Quote from: jeff37923 on July 08, 2024, 11:08:36 PMI hate the woke deconstruction take on well, everything. I just have a hard time making an issue out of what some random Internet person reads into a few sentences from an interview done fifty years ago in 1975. WotC and their minions have demonstrated an overwhelming derision for the originators of D&D even though they use the IP to make money, so this just looks like more rage click bait advertising from them.

The problem is this can and will propigate and spread. As that thrad title saus. The sociopaths want to preserve these lies as Gygax's "Legacy".

This has exploded over on ENWorld. I think the EUROPA quote reads most naturally as a mix of frustration, sarcasm, and hyperbole. But even stipulating that Gygax was as sexist as his detractors make out, it still doesn't compare on my moral scale to things like Jonathan Tweet raising money for Planned Parenthood, or WotC's whole corporate culture.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 10, 2024, 08:24:58 AMThis has exploded over on ENWorld. I think the EUROPA quote reads most naturally as a mix of frustration, sarcasm, and hyperbole. But even stipulating that Gygax was as sexist as his detractors make out, it still doesn't compare on my moral scale to things like Jonathan Tweet raising money for Planned Parenthood, or WotC's whole corporate culture.

That's because ENWorld is a heavily controlled forum, made to look like a place where ideas can be shared for the ignorant rubes.  The forum rules are explicitly woke, and the moderation allows dogpiling of unpopular comments (but not the other way) up until the person attacked makes an irrefutable point, which is when the moderators step in with punishment.  The owner and mods like to think of themselves as intelligent, but I've never seen an interaction with any of them that would even suggest a room-temperature IQ (and that's in their metric system).  So, no surprise that they have a "two minutes of EGG hate" thread on their boards.  Neither Morrus nor any of his sycophants are worthy to carry EGG's jock strap, faults and all, and he knows it...

Oh, and another thing.  This is a quote used to "prove" Gary was a sexist:

QuoteAs I have often said, I am a biological determinist, and there is no question that male and female brains are different. It is apparent to me that by and large females do not derrive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do. It isn't that females can't play games well, it is just that it isn't a compelling activity to them as is the case for males.
Gygax, 2004.

So, as you can see, scientific reality is sexist.  No wonder they've made themselves an echo chamber.  Between that and the assertion that EGG chose Tiamat (a Babylonian goddess of chaos) to be a principle goddess of chaos in D&D because of sexism, it's descending into absolute stupidity.  Once you have a hammer...

Quote from: Gary GygaxAs I have often said, I am a biological determinist, and there is no question that male and female brains are different. It is apparent to me that by and large females do not derrive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do. It isn't that females can't play games well, it is just that it isn't a compelling activity to them as is the case for males.
Gygax, 2004.

It doesn't prove sexism, but I think this is wrong.

The data shows a massive difference in female participation in RPGs between the 1970s, 1999, and the 2020s. Gygax cited only 3% women in his 1970s games, but in 1999 they were surveyed at 19% participation, and in the 2020s at 39%. Since women's genetics didn't change during that time, that shows that clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors, not genetics.

There are genetic differences between men and women, but that doesn't mean that any given social difference is genetic. Women have longer hair than men in Western society, but that doesn't mean there is a genetic trait that programs their hair to be longer. Assuming that it comes from genetics is an obvious fallacy.

Quote from: jhkim on July 10, 2024, 11:32:28 AMThe data shows a massive difference in female participation in RPGs between the 1970s, 1999, and the 2020s. Gygax cited only 3% women in his 1970s games, but in 1999 they were surveyed at 19% participation, and in the 2020s at 39%. Since women's genetics didn't change during that time, that shows that clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors, not genetics.

   One other factor: The game changed substantially over that time frame. And that's assuming the stats are for D&D itself, not the TTRPG hobby overall.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 10, 2024, 11:46:03 AM

Quote from: jhkim on July 10, 2024, 11:32:28 AMThe data shows a massive difference in female participation in RPGs between the 1970s, 1999, and the 2020s. Gygax cited only 3% women in his 1970s games, but in 1999 they were surveyed at 19% participation, and in the 2020s at 39%. Since women's genetics didn't change during that time, that shows that clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors, not genetics.

   One other factor: The game changed substantially over that time frame. And that's assuming the stats are for D&D itself, not the TTRPG hobby overall.

By Gary's quote, that would be irrelevant. He says "playing games as a hobby" not "playing [the current version of] D&D."

Quote from: jhkim on July 10, 2024, 11:32:28 AM

Quote from: Gary GygaxAs I have often said, I am a biological determinist, and there is no question that male and female brains are different. It is apparent to me that by and large females do not derrive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do. It isn't that females can't play games well, it is just that it isn't a compelling activity to them as is the case for males.
Gygax, 2004.

It doesn't prove sexism, but I think this is wrong.

The data shows a massive difference in female participation in RPGs between the 1970s, 1999, and the 2020s. Gygax cited only 3% women in his 1970s games, but in 1999 they were surveyed at 19% participation, and in the 2020s at 39%. Since women's genetics didn't change during that time, that shows that clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors, not genetics.

There are genetic differences between men and women, but that doesn't mean that any given social difference is genetic. Women have longer hair than men in Western society, but that doesn't mean there is a genetic trait that programs their hair to be longer. Assuming that it comes from genetics is an obvious fallacy.

Oh really?

Assuming the 2020's data isn't manipulated, what could explain such a change?

1.- Playing RPGs as a hobby isn't the same as playing RPGs
2.- The social stigma against such pastimes was already going away
3.- Games other than D&D

Those just from the top of my head and assuming the data isn't manipulated (which I doubt)

Your next "argument" is a false equivalence, and you know it. But even if it wasn't several studies have been done (one famously with baby chimps), that clearly demonstrate there's a sexual difference between boys and girls regarding styles of play. Including one by Lego who successfully created a girls line without destroying their boys line.

But your cult "follows teh Science! tm" until it's inconvenient, evolution doesn't stop at the neck.

Quote from: jhkim on July 10, 2024, 11:32:28 AMThere are genetic differences between men and women, but that doesn't mean that any given social difference is genetic.

It also doesn't mean any given social difference ISN'T genetic.

As I already stated before, you suck as a fucking scientist. You inject your personal biases into EVERY possible interpretation of data, disregarding actual statistics and the hard reality of real life whenever it doesn't suit your Marxist agenda.

Patiently waiting for the anecdotes about your furry lesbian quadraphonic transllama friend who disproves the general consensus...

EDIT: Gary had three daughters, all of whom he spoke highly of and directly involved in his life, even having them run PCs in his D&D games. For such a "sexist" he certainly seemed to be a good father and treated his daughters well. "Sexism", as already stated, is fucking meaningless now. It used to imply you had some sort of irrational aversion to women in some capacity, now it means if you say anything like "women on average tend to be physically weaker than men based on numerous scientific studies" you are a horrible, horrible sexist asshole.

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 10, 2024, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 10, 2024, 11:46:03 AMOne other factor: The game changed substantially over that time frame. And that's assuming the stats are for D&D itself, not the TTRPG hobby overall.

By Gary's quote, that would be irrelevant. He says "playing games as a hobby" not "playing [the current version of] D&D."

Thanks, HappyDaze. This is also more explicit in the full quote from the OP. Adding in the next sentence, this reads:

Quote from: Gary GygaxAs a biological determinist, I am positive that most females do not play RPGs because of a difference in brain function. They can play as well as males, but they do not achieve the same sense of satisfaction from playing.

In short there is no special game that will attract females--other that LARPing, which is more csocialization and theatrics and gaming--and it is a waste of time and effort to attempt such a thing.

I tend to agree with Armchair Gamer's implication that women will (on average) prefer different RPGs to men. Regardless of the genetic component, women have different cultural interests, so it makes sense that they'd have different preferences on average. Likewise, Japanese gamers have different preferences from American ones, as shown how Call of Cthulhu is the dominant game in Japan (not D&D).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 10, 2024, 12:09:46 PMAssuming the 2020's data isn't manipulated, what could explain such a change?

1.- Playing RPGs as a hobby isn't the same as playing RPGs
2.- The social stigma against such pastimes was already going away
3.- Games other than D&D

I don't see how that disagrees with me. Social stigma and non-D&D game design are environmental/cultural factors.

This all underlies the issue that hobbies and entertainment (and a shitton of other things) skew towards certain sexes because of their preferences being influenced by their sex. Activist types come in and make the observation that the demographic disparity must be caused by sexism. So thing X needs to change to make women (never the reverse, never men) more welcomed.
But the changes usually are incredibly stupid and misguided attempts at making the thing inclusive. Fundamentally changing what fans (men and women) found interesting about the thing in the first place.
Like cutting down a forest to save it from a fire.

We see it in 40k in the attempts to shoehorn women into the "boys clubs" factions of 40k, when there already are women characters in the lore. Or the ridiculous attempts to put "safety features" into RPGs. Etc, etc, we have discussed the specifics to death and back again.

Gary's rant about women in the hobby comes across to me as pushback against these activist types, who have been around for a long time, but only lately have become so vocal and unhinged about their views and have managed to get into positions of creative and administrative power.

Quote from: jhkim on July 10, 2024, 11:32:28 AMIt doesn't prove sexism, but I think this is wrong.

The data shows a massive difference in female participation in RPGs between the 1970s, 1999, and the 2020s. Gygax cited only 3% women in his 1970s games, but in 1999 they were surveyed at 19% participation, and in the 2020s at 39%. Since women's genetics didn't change during that time, that shows that clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors, not genetics.

First, what data?  What surveys were there in 1978 compared with 2018?  The change in survey responses may show a greater reach in surveys, not a change in the popularity.  Do you have evidence (not personal anecdotes) that these numbers are accurate?  You don't, because no one does.  So any conclusion about participation rates based solely on those surveys is completely unwarranted.  Your  certainty can only be based in your own biases.

Secondly, even taking these numbers at face value, you still can't draw those conclusions.  Is occupational preference biologically influence by sex?  Every reputable social study says, "yes."  So why are there different occupational participation rates in Sweden compared with Iran?  Well, it turns out that as economic security and personal freedom increases, women select more radically different occupations than they do when in poor or repressive societies.  So a biological impetus may be masked by social or economic realities, but it does not prove the biology is not still there and active (or even most important, such as in discretionary expenditures like entertainment).  So even if we accept the numbers, it still doesn't prove that "clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors."

Brad is right; you are a terrible scientist.

BTW, we've already addressed the Gygax quote about women not liking the hobby.  When EGG speaks of the "hobby," he is referring to the D&D-derived roleplaying games that he played and wrote.  Which were all derived from wargaming and had lots of fiddly math and such.  This is why he contrasts it with LARPing, a far more social and woman-friendly endeavor.  This has already been explained to you in a previous thread.  Color me surprised that you would ignore that and attempt to use that line of justification again.  I don't expect a smooth-brained apologist like HappyDerp to get this, but you pretend to be intelligent...

Oh, and remember when I accused you a while back of carefully parsing the terminology of those you disagree with ("hobby"), but demanding others interpret your exact terms ("clearly," "dominated," etc.) as broadly as possible to serve your point?  Try not to prove me right, again...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 10, 2024, 04:19:24 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 10, 2024, 11:32:28 AMIt doesn't prove sexism, but I think this is wrong.

The data shows a massive difference in female participation in RPGs between the 1970s, 1999, and the 2020s. Gygax cited only 3% women in his 1970s games, but in 1999 they were surveyed at 19% participation, and in the 2020s at 39%. Since women's genetics didn't change during that time, that shows that clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors, not genetics.

First, what data?  What surveys were there in 1978 compared with 2018?  The change in survey responses may show a greater reach in surveys, not a change in the popularity.  Do you have evidence (not personal anecdotes) that these numbers are accurate?  You don't, because no one does.  So any conclusion about participation rates based solely on those surveys is completely unwarranted.  Your  certainty can only be based in your own biases.

Secondly, even taking these numbers at face value, you still can't draw those conclusions.  Is occupational preference biologically influence by sex?  Every reputable social study says, "yes."  So why are there different occupational participation rates in Sweden compared with Iran?  Well, it turns out that as economic security and personal freedom increases, women select more radically different occupations than they do when in poor or repressive societies.  So a biological impetus may be masked by social or economic realities, but it does not prove the biology is not still there and active (or even most important, such as in discretionary expenditures like entertainment).  So even if we accept the numbers, it still doesn't prove that "clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors."

Brad is right; you are a terrible scientist.

BTW, we've already addressed the Gygax quote about women not liking the hobby.  When EGG speaks of the "hobby," he is referring to the D&D-derived roleplaying games that he played and wrote.  Which were all derived from wargaming and had lots of fiddly math and such.  This is why he contrasts it with LARPing, a far more social and woman-friendly endeavor.  This has already been explained to you in a previous thread.  Color me surprised that you would ignore that and attempt to use that line of justification again.  I don't expect a smooth-brained apologist like HappyDerp to get this, but you pretend to be intelligent...

Oh, and remember when I accused you a while back of carefully parsing the terminology of those you disagree with ("hobby"), but demanding others interpret your exact terms ("clearly," "dominated," etc.) as broadly as possible to serve your point?  Try not to prove me right, again...

Greetings!

*Laughing* Such an absolute, ruthless savage!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 10, 2024, 09:36:24 AM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 10, 2024, 08:24:58 AMThis has exploded over on ENWorld. I think the EUROPA quote reads most naturally as a mix of frustration, sarcasm, and hyperbole. But even stipulating that Gygax was as sexist as his detractors make out, it still doesn't compare on my moral scale to things like Jonathan Tweet raising money for Planned Parenthood, or WotC's whole corporate culture.

That's because ENWorld is a heavily controlled forum, made to look like a place where ideas can be shared for the ignorant rubes.  The forum rules are explicitly woke, and the moderation allows dogpiling of unpopular comments (but not the other way) up until the person attacked makes an irrefutable point, which is when the moderators step in with punishment.  The owner and mods like to think of themselves as intelligent, but I've never seen an interaction with any of them that would even suggest a room-temperature IQ (and that's in their metric system).  So, no surprise that they have a "two minutes of EGG hate" thread on their boards.  Neither Morrus nor any of his sycophants are worthy to carry EGG's jock strap, faults and all, and he knows it...

The mods there are absolute bitches. Low IQ people thinking being a mod on a big D&D forum means they have KEWL points.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 10, 2024, 03:17:19 PMThis all underlies the issue that hobbies and entertainment (and a shitton of other things) skew towards certain sexes because of their preferences being influenced by their sex. Activist types come in and make the observation that the demographic disparity must be caused by sexism.

Claiming that all gender disparity must be cause by sexism is just as baseless as claiming that all gender disparity must be caused by genetics. That someone claims the former doesn't mean that the latter is also right.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 10, 2024, 04:19:24 PMSecondly, even taking these numbers at face value, you still can't draw those conclusions.  Is occupational preference biologically influence by sex?  Every reputable social study says, "yes."  So why are there different occupational participation rates in Sweden compared with Iran?  Well, it turns out that as economic security and personal freedom increases, women select more radically different occupations than they do when in poor or repressive societies.  So a biological impetus may be masked by social or economic realities, but it does not prove the biology is not still there and active (or even most important, such as in discretionary expenditures like entertainment).  So even if we accept the numbers, it still doesn't prove that "clearly their participation rates are dominated by environmental and/or cultural factors."

Gygax claimed that women's low participation in RPGs was "biologically determined". If even modest environmental/social changes shift the ratio from 3% to 39%, then that ratio clearly isn't biologically determined.

There may be some biological influence, but that influence is masked by the other factors, just as you say in the bolded section. That's essentially the same thing that I'm saying. For example, it could be that genetically, men have a mild tendency to prefer physical sports and women have a mild tendency to prefer verbally-driven social games like TTRPGs. Or maybe verbally-driven social games are also skew male. It's not a given.

Looking at the ratios only in the U.S. isn't going to tell us pure genetics. In the 2050s, maybe D&D will still be dominant and the gender ratio will have gone back down to 30%. Or maybe some other game is dominant and the players are 55% female. Or tons of other possibilities. I don't think we can know, let alone for the 2100s or beyond.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 10, 2024, 04:19:24 PMBTW, we've already addressed the Gygax quote about women not liking the hobby.  When EGG speaks of the "hobby," he is referring to the D&D-derived roleplaying games that he played and wrote.  Which were all derived from wargaming and had lots of fiddly math and such.  This is why he contrasts it with LARPing, a far more social and woman-friendly endeavor.

You use "hobby" in quotes, but in the interview, Gygax never uses the term "hobby". He refers to "RPGs" (i.e. "most females do not play RPGs"), and this is in 2005. In 2005, I think it was clear that the term "RPGs" did not just refer to D&D-derived games that he played and wrote.