And as practical action, that means, as billd91 notes, that the "sympathetic" and "non-sexist" members of the group need to tell the Self-Appointed Guardian to knock it off when he takes it upon himself to get in the face of a new female player, instead of quietly hoping that she can pull a nerd version of a Karate Kid-style finishing move to send him packing forever.
First, the goal is never to send anyone packing forever.
Secondly, judged as a practical action, what you've suggested at best buys the group some time. I've said before that if I had one player being a jerk to another player, it was something I'd have to deal with. I've never had to deal with this particular problem, but yeah, this is a pull the player aside at the end of the session and say, "What the heck, Bob?" sort of moment. "How about we not act like a jerk toward the new player, k?" And conversely, "I apologize for Bob's behavior Sue. That was uncalled for and I'm going to talk to him about it."
But there is a very strong possibility that me coming down on Bob, especially if I do it public like isn't going to have the effect you think.
a) Bob could now be jealous of Sue. Do you like Sue more than me? Is that why you are favoring them?
b) Bob could see the fact that I've intervened on Sue's behalf, proof she's a weak link. Why do you need to protect Sue? That's just what I thought she'd do - run to daddy GM for protection. Boo hoo.
c) The other players may side with Bob. Look, we all got along before Sue came along. Clearly Sue just doesn't fit in this group. It's not that she's a woman or anything, it's just she just doesn't really have the right personality.
And you know, I don't know whether the odds are higher of all this happening if Sue is a woman, but I can tell you that its a pretty normal human dynamic even if it is a boy named Sue. It certainly doesn't happen all the time (thank God), but it's the way I've seen people behave.
At best, if Bob really is being a problem my siding with Sue is just buying some time. Ultimately Sue still needs to convince Bob she brings value to the group, and the only way to do that is .... bring value to the group. Then whatever was motivating Bob's dislike of Sue, hopefully we get a new Bob that says, "Wow, X really can bring value to the group." One person. One relationship at a time.
Celebrim, you keep bursting into these angry Grand Guignol....
+1 geek point to you.
...rants about "contrition" and "diversity" and "sensitivity" and calling for rallies and repeately attributing arguments to people that they have never actually made. This is strawmanning.
For example, contrition:
"An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes. White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized...I have no problem continuing buying from them. Gary Gygax later on said that the female strength cap was a mistake to include...What's more important is how they react to criticism."
Do you are do you not think that contrition was cited as the major reason a gaming company or group should receive our support if they were attacked? Read the original essay again. My problem with that is that there was no defined standard other than, "Someone was offended." I asked for a particular standard, "Would my romanticized African Kingdom meet your standard of 'noble savage', or am I now in the damnable category of the non-contrite content creator? How can I avoid earning your outrage in the first place, if defending my creation is not an acceptable act on my part?"
For example, diversity:
"The One Ring RPG have non-stripperific armor as the default design for women warriors in their artwork. This is progressive because many other RPGs (both tabletop and video games) design women's armor to be titillating.
The designers of Pathfinder RPG are making attempts to be racially and LGBT inclusive. And possibly one of the first RPG systems to have a transgender iconic (I don't know which one, though). Unfortunately it has stumbled in some regards (stereotypical gypsies and Darkest Africa pulps), but the designers took criticism into account and considered it valid.
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was the first Edition to alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns. Half of the PC class iconics were women (Druid, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard)."
And so forth. I think it odd that you claim "contrition", "diversity", and "sensitivity" are topics I introduced to this discussion.
but because you have very strong feels on the subject of sexism in general,
I have very strong feelings that it is a bad idea to view the world through the framework of 'isms', yes.
but you may wish to consider that it detracts from your position. I mean, imagine how much consideration you would give to somebody who demanded "Clearly, you think the solution is for girl gamers to politely beg for permission to game after cheerfully meeting whatever Neckbeard Trivia Tests any dude wants to throw their way"?
I'd like to think I'd give everyone my every consideration. But put in a less snarky light, that's not entirely a bad idea. I mean if you really think that's the dynamic that is going on, you might be surprised about how a frank question throws it into light: "I'm getting the feeling you don't want me here. I really want to play this game. May I?" If there is any chance of the two of you playing together at all, maybe you'll embarrass him into acting decent. If the answer is "No.", well then at least you've got that out on the table. Or maybe go the other way and throw some flattery at the idiot, "Really? You've been playing since the '70s? What was it like back in the day? Did you ever meet Gygax?"
There is every reason to not act in the way a jerk expects you to.
I disagree.
- so why expect that others will give much consideration to your arguments cast in the same emotional, accusatory mode?
Because I'd like to think that I would. How many times have I told this board, you can't chase me away by getting angry or calling me an idiot. I can deal with your honest emotion. The only thing you can really do to belittle me is not take me seriously, or persistently misquote me, or be dishonest, or otherwise disengage from me.
As a side note: before you start on a grand lecture about How the World Works, you might want to consider that other people, too, live in the world, and may have some experience - perhaps even more than you yourself! - on dealing with harassment, or being the a member of minority X in a group of Ys, or what does and doesn't work to handle a hostile person whose goal is to put you down and keep you out. And perhaps, in the context of the discussion, that longtime female gamers might have just a bit more experience than you about the Fake Geek Girl issue and what does and doesn't work to address it.
So tell me about your triumphs. How did you go about winning acceptance? How did you get your foot in the door? How did you change people's minds? That's far more value than any politically charged essay.
And you know, the story of how you called security on this jerk and had him removed from the convention. That's a tragedy. Even if it had to happen, even if the jerk left you know other choice because he'd become threatening, I feel sorry for everyone involved.