being respectful..."

Have you considered the possibility that, broadly speaking, this might be true? That maybe our speech and behavior is still littered with a whole lot of traditional misogyny that we don't notice?

I just want to game. I don't want to be a social crusader.

That's your choice, of course. But you get to ask yourself if that's a really ethical position to take. How is "I don't want to be a social crusader" different from, "I am okay with this group of people being put upon by my majority group"?

There's a practical limit, of course - it isn't like there are enough hours in the day for anyone to fight against *every* wrong in the world. But I don't think that's what you're being asked to do. It isn't like you are actually being asked to do much at all - learn to be somewhat more aware, *listen* when you are told about a problem, and advocate for others to your peers when it comes up. Open your eyes a bit, and then don't tolerate it when you see it.

 

[Gradine]

I think the problem here is that most people believe they are already being mindful. I would never say anything in public that I thought would overly offend someone. Some amount of offense is always going to happen since everyone has different comfort levels. If I say something that offends you, I expect you to point that out to me so I know your tolerance level is lower than most and I can try to be more careful.

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. And I'm afraid of confronting you, so just don't offend me to begin with. And why aren't you doing more to make sure everyone you game with us being respectful as well? If someone else is being offensive, that's your fault as well. If you didn't know they were being offensive, that's your fault as well, you should be more aware of what the community does and says and refuse to allow those people to be part of the community. You should be spending a significant amount of time and effort making sure the community changes for the better. If you aren't, you might as well be perpetuating everything that happens."

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."

No one is asking anyone to "crusade" for any cause. You do not need to "crusade" to "contribute" to building a better community. And contributing is simple. If a gamer at your table, or at your FLGS, or at a Con you are attending, says or does things that are meant demean, harass, threaten or harm women, say something. Whether there are other women around or not. Exactly how you want to respond is up to you, but make it clear that those attitudes are no longer welcome in our hobby. That's all.

If you say nothing, then your (and others') silence (to say nothing of explicit support) is taken as confirmation of their beliefs and attitudes and may very well encourage them to act on those attitudes to terrorize women in public (or private) Gaming spaces. I'm sorry, but saying nothing in those situations makes you part of the problem. That's kind of the point behind things like #YesAllMen. It's the point of articles like these. No, not all male games are terrorizing women. Not by a long shot. Yes, way more men participate in this culture of terrorism than believe they do, because they ignore or fail to confront or respond to such terrorism, not just when it actually happens; but also in smaller, more private settings when potential terrorists signal their attitudes and beliefs as a means of gaining acceptance from their peer groups and their peers say nothing.

Like it or not, harassment and acts of violence against (and I shouldn't have to say this, but primarily if not exclusively) women in gaming and gaming-adjacent settings has and continues to be a serious problem. And like it or not, every gamer, regardless of their gender, race, age, or status, has some measure of power in stopping that harassment, in many cases well before it even happens. And therefore every gamer does have to make the choice to use that power (in which case you are part of the solution), or refuse to use that power (in which case, sorry, but you are part of the problem).

The whole "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" quote has been floating around these threads quite a few times for a reason. I'll close with another, even more relevant quote; this from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll close with another, even more relevant quote; this from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

That's a good one.

 

[Dire Bare]

And it's not my intention to blame anyone. I wasn't there (well, I was likely at the convention, since I've gone every year for the last 20, but I wasn't in that room), so I don't know the circumstances of what happened. I don't know her. At least, I don't recognize her picture when someone showed it to me and I was told her name and don't recognize that either. I'm just relating what I've heard from some of the people involved. When I asked someone who is more involved in the planning of the convention, that's pretty much the answer they gave me. I figured since it was being discussed, I'd pass it along.

No, I disallow people from joining my group if I think they'll make my group worse for any reason.

Oakheart, sorry if my responses seemed on the attack, it wasn't my intention. And, thanks for your continued responses, they clarified your thinking and intention quite a bit, and I appreciate the extra info in this discussion!

 

[sunshadow21]

No. I am saying the post is overstated, and largely irrelevant to the current real-world needs. It is quibbling over hypothetical possible scenarios of what might happen, and redirects from the actual issues being reported. The post has missed the point of the thread, really.

And this is common - it is rather like the "not all men" argument, trying to focus on the balance to protect the innocent men who have done no harm, as if they're the important issue at hand.

You are wrong. I am not trying to redirect the conversation; I am trying to flesh it out beyond the piece that was originally discussed. I have no illusions of grandeur that the things I or others have pointed out are big enough to outweigh your points, but that does not make them irrelevant. You cannot simply dismiss them without consequences any more than I can simply dismiss the author of the original article because she chose to use a particularly inflammatory language. You may think my concerns are overstated, but they will come up in the real world, and their impact will be what you make of them. If you don't have a better response than "Your opinion doesn't matter right now, suck it up and endure the pain, silly man" (which is what most of the arguments on this thread have boiled down to), you're going to have a lot bigger problem on your hands than you were expecting or were prepared to deal with. If you actually take your own advice and learn how to listen and be respectful of the opinions on the other side, you will find that you have a lot more allies than you currently seem to believe. If you actually give the majority of people a reason to be helpful rather than simply threatening them because they dare to not automatically agree with you, a lot of currently quiet support will materialize and speak up. Yes, there will still be idiots, and yes, most people still aren't going to be all that interested in shouldering the problems of the entire world just because you told them they should, but if you temper your expectations of what qualifies as being offensive by making it clear that you are indeed giving those people room to breath in the language you use, the actions you take, and the tone you use, a lot more people will be willing to at least listen and not get defensive the second you approach them. If you stop expecting people to fully commit to your cause 100% without question or fail all the time, you will find that there are a lot of little things these people are already doing that are just as effective (and sometimes more so) as anything I've seen suggested in this thread thus far. Simply put, anger and raw force alone will not win you allies or solve the very real problems we face.

It's safe to say that the sort of hyper-liberalism run amok that is making strange places of American and British universities is not at the core of the drive to bring awareness to the issue of harassment and abuse of women (and others) in gaming.

"Don't let the crazy liberals ruin gaming for everyone!" is a separate discussion from the topic of this thread.

And yet, here we are, many, many pages into the discussion because neither of those statements have been proven true. You cannot separate the gaming community from the rest of the world that neatly, and this thread is ample proof of that. While I don't really care for some of the hyperbole being used to discount the original point of the thread, there are valid points that have been brought in from other aspects of how these issues are playing out elsewhere that are relevent to what we as a gaming community can expect in terms of what needs to be done to define and solve the problem effectively. Most of those points have been summarily dismissed solely on the grounds of "But that has nothing to do with us in the gaming community," and a great opportunity for your side to practice what you preach and listen for a bit has been lost. You may have already determined in your head that the problem and solution have been adequately defined as far as the immediate concerns of the gaming community are concerned, but I, and many have others, have not reached the same level of comfort with the conclusions that have been presented. As far I am concerned nothing mentioned by either side in the article or this thread is anything more than a solid start to the conversation and that anyone who believes they know enough to be able to dismiss the other side as outdated opinion is ultimately going to find themeselves proven wrong when they find out they don't actually know more than anybody in the conversation. At this point, there is still simply too many definitions that have yet to be adequately defined, and too many potential actions and consequences still to be explored for anyone to be able to much more than make educated guesses regarding the "proper" way for this to play out.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Of course not. But do you have the personal experience to know with reasonable certainty what would offend? The point is that the white men generally don't, and therefore misjudge what would offend someone. This is merely ignorance, and not a moral failing in and of itself.

The things is, this is impossible to know. What offends one person doesn't offend another.

As an example. I had one group that had 2 women in it. Out of the blue one day, one of them texted the entire group after playing with us for 4 months: "I can't stand all of the jokes you guys are making anymore. They are sexist, racist, and misogynist, and rape jokes. I won't be playing anymore." The next session we all had a meeting to try to figure out what jokes she was talking about since not a single one of us remember saying anything that could be interpreted that way. I was particularly worried because I was the DM and I had met her on the internet and invited her to our group. Even the other woman in the group could not come up with a single incident of anyone saying anything offensive.

I sent the woman who left a text apologizing immediately and saying that it wasn't our intention to do any of those things and if we screwed up, I'd fix it and make it didn't happen anymore. But she never replied to my text messages and immediately removed me from Facebook, Steam and a bunch of other places we were friends. To this day I have no idea what I said or did wrong and neither does anyone else in our group.

We especially don't know about any rape jokes. Well, except ONE the entire time she played with us and it was one guy who said "Look, I'm going to make a joke, it's kind of offensive but it's a joke. Does anyone care? Seriously, I don't want to offend anyone." Everyone said it was ok and I don't even remember it. It was a horrible joke it and I told him that. Said it wasn't funny and maybe he should have just left it alone and he agreed not to do it again.

Claiming that the person offended has "lower tolerance than most" is eschewing any responsibility you might have, and ascribing a weakness to the victim - oh, it can't be that you screwed up, they are just really, really touchy!

That's because everyone has a responsibility in a social interaction. It takes 2 to be offended: One to do the offending and one to actually BE offended. If I'm lactose intolerant and really hate milk because of what it does to me, I might get really offended when people talk about how great milk is. But I'm choosing to be offended instead of understanding that milk is a normal part of life that everyone else doesn't know is offensive to me.

A more solid example is alcohol. I hate the stuff. I hate drunk people. I hate bars, clubs, and the entire scene. I think that alcohol turns people into idiots and is the cause of a large number of problems in our society. I hate when people talk about it because they are perpetuating a culture where it's completely acceptable to run around doing stupid things and then blaming them on alcohol afterwards and everyone laughs about it. But I had to long ago accept that my feelings about the topic aren't share by...almost anyone. Alcohol makes the world go round and when I'm around people, they're going to be drinking and talking about drinking. I can be the guy who complains about it, gets mad at people and refuses to hang out with anyone drinking or I can learn that the world doesn't revolve around my sensibilities and just relax. I chose the latter and other people can too.

When you are on the wrong side of the majority, sometimes you have to just accept that what you find acceptable isn't what other people do. That's fine. But if you go into a situation where you know you're the minority and get angry at the majority for doing what they've always done, you need to accept part of the responsibility for being offended.

Problem: While *you* may deal with such things pleasantly, as has already been mentioned, men in general frequently don't. When faced with what they read as an accusation, they instead push back, and dismiss or blame the victim - just like you did above, probably without even realizing it. So, the victim must do a risk assessment - do they just take the offense, or risk having the guy jump on her for being offended?

No, I realized I did it. I just don't think there's anything wrong with pushing back. I think that is how we come to a consensus. If someone yells out "The word Man for humans is offensive to me because it misogynistically assumes that males are more important than women." and I say "I don't think that's what it is assuming at all. It is just a word. It makes no judgements about you at all." and everyone in the room agrees, then at that point you have 2 choices: Stop being offended about something that obviously is only important to you and only offends you. Or you need to get the heck out of there because you can't stand being around people that misogynistic. If you choose the latter, you might soon be hiding in your basement refusing to come out because the world is out to get you.

It is possible to be TOO sensitive. There is nothing wrong with telling people they are too sensitive when it is true.

Have you considered the possibility that, broadly speaking, this might be true? That maybe our speech and behavior is still littered with a whole lot of traditional misogyny that we don't notice?

I know our language is littered with that stuff. I just don't think it's important. I don't believe that some leftover language creates some sort of oppression like some would have you believe. I believe the intention behind the words is the only thing that's important. If someone doesn't actually mistreat people then some accidental body language or words that could be interpreted poorly doesn't make someone misogynist.

I believe that the definition of misogyny has become VERY stretched in the last 10 or 20 years. And if you put 100 women in a room and asked them to rate phrases in terms of how misogynistic they are that you wouldn't get 10 of them to agree. And that even if only 2 of them think something is misogynistic that those 2 will make blog posts about how rampant misogyny is in the world.

That's your choice, of course. But you get to ask yourself if that's a really ethical position to take. How is "I don't want to be a social crusader" different from, "I am okay with this group of people being put upon by my majority group"?

I think that people's opinions change in time. And it's slow change and it doesn't happen because a bunch of people complain about it. What's the majority opinion now will be different in the future. And things naturally change to be more open and accepting. So, it is inevitable that things will get better and it will take about the same about of them to change whether I stand up on a soapbox or I sit and wait.

But bad things happen and I can't be around to stop all of them and I can't feel guilty about all of it. I'm not flying to 3rd world counties to buy hungry people food. I'm not attending rallies for every disease that needs funding. Those things are bad and I want them fixed. But not crusading for them isn't the same as saying I'm ok with any of them.

If I see it happening and it's something other than a minor offense, I'll speak up. But unless it happens in front of me, I'll let it work itself out eventually.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you say nothing, then your (and others') silence (to say nothing of explicit support) is taken as confirmation of their beliefs and attitudes and may very well encourage them to act on those attitudes to terrorize women in public (or private) Gaming spaces. I'm sorry, but saying nothing in those situations makes you part of the problem. That's kind of the point behind things like #YesAllMen. It's the point of articles like these. No, not all male games are terrorizing women. Not by a long shot. Yes, way more men participate in this culture of terrorism than believe they do, because they ignore or fail to confront or respond to such terrorism, not just when it actually happens; but also in smaller, more private settings when potential terrorists signal their attitudes and beliefs as a means of gaining acceptance from their peer groups and their peers say nothing.

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.

The whole "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" quote has been floating around these threads quite a few times for a reason. I'll close with another, even more relevant quote; this from Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

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.