Quote from: Spinachcat;794993I agree its utterly laughable how much handwringing there has been about how to get more women into male dominated hobbies, but silence about how female dominated hobbies need to attract males.

RPGs don't need more women or minorities. RPGs need more RPG players, regardless of their skin color or their crotch junk. I am not sold on belief that the "cult of inclusivity" is the holy grail for any hobby.

What irks me is how the need for greater inclusivity is an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) assumption. Why are some men so much more anxious that more women enjoy their hobby than women are about female-dominated hobbies? And why are we culturally disposed to be suspicious or critical of activities pursued largely by men - presume they are misogynist and need to be reformed, while ignoring female dominated hobbies and genres. If we can accept that perhaps misandry isn't the explanation for historical romance novels, why can't we accept that misogyny isn't the reason for the largely male hobbies like tabletop RPGs?

Boardgamegeek has seen the same kind of handwringing about 'not enough' female participation in boardgames. When I pointed out that a lot of guys like to get together with only guys to have some beers and blow off steam over a boardgame, out came the accusations of misogyny and immaturity. And yet when my wife goes for a girls night out for dinner and drinks with friends it's a perfectly acceptable - even empowering - activity. Why the double standard?

Quote from: Spinachcat;794993Anyone (on any "side") who thinks the Internet is a useful tool for communication is being naive in 2014. The Internet is a tool of commerce, potentially a tool of education, but its crap at fostering effective human communication between parties of differing viewpoints. It's success at communication is the creation of isolated echo chambers, for better or worse, which allow niche interests to flourish.  

Twitter, the main battleground of Gamergate, is truly terrible medium for actual communication. It's 140 characters of shouting slogans, soundbite propaganda and "me too-ism" that does nothing to build bridges or articulate complex concepts.

Forums are self-selecting and thus generally become echo chambers. But more importantly, neither "side" is interested in communication. It's Red vs. Blue and only the ideals of "your side" can be allowed to be left standing when the melee is done.

RPG.net (and many other forums) create "victory" but eliminating discussion of the "other side", and the "victors" can congratulate themselves within their echo chamber.

Sad, but true. Binary thinking is deeply ingrained in human nature, and when any contentious issue comes up the first thing people do is determine whose side everyone is on. And then the people on your side are given a free pass, and people on the other side are challenged and attacked relentlessly. Most people have little use for empiricism, trade-offs, or degrees of severity. It's just too much effort to process the world that way.

Quote from: Will;794996It needs to be less hostile and unwelcoming to some groups.

RPGs and video-games are played largely by young male geeks. Gee, who would have thought young male geeks would tend to be socially awkward people who don't understand social clues and are prone to anxiety and inappropriate behavior? Just because nerd culture has become more mainstream doesn't mean socially marginalized 15-year-olds are going to start becoming confident and diplomatic ambassadors for their hobbies. And maybe sticking together with other socially-awkward young men is perfectly natural behaviour.

Quote from: Will;794996The only reason it's a grail is because it's an attempt to level ground that's gotten heavily slanted over the past generation or so.

I attended a D&D convention in 1980. There were about 200 participants. Two of them were women. There are way, way more female gamers today than there were a generation ago.

Quote from: Spinachcat;795018Feminism wants women to compete equally against men in what was previously "a man's world" and that's a fine concept as long as you acknowledge that "a man's world", at least in the US is a vicious capitalistic competition.  Most men were crushed, broken, demoralized and brutalized by "man's world" in the past. Why should it be any different for a woman?

You want in the mosh pit? Wanna throw elbows? Then get ready to take an elbow. Successful people (male or female) know this.

Yep. Competitive cultures are not nice cultures. The closer you get to the top, the more you'll find yourself among ruthless, competitive types.

Quote from: Spinachcat;795018Human males are animals prone to anger and violence. You think some 1960s folk songs and placards erased a million years of genetics? Everyone should be grateful that "angry men" are neutered by video games and Twitter instead of committing actual rape and actual violence.  

Doxxing and nasty posts isn't nice behavior, but let's not forget that many Suffragettes suffered fist to face beat downs for demanding the right to vote.

Again, the people driving the social agenda tend to be largely ignorant of history. And most also subscribe to the myth of the blank slate, where it's all simply a matter of culturation and we can foster any behaviour we like with education and social sanctions.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795059And saying that whites are the majority in the market, as is often the argument,  isn't a particularly strong argument, because pretty much every non white person is able to enjoy and emphatize with a lead when the lead happens to be white. Why Hollywood appears to think that a white movie audience won't be able to enjoy and empathize with a lead that isn't Caucasian, to the point of replacing nonwhite *characters with white ones, is baffling.

Is that why Oprah said she couldn't watch Friends because there were no black characters? And why Friends is now regarded as a non-inclusive show that appealed only to self-congratulatory white people? Is tokenism really any better?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795059There could be more roles like Ripley or Meg Ryan's on The Interpreter or uma on Kill Bill, and they would still bank tons of money. House of Sand and Fog also comes to mind.*

That presumes people who make Hollywood movies don't want to make money or they don't understand their audience.

Again, this notion that when the market provides what we like it's working properly, but when it doesn't provide what we like it's distorted or flawed. Whatever other flaws the market has, it's the best tool we have for figuring out what lots of people like.

Quote from: Haffrung;795159What irks me is how the need for greater inclusivity is an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) assumption. Why are some men so much more anxious that more women enjoy their hobby than women are about female-dominated hobbies? And why are we culturally disposed to be suspicious or critical of activities pursued largely by men - presume they are misogynist and need to be reformed, while ignoring female dominated hobbies and genres. If we can accept that perhaps misandry isn't the explanation for historical romance novels, why can't we accept that misogyny isn't the reason for the largely male hobbies like tabletop RPGs?

Quote from: Haffrung;795159RPGs and video-games are played largely by young male geeks. Gee, who would have thought young male geeks would tend to be socially awkward people who don't understand social clues and are prone to anxiety and inappropriate behavior? Just because nerd culture has become more mainstream doesn't mean socially marginalized 15-year-olds are going to start becoming confident and diplomatic ambassadors for their hobbies. And maybe sticking together with other socially-awkward young men is perfectly natural behaviour.

... So on the one hand, you are saying that the way things are is totally just what men and women want different things, and on the other hand young men are socially awkward and stick together in exclusive groups?

And the idea that male gamers might have a negative impact on women getting into gaming is utter nonsense?

You don't see any contradiction in what you've said?

As for 'women's hobbies,' I have not heard of women being dismissive of men in knitting clubs. I've witnessed women made unwelcome in gaming venues.

(Mind you, I've also witnessed women made welcome in gaming venues, but the point is that it happens.)

And hey, I've felt excluded from women's spaces (as a stay-at-home parent with little toddlers) and been unhappy about it, actually. It's BS whichever way it happens.

Just one way is a lot more common.

Quote from: Haffrung;795159I attended a D&D convention in 1980. There were about 200 participants. Two of them were women. There are way, way more female gamers today than there were a generation ago.

I'm not entirely sure gaming conventions are representative. And I think at least part of the problem now is the perception of some (young socially awkward) males that their hobby is being 'taken over' by women.

How many Knitting clubs have you observed vs gaming events?

Not many, but from what I understand they have just as many bullshit flamewars over stupid shit.

"YOU ACRYLIC-USING DOUCHEBAG!"

Quote from: Warboss Squee;795094Funny thing is, there is a twitter set up just to flag abusive tweets from the GG side of the fence. It was set up by GG supporters.

I don't see the other side doing anything to police the idiots on their side, but GG is actually trying.

True that, the anti-GG side really doesn't seem to care about online harassment unless they're doing it.  It is not a bad thing that there are gamers who are reaching out, trying to give proof that they don't want this shit happening, that they'll stop it as best they can.  The 'but' is that random people on the internet can't stop the threats from being seen (which is what the threateners want), and can't stop more threats from being made.  Only engagement with law enforcement can do that.

The down side is that attention frenzies like this egg trolls on, energize them to do more.  So I really don't know what the net effect will be.  I'm hopeful it will be a net positive.

Quote from: Haffrung;795159What irks me is how the need for greater inclusivity is an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) assumption. Why are some men so much more anxious that more women enjoy their hobby than women are about female-dominated hobbies? And why are we culturally disposed to be suspicious or critical of activities pursued largely by men - presume they are misogynist and need to be reformed, while ignoring female dominated hobbies and genres. If we can accept that perhaps misandry isn't the explanation for historical romance novels, why can't we accept that misogyny isn't the reason for the largely male hobbies like tabletop RPGs?

Boardgamegeek has seen the same kind of handwringing about 'not enough' female participation in boardgames. When I pointed out that a lot of guys like to get together with only guys to have some beers and blow off steam over a boardgame, out came the accusations of misogyny and immaturity. And yet when my wife goes for a girls night out for dinner and drinks with friends it's a perfectly acceptable - even empowering - activity. Why the double standard?

Women, for good and ill, are often seen as the oppressed in Western society, the victims. As such they receive some special consideration. A "Weaker" group intruding into the perceived domain of a stronger one is empowering, a victory, generally we cheer for the underdog. The reverse is (or can be seen as) an invasion and violation of a "safe space" that the weaker needs. Several years ago, for example, an all woman's college decided to admit men for the first time and there was a flood of outrage, even despair from the students with organized protests, sit in, etc. It was treated with understanding even sympathy while the reverse would have been seen as rank sexism.

There's allot of guilt behind it too. White males have been told how bad they've been in a general sense and some take it to heart, personally. They see double standards as their due punishment for it. Besides, there's always been double standards just that in the today's social and political atmosphere calling out the ones that benefit women (or the "weaker" side) is frowned on.

QuoteRPGs and video-games are played largely by young male geeks. Gee, who would have thought young male geeks would tend to be socially awkward people who don't understand social clues and are prone to anxiety and inappropriate behavior? Just because nerd culture has become more mainstream doesn't mean socially marginalized 15-year-olds are going to start becoming confident and diplomatic ambassadors for their hobbies. And maybe sticking together with other socially-awkward young men is perfectly natural behaviour.

I think there is a tendency among the socially awkward to see their hobby group as their social group as well. Combine that with a lack of other social outlets and some fear/distrust and yes, dislike, of women due to their social awkwardness and its a recipe for bad behavior. I've seen similar treatment directed at those perceived as one of the popular types of people: athletic, good looking, etc. Though it doesn't seem to be a common, perhaps because they're usually not a target of longing too?

QuoteI attended a D&D convention in 1980. There were about 200 participants. Two of them were women. There are way, way more female gamers today than there were a generation ago.

Yeah, in high school we couldn't find girls that wanted to play even "geeky" girls from the AP classes we were from. Now, slightly under half out group are women, I know of several all women groups and constantly bump into women gamers, Two our local FLGS/comic stores are owned and operated by women.

Quote from: Will;795161And I think at least part of the problem now is the perception of some (young socially awkward) males that their hobby is being 'taken over' by women.

The current rhetoric of "Mere tolerance of our cause is unacceptable, if you aren't sufficiently enthusiastic in your support, you're part of the problem and will be banned from *insert forum name* forever and/or need to die" doesn't help them solve that problem.

-Thornhammer

Quote from: Will;795132Anita Sarkeesian appears on Colbert Show:
http://jezebel.com/anita-sarkeesian-on-colbert-gamergate-is-terrorizing-w-1652705621?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

(Good job, GG, fighting her insidious influence by vaulting her onto the national stage!)

Apparently, the segment got HEAVILY editted.

Quote from: Will;795161... So on the one hand, you are saying that the way things are is totally just what men and women want different things, and on the other hand young men are socially awkward and stick together in exclusive groups?

And the idea that male gamers might have a negative impact on women getting into gaming is utter nonsense?

I'm sure socially-awkward dorks do have a negative impact on women - and other people - getting into gaming. But gamers who are such dorks that people feel uncomfortable around them have already shown that they have difficulty with social norms. Shaming is unlikely to change their behaviour.

Quote from: Will;795161As for 'women's hobbies,' I have not heard of women being dismissive of men in knitting clubs. I've witnessed women made unwelcome in gaming venues.

Frankly, my impression is that the people who play in public gaming venues tend to be among the most socially maladjusted or marginal participants in the hobby. They're often very young, or living in conditions where they cannot have people in their homes. Heck, my 74-year-old dad would probably be uncomfortable around a lot the folks I've seen hanging out at my FLGs.

Again, if these people don't understand the social cues that they should bathe once in a while, make eye contact, or consume less than 3,000 calories a day in junk food, what's the likelihood a campaign to make them more welcoming and tolerant of girls will gain any traction?

Quote from: Will;795161And hey, I've felt excluded from women's spaces (as a stay-at-home parent with little toddlers) and been unhappy about it, actually. It's BS whichever way it happens.

Just one way is a lot more common.

If it's a lot more common, it's because there are a lot more women who want to do traditionally male activities than there are men who want to do traditionally female activities. And women also tend to be more diplomatic. A guy who shows up to a book club expecting detailed textual analysis rather than wide-ranging chat over excellent appetizers and red wine will be let down gently that he's barking up the wrong tree. But most of the women will be more relieved than disappointed when he stops showing up. Because being around only women is the whole point of things like book clubs.

Well, I'll agree with you about public gaming.

Quote from: Will;795143

Kettle Logic

See this is why I put Will, Ladybird, and Ben into my ignore list.  Massive amount of evidence had given out that supports gamergate and they have their heads buried in the sand.  You can't reason with them because they refuse to be reasonable.  Instead they preach their bullshit narrative expecting people to see their way.  What do you call when people keep on doing the same thing and yet expect different results?  We call that insanity.

Now is gamergate perfect?  FUCK NO.  We got trolls, but you know what the reasonable people in gamergate and notyourshield are at least doing something to cull those trolls out of the group.  Problem is that gamergate is the only one limiting the number of trolls they have.  You do not see the other side doing that shit other than say one person that I believe had been mention in this thread.  That is still only one person compared to gamergate which has thousands of people doing just that.

Quote from: Haffrung;795198I'm sure socially-awkward dorks do have a negative impact on women - and other people - getting into gaming. But gamers who are such dorks that people feel uncomfortable around them have already shown that they have difficulty with social norms. Shaming is unlikely to change their behaviour.




Frankly, my impression is that the people who play in public gaming venues tend to be among the most socially maladjusted or marginal participants in the hobby. They're often very young, or living in conditions where they cannot have people in their homes. Heck, my 74-year-old dad would probably be uncomfortable around a lot the folks I've seen hanging out at my FLGs.

Again, if these people don't understand the social cues that they should bathe once in a while, make eye contact, or consume less than 3,000 calories a day in junk food, what's the likelihood a campaign to make them more welcoming and tolerant of girls will gain any traction?



If it's a lot more common, it's because there are a lot more women who want to do traditionally male activities than there are men who want to do traditionally female activities. And women also tend to be more diplomatic. A guy who shows up to a book club expecting detailed textual analysis rather than wide-ranging chat over excellent appetizers and red wine will be let down gently that he's barking up the wrong tree. But most of the women will be more relieved than disappointed when he stops showing up. Because being around only women is the whole point of things like book clubs.

Another reason is that there's more social consequences to men entering many traditionally female dominated hobbies. A man that wants to join a knitting circle or a scrapbooking club is going to be seen as odd and not masculine by many. Some will suspect it of being a ploy to make advances on the other members without much competition. Though to be fair, sometimes women entering male dominated activities and spaces get the same accusation but more they're trying to acquire a captive audience.

Woman and girls that want to enter gaming as often, well, considered out in the first place, types to ignore social pressure and cues or don't even think of it as a a "guy" thing anymore. Or do and that's part of the reason. Breaking into a guys only activity is seen as empowering and a positive in our current culture not a loss of femininity.At least not as often and that barrier is shrinking all the time due in part to feminist movements.

The example with the book club calls back to something I mentioned earlier. Its not uncommon to conflate a hobby gathering with a social gathering, something you do to get together with friends and acquaintances for an enjoyable time and allot of people, men and women, prefer these times, to be single gender, at least some of the time and not for misogynistic or misandry driven reasons but from the outside it could very well look that way particularly if all this was unspoken or largely so.

Quote from: Snowman0147;795234See this is why I put Will, Ladybird, and Ben into my ignore list.  Massive amount of evidence had given out that supports gamergate and they have their heads buried in the sand.  You can't reason with them because they refuse to be reasonable.  Instead they preach their bullshit narrative expecting people to see their way.  What do you call when people keep on doing the same thing and yet expect different results?  We call that insanity.

Well, then everyone who learns to ride a bike must be crazy I dunno, its not often I use an ignore list, but yeah there is a point where a poster is obviously not willing or able to make a reasoned response and broaches that line to just trolling. Maybe I give people the benefit of the doubt too much, or maybe I just enjoy arguing too much. I think its human nature though to entrench oneself further into a position rather than take whatever slight to the ego that comes with even admitting they might be wrong about something. Since thats not my position I may not recognize lost causes as fast as I should. Ah well, c'est laVie.

QuoteNow is gamergate perfect?  FUCK NO.  We got trolls, but you know what the  reasonable people in gamergate and notyourshield are at least doing something to cull those trolls out of the group.  Problem is that gamergate is the only one limiting the number of trolls they have.  You do not see the other side doing that shit other than say one person that I believe had been mention in this thread.  That is still only one person compared to gamergate which has thousands of people doing just that.

From this whole situation Ive seen two good things come out of it, and both of those come from the GG side. While I'm still not going to join in GG, which I still see as a futile enterprise, the anti-GG crowd has proven themselves to be nothing more than hatemongerers, so I will say I most definitely am anti-anti-GG. If that means Im labeled "anti-feminist", well, thats ok, because being antifeminist doesnt mean being anti-women or anti-equal rights. Geeks have had to deal with pernicious stereotypes and social ostracization since long before I was born, and this is no different IMO. Sarkeesian misewell be Professor Wertham testifying that comics cause juvenile delinquency.