How about those men who silently (and otherwise) reject and ostracize women who don't fit society's (actually media-marketed and enforced) standards of beauty?

I mean, hell, if there was one battle where I could put an end to racism, sexism and all of that sort of thing in one go? Hell, point me to that battle, I'll lead the charge.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, you just refuse to accept that the reasons have a lot to do with how the community treats them, not the concept of a tabletop wargame.

Nice straw man.

For reference, my actual position: Women are not interested in wargaming because of the large number of socially awkward, unattractive men associated with the hobby. And because its an expensive, time-consuming hobby about war, which is just not something most women care about.

And you know what? Those changes and excluding those people would be good things. If your game is ruined because there are more female characters (who aren't just there to be sex objects) then I don't want you in my hobby anyway.

Do you even play Warhammer? What exactly would be the point of adding female characters? I mean...you do get that the Imperium is a racist, sexist, xenophobic and fascist dystopian nightmare, right? But what, you want them to present the Imperium as an egalitarian wonderland? If you make the 40k setting less horrifically racist, sexist and fascistics, then you start turning the Imperium into something that might actually look hopeful. They might actually appear to be good guys. There aren't a whole lot of games I'd say this about, but yeah actually the sexism is pretty integral to 40k. The thing that makes 40k fun is that no matter what faction you play, you're the bad guy. You're the mindless horde devouring the carcass of humanity, or your the carcass of humanity spasming in its death throes. It's grimdark.

It's kind of supposed to be awful. You certainly could change it to be more appealing to more people, but you'd totally kill the vibe.

Also, the "sex object" argument is nonsense. No character in a game is there "just" to be a sex object. That term gets misapplied and overused to the point of being meaningless. It is not a synonym for sexy, and you need to not use it as one.The idea that most women are desperately clamoring for unidealized, plain-looking heroines is just nonsense. If you really believe that, you know where to find Kickstarter. You don't even need to put your own money where your mouth is. Do a kickstarter for the kind of models you want to see, and if you have any real success, then you can start claiming that's what women want.

If you're going to ragequit because the community won't tolerate you being a creepy every time a woman enters the store then, again, I want you gone. Feel free to come back when you're capable of being a decent person.

Really? See, I would take that guy aside and have a talk with him, let him know that's not acceptable, but also give him a chance to work out some of the feelings he's clearly bottling up, and try to help him develop some coping mechanism to better deal with his loneliness and hurting.

I guess I'm just a nicer person than you.

Stopped reading there. Welcome to my ignore file, you silly, silly person.

Ah, that old classic. When you can't deal with the substance of an argument just make a big deal about how you're blocking the person making it.

What argument? When a person says they believe in thought crime, they're basically tell you that you should ignore them. The guy just admitted that he would lie and cheat and bully and harass people if they don't think exactly as he demands because he's that certain that his every malign speculation about others is . Why would you give someone who admitted that the time of day, let alone have a conversation with them? They're never going to show you any respect because by merely disagreeing with them you've proven yourself a "criminal" worthy of being bullied, harrassed and lied to.

Only masochists go into battle with self-admitted ideological zealots.

friendlycommissar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, you just refuse to accept that the reasons have a lot to do with how the community treats them, not the concept of a tabletop wargame.

Nice straw man.

For reference, my actual position: Women are not interested in wargaming because of the large number of socially awkward, unattractive men associated with the hobby. And because its an expensive, time-consuming hobby about war, which is just not something most women care about.

And you know what? Those changes and excluding those people would be good things. If your game is ruined because there are more female characters (who aren't just there to be sex objects) then I don't want you in my hobby anyway.

Do you even play Warhammer? What exactly would be the point of adding female characters? I mean...you do get that the Imperium is a racist, sexist, xenophobic and fascist dystopian nightmare, right? But what, you want them to present the Imperium as an egalitarian wonderland? If you make the 40k setting less horrifically racist, sexist and fascistics, then you start turning the Imperium into something that might actually look hopeful. They might actually appear to be good guys. There aren't a whole lot of games I'd say this about, but yeah actually the sexism is pretty integral to 40k. The thing that makes 40k fun is that no matter what faction you play, you're the bad guy. You're the mindless horde devouring the carcass of humanity, or your the carcass of humanity spasming in its death throes. It's grimdark.

It's kind of supposed to be awful. You certainly could change it to be more appealing to more people, but you'd totally kill the vibe.

Also, the "sex object" argument is nonsense. No character in a game is there "just" to be a sex object. That term gets misapplied and overused to the point of being meaningless. It is not a synonym for sexy, and you need to not use it as one.The idea that most women are desperately clamoring for unidealized, plain-looking heroines is just nonsense. If you really believe that, you know where to find Kickstarter. You don't even need to put your own money where your mouth is. Do a kickstarter for the kind of models you want to see, and if you have any real success, then you can start claiming that's what women want.

If you're going to ragequit because the community won't tolerate you being a creepy every time a woman enters the store then, again, I want you gone. Feel free to come back when you're capable of being a decent person.

Really? See, I would take that guy aside and have a talk with him, let him know that's not acceptable, but also give him a chance to work out some of the feelings he's clearly bottling up, and try to help him develop some coping mechanism to better deal with his loneliness and hurting.

I guess I'm just a nicer person than you.

Stopped reading there. Welcome to my ignore file, you silly, silly person.

Ah, that old classic. When you can't deal with the substance of an argument just make a big deal about how you're blocking the person making it.

What argument? When a person says they believe in thought crime, they're basically tell you that you should ignore them. The guy just admitted that he would lie and cheat and bully and harass people if they don't think exactly as he demands because he's that certain that his every malign speculation about others is . Why would you give someone who admitted that the time of day, let alone have a conversation with them? They're never going to show you any respect because by merely disagreeing with them you've proven yourself a "criminal" worthy of being bullied, harrassed and lied to.

Only masochists go into battle with self-admitted ideological zealots.

When did 40k become racist or sexist? I've never seen that in the game. The closest has been the new fluff about males being the only ones capable of being knights. Besides that, we've had fluff of female guardsman, inquisitors, commissars, and even a techpriest or two. The RPGs also don't really pay it much regard. Besides that, there's planets where it's matriarchal and others where it is patriarchal in the fluff. As per race, not really. Most are white and the exceptions are SM representing cultures, Salamanders which are pointed to being daemonic looking but having hearts of gold, and groups like the Tallarn that just use a themed tactic. The Imperium isn't sexist or is it racist. The Imperium is classist, xenophobic, mutant hating, and a fascist dystopian nightmare, not a sexist or racist world.

friendlycommissar wrote:
For reference, my actual position: Women are not interested in wargaming because of the large number of socially awkward, unattractive men associated with the hobby. And because its an expensive, time-consuming hobby about war, which is just not something most women care about.

And you keep missing the point here: the second half of your reason is fine, but the first half isn't. Nobody is suggesting that we change what 40k is in a desperate attempt to get more women involved. The point is that we should not tolerate creepy s that drive women (and men) away because they don't know how to behave in public.

Do you even play Warhammer? What exactly would be the point of adding female characters? I mean...you do get that the Imperium is a racist, sexist, xenophobic and fascist dystopian nightmare, right? But what, you want them to present the Imperium as an egalitarian wonderland? If you make the 40k setting less horrifically racist, sexist and fascistics, then you start turning the Imperium into something that might actually look hopeful. They might actually appear to be good guys. There aren't a whole lot of games I'd say this about, but yeah actually the sexism is pretty integral to 40k. The thing that makes 40k fun is that no matter what faction you play, you're the bad guy. You're the mindless horde devouring the carcass of humanity, or your the carcass of humanity spasming in its death throes. It's grimdark.

Sigh. Congratulations on missing the point of the setting entirely. 40k should have lots of women in non-space marine armies because everyone has to fight. There's none of this chivalrous nonsense where women are to be kept safe at home while the men go off and fight, if you're able to hold a lasgun then congratulations, you're sent off into the meat grinder to be expended along with millions of your fellow guardsmen. In fact, the fluff makes this explicit: Cadia has 100% conscription, every single person is part of the military. And other armies are similar: Tau and Eldar/DE explicitly have women in combat, while only space marines are all-male.

The problem is that, while GW presents a setting where women are part of the military, the models don't reflect that reality. Instead of mixed-gender Cadians (remember, 100% conscription includes all women) they're all men. Fixing this isn't just an anti-sexism thing, it also brings the models in line with the fluff.

Also, the "sex object" argument is nonsense. No character in a game is there "just" to be a sex object.

You can't possibly be serious about that.

The idea that most women are desperately clamoring for unidealized, plain-looking heroines is just nonsense.

Yeah, just ignore the women saying "I want average-looking women in my fiction who aren't treated as sex objects". Why pay attention to reality when it gets in the way of your ideology?

Really? See, I would take that guy aside and have a talk with him, let him know that's not acceptable, but also give him a chance to work out some of the feelings he's clearly bottling up, and try to help him develop some coping mechanism to better deal with his loneliness and hurting.

I guess I'm just a nicer person than you.

I'm here to play a game I enjoy, not to give basic "how to not be a terrible person" lessons.

We used to have a FoW women player but moved to another state with her military husband. Awesome player and awesome painter. Miss both of them but hated the one battle I played against them. I learned a lot but it was a total noob stomp (me being the noob...).

The store with the most players is an all around hobby store so it has MtG, FoW, Warhammer, 40k and Larps. On some of the big MtG and larp days the place can get horrible. The smell of 20 unwashed pre-teen nasty tends to cause females to stay away from my hobby store.

Time to shift direction of the conversation, folks.

As well as most people

I think the best part of this thread is not only a whole bunch of guys talking about women, but the fact that it's called Female Players.

While that's true, if the title was supposed to represent the actual thread, it'd be "Female Players: Why aren't there very many?"

I think the thread, as a whole, does a pretty good job of answering the question.

 Psienesis wrote:
While that's true, if the title was supposed to represent the actual thread, it'd be "Female Players: Why aren't there very many?"

I think the thread, as a whole, does a pretty good job of answering the question.

Women have different interests then men? That's what I got out of the thread.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Women have different interests then men? That's what I got out of the thread.

Whereas I learned that failing to invite the wives/girlfriends or other women along for the upcoming guys' weekend in Vegas is a borderline hate crime.

 Seaward wrote:
Whereas I learned that failing to invite the wives/girlfriends or other women along for the upcoming guys' weekend in Vegas is a borderline hate crime.

Except nobody is actually saying that.

I think the best explanation for the gender disparity came from the guy who made the case about knitting clubs. Sewing is simply a female dominated hobby because men do not like the idea behind it. I, and I am pretty sure other men, can appreciate the end results of knitting but have no interest in the hobby itself. Same is true for women when it comes to 40k it would seem.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think the best explanation for the gender disparity came from the guy who made the case about knitting clubs. Sewing is simply a female dominated hobby because men do not like the idea behind it. I, and I am pretty sure other men, can appreciate the end results of knitting but have no interest in the hobby itself. Same is true for women when it comes to 40k it would seem.

And again, you are stating the effect, not the cause.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think the best explanation for the gender disparity came from the guy who made the case about knitting clubs. Sewing is simply a female dominated hobby because men do not like the idea behind it. I, and I am pretty sure other men, can appreciate the end results of knitting but have no interest in the hobby itself. Same is true for women when it comes to 40k it would seem.

And again, you are stating the effect, not the cause.

I am not a psychologist, I have not studied the differences between the male and femaale minds and I have not conducted any research into the matter. All I can say for certain is that something about the 40k hobby puts girls off and something about the knitting hobby puts guys off. It seems, from the various anecdotes I've read, that the complicated ruleset puts girls off. Though I guess that still doesn't answer your question.

I knit, play 40k , and am gay. Where is your god now?

Sitting on the Golden Throne of Terra, my good sir!

Die Hetero Cisgendered Imperial Scum

 TheCustomLime wrote:
All I can say for certain is that something about the 40k hobby puts girls off

That is correct. See Peregrine's posts- he usually talks a lot of sense on topics like these.

Yeah, I agree with him too that 40k players are too tolerant of this behavior being displayed by their fellows. Even if the goal isn't to bring in more female players it's just common decency.

But I don't think we will ever get gender parity in 40k. A shame that half of the population can't really enjoy the game but human dimorphism is what it is.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That is correct. See Peregrine's posts- he usually talks a lot of sense on topics like these.

The guy who said male and female humans are biologically identical earlier in the thread?

Quote it.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Quote it.

Happy to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I mean, sexual dimorphism isn't exactly a controversial concept. It very much exists. I suppose we can pretend like it doesn't influence anything, but I'm not sure I see the point in that.

Well, it exists as long as you love bad evolutionary psychology and other pseudoscience.

I don't know what other conclusion to draw from the fact that he believes sexual dimorphism to be the province of pseudoscience than that he believes there to be no physiological differences between men and women.

How is this even relevant to the discussion, though?

Unless you are saying that the behaviour that is being argued against is justified because of biological gender differences in which case... I don't have anything more to say. :|

 Ashiraya wrote:
How is this even relevant to the discussion, though?

Unless you are saying that the behaviour that is being argued against is justified because of biological gender differences in which case... I don't have anything more to say. :|

I was arguing that I've known few women to have an interest in wargaming of any sort, 40K or otherwise, and hence the issue is probably more divergent interests than the 40K community when it comes to why there aren't more female players.

Peregrine was arguing that women and men have exactly the same interests, it's just the patriarchy that forces some to go by the wayside.

I countered that no, there are probably biological reasons for some interests to be traditionally male and some to be traditionally female, because hey, sexual dimorphism. Male and female hormone levels aren't the same, different areas of the brain get a little more development, etc.

Peregrine then said that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, and it's all the patriarchy.

And now we're up to speed.

Would you be able to post a link to his full post seaward?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yeah, I agree with him too that 40k players are too tolerant of this behavior being displayed by their fellows. Even if the goal isn't to bring in more female players it's just common decency.

But I don't think we will ever get gender parity in 40k. A shame that half of the population can't really enjoy the game but human dimorphism is what it is.

It's not just that and I don't think people ever expected 50-50. I think it's more like going for 60-40 or even 75-25. As per human dimorphism, it's not just that. That's the problem with it. It's never that simple as that argues it's all about nature when life is really a combination of nature and nurture. Society influences what is acceptable and unacceptable of everybody from what you should like to what you should wear. It changes over time but there's always expectations. So the question becomes, how much is because of genetics and how much is because of your life, your friends, your parents, and all the other things that influence you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Quote it.

Happy to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I mean, sexual dimorphism isn't exactly a controversial concept. It very much exists. I suppose we can pretend like it doesn't influence anything, but I'm not sure I see the point in that.

Well, it exists as long as you love bad evolutionary psychology and other pseudoscience.

I don't know what other conclusion to draw from the fact that he believes sexual dimorphism to be the province of pseudoscience than that he believes there to be no physiological differences between men and women.

To be fair, the only thing he did was badly word it. You didn't link the rest of what he said: "The much more likely scenario is that any inherent gender differences are less significant than the variation between individuals, and most of the "inherent" differences are better explained by social factors. The fact that wargaming, in an ideal sexism-free world, might be 60/40 in favor of men doesn't mean that we should pretend that the current 99/1 ratio represents inherent attributes rather than problems in the community and society as a whole."

Badly worded yes but even he admitted a possible 60/40 which would also represent sexual dimorphism.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
How is this even relevant to the discussion, though?

Unless you are saying that the behaviour that is being argued against is justified because of biological gender differences in which case... I don't have anything more to say. :|

I was arguing that I've known few women to have an interest in wargaming of any sort, 40K or otherwise, and hence the issue is probably more divergent interests than the 40K community when it comes to why there aren't more female players.

Peregrine was arguing that women and men have exactly the same interests, it's just the patriarchy that forces some to go by the wayside.

I countered that no, there are probably biological reasons for some interests to be traditionally male and some to be traditionally female, because hey, sexual dimorphism. Male and female hormone levels aren't the same, different areas of the brain get a little more development, etc.

Peregrine then said that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, and it's all the patriarchy.

And now we're up to speed.

But... That is just a 'not a cause for a cause' fallacy.

You have nothing but speculation to back up your statements.

You assume that the biological differences are the sole reasons for this controversy but you have no proof whatsoever of this being the case, while it is obvious that the social hindrances are rather significant. Just look earlier in this thread for plenty of examples.

Of course it's possible the numbers won't reach 50% due to uneven genuine interest. Nobody has said anything else. But the current numbers are definitely skewed by far more than mere nature.

Plus what Startrotter says.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Would you be able to post a link to his full post seaward?

The full conversation starts around page 5, I believe.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Would you be able to post a link to his full post seaward?

The full conversation starts around page 5, I believe.

I didn't link it (I'm still not quite used to how all of the posts funciton, but Silver meant the rest of his statement) but I posted the rest of the statement you took that except from

 Ashiraya wrote:
But... That is just a 'not a cause for a cause' fallacy.

You have nothing but speculation to back up your statements.

You assume that the biological differences are the sole reasons for this controversy but you have no proof whatsoever of this being the case, while it is obvious that the social hindrances are rather significant. Just look earlier in this thread for plenty of examples.

On the contrary, I simply don't dismiss biological differences outright or attribute them solely to societal pressure, the way Peregrine did in our earlier discussion.

Incidentally, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence for both sides. There are not, to the best of my knowledge, any extant studies on this topic. The only thing that comes close is studies video game developers have done, and they simply show that women tend to like more cooperative and story-driven games than otherwise, and delves not at all into the reasons why.

Of course it's possible the numbers won't reach 50% due to uneven genuine interest. Nobody has said anything else. But the current numbers are definitely skewed by far more than mere nature.

They are? By far more?

How do you know?

Plus what Startrotter says.

If you want to see the entire argument, it's still very much in the thread. You asked for a specific quotation, I provided it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
But... That is just a 'not a cause for a cause' fallacy.

You have nothing but speculation to back up your statements.

You assume that the biological differences are the sole reasons for this controversy but you have no proof whatsoever of this being the case, while it is obvious that the social hindrances are rather significant. Just look earlier in this thread for plenty of examples.

On the contrary, I simply don't dismiss biological differences outright or attribute them solely to societal pressure, the way Peregrine did in our earlier discussion.

Incidentally, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence for both sides. There are not, to the best of my knowledge, any extant studies on this topic. The only thing that comes close is studies video game developers have done, and they simply show that women tend to like more cooperative and story-driven games than otherwise, and delves not at all into the reasons why.

Of course it's possible the numbers won't reach 50% due to uneven genuine interest. Nobody has said anything else. But the current numbers are definitely skewed by far more than mere nature.

They are? By far more?

How do you know?

Plus what Startrotter says.

If you want to see the entire argument, it's still very much in the thread. You asked for a specific quotation, I provided it.

I don't think Peregrine phrased it correctly at the start though as he mentions a 60:40 split later on.

Not even then with the games. The problem is, the only two possibilities to discover how much sexual dimorphism (nature) influences an individual is if we were to either observe a society where being male or female means absolutely 0 or we would need to isolate an individual from the entirity of society and then hand them both and see what they prefer. Then we'd have to multiply the number by a hundred or even a thousand to ensure that our findings are correct.

As per how it is influenced, considering it's currently more like 999:1 I'd say the proportions are very off

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair, the only thing he did was badly word it. You didn't link the rest of what he said: "The much more likely scenario is that any inherent gender differences are less significant than the variation between individuals, and most of the "inherent" differences are better explained by social factors. The fact that wargaming, in an ideal sexism-free world, might be 60/40 in favor of men doesn't mean that we should pretend that the current 99/1 ratio represents inherent attributes rather than problems in the community and society as a whole."

Badly worded yes but even he admitted a possible 60/40 which would also represent sexual dimorphism.

Trouble is, a few posts up, he states:

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, even if there is a gender difference in which aspects of gaming are appealing that does NOT mean that it's the result of inherent gender differences instead of social pressure. For example, the often-cited difference is competitive vs. cooperative play: women prefer cooperative games like RPGs, men prefer competitive games like FPSs. But there's a very obvious social factor here to consider. Women spend their whole lives being told that they favor cooperation over competition, and face criticism if they're "too aggressive". So is it really any surprise that it's hard to overcome that and embrace the hardcore competitive attitude required to be successful at certain games, and games that don't require such a dramatic change of attitude are more appealing?

So, no, that's not an acknowledgement of physiological differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism). It's attributing any gender differential (if it exists) to social pressure, rather than biology-fueled divergence. Combined with his statement that sexual dimorphism is pseudoscience, I don't know what to conclude about his beliefs about such differences.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
As per how it is influenced, considering it's currently more like 999:1 I'd say the proportions are very off

I'd say the same is true of the model ship building community.

Must we conclude that it, too, is inherently misogynistic?

You're absolutely right, though, that we can't solve the nature vs. nurture debate. My personal feeling is that it's undoubtedly a combination of both. The fiercely negative reaction many people have to the very notion that biology could play a role in the low relative interest of females in 40K makes me think there's an agenda at work here, though.

The hobby's not going to hit parity. It's not even going to come close. Should women be welcomed to it? Sure, same as anyone else. If these apparently rampant hygiene problems and rape jokes vanished overnight, would we see a surge in female players? I very much doubt it.

 Seaward wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair, the only thing he did was badly word it. You didn't link the rest of what he said: "The much more likely scenario is that any inherent gender differences are less significant than the variation between individuals, and most of the "inherent" differences are better explained by social factors. The fact that wargaming, in an ideal sexism-free world, might be 60/40 in favor of men doesn't mean that we should pretend that the current 99/1 ratio represents inherent attributes rather than problems in the community and society as a whole."

Badly worded yes but even he admitted a possible 60/40 which would also represent sexual dimorphism.

Trouble is, a few posts up, he states:

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, even if there is a gender difference in which aspects of gaming are appealing that does NOT mean that it's the result of inherent gender differences instead of social pressure. For example, the often-cited difference is competitive vs. cooperative play: women prefer cooperative games like RPGs, men prefer competitive games like FPSs. But there's a very obvious social factor here to consider. Women spend their whole lives being told that they favor cooperation over competition, and face criticism if they're "too aggressive". So is it really any surprise that it's hard to overcome that and embrace the hardcore competitive attitude required to be successful at certain games, and games that don't require such a dramatic change of attitude are more appealing?

So, no, that's not an acknowledgement of physiological differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism). It's attributing any gender differential (if it exists) to social pressure, rather than biology-fueled divergence. Combined with his statement that sexual dimorphism is pseudoscience, I don't know what to conclude about his beliefs about such differences.

Peregrine has an odd way of wording things and can sometimes state things a bit too over the top. Heck, I thought, for the longest time, he hated chaos daemons in their entirety. Turns out he is fine with them just not as their own codex. I'll agree with you that Sexual Dimorphism does exist in humans. Most certainly considering how we differ physically! The question becomes more complicated though when it comes to human beings in their preferences. To argue for a certainty that it's this big thing or this non-existent entity is ludicrous. That said, the answer is somewhere in the middle yet we cannot discover this thanks to how society muddies this question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair, the only thing he did was badly word it. You didn't link the rest of what he said: "The much more likely scenario is that any inherent gender differences are less significant than the variation between individuals, and most of the "inherent" differences are better explained by social factors. The fact that wargaming, in an ideal sexism-free world, might be 60/40 in favor of men doesn't mean that we should pretend that the current 99/1 ratio represents inherent attributes rather than problems in the community and society as a whole."

Badly worded yes but even he admitted a possible 60/40 which would also represent sexual dimorphism.

Trouble is, a few posts up, he states:

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, even if there is a gender difference in which aspects of gaming are appealing that does NOT mean that it's the result of inherent gender differences instead of social pressure. For example, the often-cited difference is competitive vs. cooperative play: women prefer cooperative games like RPGs, men prefer competitive games like FPSs. But there's a very obvious social factor here to consider. Women spend their whole lives being told that they favor cooperation over competition, and face criticism if they're "too aggressive". So is it really any surprise that it's hard to overcome that and embrace the hardcore competitive attitude required to be successful at certain games, and games that don't require such a dramatic change of attitude are more appealing?

So, no, that's not an acknowledgement of physiological differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism). It's attributing any gender differential (if it exists) to social pressure, rather than biology-fueled divergence. Combined with his statement that sexual dimorphism is pseudoscience, I don't know what to conclude about his beliefs about such differences.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
As per how it is influenced, considering it's currently more like 999:1 I'd say the proportions are very off

I'd say the same is true of the model ship building community.

Must we conclude that it, too, is inherently misogynistic?

You're absolutely right, though, that we can't solve the nature vs. nurture debate. My personal feeling is that it's undoubtedly a combination of both. The fiercely negative reaction many people have to the very notion that biology could play a role in the low relative interest of females in 40K makes me think there's an agenda at work here, though.

The hobby's not going to hit parity. It's not even going to come close. Should women be welcomed to it? Sure, same as anyone else. If these apparently rampant hygiene problems and rape jokes vanished overnight, would we see a surge in female players? I very much doubt it.

And I do not say this either. I agree that it's some combination. How much or how little? I can't say. Maybe.... if you ask me... I just feel it's more nurture oriented. Then again, I like the concept of as little as possible being influenced by your genetics. And removing sexism from one hobby won't make that big of a difference. Will it make it a bit more likely to see a female? Yeah but it's not solving the root cause. It's not just genetics or the models or even the group around the game. It's also what your society at large sees that being, it's what your clique of friends sees that as being, it's what the show says is good, it's what your parents encourage and disapprove of. If you were a kid and playing with a Barbie, how many male parents would try to deny you playing with it and give you something else. That influences people in some way or some form. The only question is, how much. I personally think the split if we threw away social influences would probably be more aroudn 60:40 or maybe even 75:25. But right now it is more like 99:1 or even 99.99:00.01

On a side note, I love co-operative games way too much. I dunno, working with a friend to win/crush my foes is always more satisfying.

 Seaward wrote:
Peregrine was arguing that women and men have exactly the same interests, it's just the patriarchy that forces some to go by the wayside.

Please don't straw man my arguments. I said very clearly that not everyone has the same interests, and that the issue is that some people are excluded by social pressure. Interest in wargaming may inherently be a 90/10 bias in favor of men, but what we actually have is a situation where it's 99/1 in favor of men because women who might be interested are driven away. The fact that it might never be a 50/50 thing doesn't make that problem go away.

Peregrine then said that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, and it's all the patriarchy.

Sigh. No, I didn't. As quoted previously I said that differences exist, they just aren't the dominant factor that you seem to think they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
So, no, that's not an acknowledgement of physiological differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism). It's attributing any gender differential (if it exists) to social pressure, rather than biology-fueled divergence. Combined with his statement that sexual dimorphism is pseudoscience, I don't know what to conclude about his beliefs about such differences.

Please don't claim that I'm saying something that I'm not. The quoted statement is pointing out that you can't just automatically attribute the difference in preferences to inherent gender differences, especially when there are obvious social factors that would explain some or all of the difference. Nor can you automatically assume that if inherent differences exist they must be the dominant factor in the different preferences. Nowhere in that statement did I say that no inherent difference could possibly exist.

I'd say the same is true of the model ship building community.

Must we conclude that it, too, is inherently misogynistic?

No. The 40k community doesn't have problems simply because the gender ratio is uneven, the 40k community has problems because there is pretty clear evidence of women being driven away from the hobby rather than just not being all that interested.

The hobby's not going to hit parity. It's not even going to come close. Should women be welcomed to it? Sure, same as anyone else. If these apparently rampant hygiene problems and rape jokes vanished overnight, would we see a surge in female players? I very much doubt it.

But nobody is expecting parity. What I (and other people) want is a hobby in which women who are potentially interested are able to join the hobby instead of being pushed away. If that doesn't end up producing a significant change in the gender ratio then that's fine.

 Peregrine wrote:
Please don't straw man my arguments. I said very clearly that not everyone has the same interests, and that the issue is that some people are excluded by social pressure. Interest in wargaming may inherently be a 90/10 bias in favor of men, but what we actually have is a situation where it's 99/1 in favor of men because women who might be interested are driven away. The fact that it might never be a 50/50 thing doesn't make that problem go away.

Except you didn't, no. Your posts have been quoted in their entirety above, if you'd like to go back and look at them again.

Sigh. No, I didn't. As quoted previously I said that differences exist, they just aren't the dominant factor that you seem to think they are.

I pointed to sexual dimorphism as playing a role, and you dismissed sexual dimorphism as pseudoscience. I'm sure you wish you hadn't, and if you misspoke, fair enough, but I can only go on what you type, dude. I can't divine what you actually intended to say.

Please don't claim that I'm saying something that I'm not. The quoted statement is pointing out that you can't just automatically attribute the difference in preferences to inherent gender differences, especially when there are obvious social factors that would explain some or all of the difference. Nor can you automatically assume that if inherent differences exist they must be the dominant factor in the different preferences. Nowhere in that statement did I say that no inherent difference could possibly exist.

You're continuing to treat the notion that gender plays a role in behavior and preference divergence as if it's an "if" proposition, rather than scientific fact. I can't for the life of me figure out why.

No. The 40k community doesn't have problems simply because the gender ratio is uneven, the 40k community has problems because there is pretty clear evidence of women being driven away from the hobby rather than just not being all that interested.

Clear (anecdotal) evidence for some but hardly all of the myriad factors that have been claimed in this thread, yes. The counterpoint, though, as I was trying to illustrate with the shipbuilding, is that for similar traditionally male-dominated nerd hobbies that have exactly none of these issues, the ratio of men to women is even less. Dismissing a widespread general lack of interest out of hand in favor of grinding an axe over models with breasts seems specious, at best.

He misspoke. I mentioned it earlier actually, if you reread the place you got the quote from he even acknowledges a 60:40 split as a very real possibility.

As per prefrences, it yet again isn't that clear cut. Do women like competitive games because of a combo of expectations and genetics or is it entirely a construct of society? Both are very possible.

And thing is, even if the internal community doesn't have the problem, it's not just that. It's how you are raised, what is expected, what your friends think of what you like, what the shows say you should like, etc.

 StarTrotter wrote:
He misspoke. I mentioned it earlier actually, if you reread the place you got the quote from he even acknowledges a 60:40 split as a very real possibility.

Then I'd again question why we don't see something that close to parity in other niche nerd hobbies without 40K's apparent issues. At a certain point, you have to admit that most women simply do not appear to be into building model ships.

As per prefrences, it yet again isn't that clear cut. Do women like competitive games because of a combo of expectations and genetics or is it entirely a construct of society? Both are very possible.

It was cooperative games, but no. I'd say the former is possible. The latter is extraordinarily unlikely, given what we know of human evolution.

There's a lot of emphasis on how we as war gamers need to shape up (hygiene, cut the fascist/sexist/etc jokes and be more welcoming), and arguments on genetics, but little, comparatively, has been said on the impact of wider society.

Yes, there are elements of the wargaming culture that could (and should) be cut back and eliminated, but the fact remains that we are a niche in a society frowns upon what we do. Pen and paper games are much more accepted then miniatures games.

We should, by all means, do our best to make the atmosphere more welcoming, but the fact remains that it will not result in a surge of female players. 'We' are not the only factor pushing people away, wider society does just as much harm as we do.

There is also the fact that personal preference and gender do have a lot of contribution towards this. A 60:40 split may never exist. The potential for it to exist should be there, but I would personally believe it will never happen, and most definitely not in our lifetimes. There are simply too many factors to change for it to happen quickly.

On a less serious not, if there are players who want a 60:40 split, maybe the rest of us should stop playing, or retreat to dank caves and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. The gender equality would be much greater (probably easier to achieve as well).

 Seaward wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
He misspoke. I mentioned it earlier actually, if you reread the place you got the quote from he even acknowledges a 60:40 split as a very real possibility.

Then I'd again question why we don't see something that close to parity in other niche nerd hobbies without 40K's apparent issues. At a certain point, you have to admit that most women simply do not appear to be into building model ships.

As per prefrences, it yet again isn't that clear cut. Do women like competitive games because of a combo of expectations and genetics or is it entirely a construct of society? Both are very possible.

It was cooperative games, but no. I'd say the former is possible. The latter is extraordinarily unlikely, given what we know of human evolution.

We also know that at certain points we've considered many odd things to be "natural" and "unnatural" yet we look at them entirely opposite. Especially monogamy. Look at that to poke a hole in all of our culture. We were certainly not meant to be monogamous, we just choose to be.

As I have mentioned several times, because it is not just the community around the game. As a kid, did you ever ant to get a Barbie or play with a Barbie? Did your dad ever take it from you (or your mom) and say it was for girls and shove a "boy toy" into your hands? Did you ever like the color pink but that was the "girly color" (despite being the masculine color whilst blue was feminine just a few decades before that)? It's never so simple. It's what your parents taught you, how your friends reacted to what you like, what tv said, what books said. In short, what everybody else said and instructed you to do influences us. If your friends are a bunch of girls that say eeew why would you want to play that? Well that kinda kills the mojo to play a game especially if your group dissaproves of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
There's a lot of emphasis on how we as war gamers need to shape up (hygiene, cut the fascist/sexist/etc jokes and be more welcoming), and arguments on genetics, but little, comparatively, has been said on the impact of wider society.

Yes, there are elements of the wargaming culture that could (and should) be cut back and eliminated, but the fact remains that we are a niche in a society frowns upon what we do. Pen and paper games are much more accepted then miniatures games.

We should, by all means, do our best to make the atmosphere more welcoming, but the fact remains that it will not result in a surge of female players. 'We' are not the only factor pushing people away, wider society does just as much harm as we do.

There is also the fact that personal preference and gender do have a lot of contribution towards this. A 60:40 split may never exist. The potential for it to exist should be there, but I would personally believe it will never happen, and most definitely not in our lifetimes. There are simply too many factors to change for it to happen quickly.

On a less serious not, if there are players who want a 60:40 split, maybe the rest of us should stop playing, or retreat to dank caves and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. The gender equality would be much greater (probably easier to achieve as well).

Actually society's observation is my biggest point of my argument personally.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Actually society's observation is my biggest point of my argument personally.

You have made significant contributions, apologies if it didn't read that way.

 Peregrine wrote:


But nobody is expecting parity. What I (and other people) want is a hobby in which women who are potentially interested are able to join the hobby instead of being pushed away. If that doesn't end up producing a significant change in the gender ratio then that's fine.

A serious question, is this not rather moot?
If the gender disparity is not resolved, how do we measure the effectiveness of our actions?
We would have a problem we would be working to resolve ad infinitum, with out ever knowing if our actions were doing anything.
As I've said, we do need to shape up, this just seemed rather pointless.
Making the hobby more inviting to women would result in a net gain of female players.

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Actually society's observation is my biggest point of my argument personally.

You have made significant contributions, apologies if it didn't read that way.

 Peregrine wrote:


But nobody is expecting parity. What I (and other people) want is a hobby in which women who are potentially interested are able to join the hobby instead of being pushed away. If that doesn't end up producing a significant change in the gender ratio then that's fine.

A serious question, is this not rather moot?
If the gender disparity is not resolved, how do we measure the effectiveness of our actions?
We would have a problem we would be working to resolve ad infinitum, with out ever knowing if our actions were doing anything.
As I've said, we do need to shape up, this just seemed rather pointless.

Eh it's a long thread and for a while I was more poking holes in the Girls not Allowed because of the mating game with a slightly... different argument but I hop back onto the one statement of it being a complex mess of societal expectations, genetics, and the hobby community itself. All have something to do with it, my hunch goes on the first of the three making the most significant difference.

 Janthkin wrote:
Who's asking for special treatment, now? If those socially awkward guys you just mentioned are feeling excluded by the inclusion of a female into the gaming group, aren't they suppose to just get over it?

Long story short - no. Very much no. Huge no. I know you do not mean what you wrote, nor do you think that way and you're just trying to provide an extreme opposite to what I wrote to pry on my argument, but I still want you to think about what you wrote right there. Is it really okay in your eyes for people from established group to have to get over the change for worse(in terms of comfort) in their small community because of a newcomer? Think how stupid that sounds.

 Janthkin wrote:
Yes, people tend to behave differently, depending on the setting and/or people they are interacting with.

And then:

 Janthkin wrote:
But if it takes the inclusion of a female into the gaming circle to cut down on the random (male) strangers farting & telling "humorous" sex jokes, then we really NEED more females gaming, because it is clear that some people don't otherwise realize that some behavior just isn't acceptable amongst strangers or casual acquaintances otherwise.

You're just proving my point. People act different among different other people. My point was that the actual status quo is comfortable for those people as they can do stuff they normally couldn't because of a broomstick up their.. spine. And now you're saying that it's perfectly okay to ruin their comfortable zone because someone wants in and they all have to get over it? I don't know, but that sounds ridiculous. Some groups, given the fact that vast, vast majority of players are men tend to use 40k gaming days their "guys nights out", especially if they're insecure nerds with social issues that they can bypass by interacting with other people with same issues. I don't want to sound like I'm making excluding women from the community because people want it to be guys night out, mind you. It's just that people who advocate for stuff like everyone just changing their behaviour because a girl wanted to hang out are really inconsiderate and ridiculous. It's like trying to wrap a group around the new person rather than having THAT PERSON blend in.. or just realize that this group/community is clearly not a place for her(the person) and get over it. No matter the gender.

 Janthkin wrote:
People are responsible for their own behavior. If (generic) you behave in a manner that is exclusionary of half the population, the problem isn't the females.

Not sure what you meant by the exclusionary part - was it about the nerds that feel uncomfortable around women or about acting carelessly in a group that likes some indiscriminate humour?

Lastly - I just want to state that while I try to defend some people's right to feel comfortable in their established groups which inclusion of a female would most likely change drastically unless she proves to be of similar mindset, I in no way think that women should not be included in the community. Not at all, believe me! In my first post here I explained that a girl would have to be very careful with her actions when trying to get into a group that for years upon years was made up of men in their carefree, a bit more primal and ultimately comfortable as I dare to say that most people would use their opportunities to ditch -some- of the social limitations in a friendly group if they could. Like women not wearing bras and not caring about their look when they're at home when they feel comfortable away from the society's standards and expectations, this situation is kind of similar - maybe we don't walk around wearing only undergarments and most people actually take a shower before going, that's the same level of standard-free comfort we want to achieve and that 'standard-free comfort' might be treatened by a girl if she doesn't put on a particular mindset that allows her to accept it, rather than just run away in disgust and whine how unwelcoming the community is. Of course any kind of a sexist joke is inappropriate if she feels bothered by it and those joking like that should be told not to do that, but she deliberately came there, to their group and wanted to be a part of it, so she still has to have a hide thick enough to not let those few odd jokes ruin it for her. If she expects everyone to outright change their behaviour just because she's there, she's wrong. It takes both sides' effort to make it work.

Edit: made a frickin' mistake, had to include "not"

Quite honestly, as long as everybody who is interested in playing tabletop games gets to play and enjoy playing tabletop games, I really don't care what the gender ratio ends up being at the end. To me it just seems like the focus should be more on improving acceptance of any newcomers to the hobby as opposed to "need more females".

 dementedwombat wrote:
Quite honestly, as long as everybody who is interested in playing tabletop games gets to play and enjoy playing tabletop games, I really don't care what the gender ratio ends up being at the end. To me it just seems like the focus should be more on improving acceptance of any newcomers to the hobby as opposed to "need more females".

I do not think anyone is arguing for actively recruiting females in particular rather than reducing the resistance to join.

friendlycommissar wrote:
This is exactly why I hate it when you people try to conflate sexism and racism

What “you people”?

friendlycommissar wrote:
when we talk about racism in the context of slavery and the ongoing conflicts between whites and people of color, we're talking about the consequences of the promotion of scientific racism

You know, racism combined with slavery by white people toward black people goes way back before scientific racism. See for instance this. Starting in 650, it kind of predates the Atlantic slave trade that you are likely thinking about. And yes, Arabs are white.

friendlycommissar wrote:
You want to change that even though it wouldn't really accomplish anything meaningful and would probably ruin the game for a lot of people, and would definitely drive a lot of people out of the community.

As I mentioned earlier, he just like more the people that would come in than those that would come out.

friendlycommissar wrote:
There's nothing sexist about being aware that many women silently reject and ostracize men who aren't attractive by society's standards. That's just understanding how people actually act. You just have to open your eyes and observe the world around you and you see it happening everywhere, all the time.

Okay, I do not judge if I am attractive or not, but I have neither been in a romantic relationship with a girl ever for the 27 years of my life, nor felt ostracized by women.

friendlycommissar wrote:
There are no meaingful physical differences between blacks and whites.

But sex is real. Hormones are real. Phremones are real.

Well, you think the color of the skin and the shape of the skull are not meaningful differences, but hormones are. Not everyone is going to agree.

friendlycommissar wrote:
We have different races because powerful elites constructed a concept of race to suite their needs in the Age of Imperialism.

And by some incredible coincidence, it also appeared in about every other place in the whole damn world. What were the chances?

friendlycommissar wrote:
For some people it can be really, intensely painful to be confronted with the absolute disinterest of the opposite sex.

Then, they need help to get better, rather than a place to be left alone. At least that is what I think. Even then, having “boys only” club, why not? But having “boys only” hobby is sad. There is a huge difference between those two notions.

bodazoka wrote:
Those guys would reeeaallllyyyyy benefit from having a little female interaction in there lives.

Yeah, I think so too.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think the best explanation for the gender disparity came from the guy who made the case about knitting clubs. Sewing is simply a female dominated hobby because men do not like the idea behind it. I, and I am pretty sure other men, can appreciate the end results of knitting but have no interest in the hobby itself. Same is true for women when it comes to 40k it would seem.

There is a big difference between knitting and 40k though. My brother started knitting. He did not join any club, he does that in the train. You cannot play 40k alone in the train. Clubs do not matter much to knitting, they are an integral part of 40k.

Why is there few female players?

1: People kill everyone for no reason other then to get further ahead" women only do this to peoples back over years of hate"
2: There is not to many....cute things which "most" women like.
3: They usually like to spend money on different things
4: Men like to kill things since the dawn of time examples of this are A: caveman and his poking stick and rocks B: bows and swords C: gun. Now that we aren't allowed to hunt all the time and we are discouraged from outside"real life" violence we find a way to vent our need to kill and hit things. AKA video games/pretend "table top games" but men need to kill lol.

I have my wife my 2 friends and their girls who all play. The armys are pretty..... expected

Tim "The smallest man I ever seen built like a lady "theme song may be dude looks like a lady" Plays chaos khorne and grey knights and ogres "maybe to make up for real life lol"
Reg A bit of a over thinking and a little weird. "Plays imperal guard trys to bunker in to mass seige wars and sets up huge 99 turn plans lol. Also empire
Me who thinks perversion of any kind is gross: Drawn to slaanesh, ogres and skaven.

My wife who says "women are weaker so we use our head and our bodies to get what we want" So she plays vampires and uses vlad and isabella and says she as in any relation ship is in the leadby letting vlad think he gets to do what he wants. Also dark eldar
Simone: biggest....I ever met plays space marines and complains .......alot..... like alot there is no female space marines
Tasha: Plays orks in both worlds and thinks cute things are awesom and paints them all with big eyes and over sized guns. She built a army with goblins are orks and snotlings and goblins. And likes when they blow up.

On a side note my wife collects tomagotchi's......... you want to see a place where women are in charge and everywhere with few men and none seem to be straight I got a collection for you lol. The quote "OMG HE IS SO CUTE AND FAT AND ROUND" then you look at the screen and see 3 pixles wiggling never gets old lol.

 Klerych wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Who's asking for special treatment, now? If those socially awkward guys you just mentioned are feeling excluded by the inclusion of a female into the gaming group, aren't they suppose to just get over it?

Long story short - no. Very much no. Huge no. I know you do not mean what you wrote, nor do you think that way and you're just trying to provide an extreme opposite to what I wrote to pry on my argument, but I still want you to think about what you wrote right there. Is it really okay in your eyes for people from established group to have to get over the change for worse(in terms of comfort) in their small community because of a newcomer? Think how stupid that sounds.

 Janthkin wrote:
Yes, people tend to behave differently, depending on the setting and/or people they are interacting with.

And then:

 Janthkin wrote:
But if it takes the inclusion of a female into the gaming circle to cut down on the random (male) strangers farting & telling "humorous" sex jokes, then we really NEED more females gaming, because it is clear that some people don't otherwise realize that some behavior just isn't acceptable amongst strangers or casual acquaintances otherwise.

You're just proving my point. People act different among different other people. My point was that the actual status quo is comfortable for those people as they can do stuff they normally couldn't because of a broomstick up their.. spine. And now you're saying that it's perfectly okay to ruin their comfortable zone because someone wants in and they all have to get over it? I don't know, but that sounds ridiculous. Some groups, given the fact that vast, vast majority of players are men tend to use 40k gaming days their "guys nights out", especially if they're insecure nerds with social issues that they can bypass by interacting with other people with same issues. I don't want to sound like I'm making excluding women from the community because people want it to be guys night out, mind you. It's just that people who advocate for stuff like everyone just changing their behaviour because a girl wanted to hang out are really inconsiderate and ridiculous. It's like trying to wrap a group around the new person rather than having THAT PERSON blend in.. or just realize that this group/community is clearly not a place for her(the person) and get over it. No matter the gender.

 Janthkin wrote:
People are responsible for their own behavior. If (generic) you behave in a manner that is exclusionary of half the population, the problem isn't the females.

Not sure what you meant by the exclusionary part - was it about the nerds that feel uncomfortable around women or about acting carelessly in a group that likes some indiscriminate humour?

Lastly - I just want to state that while I try to defend some people's right to feel comfortable in their established groups which inclusion of a female would most likely change drastically unless she proves to be of similar mindset, I in no way think that women should not be included in the community. Not at all, believe me! In my first post here I explained that a girl would have to be very careful with her actions when trying to get into a group that for years upon years was made up of men in their carefree, a bit more primal and ultimately comfortable as I dare to say that most people would use their opportunities to ditch -some- of the social limitations in a friendly group if they could. Like women not wearing bras and not caring about their look when they're at home when they feel comfortable away from the society's standards and expectations, this situation is kind of similar - maybe we don't walk around wearing only undergarments and most people actually take a shower before going, that's the same level of standard-free comfort we want to achieve and that 'standard-free comfort' might be treatened by a girl if she doesn't put on a particular mindset that allows her to accept it, rather than just run away in disgust and whine how unwelcoming the community is. Of course any kind of a sexist joke is inappropriate if she feels bothered by it and those joking like that should be told not to do that, but she deliberately came there, to their group and wanted to be a part of it, so she still has to have a hide thick enough to not let those few odd jokes ruin it for her. If she expects everyone to outright change their behaviour just because she's there, she's wrong. It takes both sides' effort to make it work.

Edit: made a frickin' mistake, had to include "not"

mmmm I think those people you are talking about should find a nice basement get a internet job and ...ya that's about that. You do not like to deal with new people tuff thats life, if you want to keep your weird....boy date night. The hobby will die because no new players means no growth and game dies.

OgreChubbs wrote:

mmmm I think those people you are talking about should find a nice basement get a internet job and ...ya that's about that. You do not like to deal with new people tuff thats life, if you want to keep your weird....boy date night. The hobby will die because no new players means no growth and game dies.

Yeeees.. you're right, they should be stripped of their only comfortable social interaction and kept in the basement! Brilliant, man, BRILLIANT! Fantastic idea, I tell ye!

OgreChubbs wrote:
The hobby will die because no new players means no growth and game dies.

Tell me, who is more likely to play tabletop games in the future? Girls or just more basement nerds that you're so eager to kick out of the community they belonged to for years? There is no way 40k would ever have equal amounts of both gender players, anyone can tell that. And if the universe is changed to be more girl-friendly, it'll most likely be utter garbage and it'll lose the 40k's feel - the fluff in that game is all about extremes.

What the heck do you think making the world work with girls will do to the bloody fluff O.o

Also the fluff is already a garbage dump. It just lets you pick what you like and pretend like the rest doesn't exist

Here's a theory backed by personal experience:

The vast majority or men and women show an intrinsic difference in outlook, bare in mind that male tabletop gamers often start out pretty early and open minded, as most gamers tend to hit 40k or fantasy first in the wargamming, once you have either of those systems down, you've essentially mastered the "Quantum Physics" of wargamming makes it easier to move to other less complicated, theres also the fact the 40k background "Used to" be cool what with space marines in drop pods blasting into ork ships for a good man to beast chainsword duelling.

Women by contrast start the gaming thing a lot later, usually at the behest of their other halves, they are then thrust into 40k as it was "Our" first game and well the rules system is off putting the background is massively exaggerated and there's not much their for a girl or woman to like.

For example my fiance learned 40k relatively early from her dad BUT has little interest in the story and the rules still confuse the hell out of her, she doesn't really enjoy it. However the first time she laid eyes on malifaux she dropped 50 quid on a crew, the rulebook and a card deck, much easier mechanics smaller number of models to paint and an aesthetic that REALLY appealed to her.

To summarise, the problem isn't sexism in tabletop gaming or even tabletop gaming itself, the problem is starting a 20 something young woman on a game whose backstory they probably won;t enjoy, art style is GRIMDARK and rules system is as stable as Charlie Sheen in a meth lab.

 Klerych wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

mmmm I think those people you are talking about should find a nice basement get a internet job and ...ya that's about that. You do not like to deal with new people tuff thats life, if you want to keep your weird....boy date night. The hobby will die because no new players means no growth and game dies.

Yeeees.. you're right, they should be stripped of their only comfortable social interaction and kept in the basement! Brilliant, man, BRILLIANT! Fantastic idea, I tell ye!

OgreChubbs wrote:
The hobby will die because no new players means no growth and game dies.

Tell me, who is more likely to play tabletop games in the future? Girls or just more basement nerds that you're so eager to kick out of the community they belonged to for years? There is no way 40k would ever have equal amounts of both gender players, anyone can tell that. And if the universe is changed to be more girl-friendly, it'll most likely be utter garbage and it'll lose the 40k's feel - the fluff in that game is all about extremes.

We are not coming into the hobby to exclude anyone, but you seem to be happy to exclude us to keep up the boys club status.
When it comes to it men like that are self excluding. They are rather than learning or anyone teaching them how to deal with women and girls equally and with respect, making the hobby less appealing and in some cases less safe for us.

I do not exclude anyone if I possibly cannot, I play games I would not play otherwise to help new players every week. And I try to talk with everyone.

All we want is a respectfull and inclusive HOBBY, groups can play on there own with just men just fine. But in the end being mature in the interactions with anyone should be encouraged.

I have no idea what is currently discussed in here...like...really.

First of all - yes, it's awkward for women to go into a GW store. They get stared at and maybe are made fun of. Reason: most people in there are boys. During puberty. Do they reflect the actual hobby? Certainly not. In all of the years, I have seen one occasion where a woman at a tournament was made fun of / mocked by her opponent stating that she's a woman and thus cannot play 40k "properly". Turns out, he was friends with a guy from Team Italy. Anyway. If you go to a proper tournament or a gaming club, you won't have any problems. In the contrary, we highly welcome new female members. Noone likes sausagefests. And as someone with mostly female friends (which my wife doesn't always approve of ), I'm much more comfortable playing with women as you can actually talk about stuff with them. Besides the usual men thingy. As a male who is bored by football and cars, it's awesome. Most fellow female refs I met (and granted, there aren't many) tend to do a better job when handling players.

Anyway. Warhammer being much more populated by men isn't a "problem" and everyone who thinks so should really consider putting more thought into his posts. The "problem" is any behavior that tends to actively alienate female players. And that is, mostly, teenage boys. Again: don't go to a GW store. As in: never.

The entire discussion on this matter is completely useless. Yes. ZERO use. You cannot change someone's behavior by discussing it on the internet. Do you really think a teenager will read such a thread and go: "Hey, these people on the internet are correct! I'm off to be a better man from now on!"? If yes, take my pity.

And really, those talks about "boohoo, society makes us be evil!" fall in the exact same category. Anyone's credibility who uses "society" in a discussion on said matter should be highly questioned right from the start. The entire "blame the society!" trope is just terrible and poor debating.

Men and women are different. From a lot of points of view. Socialisation and biology make the two genders behave differently. They mostly develop special interests and that's totally fine. Excluding someone because of those differences definitely isn't. Since you can only intervene on a very small scale, however, the only constructive thing you can do is to intervene when you see discrimination happening. Step in, man up and back the discriminated one up.

...and tell the boys to take a shower sometimes.

Wait hold on so saying society has things to do with it and then going on to say that socialisation and biology makes the two genders behave differently..... bwah?

Also never said society makes us evil by any means. Then again I don't think evil even exists. As per teenagers, oddly enough, maybe I'm just in odd places, but it's been, besides 3 players, a majority at least college students if not adults here. Dunno why honestly but it's very rare where Ilive. Heck, I saw more youthful people at the hobby shop that doesn't let you play wargames

I have run into this scenerio multiple times, where women are treated as less skilled artist and stratigists in the hobby than men.

I've personally over heard people talk about them as more sex objects (depending on thier looks) rather than potential friends in the game.


I think thats the 2 biggest reasons that more woman don't join up. The story below is another.

My wife used to play Fantasy and I taught her the basics and she learned to play against my army at the time. Her first pick-up game came along and she played this guy who pretty much took complete advantage of her niave nature. let me set this story up for you. I was already in a game and thought I could trust everyone in my local group to play a fair game, boy was I wrong. My wife was playing wood-elves and he was playing Skaven I think...during set-up he removed all wodland scenery and said let's just play with what's on here now? You need to remember the old wood-elves required woodlands for 4 out of 6 spells to work. So before turn one she would only be premitted one woodland 6" diameter for 4 of 6 spells to be effective!!! she was new and didn't argue. During the game he pretty much changed magic rules told her I and others were wrong with rules interprtation etc.

Too make a long story short she almost quit on the spot. The story does have a good ending the D-bag was banished by everyone except a few close friends. Nobody other than them would play him again. At the next tournnament I gave him a spanking from Vampire Counts he would not soon forget.

That scene has been played out time and time again even with younger newbies and is one of the worst scenerios hurting the hobby today. Our oldest player in our group has put a stop to that by intercepting newbie and teaming them up with good players that will teach rather than crush at all cost.

 Seaward wrote:

Sigh. No, I didn't. As quoted previously I said that differences exist, they just aren't the dominant factor that you seem to think they are.

I pointed to sexual dimorphism as playing a role, and you dismissed sexual dimorphism as pseudoscience. I'm sure you wish you hadn't, and if you misspoke, fair enough, but I can only go on what you type, dude. I can't divine what you actually intended to say.

That is not what he said and you know it, stop being disingenuous, you were the one talking about sexual dimorphism being the cause of psychological differences in men and women, that is evolutionary psychology and it is that which is pseudoscience at worst and pure conjecture at best.

 Krellnus wrote:
That is not what he said and you know it, stop being disingenuous, you were the one talking about sexual dimorphism being the cause of psychological differences in men and women, that is evolutionary psychology and it is that which is pseudoscience at worst and pure conjecture at best.

Do men produce more testosterone than women? Considerably more?

Does testosterone affect aggression? Would a castrated male of a given mammalian species, for example, exhibit less aggression than before castration?

Do gonadal hormones influence development of some human behaviors that show sex differences, including childhood play patterns and preferences?

The answer to all of those is yes. Not once did we brush even close to "evolutionary psychology" while identifying sexually dimorphic characteristics that could very well influence behavior and preference.

I get that it's popular, in certain circles, to blame society or that no-good confounded patriarchy or the Illuminati or whatever for the fact that men and women do indeed exhibit behavioral, emotional, and yes, psychological differences. The truth is that said differences do exist, in the aggregate, and they exist naturally.

Oh, and that is indeed what he said.

Apple fox wrote:

We are not coming into the hobby to exclude anyone

Never said that you are - I only refered to his post where he was eager to exclude those socially awkward for the sake of girls.

Apple fox wrote:
but you seem to be happy to exclude us to keep up the boys club status.

Never said that either. In my previous posts I kept saying that a girl entering such community just has to be careful with her behaviour as there is a chance that the current social status quo and atmosphere were established without girls and inter-gender social interactions, so caution regarding own behaviour is advised unless a girl wants to scare off the socially awkward nerds or threaten others' comfort. I have nothing against girls joining the community. All I'm saying is that it's them, as newcomers, that should adjust to the group they're trying to join rather than expect everyone to suddenly change their behaviour. If a group used to tell crude jokes and they don't mind them, a girl should not expect them to just stop joking like that after all - if she finds it rude or unacceptable, she's free to leave, just like with any other social group - there's no reason why THEY would have to change their ways just so she feels more comfortable there.

Apple fox wrote:
When it comes to it men like that are self excluding. They are rather than learning or anyone teaching them how to deal with women and girls equally and with respect, making the hobby less appealing and in some cases less safe for us.

I don't think it's about lack of respect for women personally.. if someone does that, he's one of those trillby-wearing neckbeard trolls that should be reminded not to be a male reproductive organ by those more responsible friends.. or the store owner as he kicks him out for bad behaviour.

Apple fox wrote:
I do not exclude anyone if I possibly cannot, I play games I would not play otherwise to help new players every week. And I try to talk with everyone.

All we want is a respectfull and inclusive HOBBY,

That's admirable and I support that with all my heart.

Apple fox wrote:
groups can play on there own with just men just fine.

What if local community is comprised of a single group like that?

Apple fox wrote:
But in the end being mature in the interactions with anyone should be encouraged.

Sure, but if everyone is okay acting a bit more relaxed over 'everyday' mature peoples' standards, who are we to deny them their fun? It's their hobby time, if it doesn't hurt anyone, we shouldn't deny them that or force them to censor themselves. Again, though, I'm talking about honest awkward nerds and random 'wargaming bros'. Despicable butthats with no manners and attitude of a 4chan troll should be taught to change their behaviour.

Long story short - if you don't like a group, you don't hang out with those guys. That works universally in every community and every hobby. Anyone is free to join but noone has the right to expect change just for himself to fit in the group. And as with every group - it's you who have to make a good impression, not the other way.

(Q)Klerych
What if local community is comprised of a single group like that?(Q)

I thaght I would respond to this specifcly as long posts like that are very hard to quote.

But I don't think we are talking about a little group at someone's house, I am talking about places that welcome all but put up a invisible sign that says this isn't realy for you go away.
Many places do this, just as a form off culture

And it's chargeing, it realy is as more geeky culture goes more mainstream.
But when the last strip club I went to has a more welcomeing attute than some stores I have been in, I think it's more than just guys place issues.

As for excluding I realy do think you are, you are saying that we are not welcome becouse some men can't handle it. That we should just accept the the issues since some people can't not say something they shouldent and would feal bad if they get called out for it.
Sexism is still sexism when girls can't here it.

danp164 wrote:
However the first time she laid eyes on malifaux she dropped 50 quid on a crew, the rulebook and a card deck, much easier mechanics smaller number of models to paint and an aesthetic that REALLY appealed to her.

Easier mechanics? I played a demo game, I found it pretty complex.

 Klerych wrote:
Yeeees.. you're right, they should be stripped of their only comfortable social interaction and kept in the basement! Brilliant, man, BRILLIANT! Fantastic idea, I tell ye!

If we keep them on the basement for too long, we may end up with a case of mole people. Oh, wait, we keep them down here with no girls? We should be okay then.

 Klerych wrote:
I don't think it's about lack of respect for women personally..

Then out of what?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Quite honestly, as long as everybody who is interested in playing tabletop games gets to play and enjoy playing tabletop games, I really don't care what the gender ratio ends up being at the end. To me it just seems like the focus should be more on improving acceptance of any newcomers to the hobby as opposed to "need more females".

I do not think anyone is arguing for actively recruiting females in particular rather than reducing the resistance to join.

I will take your word for that since I haven't actually been reading the entirety of this thread and have no reason to doubt you, however that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to assert was that worrying particularly about female players and hoping for gender equality in this hobby seems to be rather missing the point. What difference does it make how many females actually end up in the hobby as long as everybody who wants to be there can be? In particular I think discussing gender ratios is rather the wrong path to go down in this instance. I noticed that going around a lot in what I have read of this thread and I don't really think it's the most productive line to take.

Apple fox wrote:

But I don't think we are talking about a little group at someone's house, I am talking about places that welcome all but put up a invisible sign that says this isn't realy for you go away.
Many places do this, just as a form off culture

Thankfully I haven't ever seen anything like that happen in any of polish stores, so the whole idea of treating women worse is a little abstract to me. I'm sorry if it happens to you or any of your friends, but that's specifically the issue of guys there and if it happens, it should be reported to the store owner.

Apple fox wrote:
As for excluding I realy do think you are, you are saying that we are not welcome becouse some men can't handle it.

No, no, you got me wrong there. :-) I am not excluding anyone, I'm just giving reasons why girls might have a hard time joining a sausage fest community - I have nothing against girls blending in to the group and if I'd see anyone mistreat or show lack of respect to any girl at our LGS I'd help the owner kick the guy out and vote for banning him for some time from tournaments and such if it happens again. What I meant by talking about not being able to handle girls is that there are some guys with social issues that come to our LGS to have some fun with other nerds without having to stress over a girl's presence and possible judgement, that's it. I'm not telling the girl not to come to our store, I'd just ask her to be very careful, friendly and understanding, as some of people in this community have their own issues and I know they'd have problems if they saw a girl look at them like they were some kind of weird, alien nerd type. If a girl is friendly and shows that she wants to be a part of our group, we would welcome her and treat her like an equal.. but if she can't stand our crude jokes(not necessarily sexist, sometimes just slightly inappropriate type you see on sites like 9gag), then it's her issue, not ours. We've been in that group for quite some time and we won't change just so a single newcomer feels better, I hope it's easy to understand.

Apple fox wrote:
That we should just accept the the issues since some people can't not say something they shouldent and would feal bad if they get called out for it.
Sexism is still sexism when girls can't here it.

Intended, malicious sexism is wrong no matter what, I agree. But if someone goes 'butthurt' over a little sexist joke that is clearly not serious nor speaks for the saying one's personal beliefs he's just silly no matter his gender.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
I don't think it's about lack of respect for women personally..

Then out of what?

From my experience it's more about.. uh.. fear? Couldn't find a better word so fear it is. Fear of having your comfort stripped away and suddenly having to act less relaxed and more like on some official meeting to not hurt the supposedly fragile girl that is very likely(according to stereotypes that might be wrong, but they stand until proven false) to find their crude jokes and relaxed, crude behaviour bad so they'll have to censor themselves.

IF lack of respect is the case in some places, however, that should be reported to the store owner/employee because it's wrong. But as I said - fortunately in Poland it doesn't seem to happen.

If you are acting that bad around your friends that even you know you will hurt peoples feelings..... you should probably address that issue sooner then later. Because it is a long lonley and well failing road for those who can't get along with others or grossly offend others thinking it is ok.

Biggest issue I have is people under the age of 25 ish, they text when they are being spoken to, chew with their mouth open, make vulgar or rude comments, say things that should make you embarrassed and refuse to make eye contact and all around just unpleasant to be around or near.

I live with the saying my grandfather told me " If you are too embarrassed to say it or admit you do it in front of your family then you should probably not be doing it.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I live with the saying my grandfather told me " If you are too embarrassed to say it or admit you do it in front of your family then you should probably not be doing it.

So you should not have sex ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I live with the saying my grandfather told me " If you are too embarrassed to say it or admit you do it in front of your family then you should probably not be doing it.

So you should not have sex ?

If your parents never had sex, odds are that you won't either.

OgreChubbs wrote:
If you are acting that bad around your friends that even you know you will hurt peoples feelings..... you should probably address that issue sooner then later. Because it is a long lonley and well failing road for those who can't get along with others or grossly offend others thinking it is ok.

I don't get why are you so fixed on trying not to understand what I mean by what I write.. either that or I'm bad at expressing myself. See - we're not talking about people being unable to stand up to regular social standards here, nor do guys like that only act like apes wherever they are. Is it really so hard to grasp that some people want to spend their free time in bliss of fun that is less restricted than what you'd do on the street among 'normal' people? Again - I'm not talking about taking off your pants and wearing a sweaty shirt while farting like there was no tomorrow, nor do I mean cursing all the time and spewing crap out of your mouth - I mean those random, mildly inappropriate jokes that pop up every now and then and a random burp that someone might let out without having to worry that someone else will look at them weird. I feel kinda bad that you don't have a pack of good buddies with whom you don't have to censor yourself like it was a situation more relaxed than meeting with acquaintances from your work.

I assure you that most men that like those crude jokes here and like to act a bit more relax are very much capable of functioning in the bigger society, so please, don't pretend that being a bit more relaxed is something wrong.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Biggest issue I have is people under the age of 25 ish, they text when they are being spoken to, chew with their mouth open, make vulgar or rude comments, say things that should make you embarrassed and refuse to make eye contact and all around just unpleasant to be around or near.

That's not the type of 'crude' behaviour I meant, so at least I know you're not bashing the kind of groups I am talking about. Behaviour that you have listed should be dissed and branded in every group.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I live with the saying my grandfather told me " If you are too embarrassed to say it or admit you do it in front of your family then you should probably not be doing it.

I'm sorry if I sound like an ass, but.. Don't you think that it's a bit too stiff? I mean.. there are many things you would normally do with friends that you probably wouldn't in front of your family, and it's, in my opinion, fairly normal. Do you openly admit in front of your family that you have sex daily with your wife, even mentioning the amount and type of positions? Or that you masturbate? It's obviously things that you are doing and they're natural under their particular circumstances while not really the best family conversation material. Unless, of course, you're a sexual abstinent. Long story short - your grandpa gave you a neat little anecdote that should never be taken too seriously unless you're in situation in which it is expected of you to be very strict with your behaviour. And in my opinion the time I spend on my hobbies, outside of the workplace is definetely not one of those, when I should be censoring myself.

Edit: Someone beat me to mentioning sex.. damn you, guys!

 Klerych wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I live with the saying my grandfather told me " If you are too embarrassed to say it or admit you do it in front of your family then you should probably not be doing it.

I'm sorry if I sound like an ass, but.. Don't you think that it's a bit too stiff? I mean.. there are many things you would normally do with friends that you probably wouldn't in front of your family, and it's, in my opinion, fairly normal. Do you openly admit in front of your family that you have sex daily with your wife, even mentioning the amount and type of positions? Or that you masturbate? It's obviously things that you are doing and they're natural under their particular circumstances while not really the best family conversation material. Unless, of course, you're a sexual abstinent. Long story short - your grandpa gave you a neat little anecdote that should never be taken too seriously unless you're in situation in which it is expected of you to be very strict with your behaviour. And in my opinion the time I spend on my hobbies, outside of the workplace is definetely not one of those, when I should be censoring myself.

Edit: Someone beat me to mentioning sex.. damn you, guys!

As a parent there is truth in both statements, however, I have seriously considered and will probably use a similar quote to stress a point to my boys. Eventually as a responsible parent I will need to discuss sex and obviously if they are too embarressed to talk about it they don't need to be having sex. So, in a limited situation it does have its place in a family setting.

oh and this has gotten way off track

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

As a parent there is truth in both statements, however, I have seriously considered and will probably use a similar quote to stress a point to my boys. Eventually as a responsible parent I will need to discuss sex and obviously if they are too embarressed to talk about it they don't need to be having sex. So, in a limited situation it does have its place in a family setting.

Of course, it's a very noble and memorable quote and I'm sure I will be telling something similar to my kids and/or grandkids, but as I said, it's just a situational, pretty sounding anecdote that should be treated as a carrier of a moral value, rather than strict, exact meaning.

 Klerych wrote:
Edit: Someone beat me to mentioning sex.. damn you, guys!

If that makes you feel better, I regretted it, because I later realized gaking was even more appropriate. Depending on your family, you might speak about sex. What are the chances that your family will want you to give any details about the last gak you took? Well, there is the very, very, very specific situation of an health problem in which the aspect of your feces matters. Apart from that…

 Seaward wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
That is not what he said and you know it, stop being disingenuous, you were the one talking about sexual dimorphism being the cause of psychological differences in men and women, that is evolutionary psychology and it is that which is pseudoscience at worst and pure conjecture at best.

Do men produce more testosterone than women? Considerably more?

Does testosterone affect aggression? Would a castrated male of a given mammalian species, for example, exhibit less aggression than before castration?

Do gonadal hormones influence development of some human behaviors that show sex differences, including childhood play patterns and preferences?

The answer to all of those is yes. Not once did we brush even close to "evolutionary psychology" while identifying sexually dimorphic characteristics that could very well influence behavior and preference.

I get that it's popular, in certain circles, to blame society or that no-good confounded patriarchy or the Illuminati or whatever for the fact that men and women do indeed exhibit behavioral, emotional, and yes, psychological differences. The truth is that said differences do exist, in the aggregate, and they exist naturally.

Oh, and that is indeed what he said.

Aaaaand it seems you misunderstand what sexual dimorphism is, all it is, is how men and women look different, not the underlying physiological differences that cause it (that is, different genes)
So it is things that make women and men look and only these things look different, including men having facial hair, women, being lither and slighter of from, women having prominent breasts (compared to males), you were the one suggesting sexual dimorphism results in different ways of thinking, nice to know have a stubble is what causes me to think different than my sister and not how society treats us and the different ways we were taught in the classroom.

dementedwombat wrote:What difference does it make how many females actually end up in the hobby as long as everybody who wants to be there can be?

Problem being is that there are parts of the hobby (specifically, the actions and attitudes of certain types of players) that actively drive people, especially female players, away from the game.

Now, I don't expect there to be a 50/50 mix if these things were to suddenly go away. I have no idea whether or not the average "gamer-girl" is going to be into a broken, unbalanced and frequently boring tabletop wargame... but I know that a lot of them won't give it a second chance after being basically chased from the table by the more-boorish of players.

Just out of curiosity how many times has anyone actually seen a woman/girl walk into a shop, curious about the game, and been so disrespected/creeped out by the players that she was forced to leave?

I gamed regularly for about five years at my local GW, and I went every Saturday for the big 40K game and in all that time I saw one girl, once. She had a massive ork army, was very quiet (there were four of us on that table that day and none of us knew each other beforehand) and never came back. There was no hint of any kind what-so-ever that she was anything other than just another gamer. Lots of people used to turn up, play a game and never come back again so I don't see that this one girl doing the same as many others warrants any particular emphasis.

From what I've read of the thread it seems a lot of what is being discussed is fairly generalised; maybe girls don't get into the hobby because of X, Y, Z. How many times have people seen any of those things actually happen in real life?

From my own personal experience most people, male or female, see collecting toy soldiers, let alone playing games with them as either kid's stuff, rubbish or incomprehensible. The 'that's rubbish!' was the most frequent comment from girls who bothered to comment at all, with a far, far less frequent 'my brother plays those', certainly there was never any positive interest that was then thrown back in the girl's face but I was always happy to talk to anyone about the hobby of they were interested and if one had happened to be female I would have behaved in the same way and can only imagine most people would be like that too?

I once peered up from my sweaty wargaming and saw a female human step inside the creaking, slithery depths of my gaming store. Before she could realize the horrific error she'd made her skin began to blacken and slough off. She screamed and turned to run but it was too late. She didn't take more than three steps out before she turned into dust.

Some say she never existed at all. Some say that female gamers are just a cautionary tale used by store owners to frighten young nerds into not fudging their dice rolls and eating their hot pockets.

You know, the place where i play is not filled with GUO guyz. There are also girls playing simultaniously in the same room. But they never play warhammer. They're just not interested and prefer other games.

 Krellnus wrote:
Aaaaand it seems you misunderstand what sexual dimorphism is, all it is, is how men and women look different, not the underlying physiological differences that cause it (that is, different genes)
So it is things that make women and men look and only these things look different, including men having facial hair, women, being lither and slighter of from, women having prominent breasts (compared to males), you were the one suggesting sexual dimorphism results in different ways of thinking, nice to know have a stubble is what causes me to think different than my sister and not how society treats us and the different ways we were taught in the classroom.

Why does no one bother reading what I link before talking about it, out of curiosity? Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're incorrect.

And just so I understand what you're saying - because I'm not sure you thought it all the way through - you're suggesting that if you and your sister were taught in the same way in the classroom and society treated you the same, you'd think the same? What about you and your friend? Or your boss? The idea that genetics, hormones...biology in general, really, has no effect on behavior or preference is just outright fascinating. Crazy, but fascinating.

Yup. The Male and Female brains work slightly differently thanks to a large combination of factors.

More relevant to the current discussion why should people get a free pass on their behavior just because they are playing Warhammer 40,000? If their behavior would be unacceptable in any other setting then we should inform them of the fact. If that means getting rid of some creeps then the hobby is better for it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yup. The Male and Female brains work slightly differently thanks to a large combination of factors.

More relevant to the current discussion why should people get a free pass on their behavior just because they are playing Warhammer 40,000? If their behavior would be unacceptable in any other setting then we should inform them of the fact. If that means getting rid of some creeps then the hobby is better for it.

Uh.. mate.. I hope you're refering to the disrespectful neckbeard trolls, not the 'crude joke' behaviour.

As for girls in the community.. We don't have many women playing 40k in our city, but it's mostly due to their lack of interest in wargaming in general. From what I've heard for them it boils down to "so.. you just point at who your minis are shooting, then you roll off and.. that's it? You just try to wipe each other out to win? That's all? What's the goal?", those girls I know just don't like the dry 'strategy game' feel of 40k and so far it has nothing to do with our community, because we have many girls coming to our LGS to play other games with M:tG being the most popular among them. I don't think I've seen anyone do anything disrespectful towards any girl aside from one guy that sometimes come over from another group, but even then everyone knows he's joking and she got over it as everyone knows that occasional crude joke is not something uncommon in geekdom.

 Gogsnik wrote:
Just out of curiosity how many times has anyone actually seen a woman/girl walk into a shop, curious about the game, and been so disrespected/creeped out by the players that she was forced to leave?

It's starting to happen over here right now.

It's annoying.

Tangentially related to the topic on hand, but it's illustrative of th sort of thing I'm talking about.

http://comicsalliance.com/sexual-harassment-online-rape-threats-comics-superheroes-lessons-men-geek-culture/

 Psienesis wrote:
Tangentially related to the topic on hand, but it's illustrative of th sort of thing I'm talking about.

http://comicsalliance.com/sexual-harassment-online-rape-threats-comics-superheroes-lessons-men-geek-culture/

The Comic Book fandom is perhaps the most self-loathing and Ivory tower prone fandom I've ever seen. Misogynistic, elitist, snobbish, self-loathing, just overall awful.

Yes... but there's an awful lot of overlap into gamer culture.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yes... but there's an awful lot of overlap into gamer culture.

Oh yes, gamer culture has a lot of rotten apples. For every legitimately awesome guy like Angry Joe or Markiplier you have twenty thousand racist, homophobic, misogynists screaming in CoD or fat slobs making rape jokes and skeeving over scantily clad elf butts while snowing over any fanservice oriented towards women with a billion and a half remarks offensive to both the female and LGBT community.

In the U.S., sure, maybe. In France, not that much. I cannot tell for other countries.
[edit]Was talking about the overlap, of course[/edit]

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
In the U.S., sure, maybe. In France, not that much. I cannot tell for other countries.
[edit]Was talking about the overlap, of course[/edit]

The Comic Book industry in Europe is not at all dominated by DC and Marvel superhero books is it not?

I remember reading that in Europe comic books tended to be more on the lines of Tintin and Asterix or Disney books than caped crusaders and supervillains.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
In the U.S., sure, maybe. In France, not that much. I cannot tell for other countries.
[edit]Was talking about the overlap, of course[/edit]

That may be so, I can't speak of anything other than the American perspective.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
In the U.S., sure, maybe. In France, not that much. I cannot tell for other countries.
[edit]Was talking about the overlap, of course[/edit]

That may be so, I can't speak of anything other than the American perspective.

In France the majority of comics sold are from things like Asterix and Obelisk, Tintin, or Disney's comic books.

Contrast to America where the crushing majority of the market is tied up into superhero fiction.

 Kain wrote:
In France the majority of comics sold are from things like Asterix and Obelisk, Tintin, or Disney's comic books.

Obelix.

I am not sure if this is true. I think now Japanese manga overweight our classic French bandes dessinées. Which in turn overweight U.S. and British comics. Manga, bande dessinées and comics are actually pretty different in a bunch of regards, with the very different way those industries are lead influencing a lot. Also, those bande dessinées you quote are like really old classics, they are famous and everything but they are not really representative of the current bande dessinée production. You should give stuff like Dungeon, Requiem Chevalier Vampire, Lanfeust of Troy, Black Moon Chronicles, Metabarons, or The Incal a look for a better idea of what adult-oriented modern French bande dessinée look like.

 Gogsnik wrote:
Just out of curiosity how many times has anyone actually seen a woman/girl walk into a shop, curious about the game, and been so disrespected/creeped out by the players that she was forced to leave?

I've seen it, and done it, too. A couple of stores (GW and LGS) have been so passively hostile that I had to leave, otherwise Bad Things would happen - I have anger control issues.

My daughter has sensed it too, and she's only eleven. We were in this one store, me to look at the display models, my son to watch a demonstration game (he's nine), and my daughter said, "Chrissy, I have to go outside, this shop is creepy and it smells." And she's not usually weirded out by *anything*.

 Chrissy_J wrote:
I have anger control issues.

I'm not saying you're a bad person and that your condition, whatever it is, isn't real and very difficult for you, but I wouldn't want you in my group, and it has nothing to do with gender. I can't stand people that have outbursts, and most that have anger control issues will pop for every slight, be it real or not. The ostracizing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as you start going off about imagined slights, then people get tired of it and start actually setting up the walls, and then you have proof of the slights that "totally were there from the start!"

My gaming is my spare time and I use it to relax. I couldn't relax around people with anger control issues, genders be damned. Thankfully, my group is a private one made up of old friends, not a FLGS.

And if the shop is so bad that it smells, I'd leave too.

Ohh that brings up one of my Pet pieves.....the dreaded 'GAMER FUNK'! Take a shower before showing up to game seriously and use deoderant.

We happen to have a person at our FLGS who has sportsmanship and outburst issues not sure if it would qualify as a anger control issues. But they sure can suck the fun out of the room fast.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
But they sure can suck the fun out of the room fast.

Earlier this year in Poland there was a fist fight at a WFB tournament.

In all honesty, it should be discussed with the store owner/employee if someone misbehaves or just smells. If he reacts properly and tells the guy to shower and use a deodorant next time, it's all cool(unless he comes again and doesn't do that), but if the store owner doesn't bother to tidy up his own store, then that's a signal that you probably don't want to spend time at such a place anyway. I know it's not the most fun thing to do to tell someone that he reeks of sweat, but it has to be done and fortunately my FLGS' employee and owner are sensible and care enough to just be honest with people as those are very likely to drive guys away, let alone any girl willing to play a game of M:tG at one of the tables.

Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

By that logic, if I don't want people whose name starts with an "F" to be part of my gaming group because I have a phobia of names starting with an "F", does that make it OK for me to exclude people named Frederick, Fyodor, or Felicia? After all, it's causing me discomfort.

Yes, people who smell bad could change it, but then again, are we going to start excluding people we think look ugly, or people who are fat? After all, "they could easily fix it".

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

That's a rather ignorant assumption to make. There are people with legitimate health problems that cause them to smell more than what you can just wash away.
(see what I'm getting at? The above is actually true, but it's also a very confrontational way for me to say it. Which is often how people that feel left out will confront you. We're not allowed to make assumptions, and then your assumptions are just as bad as anyone else's.)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

By that logic, if I don't want people whose name starts with an "F" to be part of my gaming group because I have a phobia of names starting with an "F", does that make it OK for me to exclude people named Frederick, Fyodor, or Felicia? After all, it's causing me discomfort.

Yes, people who smell bad could change it, but then again, are we going to start excluding people we think look ugly, or people who are fat? After all, "they could easily fix it".

No. To get plastic surgery or to lose weight takes a lot of effort. To stop smelling bad it only takes a shower and some deodorant.

EDIT: Damn, I should have included the disclaimer that if you have a medical condition then these statements do not apply. Sorry folks if I came off as ignorant.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority? Surely it is wrong to ostracize people who aren't actually harming other human beings, or perpetuating an environment where people are ostracized (unlike in the case of rape jokes and the like, that argument does not seem to hold water here)?

Because they are causing discomfort and ruining the experience of others over a problem they could easily fix themselves but refuse to out of laziness. It seems really selfish in a way.

By that logic, if I don't want people whose name starts with an "F" to be part of my gaming group because I have a phobia of names starting with an "F", does that make it OK for me to exclude people named Frederick, Fyodor, or Felicia? After all, it's causing me discomfort.

Yes, people who smell bad could change it, but then again, are we going to start excluding people we think look ugly, or people who are fat? After all, "they could easily fix it".

No. To get plastic surgery or to lose weight takes a lot of effort. To stop smelling bad it only takes a shower and some deodorant.

"Looking pretty or losing weight only takes some makeup/not taking an additional pizza slice".

False equivalency I believe is the term. To stop being ugly or being fat, like I said earlier, takes a lot of time and effort to do and in some cases there is nothing that can be done. If there is no medical reason then the all of the time and effort to stop being smelly then all it takes is 30 minutes in the morning. That's it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why are we assuming that people who smell bad have to change to accomodate the tastes of the majority?

I would say even if they do not realize it yet, it will be better for them to smell nice. So, no ostracizing, but really, even just mentioning the smell (yeah, they may not even be aware that you are annoyed by the smell. Trust me, I know firsthand) is actually likely helping them.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
False equivalency I believe is the term. To stop being ugly or being fat, like I said earlier, takes a lot of time and effort to do and in some cases there is nothing that can be done. If there is no medical reason then the all of the time and effort to stop being smelly then all it takes is 30 minutes in the morning. That's it.

"Putting on make-up only takes 30 minutes and it stops you being ugly."

I'm making a patently ridiculous claim, of course, I'm just not seeing how it's a false equivalence at all. I'll give you the weight loss issue, but smell, like looks, is subjective. I don't think any of us thinks it's OK to tell anyone (primarily women in this example) that they have to wear makeup because their ugly looks offend our delicate sensibilities, so why is that only the case when it comes to sight? That is, why is smell somehow different from sight? One of the more important signs of progress in our societies is that divergent clothing, diverging aesthetics are seen as OK, so why is there a cultural hegemony of smells? Who decides what smells bad and what doesn't?

Bad smells tend to put off the majority of people. As in gak smells bad to around 9/10 people. It's also false equivalence in that ugliness is something you are born with and cannot easily change. Like I said, you can easily change how you smell. If I sound like I am repeating myself it's because I don't buy the argument that ugliness and a lack of hygiene, or more accurately, the intolerance of these things are the same.

But, as mentioned before, you should politely inform people that they smell bad. They may not be aware of it since the human nose tends to filter out persistent smells.

And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

No, but that certain people look different is a fact. Another fact is that your body and the bacteria on it secretes chemicals that are known to smell unpleasant. By washing and applying deodorant you are stopping a build up of these unpleasant chemicals. This isn't a product of our time or a social construct, sir. This is simply a fact.

Now, tell me, why should we accommodate people who refuse to wash when the solution to their issue is so easy and simple?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we doing a thought experiment on the smelly kind when this thread is about gamer chicks and gamer dudes getting along?

Not that it's not an interesting discussion, but is this the place for it?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

No, but that certain people look different is a fact. Another fact is that your body and the bacteria on it secretes chemicals that are known to smell unpleasant. By washing and applying deodorant you are stopping a build up of these unpleasant chemicals. This isn't a product of our time or a social construct, sir. This is simply a fact.

Now, tell me, why should we accommodate people who refuse to wash when the solution to their issue is so easy and simple?

Arguably for the same reason that we should accomodate people who don't want to have to wear a certain kind of clothing or behave in a particular manner. After all, all they'd have to do is not do/wear whatever it is we object to.

 kronk wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just as a thought-experiment:

Why are we doing a thought experiment on the smelly kind when this thread is about gamer chicks and gamer dudes getting along?

Not that it's not an interesting discussion, but is this the place for it?

I'd argue that it's "second-hand related" to the topic, inasfar as it pertains to a matter that pertains to the main subject matter at hand. We started off discussing why there aren't more female players in the wargaming hobby, body odors was offered as a contributing cause. I'm merely building on that claim and trying to examine wether it holds water or not.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And if we'd asked people 100 years ago, 9/10 might have answered that the place of a woman was in the kitchen cooking food and tending babies. Argumentum ad populum.

Further, "ugliness" if anything is a social construct. Honestly, I think we can all agree that aesthetic tastes vary. As it's not something objective, it's not something we ought to judge by. Similarly, I'd put it that smells are subjective (I for one can't stand the smell of some perfumes, it's just too much) and as such, from an objective point of view, really oughtn't matter at all.

No, but that certain people look different is a fact. Another fact is that your body and the bacteria on it secretes chemicals that are known to smell unpleasant. By washing and applying deodorant you are stopping a build up of these unpleasant chemicals. This isn't a product of our time or a social construct, sir. This is simply a fact.

Now, tell me, why should we accommodate people who refuse to wash when the solution to their issue is so easy and simple?

Arguably for the same reason that we should accomodate people who don't want to have to wear a certain kind of clothing or behave in a particular manner. After all, all they'd have to do is not do/wear whatever it is we object to.

Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

If it were just a matter of "girls don't join the hobby because fat dudes are stinky" you'd be right (but that argument isn't exactly settled yet), however there are a lot of guys in this thread who are complaining about the smell of certain players, independant of the desire to attract women to the game. I'm a guy gamer. I am already in the hobby and am not a theoretical addition and I think there are a lot of dudes who could stand to be introduced to showers and soap and deodorant, and there seem to be a lot of guys in this thread who have the same opinion. Yeah, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, girls might come play plastic dudemen with us. BUT, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, we'd all have a much nicer time standing around the table in the back room playing plastic dudemen.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

Oh. I thought we were arguing about that one smelly guy that's putting everyone off and whether it is right to get him to bathe.

Hmm, that's a bit trickier. If they are in the majority it is still wrong of them to not bathe but at the same time you have no leverage to get them to start taking regular showers. I suppose in that case you could either complain to the store owner about it or make your own club.

 Seaward wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Actually, I would liken it more to why people shouldn't accommodate those who talk loudly on their phones during the movies. Sure, it might not bother everyone and we may become more tolerant of it over time but as of now it is ruining the experience of the majority. It's an obnoxious behavior that either the person isn't aware of that he is bothering others or simply doesn't care. It is a behavior he or she can easily stop and we should inform him that he should stop.

Is it indeed, though? I dislike stenchly neckbeards as much as the next guy, but the argument being presented in this thread is that, at least in certain stores, they're the majority.

I could be misinterpreting him, but I believe where AlmightyWalrus is going with this is that it could seem odd to ask an extant group to change their behavior to suit a highly theoretical addition that may or may not ever actually materialize. Something to consider, either way.

This, basically, but even if they're not in the majority, why are they the ones who must change to conform to some sort of standard?

squidhills wrote:
BUT, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, we'd all have a much nicer time standing around the table in the back room playing plastic dudemen.

This is what I'm trying to point out; you're assuming that your definition of what constitutes a nice time is the only valid one. If the people who smell don't care or even like it (probably a very theoretical situation, admittedly, but still) why is it that they'd have to change to accomodate your taste? Or, by extention, that of anyone? Us being in the majority opinion (that people who smell are unpleasant) doesn't make us right, it just makes us the majority.

If you don't think that smelling bad is wrong in of itself then there is no reason why a group of smelly people should accommodate your tastes. If you are asking if there is an inherent, objective reason of why it's wrong... Well, I guess it can't be good for your health but then there is a lot of habits like that.

So, yes, I suppose then there is no inherent, objective reason of why it is wrong to be smelly and that asking people to start bathing is just to get them to change to match your sensibilities. However, I am of the opinion that the majority rules in this case. If you are impacting the quality of life for the majority of people then I believe that is wrong if you can do something to easily to change it. In the case of the obnoxious movie goer he can hang up his phone or in the case of the unwashed man he can take a bath. That way, everyone can enjoy the movie and the game.

Admittedly this sentiment gets tricky because the definition of "Easily changed" is highly subjective.

"Smelling bad" may be shorthand for the variety of issues mentioned in this thread.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

squidhills wrote:
BUT, if smelly dudes stopped being smelly, we'd all have a much nicer time standing around the table in the back room playing plastic dudemen.

This is what I'm trying to point out; you're assuming that your definition of what constitutes a nice time is the only valid one. If the people who smell don't care or even like it (probably a very theoretical situation, admittedly, but still) why is it that they'd have to change to accomodate your taste? Or, by extention, that of anyone? Us being in the majority opinion (that people who smell are unpleasant) doesn't make us right, it just makes us the majority.

My only rebuttal is that society has some generally agreed-upon standards of hygene, behavior and dress that, if ignored, can lead to people being ostracized from groups. From a legal standpoint, a male player could show up to a 40K game wearing a mankini and a pair of shoes, but society agrees that that is not appropriate dress for a trip to the FLGS. People in the store would be within their rights to ask that person (probably named Borat) to go home and change or refuse to play with him. Americans generally have agreed that showering once a day is the acceptable standard of hygene that people should meet when going out to interact with others socially (can't say this for everyone in the world, but we Yanks love our shower products). Did you just finish a shift working in a hot warehouse or at a construction site? Then its understandable that you might be a tad ripe, and most people would give you a pass. Did you just get out of bed and do you already stink like a three day old corpse? Perhaps learning to shower before you head out to the FLGS would be in order, as society has generally agreed that smelling like a three day old corpse, when you have it in your power to do something to correct the smell, is a bad thing. Failing to meet society's agreed-upon minimum standards can lead to people not wanting to have anything to do with you, and that is not society's fault. Put another way, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Just because you can choose to not shower and then go around to enclosed buildings and stand in close proximity to other people, doesn't mean that you should, as other people may not want your particular odors inflicted upon them. Showering isn't about individuality or sticking it to the man; it is about being considerate of others, which is a basic social interaction trait.

This is going to come off way too callous, but I dont care. I guess I have to define what I meant, since there is always a 'bleeding heart' out there who has to say 'thats not fair to........'. When they know I and others did not include that group of people from the start.

I don't care if my opponent is: fat, ugly, male, female, alien mutant, jaundice, has an incurable std, cancer patient who is bald and proud, hell I don't care if they have a cold, but pure bad hygene is where I draw the line.

Medical conditions like Trimethylaminuria are treatable with diet restrictions, antibiotics and special soaps. It does not smell the same as a guy who just hit the Gym or worked outside in 30 C/86 F for 8 hours or sat in his apartment for 3 days with no shower.

The people I'm talking about are the people who refuse to take care of themselves or don't care too. Some people even have an adversion to deoderant because they: tested them on animals, cause x disease or y disorder, unnatural, etc. Simple go into a natural/ organic store or on the internet and find a host of eco friendly 100% natural deoderants for the same price as my animal tested Right Guard. (not sure if Right Guard does that just sayin')

Why should they change for the majority of people? The same reason I change my behavior in public, its a common courtesy of society. When I'm at home I belch at the dinner table, walk around with no shirt on, and may not shower saturday morning. Why, Im at home. When in public I never belch while dinning, always wear a shirt, and shower before I leave home. Doesn't matter if I'm on a date with my wife, at work, or at my FLGS its simple courtesy to others and not for my benefit.

On a related note, if you're wearing too much perfume or axe body spray or whatever new awful-smelling thing people douse themselves in, that can be just as bad as body odor. Sometimes it's even worse, as I'm pretty sure no one is allergic to funky body smells, but loads of people will go into a sneezing fit over your gallon of Sexy Cougar Funtime cologne.

 Badablack wrote:
On a related note, if you're wearing too much perfume or axe body spray or whatever new awful-smelling thing people douse themselves in, that can be just as bad as body odor. Sometimes it's even worse, as I'm pretty sure no one is allergic to funky body smells, but loads of people will go into a sneezing fit over your gallon of Sexy Cougar Funtime cologne.

This, people who wear Axe body spray in hopes of recreating the commercials make my wife wrinkle her nose and cause my toddlers to cry and I personally despise the stench.

Not quite as bad as the guy who asked if he could eat Surstromming in my house.

I was once unaware of what that was, but after that, hoo boy I'd rather dunk my head in Hakarl for a year than ever relive that.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Some people even have an adversion to deoderant because they: tested them on animals

Not those sold at The Body Shop. I just hope I knew a place to buy toothpaste not tested on animals.

Did anyone else wonder how they test toothpaste/pitstick on animals? Like do they grab a dog and brush his teeth? Cause I have been doing that to mine for years his teeth are amazing but when he sees that brush.....omg he is fast and limber. Also What animals even have pit sweetglands?

So, in the end body odor more or less comes down to "because society says so!", as opposed to any actual negative reprecussions to society at large, such as in the example of rape jokes?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, in the end body odor more or less comes down to "because society says so!", as opposed to any actual negative reprecussions to society at large, such as in the example of rape jokes?

Well, you're not going to shout out rape jokes in public, either...

Yep. As with many of our rules that allows civilization to exist. Though, the idea of "Negative repercussions to society" is highly subjective. If someone takes your wallet it doesn't adversely affect society at large. Still doesn't mean it's okay.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yep. As with many of our rules that allows civilization to exist. Though, the idea of "Negative repercussions to society" is highly subjective. If someone takes your wallet it doesn't adversely affect society at large. Still doesn't mean it's okay.

Arguably, it does. Not the act in itself, but the concept of the rule of law as inviolable is what society is built upon.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yep. As with many of our rules that allows civilization to exist. Though, the idea of "Negative repercussions to society" is highly subjective. If someone takes your wallet it doesn't adversely affect society at large. Still doesn't mean it's okay.

Arguably, it does. Not the act in itself, but the concept of the rule of law as inviolable is what society is built upon.

Actually, I'd argue that society on a grand scale is built around the fear that the government will do harm to you if you step out of line. However, on a more micro level I believe society is built upon a common respect for your fellow man. Whether is a fear of harm being done to you or actual consideration of others is debatable. But we as humans follow some unwritten code that establishes (usually) unspoken guidelines on how to conduct yourself. If we didn't follow such guidelines civilization wouldn't be able to exist since we'd be intolerable towards each other. Washing yourself is one of those guidelines. It shows that not only do you respect yourself enough to keep your body clean but you respect your fellow man enough not to bombard him or her with your horrible stench.

Now, why these guidelines are the way they are is a whole different kettle of fish. I believe it's because animals developed an aversion to the smell of decay which BO tends to mimic but, like I said, this isn't within the general topic of this thread.

This thread has gone so far off the rails in places. But here's something we haven't addressed.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
We happen to have a person at our FLGS who has sportsmanship and outburst issues not sure if it would qualify as a anger control issues. But they sure can suck the fun out of the room fast.

Anger Management and sore losers.

My finance was playing a game with one of the other players and we had a potential new player in the store. The other player threw a huge angry outburst hissy fit over the game, because he was losing. That outburst put the potential new player off the game, so much that he didn't want to play with people like that in the community.

Everything about the game was legal, and nothing was really well

Brother Michael wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, in the end body odor more or less comes down to "because society says so!", as opposed to any actual negative reprecussions to society at large, such as in the example of rape jokes?

Well, you're not going to shout out rape jokes in public, either...

You'd be surprised.

 Schlyne wrote:
This thread has gone so far off the rails in places. But here's something we haven't addressed.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
We happen to have a person at our FLGS who has sportsmanship and outburst issues not sure if it would qualify as a anger control issues. But they sure can suck the fun out of the room fast.

Anger Management and sore losers.

My finance was playing a game with one of the other players and we had a potential new player in the store. The other player threw a huge angry outburst hissy fit over the game, because he was losing. That outburst put the potential new player off the game, so much that he didn't want to play with people like that in the community.

Everything about the game was legal, and nothing was really well

The same happened to me with my first game of Classic Battletech, when an adult is throwing a hissy fit at a 12 year old because of the toy soldier game they're playing chances are one of these individuals needs to do significantly more growing up, and it wasn't then 12 year old me.