What It's Like For a Gamer Girl

[Trainz]

And so the Acquana/Buttercup wars continue! Sorry, there Buttercup, but I don't really think the "but there's no such thing as generalizations" argument really holds up. Um. Anywhere. It's kinda hard to make any point valid (and yes, that includes yours) when you're too busy making it seem like you're not right.

Hi Acquana,

I will not dismiss that there are gender differences between guys and girls. That much is obvious.

The OP's question was about if all guys are Jerks to a female gamer.

Maybe you missed one of my earlier posts in this thread:

Originally posted by Trainz
Afrodyte, I have had 5 different women in my past 18 years gaming experience, and everything was always groovy.

Why ?

I don't game with jerks.

That's the bottom line. Obviously, you don't game with jerks. The girls in my gaming experiences never had trouble. And neither did Butter, while the OP does. Hence, the generalisation is faulty.

It is not because she games with guys that she has problems, but because she games with jerks.

Q.E.D.

 

[Desdichado]

I remember when I was working for...THEM...and one of the contractors was in talking to a colleague. He mentioned, off-handedly, that he was a gamer and had his weekly D&D game scheduled that weekend. The colleague expressed suprise, as he didn't 'seem like the kind of guy that would play D&D'. Now, granted, this was when 3.0 was fresh and new...but I think it was a fairly telling statement. So, too, was the reply...the contractor explained that we were stealthy...you never knew when one of use was around.

Rereading this paragraph, actually, I think demonstrates my point. You can't know who a gamer is by looking at them. The more gamers I meet, the more I'm convinced that a sample of gamers would pretty much resemble a sample of any other hobby group. This idea that we're all more creative or more intelligent because otherwise we couldn't be gamers is, I believe, nothing more than a conceit of gamers. I somewhat recently (when 3e was brand new, I had just moved to a new state, and had to find a group via a bulletin board at a local hobby shop) played with a group in which nobody in the group fit what I thought the standard gamer was like. In fact, I would never have believed most of these guys were gamers if I hadn't sat down and played with them for several months before I stumbled into some more local gamers that I already knew (but didn't realize were gamers.) Sounds like this guy you knew here was the same way.

 

[hunter1828]

Gamers aren't special, we're just people.

Gamers aren't necessarily creative, I've known some very UNcreative gamers.

Gamers aren't necessarily more intelligent, I've known gamers that were dumber than a box of rocks.

If you asked a bunch of gamers to name hobbies/interests outside of gaming you would probably get a wide variety of answers.

For instance, I love American history, specifically Lewis & Clark, the fur trade, the Civil War and the Indian Wars (and I'm proud to say my first paper will be published next year).

I love NFL and college football (go Titans! go Vols!) and NASCAR (Jeff Gordon sucks).

I go deer hunting every November.

I do historical reenactment for the time periods I love so much.

I'm a free-lance web designer, Park Ranger, and love traveling the US & Canada via my SUV with my wife by my side.

I don't mean to hijack by posting my "profile", but I'm just stating examples of what I like, which is probably vastly different than others (though I would expect some similar interests), which gives an idea of the variety of types of gamers.

hunter1828

 

[Trainz]

To further add to Hunter1828's point...

I'm a long-haired musician who's been doing gigs since the past 15 years. My environment has often been bars, clubs, and all sorts of musicians and rockers. Some of them would consider D&D geeky. Strangely enough, my current drummer is a rough looking fellow with an explosive personality that played D&D for many years in the past.

Myself, I've been playing once per week for the past 18 years...

Make of this what you will.

 

[fusangite]

I'd ask this question: why wouldn't a self-selecting sample be markedly different from the average population? Would we dispute someone arguing that people who play amateur sports every weekend tend to be fitter than the rest of the population?

 

[hunter1828]

I'd ask this question: why wouldn't a self-selecting sample be markedly different from the average population? Would we dispute someone arguing that people who play amateur sports every weekend tend to be fitter than the rest of the population?

Good question. But I'd ask this one in return: are gamers more creative or intelligent than screenwriters, authors, scientists, artists, or historians, all of whom are non-gamers?

Because a group tends to attract individuals with a certain creativeness/intelligence does not mean said group is more intelligent/creative (on average) than non-gamers. As I stated before, I've known gamers that were not very smart and very uncreative. They may be the minority within our minority, but they exist nonetheless and prove you do not have to have one or the other (creativity/intelligence) to enter the hobby.

hunter1828

 

[fusangite]

hunter1828 says

Good question. But I'd ask this one in return: are gamers more creative or intelligent than screenwriters, authors, scientists, artists, or historians, all of whom are non-gamers?

Are you saying that there are no screenwriters, authors, scientists, artists or historians who game? How do you think gamers pay the bills?

Because a group tends to attract individuals with a certain creativeness/intelligence does not mean said group is more intelligent/creative (on average) than non-gamers. As I stated before, I've known gamers that were not very smart and very uncreative. They may be the minority within our minority, but they exist nonetheless and prove you do not have to have one or the other (creativity/intelligence) to enter the hobby.

If people with certain traits are over-represented in a particular group, that group, over all, will have these traits to a greater extent than society at large. That's pretty basic math. You're essentially saying, "Women can't make 35% less money than men because I've known women who make more money than me."

 

[hunter1828]

Are you saying that there are no screenwriters, authors, scientists, artists or historians who game? How do you think gamers pay the bills?

Thanks for catching that. What I should have asked was:
Are gamers more creative or intelligent than non-gaming screenwriters, authors, scientists, artists, or historians?

If people with certain traits are over-represented in a particular group, that group, over all, will have these traits to a greater extent than society at large. That's pretty basic math. You're essentially saying, "Women can't make 35% less money than men because I've known women who make more money than me."

No, what I'm saying is that while gamers may tend to be smarter/more creative than some non-gamers, not all non-gamers have a lack of creative talent/intelligence. There are plenty of non-gamers in the world that are very talented and intelligent, and some are vastly more creative/intelligent than many gamers.

Essentially you're stating (or maybe agreeing with others that stated) that people that do not game, regardless of other talents, are not as creative/intelligent as those that do.

hunter1828

 

[fusangite]

Hunter, you're accusing people on this thread of alleging something absolutely nobody on the thread has ever alleged. No one is arguing that Stephen Hawking could not possibly have been as smart as me because he never gamed.

No one is stating that the stupidest gamer is smarter than the smartest non-gamer. What some people are stating is that, on average, gamers may have certain talents in greater quantity than members of society at large. No one is stating that Sean Stewart is a better writer than Umberto Eco because Umberto Eco hasn't gamed. You are misinterpreting everyone's statements.

If, for instance, we find that basketball players tend to over-represent tall people, we can confidently state not only that basketball players are taller than some people; we can state confidently that basketball players are taller than people in general are. Such a statement is not a declaration that it is impossible for anyone in society at large to exceed 6'5" without becoming a basketball player.

 

[hunter1828]

Hunter, you're accusing people on this thread of alleging something absolutely nobody on the thread has ever alleged. No one is arguing that Stephen Hawking could not possibly have been as smart as me because he never gamed.

No, I'm not. I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. That said, having read back through the last two pages of posts several posts stated something to the effect of "gamers are more creative than non-gamers." All I'm saying is that there are non-gamers that are just as creative and we gamers don't deserve to be singled out as especially creative vs. non-gamers.

No one is stating that the stupidest gamer is smarter than the smartest non-gamer. What some people are stating is that, on average, gamers may have certain talents in greater quantity than members of society at large. No one is stating that Sean Stewart is a better writer than Umberto Eco because Umberto Eco hasn't gamed. You are misinterpreting everyone's statements.

I agree with that. You are misinterpreting my statements.

If, for instance, we find that basketball players tend to over-represent tall people, we can confidently state not only that basketball players are taller than some people; we can state confidently that basketball players are taller than people in general are. Such a statement is not a declaration that it is impossible for anyone in society at large to exceed 6'5" without becoming a basketball player.

I know.

hunter1828