Adults who buy toys - and 13 other things that should make you run a mile from any man

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/adults-buy-toys-13-things-things-should-make-run-mile-man/

Big news, last week, was that the adult toy market is growing three times faster than the children’s toy market - previously known just as the toy market.

Lego, Scalextric sets, drones, you name it, are being snapped up by people with jobs and mortgages, Nespresso machines and gym memberships. I know. Disturbing or what? Naturally it goes without saying that most of these people are men, and that these men fall into the category of ones women (looking for suitors) automatically avoid.

It’s just one of those unspoken rules that females absorb by osmosis; point one on the Klaxon List of things that should make you run a mile.

You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for wargaming, right?

 jasper76 wrote:
You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for wargaming, right?

What Jasper said.

 jasper76 wrote:
You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for watching, right?

Indeed You think they mean us

 loki old fart wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for watching, right?

Indeed You think they mean us

Well, I'm inclined to agree that collections of plastic soldiers aren't exactly an aphrodisiac

That doesn't apply to us at all.

I don't have toys. I have scaled-down, battle simulation aids.

 kronk wrote:
That doesn't apply to us at all.

I don't have toys. I have scaled-down, battle simulation aids.

Oh you're good.

 kronk wrote:
That doesn't apply to us at all.

I don't have toys. I have scaled-down, battle simulation aids.

I'm with you.
I have artistic renditions of fictional universe. Nothing to do with toys.

Everyone buys toys. Whether its a fancy sports car they'll never actually get a chance to put through its paces, that fancy purse that cost 10x as much their old one and does nothing new but looks nicer, that super cool new rifle you can only ever shoot at the indoor 20 yard range, all those cool kitchen appliances and doodads that get used exactly once, or plastic toy space soldiers.

And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

Vidya games don't count as toys, right?

 jasper76 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for watching, right?

Indeed You think they mean us

Well, I'm inclined to agree that collections of plastic soldiers aren't exactly an aphrodisiac

I'll have you know that women are always extremely impressed when I show them my large collection of railguns.

This could also be a combination of generational things.
Many adults now were children in the 80s-90s when toy companies were at their height. Shows like TMNT and Transformers, for example, really pushed toy sales.
That leaves an imprint and nostalgia is big right now.

Combine the fact that the generation of kids today are much less interested in 'toys' and far more interested in video games.

When I was 10-12, I remember having loads of toys, but my 10 & 12 year old sons have very few toys as they are way more into video games.

-

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Vidya games don't count as toys, right?

Nah, that's neuro-plasticity encouraging software.

 kronk wrote:
And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

Whoa, there buddy. Fishing equipment is survival gear.

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

Whoa, there buddy. Fishing equipment is survival gear.

I betyou're right. When I gave up miniature gaming for a few years in my early 20's, I nearly died. Coincidence? I think not.

Wait, i'm an adult woman who buys toys.

who should i be running from

the person who wrote that article? Yes.

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

Whoa, there buddy. Fishing equipment is survival gear.

So are my Bourbon glasses!

I suppose if you had to survive due to chronic alcohol dependency, then Bourbon would be better than distilled donkey piss, hypothetically. But if you wanted to live you'd drink Canadian Rye. Mixed with an ice cube or two.


[I can't find a picture, but there are glasses that are self-righting, so no matter how you put them down, they won't spill. Handy for when you'd sampled a little to much.]

 kronk wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

Whoa, there buddy. Fishing equipment is survival gear.

So are my Bourbon glasses!

Look a lot like the one I broke.

I remember that story. It still makes me sad.

 CptJake wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

Whoa, there buddy. Fishing equipment is survival gear.

So are my Bourbon glasses!

Look a lot like the one I broke.

Was there a Mallory Archer style story behind that?

 jasper76 wrote:
You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for wargaming, right?

You will notice good sir that all those boxes of miniatures you have been buying have a label on them that clearly says "This is not a Toy"

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
You do realize you are posting this on a forum dedicated to people who buy toys for wargaming, right?

You will notice good sir that all those boxes of miniatures you have been buying have a label on them that clearly says "This is not a Toy"

I was at a friends house wargaming, and another dude showed up with his kid. The kid started pulling models from the 40K shelf, and my friend scolded him, saying "Don't touch those! They're not toys!".

I was just thinking "Ummmmmm...."

Most adults are fine with board games as 'acceptable adult behavior' and most wargames stray close enough to count. The actual painting part of the hobby actually tends to impress people - these days, few people have hobbies that actually require anything resembling skill or creativity.

Er, so? A) Things such as LEGOs are generally a small scale engineering aid. Yeah, it's a toy, but it's also much more. B) Who the feth cares? I buy what I want with my money.

If I were single I'd want any woman reading that garbage as far from me as possible anyways.

My wife screamed like I was a rock star when I went up to get my Golden Demon so I'd say gaming never harmed my chances. Hell, she works in a hobby/comics shop now! (Discount by proxy is Best Discount!)

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
If I were single I'd want any woman reading that garbage as far from me as possible anyways.

My wife screamed like I was a rock star when I went up to get my Golden Demon so I'd say gaming never harmed my chances. Hell, she works in a hobby/comics shop now! (Discount by proxy is Best Discount!)

Hang on to that one.

Wait and find a woman who appreciates all of me, or settle for some horrific harridan who sees me as a 'work in progress'...

Hmmmmm....

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
If I were single I'd want any woman reading that garbage as far from me as possible anyways.

My wife screamed like I was a rock star when I went up to get my Golden Demon so I'd say gaming never harmed my chances. Hell, she works in a hobby/comics shop now! (Discount by proxy is Best Discount!)

Your wife sounds cool.

On my first date with the woman who would eventually become my wife, I made a self-deprecating joke about toy collecting ( I was majorly into collecting GI JOEs at the time) and she got defensive--turned out she was a big Star Wars toy collector and thought I was bashing on the toy collecting hobby in general. I explained that I made the joke as a way to test the waters and see how she'd react to toy collecting. Needless to say we had a laugh and then immediately started discussing our collections.

"Women go into marriage hoping their men will change and men going into marriage hoping their wives never will."

 loki old fart wrote:


Lego, Scalextric sets, drones, you name it, are being snapped up by people with jobs and mortgages, Nespresso machines and gym memberships. I know. Disturbing or what? Naturally it goes without saying that most of these people are men, and that these men fall into the category of ones women (looking for suitors) automatically avoid.

It’s just one of those unspoken rules that females absorb by osmosis; point one on the Klaxon List of things that should make you run a mile.

Ms Watson writes dating tips articles for older (45+) women, from that point of view.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd be sad, if I was interested in dating 45+ old women.

 Frazzled wrote:
"Women go into marriage hoping their men will change and men going into marriage hoping their wives never will."

"Generalizations generally never end well." - Abe Lincoln


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:


Lego, Scalextric sets, drones, you name it, are being snapped up by people with jobs and mortgages, Nespresso machines and gym memberships. I know. Disturbing or what? Naturally it goes without saying that most of these people are men, and that these men fall into the category of ones women (looking for suitors) automatically avoid.

It’s just one of those unspoken rules that females absorb by osmosis; point one on the Klaxon List of things that should make you run a mile.

Ms Watson writes dating tips articles for older (45+) women, from that point of view.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd be sad, if I was interested in dating 45+ old women.

If I was interested in dating 45+ old women, pretty sure my hobbies would include going to the gym constantly and going to the bar.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Women go into marriage hoping their men will change and men going into marriage hoping their wives never will."

"Generalizations generally never end well." - Abe Lincoln

"Never assume malice what could be easily caused by demonic possession."

- Ice Cube

Can anyone reproduce the article? I'm getting a paywall.

I can't gauge the feeling of the whole article, but I'm quite negative of people who need to make 'lists' of things that people should or would avoid in relationships, and then list things that are trivial, somewhat prejudicial. This seems typical of the sort of person that instead of accepting your foibles, wants to stop you seeing friends and having hobbies, instead of them looking for a better match. That's makes *them* the problem in the relationship because they are not supportive, understanding or even tolerant.

Things to avoid in relationships are people who are aggressive or manipulative, or irresponsible with money, etc. People who are likely actually mistreat you or your life. Most other complaints are petty to write a newspaper article about. If a man wrote an article listing 'too make shoes' as a reason to avoid women, he'd probably get complaints.

A lot of people would prefer their partner have a proper hobby than going out drinking all the time, which is actually what an awful lot of people do.

 kronk wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Women go into marriage hoping their men will change and men going into marriage hoping their wives never will."

"Generalizations generally never end well." - Abe Lincoln

"Never assume malice what could be easily caused by demonic possession."

- Ice Cube

""You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott

"Here hold my beer and watch this."
-Frazzled, while standing in front of the preacher.

I read my wife out all the posts here and she just kind of laughed...... I don't know what those laughs meant! Crappin it now

How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"Being in love is a good thing; but it is not the best thing."

If this is it Lewis was thinking about God not GW ffs!!

 kronk wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"Women go into marriage hoping their men will change and men going into marriage hoping their wives never will."

"Generalizations generally never end well." - Abe Lincoln

"Never assume malice what could be easily caused by demonic possession."

- Ice Cube

“Quote on ther internet are reliable”
Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the Reichtag, in 1936.


I can't take OP's article seriously. I just don't care.

 kronk wrote:
And fishing rods and reels! Those are toys. And camping equipment! And anything in a Sharper Image catalog!

No they are not They are religious symbols, all hail the gods Ryobi and Diawa. we shall praise you by the light of coleman in the temple of Outwell.

 Knockagh wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"Being in love is a good thing; but it is not the best thing."

If this is it Lewis was thinking about God not GW ffs!!

I assume he meant

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

There is an old adage that a man without a hobby probably has another woman. Of course any activity taken to an extreme can be a vice, just like any obsession. Ask Van Gogh! Video games can be particularly irritating, though, as they often provide no benefit to anyone else not participating (as opposed to say music) and are often loud, tie up communal areas, etc. This is the same problem all entertainment consumerism has, though, and applies equally to sports viewing, musical watching, etc., where the partner doesn't share the interest. The red flag is if the person selfishly ignores the impact or refuses to limit the behavior, however, not the fact they enjoy that activity. After all, if I watch football on Sunday and my wife gets Hallmark Saturday, it's a fair trade.

Anyway, I think the writer of this article needs to learn what adult toys really are.

Here's another one ;
http://www.independent.ie/life/rise-of-the-kidults-how-the-sale-of-toys-to-adults-is-booming-35629546.html

 dazblackhawk wrote:
Here's another one ;
http://www.independent.ie/life/rise-of-the-kidults-how-the-sale-of-toys-to-adults-is-booming-35629546.html

He compares collecting toys to drugs. I've never heard that before

Got to have that resin-crack habit.........

 dazblackhawk wrote:
Here's another one ;
http://www.independent.ie/life/rise-of-the-kidults-how-the-sale-of-toys-to-adults-is-booming-35629546.html

Interesting read. I didn't expect Kindgom Death: Monster to get a mention in that article.

This quote is a gem:

"I've often compared toy collecting to being a heroin addict á la Trainspotting, and not just because there was a certain time in my life when I would have crawled through a filthy Scottish toilet to get a Star Wars Ree-Yees figure," Rob Bricken wrote on the science fiction and fantasy blog io9. "It's because toy collecting is a compulsion that ignores sanity, common sense and reality alike. The reasons I shouldn't be collecting toys are myriad."

Like any hobby, if you let it take hold too much it can become a problem. I think swapping out "toy collecting" for "miniature war gaming" in that quote would sum up a few years of my mid-late 20's pretty well.

 loki old fart wrote:

 dazblackhawk wrote:
Here's another one ;
http://www.independent.ie/life/rise-of-the-kidults-how-the-sale-of-toys-to-adults-is-booming-35629546.html

He compares collecting toys to drugs. I've never heard that before

Uhh, "Magic the Gathering = crack" has been pretty common since it first took hold in the 90's.

 jmurph wrote:


Anyway, I think the writer of this article needs to learn what adult toys really are.

All the ladies I have ever met love my collection!

 Frazzled wrote:
"Women go into marriage hoping their men will change and men going into marriage hoping their wives never will."

I say that there's a certain amount of bait-and-switch involved!
____

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I didn't expect Kindgom Death: Monster to get a mention in that article.

This quote is a gem:

"I've often compared toy collecting to being a heroin addict á la Trainspotting, and not just because there was a certain time in my life when I would have crawled through a filthy Scottish toilet to get a Star Wars Ree-Yees figure," Rob Bricken wrote on the science fiction and fantasy blog io9.

I'd crawl through a "filthy" Swiss toilet, though. Of course, the toilets in Switzerland are so clean you could eat off them, and "filthy" means you found a mote of dust in a corner...

Also, Kingdom Death raising $12M via Kickstarter is noteworthy, as is an average pledge of $600 per backer. That's a lot of money.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Also, Kingdom Death raising $12M via Kickstarter is noteworthy, as is an average pledge of $600 per backer. That's a lot of money.

Not disputing that, just didn't expect to see a niche body horror-themed board game mentioned in an article about toy collecting.

Subscribe now for full access or register to continue reading

Hmmm...

There is a grain of truth in the article. It certainly isn't a reason not to date a guy, but it is certainly something to be looked at, to see if that person has the same priorities as you.

I think the mistake the author makes (and I am somewhat speculating here as I can't view the article), is that she doesn't consider the scale of the hobby, and doesn't think the same of other hobbies. That is, if you start dating someone and find out they've got $30,000 in collectibles, but no savings and a bunch of credit card debt, then it's likely they might not have the kinds of priorities that make a relationship work. But then, that is also true if it was a muscle car instead of figurines. Hell, these relationship advice sites will go on all the time about how it is so good to find a man that's traveled, but if at the end of that travel the guy is in piles of debt and has nothing to his name, it's basically the same as the toy collector.

That kind of makes it sound like it's just about money, but that's not what I mean. It's about priorities, and where a person has spent their money is a pretty good indication of where their priorities are.

I have to admit that seeing at least one poster here that was a fair bit older than me made me feel better about being a 40 year old man who owns warhammer figures. I'm not sure at what age it becomes embarrassing but it seems like I have at least a few more years.

That whole dating a woman over 45 applies to me.
im a few levels older then some of you replying it seems.

Im 39, GF is 10.5 years older then me.

She may very well be kinda a nerd like me..

The first time i met her was new years eve party at my house 2015-2016. As im dueling with one of my buddies with a pair of lightsabers about 20 mins before midnight she comes over with a couple other buddies. We got to talking.. she even took a blade and swing it a few times with a big smile on her face.

Over the past 15 months ive been dating her. Ive painted just shy of 400 figures, mostly marines or wolves.. Shes painted a couple doll houses and assorted other small things (signs and such) and even went out and bought a missile devastator squad from a random dude on craigslist so she would have some marines to paint that wouldnt effect my bit counts (not that i have an issue with giving her a couple squads.. more she dont have time)

She loves watching me paint.. I cant talk while i paint as i focus so well.. However i can listen.. and when i take breaks i reply back.. lets her ramble a bit and i can keep my monkey mind busy listen to her and hyper focus on the painting..

She also is very proud of my work.. even her daughters in their 20s think my figures are cool.. the one daughters fiance loves my army.. wants to come over and play a game some day, even offered to bring a couple gallons of some ale hes brewing.

NOt that i am that good of a painter.. but its all ive done the past year pretty much. had been collecting for years, never the space to build them.. now i do. Its fun.

Basically my high ramble here is me saying. The woman i love fell for me when she saw me get smacked in the backside with a lightsaber cuz i stopped in my tracks when i saw her.

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S. Thompson

It's not Lewis, but a novelist by any other name. Besides, I think it's rather relevant to the topic.

Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

 Orlanth wrote:
some bigoted feminists

Random attack on some group you don't like is (very) random.

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Lolwut? I know plenty of geeky feminists who buy toys as adults, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone make the argument that feminism means adults buying toys is wrong. And most of the feminist criticism of geek culture has been from the point of view of women who want to be part of it, not some awful tyrants trying to crush everything that men love. So I'm going to have to conclude that your complaint about feminism here has more to do with your personal dislike of feminism and need to complain about it than any on-topic relevance.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

Apparently the newspaper's "write shallow fluff pieces that nobody cares about" author. A quick look at the other articles she's written doesn't show anything that seems especially "feminist" to me.

Nothing prove she isn't religious though. Damn religious people, we can't enjoy our hobby without a goddamn religious person trying to make nerds socially unacceptable. Why do religious persons hate geeks so much?

Knockagh wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"Being in love is a good thing; but it is not the best thing."

If this is it Lewis was thinking about God not GW ffs!!

Yeah...no, not that one.

AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"Being in love is a good thing; but it is not the best thing."

If this is it Lewis was thinking about God not GW ffs!!

I assume he meant

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

There it is!

How about all good things in excess are bad things? Fair?

 jreilly89 wrote:
How about all good things in excess are bad things? Fair?

Pffft, you can't trick me like that. Next you'll be telling me that any amount of sweet brown sugar is too much

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

Orlanth wrote:Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

<WillFerrelThatEscalatedQuickly.gif>

Take a deep breath, friend. Having an irrational outburst like that is indicative that you are carrying too much stress in your life. It's bad for the heart.

sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

Sebster has the right of it.

When I moved my GF (now wife) into my place 15 years ago, she "casually" asked me when I was going to give up all the 'kid's stuff'. I basically told her not to ask me to choose between her and my hobby, as she likely wouldn't be pleased with my choice. I wish I had taken a picture as her face was priceless.

She's fine with it now, she even ordered me some Perry Hussars over the weekend as a "just because I love you".

So are we, as men, also supposed to run from women who buy "toys"? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

What the feth?!? What does nerds being more socially acceptable have to do with feminism? Like what does that mean? Do you just throw in "buzzwords" with no context or understanding in hopes someone (maybe even a lady for once) will give you attention? You know some other poster

said you essentially came here to troll, at first I thought his/her statements were unfounded but now I'm starting to become more accepting to the idea.

 HunterEste wrote:
So are we, as men, also supposed to run from women who buy "toys"? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

Only if she expects you to be able to keep up with them or wants you to play in ways you aren't comfortable with!

Actually, I have encounter more rejection to the "geek culture" from Religious people that anything else.

They love to tell that videogames where satanic. And the media? Oh, years ago in Spain a teenager killed all of his family with a Katana.
The media spend like months talking about how he did that taking Sepiroth from FF7 as an Inspiration and for playing Roleplay games like Dungeons and Dragons.

 Galas wrote:
Actually, I have encounter more rejection to the "geek culture" from Religious people that anything else.

They love to tell that videogames where satanic. And the media? Oh, years ago in Spain a teenager killed all of his family with a Katana.
The media spend like months talking about how he did that taking Sepiroth from FF7 as an Inspiration and for playing Roleplay games like Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm old enough to remember when D&D came out and I played it like a fiend during the summers when I was in High School. The blowback from the religious fringe was very vocal as the game became popular. Hell, I remember a friend on my block couldn't join our group because his mother didn't want him to have anything to do with daemons. But that also happened with the advent of Rock 'n Roll...just as another example...in a very big way as well, so it's more of a comment on an ever-present intransigent subset of society than religion as a whole, methinks.

Face it, what we do is a bit "different"...vive la difference!...and a very niche past time, which makes us a minority. Criticism always gets hurled by pinheads at minorities whether because their skin color is different or whether how they find pleasure in their free time is somewhat unique. Who fething cares what anybody else thinks about what you do with in your leisure, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or break the law. Now where's my damn can of white primer...

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I'm old enough to remember when D&D came out and I played it like a fiend during the summers when I was in High School. The blowback from the religious fringe was very vocal as the game became popular.

I remember when a local gaming club opened up at a local rec centre. I was about 13 or so and a bunch of friends and I all said we'd go along. I was the first to get dropped off, and my mother and I were greeted at the door by a guy who welcomed us, and then lurched in to a long, pre-prepared speech about how the whole satanism thing was an urban myth and rpgs were just good fun where kids get to pretend to be heroes. To my Mum and I this came way out of leftfield, neither of us had ever heard of the American Christian right's crusade against satanism in D&D.

Also, this was the 90s, and mothers were now scared of something very different. My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles. I'm not sure how peeking through the door at guys sitting around tables was enough for Mum to decide that one way or another, but that's mums for you

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I'm old enough to remember when D&D came out and I played it like a fiend during the summers when I was in High School. The blowback from the religious fringe was very vocal as the game became popular.

I remember when a local gaming club opened up at a local rec centre. I was about 13 or so and a bunch of friends and I all said we'd go along. I was the first to get dropped off, and my mother and I were greeted at the door by a guy who welcomed us, and then lurched in to a long, pre-prepared speech about how the whole satanism thing was an urban myth and rpgs were just good fun where kids get to pretend to be heroes. To my Mum and I this came way out of leftfield, neither of us had ever heard of the American Christian right's crusade against satanism in D&D.

Also, this was the 90s, and mothers were now scared of something very different. My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles. I'm not sure how peeking through the door at guys sitting around tables was enough for Mum to decide that one way or another, but that's mums for you

When I started wargaming my grandmother kept on asking whether I was doing drugs? I'm not entirely sure how she managed to associate wargames with drugs but I suppose it was thought of as odd at the time not to be going out every Saturday to a football game and get into a thuggery match up.

Still people do seem a lot more accepting of the variety of hobbies people have these days (or most of them anyway!).

 sebster wrote:
My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles.

Well, this certainly paints an interesting picture of Sebs early home life

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
some bigoted feminists

Random attack on some group you don't like is (very) random.

First, don't personalise your argument.

Hardly random at all, and these types of articles appear frequently. 'Ostracise a man if x or y', and all too often x or y is something lawful and harmless. Today that means toys and a dizen other things, tomorrow it can mean something else.

What you are missing is that empowerment means that people should not accepted for who they are, however all too often this evidently this doesn't go both ways. We demand tolerance of who we are, but offer none in return is a hallmark of that sub-division of the feminist movement.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Lolwut? I know plenty of geeky feminists who buy toys as adults, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone make the argument that feminism means adults buying toys is wrong.

Different type of feminist. They arent all clones you know and feminism of itself is not a wrong.
The people you associate with are likely not the 'your rights end where my feelings begin type', or the 'don't judge me, but I will judge you type' - as seen here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

Apparently the newspaper's "write shallow fluff pieces that nobody cares about" author.

A fair assessment so far..

 Peregrine wrote:

A quick look at the other articles she's written doesn't show anything that seems especially "feminist" to me.

On the contrary, from looking at the article list on Daily Telegraph she likes to think she writes the social rules, yet they one sidedly apply.

 Orlanth wrote:
First, don't personalise your argument.

 Orlanth wrote:
Hardly random at all, and these types of articles appear frequently.

Completely random. You didn't provide any proofs, or even hints, that this article from a devout religious person was written by a feminist.
It's obvious that religious people, not feminists, are trying to get us ostracized.
I know she is religious because of the same reasons you know she is feminist .

 Orlanth wrote:
What you are missing is that empowerment means that people should not accepted for who they are,

That's not what empowerment mean .
Empowerment means being more in power. It's also become a buzzword that some feminists throw around like candy, without any real meaning beside “I like doing this”, or “I think doing this is good”.
However, if you are trying to argue that men shouldn't be ostracized for playing wargames… well, yeah, I don't think you will find anyone trying to argue otherwise on a wargaming forum.

 Orlanth wrote:
We demand tolerance of who we are, but offer none in return is a hallmark of that sub-division of the feminist movement.

Oh, come one. What you should have written was “We demand tolerance of who we are, but offer none in return is a hallmark of that sub-division of the religious movements.”
You know, those people that actually do kill people for having different ideas. And we all know the author of that article was 100% motivated by religious reasons rather than feminism!

 Orlanth wrote:
On the contrary, from looking at the article list on Daily Telegraph she likes to think she writes the social rules, yet they one sidedly apply.

Like religious person often do. So it's yet one more proof she was religiously motivated. See, you are even further proving my point!

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A quick look at the other articles she's written doesn't show anything that seems especially "feminist" to me.

On the contrary, from looking at the article list on Daily Telegraph she likes to think she writes the social rules, yet they one sidedly apply.

Wait, a woman who writes for The Telegraph, section Lifestyle, subsection Women wrote an article directed entirely at women? Shocking, truly.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

 feeder wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

<WillFerrelThatEscalatedQuickly.gif>

Take a deep breath, friend. Having an irrational outburst like that is indicative that you are carrying too much stress in your life. It's bad for the heart.

Ok you two. It might be better of you looked at causality rather than just resort to making patronising remarks. I know what I was writing about. Do you?

Try and think about it. We live in an age where people are expected to show tolerance, however protection and tolerance are one sided.

1. What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?
2. What prevents them from seeing that this is wrong?

Shane Watson's article is hardly unique and unusual, there is a casual discrimination going on. Articles such as these are very common in women's magazines, I assume no hate from most of them, just ignorance of actual equality.
However calling for ostracism, even casually and in ignorance ought to be properly challenged, and equally importantly its root should be understood..
One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

 Orlanth wrote:

One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

You're going to have to spin very hard to get feminism to an ideology that is unconcerned with gender roles that are harmful towards men. It's simply not true. It's true that there are double standards at play that make men acceptable targets where they really should not be. It is not true that feminism as an ideology does not care that these double standards exist.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
First, don't personalise your argument.

 Orlanth wrote:
Hardly random at all, and these types of articles appear frequently.

Completely random. You didn't provide any proofs, or even hints, that this article from a devout religious person was written by a feminist.
It's obvious that religious people, not feminists, are trying to get us ostracized.
I know she is religious because of the same reasons you know she is feminist .

First don't personalise your arguement. That is to say don't flatly assume a comment is 'random' without investigation.
"I don't understand your arguments so I will handwave it away as random' is hardly a valid reply.

The article is clearly feminist, jreilly sort of gets it:

jreilly89 wrote:
Wait, a woman who writes for The Telegraph, section Lifestyle, subsection Women wrote an article directed entirely at women? Shocking, truly.

Its a simple logical chain.
1. Blanket ostacising of people groups is wrong, its generally considered 'bigoted', with a watchword of 'tolerance' to be highlighted as the opposite and desired societal virtue.
2. However casual blanket ostracism is propagated by certain groups, one of those groups is the womens magazines.
3. Why? We must assume that the writers of womens articles and womens magazines are equal opportunities aware, however they dont consider that tolerance applies in these cases.
4. Casual selective tolerance occurs because rights are selectively applied. In the case there the selective rights are sourced by feminism, which is because feminism at its core is a female empowerment movment rather than an absolute equal rights movement.

Note that this is casual discrimination not a female conspiracy.

Also note that feminism also raises a (selective) banner against casual discrimination, a good example of this is the 'male dominated workforce' and similar memes. Proof of such is oftimes taken from comments raised, and thereby casual discrimatory articles such as Shane Watson's are an equal standard of proof. Besides there is evidence of a trend.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
What you are missing is that empowerment means that people should not accepted for who they are,

That's not what empowerment mean.
Empowerment means being more in power. It's also become a buzzword that some feminists throw around like candy, without any real meaning beside “I like doing this”, or “I think doing this is good”.

Ok, as this is a UK article a UK definition applies. If empowerment means something else in France so be it.
In the UK empowerment has a social connotation, formal government Equal Opportunities training as undertaken by the UK Civil Service uses this as a standpoint.

Now empowerment can be political, and a topical example would be encouraging people to vote, in the Uk there are movement to 'empower' Moslem women to vote as that demographic is often culturally isolated from the democratic process.
However most empowerment is social, and normally refers to what is essential confidence building. So for example 'female empowerment' means educating and encouraging women to be who they want to be. Evidence of this social emphasis in government policy has long been commonplace in the UK. Now in the Uk at least and on an official level it has been understood that selective empowerment is unhealthy. So for example telling teenage girls they can be who they want to be is a valid emnpowerment goal, and it has done much to imporove the career prospects of women, however highlighting only female empowerment had a detrimental effect on male development of the same age ranges, which is why the policy was modified to provide actual equal opportunities empowerment.
Now government can see the need to shioft from one sided empowerment to universal empowerment, however partisan pressure groups rarely think this clearly. Now a lot of feminists do, and don't want to leave mean behind while empowering women, others dont care too much about that.
Casual feminist discrimination, in the open media, whereupon a mans value can be openly and flatly categorised is an example that parts of the feminist movment have yet to catch up with actual equal opportunities. Whan they haver these types of articles will disappear.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

However, if you are trying to argue that men shouldn't be ostracized for playing wargames… well, yeah, I don't think you will find anyone trying to argue otherwise on a wargaming forum.

This also implies that a women's page artical has a different audience, which is does. However discrimination aimed at a receptive target audience doesnt make discrimination acceptable. It just makers it potentially more dangerous.

This does mean that more people *here* should recognise that blanket ostracism of gamers is unfair and discriminatory and has no place in the mass media of a modern and progressive society.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You know, those people that actually do kill people for having different ideas. And we all know the author of that article was 100% motivated by religious reasons rather than feminism!.

I don't know if Shane Watson is religious, I haven't read any of here religious articles, but I will just accept the argument that she is.
If the article was about 13 sinful things that a woman should recogjnise a man as unholy for, then you would have a solid argument to claim the discrimination is religious based.
However it isn't, its about actioning stereotypes, and blanket social judgement of people based on their hobby choices, with in a milieu of gender differences.

 Orlanth wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

 feeder wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

<WillFerrelThatEscalatedQuickly.gif>

Take a deep breath, friend. Having an irrational outburst like that is indicative that you are carrying too much stress in your life. It's bad for the heart.

Ok you two. It might be better of you looked at causality rather than just resort to making patronising remarks. I know what I was writing about. Do you?

Try and think about it. We live in an age where people are expected to show tolerance, however protection and tolerance are one sided.

1. What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?
2. What prevents them from seeing that this is wrong?

Shane Watson's article is hardly unique and unusual, there is a casual discrimination going on. Articles such as these are very common in women's magazines, I assume no hate from most of them, just ignorance of actual equality.
However calling for ostracism, even casually and in ignorance ought to be properly challenged, and equally importantly its root should be understood..
One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

There is no vast feminist conspiracy to socially engineer a generation of emasculated men. That's part of the right's ridiculous persecution complex. (I'm not casting this net on you, I don't know your particular views)

There is a number of underemployed women with liberal arts degrees who will type any old dross in order to pay the rent. You are giving them a veneer of legitimacy by taking it so seriously.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

You're going to have to spin very hard to get feminism to an ideology that is unconcerned with gender roles that are harmful towards men. It's simply not true. It's true that there are double standards at play that make men acceptable targets where they really should not be. It is not true that feminism as an ideology does not care that these double standards exist.

This is why I was careful to point out that the feminist movement as a whole is not guilty of this. Many feminists are aware of the issues. Also in my reply to Hybrid above I indicated how 'feminist' political policy in the UK evolved when the unwelcome side effects of one suided empowerment became apparent.
However it is also clear that there are portions of the feminist movement that are disinterested in equality in favour of one sided empowerment, or misandry, and many more are caught along by this with casual discrimination and are yet unaware of the causality of casual feminist discrimination. It is a phenomena that is yet to be properly challenged in society as a whole.

You're going to have to spin very hard to get feminism to an ideology that is unconcerned with gender roles that are harmful towards men.

That is indeed, your opinion. There are other opinions, including from older mainstream feminists, that that is not the case, that are now strains of Feminism not interested in equality.

Do I agree, not necessarily, but thought it should be pointed out.

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

This for the win. Both the wife a AHEM AHEM generation feminist and GC hate them with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns.

 feeder wrote:

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

A decent observation. Yes these types of articles do have the break down and build up dynamic, this isn't even necessarily unhealthy. However as you point out the rebuildijng is often portioned to create dependency.
The Modus Operandi of womens magazines is not at issue here, the casual discrimination is, and I provide argument that such open discrimination in the mass media is only possibly in todays society due to seelctive empowerment, and feminism is the only tool available that is relevant to this media.

 feeder wrote:

There is no vast feminist conspiracy to socially engineer a generation of emasculated men. That's part of the right's ridiculous persecution complex. (I'm not casting this net on you, I don't know your particular views)

While there are justified major conspiracy angles to political correctness, and I hold with some of them, this isn't one of them, and thank you for not casting that net on me.
As a general rule though selective empowerment is a very powerful political tool, and always has been.

 feeder wrote:

There is a number of underemployed women with liberal arts degrees who will type any old dross in order to pay the rent. You are giving them a veneer of legitimacy by taking it so seriously.

Sadly I have to disagree. First these articles are not to be mistaken for shock media. Your strategem of ignoring shock media to help starve it of attention and credibility has merit, but not here. Womens articles of this mature are mainstream, and while shock media is there propogate outrage these articles have a different. These articles aren't there to shock women, but to achieve a guru status while guiding women to lifestyle choices, often at the expense of third parties who are blanket discriminated against. Today the groups being targeted include gamers.
The most dangerous part is that the blanket discrimination, open bigotry in fact is not detected as such. Yes I do think this media needs to be labeled as unacceptable challenged and cleaned up and reformed by society at large. In time it will.

 Orlanth wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

A decent observation. Yes these types of articles do have the break down and build up dynamic, this isn't even necessarily unhealthy. However as you point out the rebuildijng is often portioned to create dependency.
The Modus Operandi of womens magazines is not at issue here, the casual discrimination is, and I provide argument that such open discrimination in the mass media is only possibly in todays society due to seelctive empowerment, and feminism is the only tool available that is relevant to this media.

From my point of view you're accusing an ideology concerned with illuminating the social construction of gender as being responsible for what it is criticizing. I'm assuming that's not the argument you're making, could you elaborate a bit?

I realize the feminist angle is probably derailing the thread, but it did strike me as a pretty odd thing to blame this article on. Isn't it better for women if men can comfortably be nerds instead of macho chauvinist pigs? Or am I missing something?

As for the article itself I see this sort of list as entertainment or a diversion targeted at the audience the paper wants. If many of the female readers are 45+ and maybe single it makes sense to give them something to read.

Saying that this article is fault of somet kind of toxic feminism is as absurd as saying that all sexism is machism. Many times is just low standart marketing.

 Galas wrote:
Saying that this article is fault of somet kind of toxic feminism is as absurd as saying that all sexism is machism. Many times is just low standart marketing.

This. $5 next month is "Why guys who play with toys make good fathers".

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Saying that this article is fault of somet kind of toxic feminism is as absurd as saying that all sexism is machism. Many times is just low standart marketing.

This. $5 next month is "Why guys who play with toys make good fathers".

"... and six ways you can improve yourself to get one!"

 Orlanth wrote:
Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

Well, I have a perfectly fine answer for your question: because it is not happening in front of our face. At least not to gamers.

 Orlanth wrote:
Its a simple logical chain.
1. Blanket ostacising of people groups is wrong, its generally considered 'bigoted', with a watchword of 'tolerance' to be highlighted as the opposite and desired societal virtue.
2. However casual blanket ostracism is propagated by certain groups, one of those groups is the womens magazines.
3. Why? We must assume that the writers of womens articles and womens magazines are equal opportunities aware, however they dont consider that tolerance applies in these cases.
4. Casual selective tolerance occurs because rights are selectively applied. In the case there the selective rights are sourced by feminism, which is because feminism at its core is a female empowerment movment rather than an absolute equal rights movement.

3. is basically the only place where you somehow link the article to feminism by virtue of it being written in a women's magazine, which is an extremely weird thing to do. Also weird assumption that women magazine are supposed to be shinning beacon of gender equality and general “social justice” stuff when they have shown time and time again that they are not.

 Orlanth wrote:
Also note that feminism also raises a (selective) banner against casual discrimination, a good example of this is the 'male dominated workforce' and similar memes.

Do you mean this kind of stupid meme? Yeah they are a real load of stupid self-confirmation un-researched crap.

 Orlanth wrote:
Whan they haver these types of articles will disappear.

Grossly misogynistic things still get published, what makes you think that if feminists were to “catch up on male discrimination” stupid articles against dating wargamers will disappear?
Also still confused about why you think this article is about men rather than about wargamers…

 Orlanth wrote:
This does mean that more people *here* should recognise that blanket ostracism of gamers is unfair and discriminatory and has no place in the mass media of a modern and progressive society.

So what you mean is “People here should call this article stupid”. What is happening is “Everyone here calls this article stupid”. I'm confused at why you want exactly…
That we call it stupid and sexist? Well, I'm pretty sure most people will agree with this, if only for the assumptions that wargamers only come in the male variety.
That we call it a feminist article? Ahah good luck with this, it obviously isn't.

 Orlanth wrote:
If the article was about 13 sinful things that a woman should recogjnise a man as unholy for, then you would have a solid argument to claim the discrimination is religious based.
However it isn't, its about actioning stereotypes, and blanket social judgement of people based on their hobby choices, with in a milieu of gender differences.

So, what you are saying is that if we switch the pretty neutral “games/date” with the clearly religious “unholy/sins” thing, it will be clearly religious. Do you somehow associate games and/or dating stuff with feminism in the same way that you associate holiness and sin with religion? If so, why on earth do you do that???

The only issue I can see with adults buying toys is that they can spawn a "collector's market" for a certain line, driving up prices to ridiculous levels.


But it is what it is.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 sebster wrote:
My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles.

Well, this certainly paints an interesting picture of Sebs early home life

That may be the single worst typo of my life Possibly also my mother's life, because she probably just got put on some kind of government watchlist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Ok you two. It might be better of you looked at causality rather than just resort to making patronising remarks. I know what I was writing about. Do you?

Try and think about it. We live in an age where people are expected to show tolerance, however protection and tolerance are one sided.

1. What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?
2. What prevents them from seeing that this is wrong?

Know your argument? You don't even know what ostracise means. Now, noting that someone has used a word incorrectly is generally pedantry, but in this case your mistake in using ostracise is pretty much the entire crux of your argument. Because ostracise means excluding someone entirely from society, but here you've used the word to describe a woman telling other women they shouldn't date certain kinds of guys. One of these things is very different from the other.

And to understand how much your argument relies on this, consider replacing 'ostracise' with 'don't date'. With this, your very serious sounding sentences like "What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?" becomes "What empowers people to recommend people don't date people for shallow reasons?"

The first sentence sounds like a horrible thing being done by them damn feminists who are getting together to shut some people out of society. The second sounds like gakky dating advice, something that's existed since the inventions of dating and gakky advice, and something which has no political or cultural agenda, nor any relation to politics or changing culture, but is actually just the natural product of people having a tendency to give gak advice.

 sebster wrote:
And to understand how much your argument relies on this, consider replacing 'ostracise' with 'don't date'. With this, your very serious sounding sentences like "What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?" becomes "What empowers people to recommend people don't date people for shallow reasons?"

To be fair to Orlanth, “What empowers people to recommend people don't date people based on their skin color” would sound pretty bad.
But let's be serious for a second, how disconnected from real life struggle should one have to be toput on the same level the “discrimination” and “prejudice” that gamers face and the discrimination and prejudice that black people face? Like, WTF is that comparison really?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And to understand how much your argument relies on this, consider replacing 'ostracise' with 'don't date'. With this, your very serious sounding sentences like "What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?" becomes "What empowers people to recommend people don't date people for shallow reasons?"

To be fair to Malus, “What empowers people to recommend people don't date people based on their skin color” would sound pretty bad.
But let's be serious for a second, how disconnected from real life struggle should one have to be toput on the same level the “discrimination” and “prejudice” that gamers face and the discrimination and prejudice that black people face? Like, WTF is that comparison really?

To be fair to Malus, that was Orlanth

I only raised the hilarious typo

My bad. Will edit.

So women should avoid me because I buy adult toys

funny... it always had the opposite effect



(for the naive, I'm deliberately misinterpreting the title)