You asked~Female gamers

[ColonelHardisson]

originally posted by Ashtal:

Culture, from a human standpoint, is much different. It can be both static over the short term (like, let's say the lack of advancement in the dark ages), but over the longterm it's VERY fluid. We don't adapt physically anymore; we adapt culturally and technologically.

It's way too early in human history to be able to say that. We've only existed in our present form for, oh, a few hundred thousand years. It may seem like a long time, but there are plenty of animals that existed virtually physically unchanged for millions of years. Anything from the dinosaurs to fish to higher mammals - elephants, for example. It is impossible to know how rapidly their behavioral patterns change over the long term.

But to address your point more closely, yes, culture has begun to change quite rapidly, in comparison to how rapidly it changed over centuries previous, mostly owing to technology (or so it seems to me). But the question remains: what drives culture, ultimately? Technology seems more a facilitator of cultural change, not the main force behind such change. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there is at least biological component to what impels culture to change, does it? Human ability to reason surely hasn't cut us off completely from our biological drives. Why some things change and others don't, or at least change more slowly, could well be linked to a biological component of some kind.

I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is that humans aren't that far removed from their non-sentient origins. While our reasoning ability is what has gotten us to this point in terms of culture, I don't think we can discount the influence biological drives has upon us just yet. At this point, sure, culture certainly makes us do much of what we do, and makes up much of who we are. But I don't think it can be the only influence.

 

[Ashtal]

It's way too early in human history to be able to say that. We've only existed in our present form for, oh, a few hundred thousand years. It may seem like a long time, but there are plenty of animals that existed virtually physically unchanged for millions of years. Anything from the dinosaurs to fish to higher mammals - elephants, for example. It is impossible to know how rapidly their behavioral patterns change over the long term.

That's just it - their behavioral patterns don't change. Cats are cats, dogs are dogs, ants are ants. They change behavior when their biology or habitat forces them to change. And it's either change to adapt, or die out.

Humans change all the time, for the heck of it. We've only had one great shift in how we consume consumables; we've gone from hunting and gathering exclusively, to full-scale agriculture, or somewhere inbetween. Everything else is decoration. While our biology has not changed one iota since we've discovered the remains of Cro-Magnon man, our culture has changed and grown and developed in thousands of ways. Whereas the rest of the animal kingdom stays as it is made for thousands and thousands and usually hundreds or even millions of years.

But to address your point more closely, yes, culture has begun to change quite rapidly, in comparison to how rapidly it changed over centuries previous, mostly owing to technology (or so it seems to me). But the question remains: what drives culture, ultimately? Technology seems more a facilitator of cultural change, not the main force behind such change. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there is at least biological component to what impels culture to change, does it? Human ability to reason surely hasn't cut us off completely from our biological drives. Why some things change and others don't, or at least change more slowly, could well be linked to a biological component of some kind.

If there are biological changes going on, we haven't seen the evidence for it in the archaelogical record. Technology does force us to adapt our culture. And while the last 100 years has shown some phenominal change, for some cultures still existing on the planet, there has been no change for centuries, while others had periods of almost equally, if not more drastic change. For example, the spread of the Roman Empire, the Colonization of the Americas. Huge, huge change. Cultures merging or being destroyed, leaving something new in its wake.

What drives culture is us. It's always us. It's generally the 'us' of those in power, but the little guy rises up on mass to kick some booty if its not felt that the 'us' on top is doing a good job.

But even on the individual level. Take Jesus. (Now, I'm an atheist, so please take this for what it's worth - I'm not trying to insult anyone. This is a thought experiment.) One guy. One guy who had a dream and CHANGED things, fundamentally.

Now, take him entirely out of the picture. Let's say there was no Jesus, no birth of Christianity. What would happen then? Totally different ball game. What would have happened to the world? Would the Roman's and their religious legacy remained in the places they stayed? Would people have found themselves led by another vision? In this instance, a single person brought a new meaning of how to live our lives, and a lot of folks thought that it was a damn fine idea. This is what I'm talking about - culture as a consensus (even capricious).

While the basic urges of security, food and sex are universal for all living things, how we go about doing them is entirely personal, entirely cultural. We all agree about a certain way of doing things and then we pass that on to our children. Culture is a lot like language. It doesn't matter what language we're taught, as long as we are taught a languge. That language, when we're older and we know it, feels 'right' in our head. We think with those words. Culture is the same way. It's our tool to adapt. And it doesn't matter what culture is the one we learn, as long as we learn one of them.

And learning it will determine everything about how we will interact with the world. It will teach us what to fear, what to value, what to strive for and how to treat others, both who believe as we do and those who do not. When you are raised in that culture, it feels 'right'. It is familiar, it is understandable, it is what you know. Other cultures seem alien, even unscrutable, and when you find that you disagree with what everyone else seems to find acceptable, you find yourself in disharmony with the culture. You can then, at that point, accept that you are doing it wrong, or you can try to find others who think the way you do and then, if you work together, maybe you can convince others that there is a better way...once again leading to cultural change, which plays with identity, which leads to a new culture that teaches it's 'way' to the next generation. And so on.

The mind is a blank slate when it is born. It knows not how to speak and knows not how to meet it's needs. But it knows it wants to vocalize and to survive. Language and Culture tells us how to go about doing these things. If it was all about hard coding, we would not see the variation in how we do all the things that we do as human beings. A cat is a cat everywhere; a person is unique and developed based on where he is and who he is with. Our blank slate is the ultimate adaptation - it makes us SO flexible, it transcends any adaptation, phsyical or otherwise, to date, and it's why we rule this planet.

BTW, I'm sorry I've gotten so phenomenally babbly about this and everything. I'm away from the boards for a weekend, and you'd think I'd been gone for a year. Blarg.

 

[kamosa]

Great thread, here is my 2 cents

I've been GMing for over a decade now. In that time I've only had one group that contained less then two women. Most of the time the Women have out numbered the men almost 2 to 1.

What I've noticed is that women don't mind violence and sex in the game, they just don't want it to be all that the game is about. The women I've gamed with (large qualifier there) have always been up for a good fight, when needed. They play the big buff fighters, they play the fireball dropping mages and play them with every bit the style and zest of their male counter parts. They've used risque imagery or seduction as much or more then their male counter parts.

The difference I've noticed is that women want reasons to commit violence or use seduction, they aren't goals unto themselves. They wouldn't just kill an orc, they would kill him/her because the orc threatened the town, or because the orc had something that could only be taken by force.

Men don't mind the reasonless ambush adventure (you walk 100 feet and X jumps out of the woods at you) where as women want to know why something is jumping out of the woods. Can they talk to the enemy that is causing the ambushes? Is there a pattern to the attacks? Violence and seduction are tools to solve a part of the plot, no more viable then talking to NPC's, sneaking & skulldugery, or thought full investigation.

To be fair, I've gamed with a lot of men that ask questions and used violence only when needed, but as a trend I notice it more in my female players.

This idea also extends to which system women enjoy playing. It's my belief that women enjoy the story more then the system. The system is just a tool to help tell the story and define their character, not a game unto itself. Campaigns that are largely just exorcises in seeing how the combat system works, aren't that interesting to most of the women I've gamed with. If your going to do that, they'd just as soon play a board game or MTG.

D&D sits on the crossroads of that divide. It can be played as a tactical game or as a roleplaying game with a tactical combat mechanic.

Anyway...these are just broad generalizations. The differences between each individual are greater then the differences between men and women. I've met men that were total pacifists and played for the story and women that would hack and slay with the best of them. Game with the people that play the way you like to game and hopefully that will include some women that are as creative, bright, heoric, and resourceful as the ones I've had the pleasure of gaming with.

 

[Vuron]

What most people seem to not be able to realize is the fundamental reason that women are flocking in droves towards the gaming table is the sheer number of attractive, well groomed, upwardly mobile, virile, and unattached men that before now have comprised most of the gaming community. Occasionally a girl will be clued into gaming and the sheer amount of attractive manmeat available and greedily she will horde any and all paragons of manhood to herself. However over time more and more women have learned that the best way to meet a single attractive man of means is not to go to clubs and bars on fridays and saturday nights but to purchase a couple of liters of soft drinks and chip in for pizza. If you take the time to learn about CRPGs and the fundamental aspects of gamer geek culture (Star Wars, Computers, Online Porn) you become a mythical venus in charge of her own harem of men.

So ignore all this blathering about why women are suddenly attracted to gaming, it's simple that number of studily and romantic men simply cannot be found in any other location.

 

[Kichwas]

Everytime I read these kinds of debates I become convinced that most of the men I know are actually women...

After all all of the behaivoir ascribed to 'women' is a clear match to most of the non gaming men I know...

A good portion is a match for many of the male gamers I know as well...

All this stuff about finding reasons and negotiating and discussions... sounds like men to me. Women just hit you over the head and expect you to behave and stop being a 'fool man'...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

If there are biological changes going on, we haven't seen the evidence for it in the archaelogical record.

Actually, I'm not talking about biological changes and their impact on how we live, or how they've been spurred by social change I'm speaking of how we are biologically now, and have been for more than recorded history, and how that impacts upon us culturally.

What drives culture is us. It's always us. It's generally the 'us' of those in power, but the little guy rises up on mass to kick some booty if its not felt that the 'us' on top is doing a good job.

I don't really disagree with any of this. The thing is, what I'm trying to get at is that biology and culture go hand in hand. My contention is that much of human culture - specifically the universal elements, such as taboos against incest and the like - was initially brought about due to biology. Not all, not most, but much. When it comes right down to it, I think biology and culture have been so intertwined that separating the two is impossible, as you've said. In a way, culture is, itself, like a type of biology. That is, it grows, changes, and adapts, much like a lifeform.

Going along that route, look at what I'm trying to say like this:

When life first evolved, there was almost certainly only one type of life. As it grew and spread, it changed according to its environment. Eventually, one lifeform on one side of the planet would seem to be totally unrelated to a lifeform on the other side of the planet. Yet down at the most fundamental level, there would be similarities. Maybe you'd have to look down at the level of DNA, where even if it was different, at least it was DNA. So that's why, to borrow from Carl Sagan (my hero), a human being is related to a cucumber. I think culture evolved the same way, initially spurred by biological imperatives (whatever they were at the time).

Now, don't get me wrong; our intelligence has made a huge difference. At this point, I would concede that perhaps culture is beginning to pull away from biology, in terms of what influences it. But I still think biology, at some level, plays a profound role, even if it doesn't seem like it.

From space, our culture and intelligence wouldn't seem to make us very different from any other lifeform. We might even seem akin to simple lifeforms, continually spreading like a film of pond algae across the planet. Virtually all of our accomplishments that would be detectable from a distance would seem no more notable than that of other lifeforms - even our great cities and monuments would seem to be something like coral reefs.

But that wouldn't tell the whole story, now would it? We can think and feel and reason. Perhaps, as good old Carl said, we are the universe attempting to know itself. But we have to recognize that we are still not that far from our animalistic roots. Once we realize we are certainly nowhere near the apogee of development, then we can begin to fully separate the biological from the cultural. Which leads me to...

The mind is a blank slate when it is born. It knows not how to speak and knows not how to meet it's needs. But it knows it wants to vocalize and to survive. Language and Culture tells us how to go about doing these things. If it was all about hard coding, we would not see the variation in how we do all the things that we do as human beings. A cat is a cat everywhere; a person is unique and developed based on where he is and who he is with. Our blank slate is the ultimate adaptation - it makes us SO flexible, it transcends any adaptation, phsyical or otherwise, to date, and it's why we rule this planet.

The more complex an organism, the more it relies on others. Mammals in general rely heavily upon being taught how to live by others of their species, usually their mothers. Lions, for example, are not born knowing how to hunt, let alone hunt cooperatively. I agree that some things may not be "hard-coded" into us, but the culture you speak of seems very much like it was necessitated by biological drives. The genetic imperative is to perpetuate itself. If these things were not taught to us, we'd be extinct right now. So, as I've contended, biology and culture are symbiotic - without one, the other dies. Which, unless I'm not reading you correctly, doesn't seem that far off from what you are saying. I think the only real difference I have is that I think biology plays a bigger role than you seem to think it does.

Say, let's discuss the chicken and the egg...

 

[Pielorinho]

Say, let's discuss the chicken and the egg...

What's to discuss? Everyone knows the chicken had to get laid before the egg could.

A very interesting discussion. I tend to think that our physical gender has an influence on us, but not as big an influence as other things have. I haven't gamed with enough folks of either sex to make sweeping generalizations about Men's gaming styles vs. Women's gaming styles (or Black people's gaming styles vs. White people's gaming styles, or hetero- vs. homo- vs. bi- vs. trans-, or anything else like that). And I'm not sure how important a topic it is: generalizations, I think, tend to cloud thinking more than they assist thinking. Rather than providing a starting point for understanding a person, a generalization more often provides an ending point.

Keep talking, though -- it's great fun to read!
Daniel

 

[Ds Da Man]

Ha Ha, I said repressed in my post, too much Holy Grail, I think!

 

[Mistwell]

This discussion is useless to the extent that people do not accept the following two contentions:

1) Men and Women are different in more than just physical ways;
2) Significantly more men than women play D&D.

You can argue about why #1 is true (culture, biology, or a combination of both); You can also argue about the percentages involved in #2, and their trends.

But if you argue that either contention is false, the discussion is useless. We can't convince you otherwise. If we put a stack of scientific studies down in front of you supporting those contentions, you would find some reason why they are false, misleading, or outweighed by some other evidence. Whatever the case, it's not useful furthering any discussion about those two contentions. You might as well argue the definition of "is". It would be an endless dispute with no real point to it.

Men and women are different, and not just in physical ways.

Signficantly more men play D&D than do women.

These statements are true. They are the kind of truth that a court would accept under Judicial Notice rules. You don't need a jury to decide it, you don't need witnesses, you just accept the contentions as fact and move on, so you can get to the heart of the question at hand.

I would encourage anyone on this thread who encounters an claim like "Men and women are not different" or "just as many women play D&D as men" to ingnore that claim. You're not going to make any headway with them. The sky is yellow in their world, and no evidence of blueness will convince them otherwise.


As for the main discussion, I decided to ask several women who do NOT play the game why it is they don't play it. This is not in any way a scientific survey, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

However, that said, they all said pretty close to the same thing: "Boys, when they are teenagers and first playing the game, did not want girls playing. When I tried to play, they didn't explain the rules very well (and the rule books were overwhelmingly large and complex, requiring a huge commitment of time to figure out, which didn't seem worth doing if I didn't feel welcome to begin with), they didn't treat me like an equal, they made fun of me when I did something "wrong", and simply did not make me feel very welcome. I think it was a male bonding kind of thing."

Maybe that is helpful for this discussion...

 

[Blacksad]

This discussion is useless to the extent that people do not accept the following two contentions:

1) Men and Women are different in more than just physical ways;

French and American are different in more than just physical ways