Switch Theme:

Wired Article - Why so few Woman Wargamers?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

Because they don't want to? Or do we just no longer credit people with individual agency?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 20:58:35


Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Laughing Man wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
Thinking about this some more, could weight be an issue? I'm 6'5" tall, and fairly strong, and even I've gotten arm strain from hauling around a pewter horde army. A 5'2" skinny gal wouldn't have a chance. With card games there's really not that much physical product to have to transport.

I'm 5'10" and 130 pounds, and regularly carried two full Battlefoam bags of Khador models back in the day. I'm pretty sure most women can handle one or two full of plastic.


Well, yeah, but you also have to consider how likely it is that a woman will also be carrying around a purse large enough to be confused for a horse saddle, stocked with enough random items to stock a small store.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Lol yeah; because they are women they will not only carry a purse, but carry their miniatures in that purse! An inherent trait of the gender

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 20:44:44


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 cuda1179 wrote:
 Laughing Man wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
Thinking about this some more, could weight be an issue? I'm 6'5" tall, and fairly strong, and even I've gotten arm strain from hauling around a pewter horde army. A 5'2" skinny gal wouldn't have a chance. With card games there's really not that much physical product to have to transport.

I'm 5'10" and 130 pounds, and regularly carried two full Battlefoam bags of Khador models back in the day. I'm pretty sure most women can handle one or two full of plastic.


Well, yeah, but you also have to consider how likely it is that a woman will also be carrying around a purse large enough to be confused for a horse saddle, stocked with enough random items to stock a small store.


Have you seen the size of some handbags!?

Heck it wouldn't surprise me if there are saddle shaped designer handbags out there!

   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker




New York City

I think most of the people in this thread are stretching it when y'all are constantly using the word violence/violent in association with tabletop/miniature wargaming. You'll know violence when you see it, and miniature wargaming is on the opposite end of violence. It's simply what its called - wargaming.

And if we are all to be perfectly honest and truthful to ourselves; in laymans terms, its playing pretend with tiny plastic dolls, exactly like how a five year old would.

Yes, I like playing pretend with tiny plastic dolls. I will readily admit this.

Fight for our dead! Death to their living! And claim them in the name of the Emperor!
Lego Warhammer 40,000. Someone make it happen. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I read articles like this and it feels like looking back in time, except it isn't.
It is.

Right at the start- "they're all white men, all 50 and older". Miniature wargaming was aimed at boys in the 70s, welcome to the past.

The article presents the game as pitting hapless new players against these ancient uncaring neckbeards as if no-one else has entered the hobby in-between... which for old napoleonic-style pewter model wargaming might well be true-ish, it seems to slip from one scene to another. Doesn't particularly match any of the crowds i've seen in GW stores of late, nor is there anything in the article discussing how most players get into the game in the first place as schoolkids drawing from the bank of mum and dad.


Also $100 for a starter army? $60 for a premier board game? Looking back in time indeed.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Cronch wrote:


As for point one..I don't know how else to explain it. You seem to skip over the point every time.
Let's say you have 100 men and 100 women.
Of those, 30 men and 20 women are "nerds".
So yes, we are starting with smaller pool, but we do not concern ourselves with that aspect for now.
Of those 30 men, 10 go to RPG club, 10 go to MtG tournaments, 5 to boardgame nights and 5 visit GW/LGS to play. I am assuming there is no overlap for ease of demonstration.
Of those 20 women, 10 go to RPG club,6 to MtG tournaments, 3 to boardgame nighs and 1 vistis the LGS/GW.
What is the question is WHY only 1 of them went for wargames vs the more even split shown by men?

I made the point that men are more likely to be interested, the 30/20 in your example.
If you dont disagree with that point, why are you constantly disagreeing with it?
Further, I have never denied there are other factors. Quite the opposite I have agreed with it. That's why there's no disagreement on those aspects.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LumenPraebeo wrote:


Yes, I like playing pretend with tiny plastic dolls. I will readily admit this.

We know it's playing pretend with plastic dolls.
The point is what you're pretending to do.

There's a big difference between the grimdark future where there is only war and even the 'good guys' partake in slavery and genocide when it suits them.
And the world of happy magic where you can have little owl friends and go off and slay the evil wizard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 23:05:33


 
   
Made in us
Revving Ravenwing Biker




New York City

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's a big difference between the grimdark future where there is only war and even the 'good guys' partake in slavery and genocide when it suits them.
And the world of happy magic where you can have little owl friends and go off and slay the evil wizard.


In a bigger picture, no. Not really.

Fight for our dead! Death to their living! And claim them in the name of the Emperor!
Lego Warhammer 40,000. Someone make it happen. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






A.T. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I read articles like this and it feels like looking back in time, except it isn't.
It is.

Right at the start- "they're all white men, all 50 and older". Miniature wargaming was aimed at boys in the 70s, welcome to the past.

The article presents the game as pitting hapless new players against these ancient uncaring neckbeards as if no-one else has entered the hobby in-between... which for old napoleonic-style pewter model wargaming might well be true-ish, it seems to slip from one scene to another. Doesn't particularly match any of the crowds i've seen in GW stores of late, nor is there anything in the article discussing how most players get into the game in the first place as schoolkids drawing from the bank of mum and dad.


Also $100 for a starter army? $60 for a premier board game? Looking back in time indeed.
You didn't read the article, you had a preconceived opinion on it and skimmed through to find a few bits to justify your dismissal. When taken out of context they certainly do paint an extreme picture, but also a dishonest one. This is an old, old tactic used to defend discrimination time and time again.

And really I am just holding this up as a textbook example; many people have done such in this thread. The irony is how it proves the point made in the article so well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 00:26:58


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's worth noting that although women earn less money on average, they spend significantly more money on average. So I'm not entirely sure the idea that women just don't have the money holds water.


True, to a point. A woman spends more on beauty and healthcare products than a man, on the average. Of course, her professional appearance is often much more important to her employer than a man's appearance as well. So long as the guy shaves and showers daily and keeps his hair neatish, he's good. The woman is judged - often subconsciously - on her hair care, makeup, etc. etc. etc. And then there's the extra expense of feminine hygiene products. All this adds up.

So... lower pay, more expenses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote:
I would once more point out, as Vulkan and Kiro obsessively focus on "the average" that in all my questions, I focus on the already nerdy women that do have the disposable income to play tabletop games, as they currently exist, in flesh, in CCG and board and rpg gaming circles. It's THOSE exceptional individuals that still avoid this one, particular kind of tabletop hobby, and so far the answer seems to be "war in title scares ladies off".


But yes, I know why the average woman doesn't play wargames, the same reason why almost no men ever touch the wargaming hobby, they're not interested in tabletop gaming at all. There is no mystery there.

My limited IRL observation and seeing so many online discussions unfold would suggest the issue isn't that the word "war" and idea of rolling dice to "kill" things scares girls off (they seem to have no big issue with disemboweling monsters in D&D which is usually way more graphic due to the narrative aspect than clinical, non-violent way of just removing soldier tokens from board in 40k) but rather than wargaming communities on average are unwelcoming either by being generally unwelcoming to new people or by being specifically unwelcoming to anyone that poses a "threat" to the status quo.


Now this is a rather different point that has been stated upthread. And I agree 100%, wargaming has done an extremely poor job of attracting these ladies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
Let's face it, most wargamers do not WANT new players in their groups. There is too big of a risk that they will come to the table with a different expectation of the game than you have. That leads to actual conflict and drama that no one wants. Most wargamers are in a very small, exclusive group of players in one of the people's garage or basement. Look at the old GW design team as an example!

Frequently, we spent too much time curating our game group to the people we actually WANT to play with. Therefore, we may not be that interested in expanding to new people once we get that group. New people are an unknown element. It may not even have to do with gender, race, or religion. Instead it comes down to WAAC, Fluffy, Casual, Tourney, etc. factors.

Heck, even on this board we see the disconnect between the Tourney Folks and the Filthy Casuals! In the wild, there is even more peril in this divide.



I was going to argue this, but then I remembered some VERY unwelcoming groups I tried to get into and... yeah, there is more truth to this than I care to admit. Certain groups do not want new players at all.

I might argue that saying 'most' is overstating things. The Game Nite group welcomed me in pretty quickly, after all, and we were always looking for new opponents to play against. After that, it's just a matter of calibrating expectations. Some players preferred fluffy games, so you bring fluff to play them. Others played harder so you bring harder options. If someone was testing a tournament army, you pull out all the stops. In short, you communicate your expectations.

Which...thinking about it... is probably something the socially awkward tend to be a bit bad at.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 02:23:37


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Everyone is bad at it, the socially adept are just confident at being bad at it

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Vulcan wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's worth noting that although women earn less money on average, they spend significantly more money on average. So I'm not entirely sure the idea that women just don't have the money holds water.


True, to a point. A woman spends more on beauty and healthcare products than a man, on the average. Of course, her professional appearance is often much more important to her employer than a man's appearance as well. So long as the guy shaves and showers daily and keeps his hair neatish, he's good. The woman is judged - often subconsciously - on her hair care, makeup, etc. etc. etc. And then there's the extra expense of feminine hygiene products. All this adds up.

So... lower pay, more expenses.



I'd just like to point out that the lower pay thing is a bit of a myth, especially when it comes to women that are still able to menstruate. According to the Obama 2012 jobs report data women under 35 earn 108% of what men do for working the same job. Women under 35 are also more likely than men to earn money undisclosed to the government. In other words, they are more likely to not report tips.

Also, according to Time magazine women in large cities in the US will out earn men by 20%. Larger cities are pretty much needed for the wargaming community to grow and thrive, as I can attest to, living in the rural Midwest.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 03:52:56


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





As stated earlier in thread part of it may be generational divide in cultural/gender marketing trends and social peer pressure. D&D is mainstream in schools now. I had guy friends who were still closeted gamers in college because they thought they might not hookup if girls found out; and never considered those girls might have wanted to play.
How one is exposure to the hobby is a factor.
At a few conventions I'd see women playing x-wing who were introduced because of well, starwars...a pan-generational franchise with diverse characters in movies, books, comics, games, toys, shows, cosplay etc. Marketing out the wazoo. Similarly there were LotR players when the movies came out, but gradually died off in my area. Both systems have larger communities for their fanbase to geek over, and were introduced to the games through that.
GW stuff is wargaming first, a niche hobby. It's only in the last ~20yrs been consistently investing into other media to attract wider audiences. I've heard stories of people switching to minis after being introduced to 40k through the FFG rpgs, others after playing DoW and total war series. A few others who would play but the cost of entry is too much, they mainly stick to the videogames or dabble in proxy/poorhammer. X-wing and LotR boxed sets had a lower cost to start playing than GW/wmh, right?
My own experience of exposure other than some older relatives who were into model railroading and D&D, I only heard of 40k because it was trendy at my middle school for awhile, it wasn't as expensive then; and prior to that I played battletech with standees and a few miniatures; and I only knew about that because of the tv show I only caught some of the time. A combination of strong marketing, shared communities and luck. Historical isn't my thing, but I can't recall someone under 40+ playing them.

When I still frequented it my flgs had a few women painting 40k figs, but never really played there*, I never thought to ask how they learned about it. The painting sessions diminished after the store location downsized. The previous place was multistory and had areas for tabletops, boardgames, ccg and RPGs, weekends were fairly busy you could learn about new game systems by taking a break in the hallway. The newer space was 1/4 of the size, certain games were delegated to particular nights because of the limited tabletop space, and (ahem) less well ventilated; the bad-hygiene stereotype persists for a reason. I could barely stand it sometimes. Most people were chill mixed bag, but then there's the proverbial that guy(or two, or three) who'd chase away veterans and newcomers alike. Haven't been there in a while, so maybe it's changed again.

And there was the model-representation gap. One studiomate was interested in space marines until she found there were no women space marines, didn't like aesthetics of 3rd ed SoB, and got the longwinded lore-rant from...that guy.

Overall, like other formerly male-dominated spaces, it's likely just a matter time for others to come around. Exposure to the hobby from people/family, other media, coming in from other games, youtube painters, etc. My friends in other cities have seen a gradual increase in women participation, and we've also noticed groups having lower tolerance of putting up with that guy types who make everyone uncomfortable; correlation?

*From local meetups I notice there's more ladies-night or women only gaming groups. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a women wargamers, just not playing in the same public venues.

   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Vulcan wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's worth noting that although women earn less money on average, they spend significantly more money on average. So I'm not entirely sure the idea that women just don't have the money holds water.


True, to a point. A woman spends more on beauty and healthcare products than a man, on the average. Of course, her professional appearance is often much more important to her employer than a man's appearance as well. So long as the guy shaves and showers daily and keeps his hair neatish, he's good. The woman is judged - often subconsciously - on her hair care, makeup, etc. etc. etc. And then there's the extra expense of feminine hygiene products. All this adds up.

So... lower pay, more expenses.


I think that's changing. At least in my area of work there's increasingly a mix of women who both get themselves made up and have flawless hair styling, and those who look like they've just thrown a comb through their hair, tied it back and not put on any (or minimal) makeup. I'd argue that the latter group is often taken more seriously at a professional level than the former.

But I think preconceived notions are breaking down over time. During a recent engineering project worth 10's of millions of dollars I worked on I was struck when the gamut of head engineers and major stakeholders were in a room, how difficult it was to guess who was who based on gender, race, how they were dressed, who had the most expensive haircut, etc.

But obviously it's going to depend on the field you work and the location in the world you live. Even if you're a bloke in some areas it's important that you wear a reasonably expensive get up and have spent an hour each morning prettying yourself up if you want to get ahead.

However these days in many areas I think there's a perceived expectation that women will doll themselves up that doesn't always exist in reality, and if they showed up with the same level of personal care that your average man does it wouldn't hurt their chances.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 07:28:52


 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/why-women-lose-at-chess-11601626319872.html - this may be an interesting read with opinions from female players, male players and scientists

Apparently the answer is : it's complicated and multifaceted
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Leicester

queen_annes_revenge wrote:Because they don't want to? Or do we just no longer credit people with individual agency?


At a population level? No, you don’t. This isn’t about any one individual, it’s about statistics, and statistically speaking there’s no reason (that we are aware of) that women should be less likely to play tabletop war games than similar pastimes such as RPGs, CCGs and board games (and arguably that “similarity” should take care of most of the “don’t want to”s). So the fact that there is a noticeable difference in the % of the population who participates in these activities requires explanation, as it shouldn’t be there.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's worth noting that although women earn less money on average, they spend significantly more money on average. So I'm not entirely sure the idea that women just don't have the money holds water.


True, to a point. A woman spends more on beauty and healthcare products than a man, on the average. Of course, her professional appearance is often much more important to her employer than a man's appearance as well. So long as the guy shaves and showers daily and keeps his hair neatish, he's good. The woman is judged - often subconsciously - on her hair care, makeup, etc. etc. etc. And then there's the extra expense of feminine hygiene products. All this adds up.

So... lower pay, more expenses.


I think that's changing. At least in my area of work there's increasingly a mix of women who both get themselves made up and have flawless hair styling, and those who look like they've just thrown a comb through their hair, tied it back and not put on any (or minimal) makeup. I'd argue that the latter group is often taken more seriously at a professional level than the former.


On the one hand, I’m glad to see that the expectation for women to be perfectly made up, fashionably dressed, etc. is reducing, because it was unfair and objectifying (harkening back to the old idea of the only reason to have a job is to attract a good husband nonsense), but it does seem that there is a flip side discrimination creeping in, where a professional woman is taken less seriously if she does want to put effort into her appearance. Almost like you have to be an unkempt nerd to prove that you’re dedicated to your field of study! I hate gate keeping…

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Jadenim wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's worth noting that although women earn less money on average, they spend significantly more money on average. So I'm not entirely sure the idea that women just don't have the money holds water.


True, to a point. A woman spends more on beauty and healthcare products than a man, on the average. Of course, her professional appearance is often much more important to her employer than a man's appearance as well. So long as the guy shaves and showers daily and keeps his hair neatish, he's good. The woman is judged - often subconsciously - on her hair care, makeup, etc. etc. etc. And then there's the extra expense of feminine hygiene products. All this adds up.

So... lower pay, more expenses.


I think that's changing. At least in my area of work there's increasingly a mix of women who both get themselves made up and have flawless hair styling, and those who look like they've just thrown a comb through their hair, tied it back and not put on any (or minimal) makeup. I'd argue that the latter group is often taken more seriously at a professional level than the former.


On the one hand, I’m glad to see that the expectation for women to be perfectly made up, fashionably dressed, etc. is reducing, because it was unfair and objectifying (harkening back to the old idea of the only reason to have a job is to attract a good husband nonsense), but it does seem that there is a flip side discrimination creeping in, where a professional woman is taken less seriously if she does want to put effort into her appearance. Almost like you have to be an unkempt nerd to prove that you’re dedicated to your field of study! I hate gate keeping…


I think you probably took my statement further than I meant it to be, men have the same thing happen to them.

I've seen (male) engineers dressed up in suits that no one takes seriously, and one that showed up wearing a rolling stones t-shirt and jeans that everyone respected and listened to. I've also seen a well dressed, well presented and soft spoken 5 foot-nothing Asian lady who was lead engineer on a big project and even though she didn't say much, she knew what she was talking about and people seemed to respect. And at another company I've encountered a woman in the same role who dressed like a construction worker.

People will always have some preconceived notions based on how you choose to present yourself, but I also think a lot of the perceived expectations are just that, perceived rather than real, and these days people have a lot of freedom in how they want to present themselves to the rest of the world.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 07:55:52


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

 Jadenim wrote:
statistically speaking there’s no reason (that we are aware of) that women should be less likely to play tabletop war games

Well that's not true, your premise falls flat at the first hurdle.
   
Made in gb
Thane of Dol Guldur





Bodt

That's such nonsense too. Are you asking the same questions for female dominated activities? Seamstressing, knitting, ballet, yoga, off the top of my head are activities likely to be female dominant, so my question stands, so what? But now we get to the meat of this issue that some folks don't like; that being the fact that men and women have inherent differences and one of the areas in which this manifests is in hobbies/interests.

Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
statistically speaking there’s no reason (that we are aware of) that women should be less likely to play tabletop war games

Well that's not true, your premise falls flat at the first hurdle.


Except so far we've not found any evidence to prove that to be the case.
We've some guesswork, but in general we've nothing that has so far proven to define why it is that women are less represented in miniature wargaming over multiple other geeky hobbies - esp when games like RPGs these days are basically the same thing (you have models on the table - and a lot of the game revolves around combat - sometimes far more graphically described than in a wargame)

   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't mean the data isn't there.

Honestly is you refuse to acknowledge differences between the portrayal of DnD and 40k I don't know what to say.

I think Queen Anne's Revenge put it best, you simply don't like the reality.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Cyel wrote:
https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/why-women-lose-at-chess-11601626319872.html - this may be an interesting read with opinions from female players, male players and scientists

Apparently the answer is : it's complicated and multifaceted

It would be if the whole article didn't quote only one scientific study, one titled "Explaining Male Predominance At The Apex Of Intellectual Achievement" none the less. The whole thing was literally talking about pay gap and then feelings. Which is fine, I guess men do have hard time controlling emotions so it's to be expected.
I guess it might also explain why so few women play wargames, I've seen so many grown men ragequit or just seethe it'd put me off too.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 09:59:43


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You didn't read the article, you had a preconceived opinion on it and skimmed through to find a few bits to justify your dismissal.
When taken out of context they certainly do paint an extreme picture, but also a dishonest one. This is an old, old tactic used to defend discrimination time and time again.
I read the whole thing start to finish.

I also notice that you are replying to a position of your own construction rather than my own. Perhaps you have a preconceived opinion of my position, your reply certainly takes what I wrote out of context to paint an extreme picture, but also a dishonest one. This is an old, old tactic and so on and so forth.

To be honest I find it amusing that of all the posts made - like suggestions that women aren't physically strong enough to want to play the game and all that - you instead have a bone to pick with my statements about the way the article inaccurately describes the warhammer scene, target market, and onboarding efforts by mingling it with Esteness' boomer-exclusive napoleonic wargaming experiences.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't mean the data isn't there.

Honestly is you refuse to acknowledge differences between the portrayal of DnD and 40k I don't know what to say.

I think Queen Anne's Revenge put it best, you simply don't like the reality.


I'm not refuting the data that there are less women playing. I'm simply saying that we've not yet really established a reason for it that's clear.

A lot of the comments have been rather vague - eg its more violent or its more dedicated or requires carrying more weight - and other comments. Each one of which is generally being refuted by evidence of women having a larger percentage of show in other hobbies which have those very features. So far I don't think we've really landed on a solid reason why women should not ever want to wargame. The closest we get are ideas that the social interactions, presentation, advertising and such all have generally conspired together to at best not encourage and at worst to discourage women from joining into wargaming; or to maintain an engagement after an initial one or two experiences.

Which to me suggest that there is nothing inherent in wargaming as a hobby that prevents women engaging with it. The issues are more marketing and social ones of existing game clubs. Things that are not fixed elements but highly variable and things which can be changed, for the benefit of all, which would then result in an increased uptake.



Even just super simple things like having someone in the group dedicated to the role of being the greeter and introducer who makes sure newbies get along and find what info they need and such.



Again I've not seen any argument that really shows without fail how a wargame is inherently "anti female"

   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




Cronch wrote:
Cyel wrote:
https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/why-women-lose-at-chess-11601626319872.html - this may be an interesting read with opinions from female players, male players and scientists

Apparently the answer is : it's complicated and multifaceted

It would be if the whole article didn't quote only one scientific study, one titled "Explaining Male Predominance At The Apex Of Intellectual Achievement" none the less. The whole thing was literally talking about pay gap and then feelings. Which is fine, I guess men do have hard time controlling emotions so it's to be expected.
I guess it might also explain why so few women play wargames, I've seen so many grown men ragequit or just seethe it'd put me off too.


Well, if you have a study to the contrary on the topic of chess, please, share. Actually the most interesting thing I found in the article was what female players were saying. Because we can be mansplaining all day long, but you know...

I think it is obvious that women in chess are NOT less intelligent, it's absurd. But I can see how they may lack this totally obsessive commitment that men show all the time an that is required to go this final distance. At some point maybe they think "you know what, I don't care that much about some abstract game that proves nothing." In absence of other evidence I tend to see how it makes sense.

And wargames are built out of obsessive commitment - money, time, effort spent incomparable to video games or board games.

There was a post on the 40K forum here (State of 40k, I guess, I don't remember), where someone was saying that his partner didn't like 40k because there was no way of winning the game by means of negotiations, subterfuge or intrigue.

My wife loves Divinity2 split-screen but she never bothers with a bit more optimising - little things I see could be done better. She's not stupid, she's a computer programmer. She just doesn't care that much to push harder with something irrelevant IRL.

Some of you say that wargamers are perceived as nerdy and weird. But having spent a lot of time with LARPing groups I can say with confidence that a) there were wayyy more unsocial, geeky-cringy weridos doing LARPing than in wargaming b)LARPing is considered a much more cringe-inducing activity by outside groups (funnily including wargamers). And still female particiation has always been pretty close to 50%. But LARPs, unlike wargaming, are centered around human interaction, conversation, intrigue, subterfuge, conspiracy etc

So far I don't see any evidence that disproves that women ON AVERAGE (there are always outliers, it's called evolution)
a) don't share men's obsessive commitment to - even abstract - competition
b) appreciate when interpersonal stuff in recreated in games

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 12:26:17


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I wonder if interpersonal stuff within games might be something GW could build into a wargame by means of a tighter narrative system. I know with Warcry they've done these new singleplayer campaigns where you're telling the story of your tribe through battles. Extending that into the main game and making your army more "your thing" could build into that. Sure each "game" would be a battle, but building around it in a way that lets you have meaningful story but at th esame time have random fights - could be interesting.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






A.T. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You didn't read the article, you had a preconceived opinion on it and skimmed through to find a few bits to justify your dismissal.
When taken out of context they certainly do paint an extreme picture, but also a dishonest one. This is an old, old tactic used to defend discrimination time and time again.
I read the whole thing start to finish.

I also notice that you are replying to a position of your own construction rather than my own. Perhaps you have a preconceived opinion of my position, your reply certainly takes what I wrote out of context to paint an extreme picture, but also a dishonest one. This is an old, old tactic and so on and so forth.

To be honest I find it amusing that of all the posts made - like suggestions that women aren't physically strong enough to want to play the game and all that - you instead have a bone to pick with my statements about the way the article inaccurately describes the warhammer scene, target market, and onboarding efforts by mingling it with Esteness' boomer-exclusive napoleonic wargaming experiences.
The article you describe is not the one that exists.

You do have a point though in that I called this out specifically. Unlike certain... other comments like what you referenced, the discrimination is not so overt. It is also less severe, but tricky in that it is dismissing criticism of discrimination rather than actively engaging itself. This is the form that is, broadly, a more relevant problem to most of the population because since it is 'second degree' it tends to be disregarded as a non-issue. Much like how posters on Dakka can get away with ridiculous amounts of insults so long as they are phrased in a passive-aggressive manner.

The most insidious part is those doing it may not even be aware. I believe that you see the article in the manner you describe.


Edit: In hindsight I was overly presumptive and phrased things in an antagonistic manner, and I apologize for that. I made poor choices about how to tackle this line of discussion and am not successfully communicating what I originally intended.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 18:51:29


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Lincoln, UK

You know, you're not going to get cooties if you ASK women what they want. Maybe we could try that...?
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain





SoCal

 Momotaro wrote:
You know, you're not going to get cooties if you ASK women what they want. Maybe we could try that...?


“Lady Space Marines, fewer creepers in store, and a commitment to better representation.”

Total nonstarter apparently?

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Momotaro wrote:
You know, you're not going to get cooties if you ASK women what they want. Maybe we could try that...?


“Lady Space Marines, fewer creepers in store, and a commitment to better representation.”

Total nonstarter apparently?
I'd say the overwhelming majority of us know the dynamic whether we admit it or not; wargaming has a greater appeal to men than women, but the number of female players is reduced even below that due to a certain level of sexism, and these are overall average trends which are not applicable to every individual, store, or community.

On the whole we've known that from the start and this thread has been us dancing around the matter picking at our own individual threads of interest.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: