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

[Umbran]

You phrase that as a statement and conclusion, but that last bit - "they aren't hurting anyone" - is the debate, isn't it? That's the question, not the conclusion. That's what it's all about. I don't feel there's much interesting conversational mileage in "yes they are", "no they aren't"; so this debate should be about why they are or why they aren't hurting anybody by producing such material.

And the reasoning probably ought to be consistent with other reasoning on similar topics. Can we support the proposition that depiction of rape in a game supplement is bad, but the depiction of violence in a videogame is acceptable? Or, perhaps more simply, if violence in videogames has been (arguably, perhaps) shown to have no correlation to violent behavior in people, by what mechanism do we get sexism perpetrated by NPCs in (smaller market) RPG materials notably engendering sexism in real people?

 

[Crothian]

The best one can do Internet-wise is the use of forum rules, IP bans of troublemakers, other users criticizing said content when it does arise, etc. Various message boards have ways of cutting down racist/sexist/homophobic/etc statements this way.

That only works in a very limited number of places. Plenty of message boards do not have such strict moderation and the boards that do lose a lot of posters over it. Also, it is up to the owners of the boards to decide what is and what is not allowable not by the masses. This really is not a solution unless you expect people to limit the places on the net they go to only places that have strict rules and guidelines that can protect them.

 

[Morrus]

I have not seen the material either. But I object to the idea that engaging in fantasy role play has a negative effect on anyone except, possibly, the group participating.

Yep, clearly you do - you said so. But repeating that isn't debate; why? I'm not even sure what I think, so I'm reading opinions with interest. But flat statements aren't of any use.

The very essence of freedom is to be free in your own mind. And the only way that freedom can exist is for others to let other be free. To insist not only on controlling anothers behavior but what someone else gets to think, is, to me, the worst sort of tyranny.

We're not talking about "freedom" or the "very essence of freedom". We're debating appropriate ways to act towards, depict, and talk about the women in the gaming community. We're debating, basically, manners. You're of the opinion that suggestions that we treat women in gaming with respect are tyranny? And not only that, of all the horrific tyrannical things in this world, the worst kind of tyranny?

 

[Bagpuss]

Or, perhaps more simply, if violence in videogames has been (arguably, perhaps) shown to have no correlation to violent behavior in people, by what mechanism do we get sexism perpetrated by NPCs in (smaller market) RPG materials notably engendering sexism in real people?

They have tended to show a correlation in aggression, what they haven't been able to show is a causation or that increased aggression leads to real world acting out.

 

[Salamandyr]

Yep, clearly you do - you said so. But repeating that isn't debate; why? I'm not even sure what I think, so I'm reading opinions with interest. But flat statements aren't of any use.

The statement you're quoting here was me clearly explaining where I'm coming from. I can't stand that pseudo Socratic dialog tactic where one hides ones core principles while attacking someone else's. The sentence you quoted and responded to was a prefatory statement.

I don't even know what that means or what it has to do with this thread; just sounds like soundbytes. We're not talking about "freedom" or the "very essence of freedom". We're debating appropriate ways to act towards, depict, and talk about the women in the gaming community. We're debating, basically, manners. You're of the opinion that suggestions that we treat women in gaming with respect are tyranny? And not only that, of all the horrific tyrannical things in this world, the worst kind of tyranny?

Well, I guess I should have spent a little more time getting from why I jump from one point to the other. My apologies. This original post was originally longer, but I cut a fair bit because it went into a discussion of Libertad that might have explained this paragraph better but might also have been construed as a personal attack. But the gist of it was very close to what Umbran wrote in the post after mine.

You're of the opinion that suggestions that we treat women in gaming with respect are tyranny? And not only that, of all the horrific tyrannical things in this world, the worst kind of tyranny?

This is an unfair characterization of my point, and for that matter, Libertad's point. Libertad isn't just asking for women to be treated with respect; she's demanding special privileges on the basis of her sex. She is basically demanding that a category of negative actions that she finds particularly objectionable, should be off limits for inclusion in material, even material clearly marketed as horror, because it makes her uncomfortable.

Her demand has nothing to do with respect for women, because there are women who currently enjoy the products she's criticizing. So because she doesn't like something, other women have to suffer.

I've kept my criticism limited to this point. She is complaining that there exists products on the market that she doesn't like, and there are people enjoying them in ways she doesn't approve of.

This is where the freedom thing comes in...especially freedom of thought.

 

[Umbran]

They have tended to show a correlation in aggression, what they haven't been able to show is a causation or that increased aggression leads to real world acting out.

Okay. Not asking for cites, but that there was unqualified agreement on that would be news to me.

But, let us take that as a given, for sake of argument. The hobby full of fictional violence and murders - probably thousands played out across the US each month, right? Is one company's choice to also include rape in one not-terribly-popular game really something we should be concerned with? Is this a case of worrying about one candle while the house is burning?

 

[Morrus]

The statement you're quoting here was me clearly explaining where I'm coming from. I can't stand that pseudo Socratic dialog tactic where one hides ones core principles while attacking someone else's. So read the sentence you quoted and responded to as a prefatory statement.

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Parse error! Can we dumb down this a little? I read the statement I quoted. And the bit after it about the very essence of freedom and tyranny, which I commented on.

Libertad isn't just asking for women to be treated with respect; she's demanding special privileges on the basis of her sex. She is basically demanding that a category of negative actions that she finds particularly objectionable, should be off limits for inclusion in material, even material clearly marketed as horror, because it makes her uncomfortable.

That's not how I read it at all. I think some items are off-base, but the core thrust reads to me more like "In certain environments and situations, can we not agree on a social contract?"

She is complaining that there exists products on the market that she doesn't like, and there are people enjoying them in ways she doesn't approve of.

Sure; she is. And why shouldn't she? That's a basic consumer right. And she can vote with her wallet, and encourage others to do so, too. There's no demand for censorship (unless I'm missing it - unless you're referring to the Gen Con code of conduct issue, but that's an agreement made by all participants going in, and the issue there is that Gen Con has the right to create whatever private environment it wishes, and folks who purchase tickets to be there based on that expectation should be able to expect that that environment is adhered to). Dang, that was one ugly, run-on sentence.

I guess my point above got totally lost in the point by point rebuttal mess; I'll mention it briefly again: can you think of no situation at all in which certain content should be considered off-limits?

 

[Salamandyr]

Morrus,

Agreed, backing off a little. To your last question...Yes and no. If your intention is to create a game with broad, mass market appeal, it makes sense to avoid sensitive subjects. It's the reason movie companies try so hard for a PG-13 rating. One of the reasons (aside from time) that I didn't get into a spitball fight over other aspects of Libertad's post is that I agree with her ends, if not her justifications. If a woman wants to sit down at my table and player a super strong warrior, that's A-OK with me.

But I also think there's room for niche marketing, and that includes material that's sketchy or fetish-y to the mass market. And I don't think people should be made to feel bad for enjoying that stuff, any more than a housewife should feel bad for fantasizing about Christian Grey.

Yes, those niche products are going to have a more narrow appeal, but that's okay. I'm glad we both agree on voting with our wallets. But I also think we shouldn't try to guilt trip people for their guilty pleasures.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Sure; she is. And why shouldn't she? That's a basic consumer right. And she can vote with her wallet, and encourage others to do so, too. There's no demand for censorship (unless I'm missing it - unless you're referring to the Gen Con code of conduct issue, but that's an agreement made by all participants going in, and the issue there is that Gen Con has the right to create whatever private environment it wishes, and folks who purchase tickets to be there based on that expectation should be able to expect that that environment is adhered to). Dang, that was one ugly, run-on sentence.

This is pretty much where I'm at on issues of sexism and other types of bigotry in an imaginary setting. I find most things in such a context to be entirely acceptable, but I understand that others do not.

I think that, with issues such as these, the best thing that we can do as consumers and hobbyists is to communicate effectively. To make sure that those who offend our sensibilities know that they have done so. And to take care not to offend the sensibilities of those around us.

 

[Morrus]

But I also think we shouldn't try to guilt trip people for their guilty pleasures.

Why not? What you characterize at "guilt tripping" I characterize as debating issues in public. We can all use loaded phrases (the OP does, and you have, too, with your "freedom" soundytes), but the crux of the matter is that debate is healthy, and that's what's happening here. You seem to be conflating the whole OP in a blanket "affront to freedom" envelope rather than looking at it as being what it is: someone raising an issue that a section of our community is being made uncomfortable, and that we should care about that.