Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Who made you the arbiter of who should be in the miniature gaming hobby? There aren't many men into knitting. Should that hobby change so that it appeals more to me if some random person decides that more men in knitting would make them feel better about themselves for some reason? No. It's enough that I could do it if I was interested. Nobody is stopping me except me.
I would suggest you have a look into knitting groups, you may be very surprised.
I'm personally a big fan of the large amount of knitted banana hammocks I keep seeing.
I've been playing around with crochet recently actually. It's surprisingly theraputic.
Take horse riding, many of the pony and riding clubs are full of women to the extent that a guy is rarer. And yet we know that there's no real gender divide on if people wish to ride or not
Except there is.
I'm the very poster child for this exact example.
Grew up in a horse riding family, both parents, even to the extent of them dabbling in training racehorses and my grandparents owning them.
I had three ponies between the ages of 4 and 8 or so.
Could not give less of a gak about horses and horse riding, even with the encouragement of my parents and actually having access to my own horse.
I had entirely more fun building forts out of the hay bales than I ever did riding.
Yet the legion of teenage girls my folks had queuing up to help out, not just with exercising but all the grunt work like mucking out and cleaning tack, was seemingly endless, if one aged out and went on to Uni or whatever, there was always a younger friend of one of the others chomping at the bit, pun intended.
I can testify that there was no prejudice on behalf of my folks, they only cared that whoever was helping was competent, treated the animals well and fit in with the other people, but they never once had a boy even show a hint of interest.
So while technically there's no barrier to either gender, there's clearly something in the wiring of the female brain that sparks something around horses that is much less common in male brains. Clearly it can happen, my dad is evidence of that, but it's far more infrequent.
I can only speculate as to whether it's nature or nurture that causes it, but my own experience over my entire lifetime tells me it's very real.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Laughing Man wrote: The response from the knitting community? The more the better.
In my experience most hobby groups hold this view. It tends to be more online that I see more people pushing for exclusion, whilst in the real world most groups are darn happy to have more people and more variety of people joining in.
The groups that tend to be more "exclusive" or picky tend to be those that formed around a friendship group and thus most of the pushback is mostly focused on the fact that they only really want "their friends" as part of the group. Ergo exceptionally cliquey groups. This might be the group resisting new comers or could even be just one or two key people who run things.
One of my close friends does a lot of needlepoint. He's got a pattern he's been doing on and off for a few years for the original Zelda loading screen, poster sized.
Consider how if we go back 20 or 30 years or so many video games were the domain of the geek and nerd. Your typical "Jock/sporty/coolkid/whatever" wouldn't be caught dead playing games.
And yet arcades were a thing and also today games are pretty much commonplace. In fact its almost getting to a point where if you don't game in some form its more abnormal than normal.
There's some really cool/sad history on this, because in the 70's, your typical jock and cheerleader very much did play videogames. Pac Man fever wasn't some nerd secret like the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins after all; it was a cultural phenomena and a whole bunch of very "cool" people went to the arcade for their first date. Where the current idea of what a gamer is really got its roots after the crash, when Nintendo's only real chance to get the NES in stores that had given up on the industry was to sell it to SEARS as a "robot toy" which got filed in the boys section of the mythical Christmas catalog. Its really after that where you really see videogames heavily targeting boys and doubling down on that fanbase at the expensive of pretty much every other until the mobile market arrived.
Take horse riding, many of the pony and riding clubs are full of women to the extent that a guy is rarer. And yet we know that there's no real gender divide on if people wish to ride or not
Except there is.
I'm the very poster child for this exact example.
Grew up in a horse riding family, both parents, even to the extent of them dabbling in training racehorses and my grandparents owning them.
I had three ponies between the ages of 4 and 8 or so.
Could not give less of a gak about horses and horse riding, even with the encouragement of my parents and actually having access to my own horse.
I had entirely more fun building forts out of the hay bales than I ever did riding.
Yet the legion of teenage girls my folks had queuing up to help out, not just with exercising but all the grunt work like mucking out and cleaning tack, was seemingly endless, if one aged out and went on to Uni or whatever, there was always a younger friend of one of the others chomping at the bit, pun intended.
I can testify that there was no prejudice on behalf of my folks, they only cared that whoever was helping was competent, treated the animals well and fit in with the other people, but they never once had a boy even show a hint of interest.
So while technically there's no barrier to either gender, there's clearly something in the wiring of the female brain that sparks something around horses that is much less common in male brains. Clearly it can happen, my dad is evidence of that, but it's far more infrequent.
I can only speculate as to whether it's nature or nurture that causes it, but my own experience over my entire lifetime tells me it's very real.
That sounds like nurture through and through. That's a screaming stereotype of girl must have pony.
Take horse riding, many of the pony and riding clubs are full of women to the extent that a guy is rarer. And yet we know that there's no real gender divide on if people wish to ride or not
Except there is.
I'm the very poster child for this exact example.
Grew up in a horse riding family, both parents, even to the extent of them dabbling in training racehorses and my grandparents owning them.
I had three ponies between the ages of 4 and 8 or so.
Could not give less of a gak about horses and horse riding, even with the encouragement of my parents and actually having access to my own horse.
I had entirely more fun building forts out of the hay bales than I ever did riding.
Yet the legion of teenage girls my folks had queuing up to help out, not just with exercising but all the grunt work like mucking out and cleaning tack, was seemingly endless, if one aged out and went on to Uni or whatever, there was always a younger friend of one of the others chomping at the bit, pun intended.
I can testify that there was no prejudice on behalf of my folks, they only cared that whoever was helping was competent, treated the animals well and fit in with the other people, but they never once had a boy even show a hint of interest.
So while technically there's no barrier to either gender, there's clearly something in the wiring of the female brain that sparks something around horses that is much less common in male brains. Clearly it can happen, my dad is evidence of that, but it's far more infrequent.
I can only speculate as to whether it's nature or nurture that causes it, but my own experience over my entire lifetime tells me it's very real.
And yet if you go to horse racing almost all the jockey's are guys. At the competitive end the gender divide is far less; furthermore I noted that (like you) my viewpoint was UK based rather than another country. I'd wager if you heated out to areas of the USA the culture around it is possibly totally the opposite with a far heavier male influence and far fewer women. Even if that's within select circles. The UK "ponyclub" is certainly a "girls thing" at present yet I don't think it because women are born "wired for horses". I think its more a nurture thing coupled to the fact that if a social group already has an abundance of people within one grouping it can be harder for those outside of that grouping to feel relaxed in joining. You see the same thing with hobby groups full of people over the age of 50 finding it hard to get those of younger generations involved (of either gender). Yet a group of people with a far more broad age range would have far less issue.
And to bring it back to historical wargaming, there's the centuries, millennia really, of horse owning and riding as a sign of prosperity and masculinity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 23:17:59
Take horse riding, many of the pony and riding clubs are full of women to the extent that a guy is rarer. And yet we know that there's no real gender divide on if people wish to ride or not
Except there is.
I'm the very poster child for this exact example.
Grew up in a horse riding family, both parents, even to the extent of them dabbling in training racehorses and my grandparents owning them.
I had three ponies between the ages of 4 and 8 or so.
Could not give less of a gak about horses and horse riding, even with the encouragement of my parents and actually having access to my own horse.
I had entirely more fun building forts out of the hay bales than I ever did riding.
Yet the legion of teenage girls my folks had queuing up to help out, not just with exercising but all the grunt work like mucking out and cleaning tack, was seemingly endless, if one aged out and went on to Uni or whatever, there was always a younger friend of one of the others chomping at the bit, pun intended.
I can testify that there was no prejudice on behalf of my folks, they only cared that whoever was helping was competent, treated the animals well and fit in with the other people, but they never once had a boy even show a hint of interest.
So while technically there's no barrier to either gender, there's clearly something in the wiring of the female brain that sparks something around horses that is much less common in male brains. Clearly it can happen, my dad is evidence of that, but it's far more infrequent.
I can only speculate as to whether it's nature or nurture that causes it, but my own experience over my entire lifetime tells me it's very real.
That sounds like nurture through and through. That's a screaming stereotype of girl must have pony.
That doesn't mean anything. Firstly, a stereotype only generally becomes one because it's based on a truth, and then one has to answer the question of where that truth came from.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Take horse riding, many of the pony and riding clubs are full of women to the extent that a guy is rarer. And yet we know that there's no real gender divide on if people wish to ride or not
Except there is.
I'm the very poster child for this exact example.
Grew up in a horse riding family, both parents, even to the extent of them dabbling in training racehorses and my grandparents owning them.
I had three ponies between the ages of 4 and 8 or so.
Could not give less of a gak about horses and horse riding, even with the encouragement of my parents and actually having access to my own horse.
I had entirely more fun building forts out of the hay bales than I ever did riding.
Yet the legion of teenage girls my folks had queuing up to help out, not just with exercising but all the grunt work like mucking out and cleaning tack, was seemingly endless, if one aged out and went on to Uni or whatever, there was always a younger friend of one of the others chomping at the bit, pun intended.
I can testify that there was no prejudice on behalf of my folks, they only cared that whoever was helping was competent, treated the animals well and fit in with the other people, but they never once had a boy even show a hint of interest.
So while technically there's no barrier to either gender, there's clearly something in the wiring of the female brain that sparks something around horses that is much less common in male brains. Clearly it can happen, my dad is evidence of that, but it's far more infrequent.
I can only speculate as to whether it's nature or nurture that causes it, but my own experience over my entire lifetime tells me it's very real.
That sounds like nurture through and through. That's a screaming stereotype of girl must have pony.
That doesn't mean anything. Firstly, a stereotype only generally becomes one because it's based on a truth, and then one has to answer the question of where that truth came from.
We aren't disagreeing that, right now, in the UK the "ponyclub" scene isn't a girls thing; it very much is. What we are saying is that its a result of nurturing and social elements that has resulted in a gender divide rather than an inherent element of what is different between those genders at a genetic level. We can see proof in history where horse riding was very much a mans thing; we can see it in different countries where the gender divide is either non-existent or is totally the reverse. Even in the UK at different levels of the hobby and in different groupings you can see a different gender divide - from what I'm casually aware of the competitive end has the opposite problem in trying to encourage more women competitors (esp in racing).
Getting back to wargaming its trying to reinforce the point that its a "mans game" not because of any difference in genetics between men and women which makes it a mans game forever because of genetics; but because of social elements. Social elements are flexible and can change and be made/encouraged to change. This is a great thing because it means with the right attitude and approach the community can grow significantly by appealing to a new segment of society that is currently not as included. In this case focusing on the encouragement of more women into the hobby.
No, in horse racing the issue is with finding women who are capable of competing, much like F1. There are a few, but even in these apparently enlightened times that number doesn't seem to be increasing notably. Unlike F1, I don't think one can look at a lack of interest at grass roots level as a potential reason for that, but I suspect the specific set of physical and mental attributes needed to be successful as a Grade 1 jockey are simply more comon in people born male.
The historical and cultural examples you're pointing to are largely where the gender divide was huge, and women didn't get to do anything, let alone possess the freedom of roaming the countryside on horseback, that was until men discovered other means of moving about and killing each other. Once horses become a hobby rather than a necessity, I'd wager they start to swing towards a largely female interest.
But to address the wargaming point, my issue is why bother? Why is it so important that we change attitudes that nobody outside of a few people on the internet seem to be inordinately bothered by?
Why does a segment of society that isn't generally interested in the whole affair need to have its attitude changed, irrespective of the mechanisms at work, so that it is interested?
It is very difficult to participate in a discussion like this and not feel the side advocating for a minority to be able to do something they could already do if they cared isn't arguing for some sort of opressed group so much as arguing to be seen arguing by some sort of hypothetical third party who actually simply isn't paying attention.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 00:01:16
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Albino Squirrel wrote: Who made you the arbiter of who should be in the miniature gaming hobby? There aren't many men into knitting. Should that hobby change so that it appeals more to me if some random person decides that more men in knitting would make them feel better about themselves for some reason? No. It's enough that I could do it if I was interested. Nobody is stopping me except me.
Fun fact: There's actually been a rather large influx in the knitting hobby in the last several years, thanks largely to discussions about toxic masculinity and misogyny. The response from the knitting community? The more the better. Knitting as a hobby isn't regarded as a women's hobby because women are better or at it, or because they keep men away. It's a women's hobby because men view it as such, and label other men interested in it as weak, feminine, or gay.
Meanwhile, the wargaming hobby remains vastly the domain of men because of gatekeeping like this, where any representation of women in major roles and not as sex objects is often seen as an attack on the hobby as a whole, and a betrayal of the core audience. It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest, or automatically writing them off as someone's girlfriend/seeking male attention.
The only people doing gatekeeping here are people like you, who think they should get to decide who should be in the hobby. I think anyone who is interested in the hobby should be in it. You think the hobby should change in order to get the makeup of people that you have decided is correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I get it, though. It is partly that the social justice people want to control the demographics of whatever the hobby is. But it is more that they need everyone else to believe in their fantasy that things are the way they are because of racism or sexism or whatever. They need people to believe that the hobby is full of men trying to keep women out. And they need people to believe it because that's how they justify, and even make a virtue of, them hating people who don't think like them. But hating people who don't like the same things as you isn't a virtue at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 00:36:05
Albino Squirrel wrote: Who made you the arbiter of who should be in the miniature gaming hobby? There aren't many men into knitting. Should that hobby change so that it appeals more to me if some random person decides that more men in knitting would make them feel better about themselves for some reason? No. It's enough that I could do it if I was interested. Nobody is stopping me except me.
Fun fact: There's actually been a rather large influx in the knitting hobby in the last several years, thanks largely to discussions about toxic masculinity and misogyny. The response from the knitting community? The more the better. Knitting as a hobby isn't regarded as a women's hobby because women are better or at it, or because they keep men away. It's a women's hobby because men view it as such, and label other men interested in it as weak, feminine, or gay.
Meanwhile, the wargaming hobby remains vastly the domain of men because of gatekeeping like this, where any representation of women in major roles and not as sex objects is often seen as an attack on the hobby as a whole, and a betrayal of the core audience. It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest, or automatically writing them off as someone's girlfriend/seeking male attention.
The only people doing gatekeeping here are people like you, who think they should get to decide who should be in the hobby. I think anyone who is interested in the hobby should be in it. You think the hobby should change in order to get the makeup of people that you have decided is correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I get it, though. It is partly that the social justice people want to control the demographics of whatever the hobby is. But it is more that they need everyone else to believe in their fantasy that things are the way they are because of racism or sexism or whatever. They need people to believe that the hobby is full of men trying to keep women out. And they need people to believe it because that's how they justify, and even make a virtue of, them hating people who don't think like them. But hating people who don't like the same things as you isn't a virtue at all.
What do you regard as the benefit of this scheme? Why do these monstrous SJWs need to believe these outrageous lies?
Ghool wrote:How did this go to speculation about a gaming industry drop-off to a discussion of racism, gender, and representation?
It comes up because our culture and morals have progressed so that equality and inclusion are important to us. Things are changing for the better, even things that many of us didn't realise are a problem. We've been doing things that or our cultural norms exclude people from certain things, It is often difficult to see unless you are on the receiving end. Often we thought that's just how things are. Sometimes it actually is though, men and women are different and ethnicity often comes different values and cultures.
That's where argument comes in.
It's not entirely clear which things are due to nature and which are due to exclusion.
So we have two sides (that get involved in places like this) with concerns about real problems and assumptions about the other side. They often talk past each other because their premises are not compatible with a reasonable person disagreeing with them. This makes arguments on the topic descend into name calling and accusations of racism/sexism.
In GW's financials, they broke down their sales by channel and year over year the greatest growth was, by far, in independent trade accounts. Huge numbers of comic book and game stores and toy stores deciding to start selling GW. The actual growth through their retail and online channels was rather modest.
So when GW's growth is less in future years, it's probably not indicative of the beginning of the end, but that there are only so many easy accounts to get as a business-to-business sales person. You can search online and find all the game, comic, hobby and toy stores in a region and once you've succeeded in selling them on stocking GW, there's not much left to do. Now you're in the much, much harder work of either convincing stores that have already refused or convincing people to start a store selling your product.
The other thing to remember is that when an independent store buys GW product that is not yet necessarily in the hands of the customers. Much of it must go on a shelf first. Some times it can sit there. And a new stockist of GW product is going to spend a lot in the first quarter getting their paint racks and their shelves full of the most important items. So we should also expect to see GW's trade sales struggle to maintain growth as new accounts transition into just ordering new releases and the occasional special order.
If 6 months from now GW has a half year report that shows only a small amount of growth, we'll need to dig into the numbers and see if it's just the trade sales no longer growing as fast and if the direct and GW retail numbers are holding their more modest growth rates.
---
Now onto the representation issue. It's certainly possible to do being inclusive or representation poorly or greatly. What you should never do is approach your existing customers as if there is something wrong with them. That they're the problem and if we get this other group of customers, then things will be good. The real goal should be to get as many customers as possible without alienating them or pitting one group against another. Let's hope GW has the good sense not to racialize their communication with their customers by referring to the wrong sort as "white beardos" as Nurglitch has.
---
Another thing that will have an impact on the hobby is trade tensions. So much of KS games rely on cheap components made in China and a surprise tarriff could utterly obliterate a project. And if it's a company that is a perennial KS creator, a profitable project becoming a loser because of tariffs could end them. Hopefully the gaming industry can respond to these uncertainties by having printing, contract casting and even injection moulding happen in places more domestic to the KS creators and game companies in general. Hopefully more places like Renedra pop up. Though from what I understand, they are largely booked quite solidly with the historical miniatures market. On the RPG side of things though, I've started noticing companies printing their books in Canada, the US and Europe with Canadian printers & some Baltic printers popping up as the low cost options. I hope this trend continues and production of more and more things can be distributed more and more across the world rather than concentrated in one place with such poor human rights and environmental records.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/08 06:26:25
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
So you have a questionable dill weed, and an article that throws all other participants in the hobby into the same category, without numbers or anything to back that up.
Scuseme but that ain't quality journalism.
Additionally. Play the fething game, live and let live. If you have such a dill weed in your group throw him out.
There case solved. It is not the bloody companies issue to keep the community welocming, that is the communities job itself.
The company can help along with decent ruleset and boons for fresh starters but that 's it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 07:55:25
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
But to address the wargaming point, my issue is why bother? Why is it so important that we change attitudes that nobody outside of a few people on the internet seem to be inordinately bothered by?
Why does a segment of society that isn't generally interested in the whole affair need to have its attitude changed, irrespective of the mechanisms at work, so that it is interested?
It is very difficult to participate in a discussion like this and not feel the side advocating for a minority to be able to do something they could already do if they cared isn't arguing for some sort of opressed group so much as arguing to be seen arguing by some sort of hypothetical third party who actually simply isn't paying attention.
Why aim to include more people? Because its better.
Increasing the demographic that engages with a hobby means an increase in membership; that means more sales for the parent companies which means more investment production for more product. It means more people at local clubs and a greater potential of a spread out skill level at those clubs, which means more chance of getting more games. An increased population means the potential to run bigger events; to establish more local clubs; to broaden and increase the size of the hobby. This means more games, more skill variation, new insights etc...
Honestly in the end it also comes down to the fact that those arguing for more people to take part are simply those enjoying a hobby who wish for more people to get involved with what they like. It's about breaking down barriers that aren't even really there and presenting people with the potential to be interested in something that they otherwise might not have considered. You're not forcing them to be included.
Lets look at football, go back 30 years and womens football wasn't really much of a thing. Schools tended to separate boys and girls and the girls went off to do rounders, netball, tennis and the boys went off to do cricket, rugby and football. Nothing stopped either group playing any of those games and in practice both groups played most of the games (though it was weighted against the girls who generally wouldn't play games like rugby, even if the boys played all 3 of the girls games at intermittent points). So many girls were not presented the idea of playing football, it wasn't shown to them as a pathway and it was in fact closed down the older they got. Today its changing and womens football is now becoming bigger and bigger; though its still a far cry from the main leagues.
Again its about breaking those casual social boundaries, about breaking impressions and tropes (many of which are not even real) and getting more people involved.
GW hasn't got to change its product*, the change is one for clubs and advertising as well as GW reaching out with licenced products into other markets to draw in people.
*which is a fear many people do raise when one considers inclusive natures. They argue that if GW were to include women then every army has to suddenly get women characters etc....
But to address the wargaming point, my issue is why bother? Why is it so important that we change attitudes that nobody outside of a few people on the internet seem to be inordinately bothered by?
Why does a segment of society that isn't generally interested in the whole affair need to have its attitude changed, irrespective of the mechanisms at work, so that it is interested?
It is very difficult to participate in a discussion like this and not feel the side advocating for a minority to be able to do something they could already do if they cared isn't arguing for some sort of opressed group so much as arguing to be seen arguing by some sort of hypothetical third party who actually simply isn't paying attention.
Why aim to include more people? Because its better.
Increasing the demographic that engages with a hobby means an increase in membership; that means more sales for the parent companies which means more investment production for more product. It means more people at local clubs and a greater potential of a spread out skill level at those clubs, which means more chance of getting more games. An increased population means the potential to run bigger events; to establish more local clubs; to broaden and increase the size of the hobby. This means more games, more skill variation, new insights etc...
Honestly in the end it also comes down to the fact that those arguing for more people to take part are simply those enjoying a hobby who wish for more people to get involved with what they like. It's about breaking down barriers that aren't even really there and presenting people with the potential to be interested in something that they otherwise might not have considered. You're not forcing them to be included.
Lets look at football, go back 30 years and womens football wasn't really much of a thing. Schools tended to separate boys and girls and the girls went off to do rounders, netball, tennis and the boys went off to do cricket, rugby and football. Nothing stopped either group playing any of those games and in practice both groups played most of the games (though it was weighted against the girls who generally wouldn't play games like rugby, even if the boys played all 3 of the girls games at intermittent points). So many girls were not presented the idea of playing football, it wasn't shown to them as a pathway and it was in fact closed down the older they got. Today its changing and womens football is now becoming bigger and bigger; though its still a far cry from the main leagues.
Again its about breaking those casual social boundaries, about breaking impressions and tropes (many of which are not even real) and getting more people involved.
GW hasn't got to change its product*, the change is one for clubs and advertising as well as GW reaching out with licenced products into other markets to draw in people.
*which is a fear many people do raise when one considers inclusive natures. They argue that if GW were to include women then every army has to suddenly get women characters etc....
Well said and good comparison concerning the school sports. I do remember back in school myself a handful of the girls getting frustrated they weren't allowed to play rugby. Caused a lot of consternation with them at the time.
Lets look at football, go back 30 years and womens football wasn't really much of a thing. Schools tended to separate boys and girls and the girls went off to do rounders, netball, tennis and the boys went off to do cricket, rugby and football. Nothing stopped either group playing any of those games and in practice both groups played most of the games (though it was weighted against the girls who generally wouldn't play games like rugby, even if the boys played all 3 of the girls games at intermittent points). So many girls were not presented the idea of playing football, it wasn't shown to them as a pathway and it was in fact closed down the older they got. Today its changing and womens football is now becoming bigger and bigger; though its still a far cry from the main leagues.
Well said and good comparison concerning the school sports. I do remember back in school myself a handful of the girls getting frustrated they weren't allowed to play rugby. Caused a lot of consternation with them at the time.
Aye and its a good example of one of the areas where there are still hard barriers - school rules and the like - which prevent people getting involved in something; but also in shutting down even the presentation of the game to them as something to consider playing. An oddity too because things like football only become gender segregated as kids get older, partly around the same time that inter-school competitive events start to become a thing and sports teachers get hooked on trying to win awards for the school. So its an example where a barrier appears quite randomly at a rough age bracket - a sport that once was for everyone suddenly becomes locked down to one gender.
Those kinds of barrier can be tough to break ,but they can also be easier in so much as at least the issue is more easily identified.
With wargames many of the barriers are not rules or regulations nor are they even social elements that reinforce directly (unless one includes after school activity groups which might weight something like miniature making toward the "boys" whilst something like knitting to the girls; but not every school has such programs or has wargaming on the activity list). So the barriers to entry can be harder to tackle because they are much more difficult to see and can often be based on impressions which are not even true.
Wargame clubs (that I've been too) have never had directly anti-inclusive people nor anti-inclusive rules. There isn't someone lording over the club and "banning girls" or any other social group. Instead you get subtle messages, such as the whole group being guys which becomes intimidating gals wanting to join in without anyone intending it to be so. Again this isn't a hard barrier, its a subtle thing that can discourage casually interested parties. The die-hard fan who REALLY wants to get involved already can, there's very little to stop them. However such people are always a rarity within hobby groups, the key is tapping into the casually interested market.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 10:40:21
We also need to allow people to simply not be interested. It can't be that if a given person is not getting involved it must only be because of some barrier someone has put up. If we are not careful we would end up removing the autonomy of anyone who's not part of a majority by not allowing them to have their own preferences and reducing their non-participation to the barriers we imagine are the cause.
It's also okay to have primarily male spaces. I know when a friend of mine transitioned from female to male, participation in such spaces was one of the biggest helps in dealing with the depression that often goes along with gender dysphoria, even post transition. If that particular gaming group had been mixed gender it would not have had the same utility in providing the acceptance as one of the guys that he needed. He also found a similar experience at a monthly Men's Breakfast at a local church.
Either way, I don't think this will end up being a key issue in whether or not there's a drop off. I think that'll be an economic and cyclical issue rather than one related to inclusivity. A ton of people who were out of the hobby in their late 20s and early 30s have gotten back in and it's not clear that there's another group of them ready to follow. If the general growth of gaming, board games and geek culture that has resulted on the internet can be sustained then perhaps we'll see miniature wargaming only grow from here, but I suspect we'll see a leveling off period, if not a small decline.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/08 11:08:40
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
frozenwastes wrote: We also need to allow people to simply not be interested. It can't be that if a given person is not getting involved it must be because of some barrier someone has put up.
It's also okay to have primarily male spaces. I know when a friend of mine transitioned from female to male, participation in such spaces was one of the biggest helps in dealing with the depression that often goes along with gender dysphoria, even post transition. If that particular gaming group had been mixed gender it would not have had the same utility in providing the acceptance as one of the guys that he needed.
These are also very valid points.
I think in terms of "allowing people to be not interested" most of the drive to include more people isn't focused on forcing, but more about making things welcoming and also introducing people to new ideas and aiming to try and get them to spend more than a casual glance at it. Ergo you're not forcing people into it, just introducing them to the concept and getting them to perhaps play a small intro game or paint one model etc.... Ergo giving them a taste and also an experience alongside having an atmosphere that makes them feel welcome and want to be part of the group.
As for gender specific spaces and hobbies that's a complex issue but certainly very valid to consider. I think for wargames the issue is that historically its been a very male dominated hobby so its already a kind of "male space". I think there's a drive now to be more inclusive which might well result in that element reducing; however at the same time provided that the inclusive nature of most general clubs increases the active member base; then one can argue that the local interest could build to a point where it can locally support both a generalist all-comers group and also "male" and even "female" space groups.
The way in which we might disallow people to be not interested is if we define their non participate as being caused by barriers (real or imagined). If we do that, then we have taken away their agency in order to use them as props in a political debate. That's all I was getting at. I'm not talking about actually forcing anyone to like miniature gaming (good luck with that ).
It's also possible that more than one good faith position on the matter of inclusivity is correct. It's possible that people like what they like and that the nature of the hobby products can be barriers. If that's the case then the solution is simply to have variety and for everyone to accept that not everything is for them.
One way inclusivity or representation could end up contributing to a down turn would be if one side or another says "no" to that idea. That variety is not allowed. Only stuff that confirms to their vision is allowed. And if enough clout in terms of sales and lobbying the manufacturers to comply is brought to bear, then we could all lose out.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
GW has always had female characters in the Black Library. Most of them far from the damsel in distress. Example? Lotarra Sarrin. Ulrika Magdova.
But, on the tabletop, pretty much a sausagefest.
The Hobby is of course more than the actual games you can play with the models. Many only collect/paint, and have little to no interest in rolling them bones at all.
Having a diverse range, showing lots of variety helps attract ever wider audiences. GW have always had the general variety down pat, thanks to a decent range of aesthetics. But if a young girl can see say, a female Stormcast? That has an appeal beyond a male Stormcast. Or so the theory goes, anyway.
And, if as certain sectors claim, including female sculpts puts them off the hobby as a whole? Not entirely sure they're the sort I'd want hanging around my shop in the first place.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I'd be iinterested in an actual large case study on how many women were actually interested in wargaming.
I know its touted that they are not interested in wargaming because there are few female miniatures, but I know in my world that 99% of the women I've ever known are not interested in wargaming because wargaming and war are things in the male domain and do not interest them in the slightest.
Its kind of like women and heavy metal music. Also a sausage fest in most cases.
auticus wrote: I'd be iinterested in an actual large case study on how many women were actually interested in wargaming.
I know its touted that they are not interested in wargaming because there are few female miniatures, but I know in my world that 99% of the women I've ever known are not interested in wargaming because wargaming and war are things in the male domain and do not interest them in the slightest.
Its kind of like women and heavy metal music. Also a sausage fest in most cases.
Now that is incredibly untrue. I just got back from a Kamelot concert from Trondheim about 2 weeks ago with the other half and i'd guess at least 50-60% of the audience were women.
Possibly because it's an inherently welcoming hobby, where everyone accepts it's all a bit ridiculous - but also fun.
There's that visibility thing again. Like I said about the difference between the board game café and the GW, one is filled with people laughing and having fun, and the other is quiet.
I'd also argue that Larp groups tend to be more overt and outgoing with advertising their groups as well. A GW store doesn't really have a manger advertising or pushing their product outside of the footfall that walks in whilst many game clubs for wargames often don't do all that much. Heck many don't even run a good website or regular facebook page.
auticus wrote: I'd be iinterested in an actual large case study on how many women were actually interested in wargaming.
I know its touted that they are not interested in wargaming because there are few female miniatures, but I know in my world that 99% of the women I've ever known are not interested in wargaming because wargaming and war are things in the male domain and do not interest them in the slightest.
Its kind of like women and heavy metal music. Also a sausage fest in most cases.
Now that is incredibly untrue. I just got back from a Kamelot concert from Trondheim about 2 weeks ago with the other half and i'd guess at least 50-60% of the audience were women.
I do have to wonder if it's cultural thing, as mostly it seems Americans are experiencing this sort of...divide. Obviously individual experiences are not a proof of anything, but I knew a small handful of girls interested in wargames, but many more who were into RPGs, LARP, reenactment (including the choppy-smashy bits) and of course metal.
Anyway, even if not a single woman would be enticed to play wargames by including lady models, I still think having lady models is a good idea, it breaks up the monotony of having 10x the same model on the tabletop. If it does bring in women to the hobby, all the better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 13:08:18
Nightstalkers 
Dwarfs 
GASLANDS! 
Holy Roman Empire 
).
