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.

 Melissia wrote:
Also, drunk fraternity boys. Usually white, usually average in appearance, and very, very dangerous to be around.

That's kindof an unkind generalization to make.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Also, drunk fraternity boys. Usually white, usually average in appearance, and very, very dangerous to be around.

That's kindof an unkind generalization to make.

I did specifically qualify it as "drunk" fraternity boys.

People as a group, especially inebriated, can do much dumber and more malicious things than persons as individuals. Sorority girls are similar. Look at the stupidity behind hazing rituals for example-- peer pressure is... an unfortunate thing.

 Melissia wrote:
Also, drunk fraternity boys. Usually white, usually average in appearance, and very, very dangerous to be around.

Oh good lord, don't remind me, I have to walk by a popular sports bar/cocaine dealing front every day home from work. They're charming bunch when inebriated.

It does hold true, in general, however, that any established group is intimidating. Doesn't matter the nature, if you see a group of people all interacting, doing "their thing," it isn't easy to force yourself into that group, particularly if you perceive them as being very different from you. Hence, it's always a good idea when you see someone who seems interested in the game, or has the iconic caseload of stuff, talk to them, integrate them into the group, make them invited. it's much easier from someone inside the group to bring someone in, than for an outsider to break in themselves. Basic sociology really, but then we're back to the front of addressing the subject of why don't more people play 40k, not necessarily the subject of the gender imbalance, which seems to be quite the sticking point.

It's really easy to identify why people in general don't play 40k, but addressing specifics of the player demographic becomes trickier. For instance, I live in an extremely diverse region, yet the only person I know of who plays 40k who isn't white. It's kind of odd, considering Caucasians are actually the minority here, around 40%, lower than that in the under 30 demographic. Yet, while TT is very white, I know lots of people at my university of all sorts of backgrounds who dig Dawn of War 1 & 2, Space Marine and love the setting. There's all sorts of oddities beyond the gender imbalance that I'm totally unequipped to explain. It's not my area of focus nor expertise.

 Melissia wrote:
Look at the stupidity behind hazing rituals for example-- peer pressure is... an unfortunate thing.

Eh. I can kinda vouch that they're largely rooted in tradition, and not without learning purposes.

Silly as it may seem to an outside observer, they actually aren't as absurd as they sound.

Edit: But I digress; a discussion for another day.

Is there a similarly rich tradition for apologists?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Is there a similarly rich tradition for apologists?

Meaning?

Meaning that he thinks you hate it too but you went through it so you're trying to explain why you put up with that :cuss

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Look at the stupidity behind hazing rituals for example-- peer pressure is... an unfortunate thing.

Eh. I can kinda vouch that they're largely rooted in tradition, and not without learning purposes.

What learning purposes, exactly, does having a person drink so much water that they pass out and have to go to the hospital have?

Hazing has no learning purposes. It's just jackassery meant to enforce loyalty to the group.

 Melissia wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Look at the stupidity behind hazing rituals for example-- peer pressure is... an unfortunate thing.

Eh. I can kinda vouch that they're largely rooted in tradition, and not without learning purposes.

What learning purposes, exactly, does having a person drink so much water that they pass out and have to go to the hospital have?

Hazing has no learning purposes. It's just jackassery meant to enforce loyalty to the group.

That's not a hazing ritual. That's just irresponsibility toward your pledges.

Hazing is bad, and silly.

Hazing rituals are rooted in tradition, and enforce certain qualities the brotherhood in question tries to embody.

IE, loyalty to the group. They serve no other purpose, and often do little but distract the student from their REAL studies.

 Melissia wrote:
IE, loyalty to the group. They serve no other purpose, and often do little but distract the student from their REAL studies.

Not loyalty. There's no hazing for loyalty. It's "I like these people, I'm going to join their club this semester." You place your loyalties out in the open when you decide to join.

Hazing rituals enforce characteristics like integrity, reliability, leadership, etc.

It's not like the movies, nor like the news-headlines. Those are extreme outliers that abuse the privileges they've been given to mistreat people for no reason.

So, give us an example of one of your "good" hazing rituals that does enforce leadership, integrity or reliability?

What even is 'Hazing'?

Crazy yanks and your frat clubs

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Look at the stupidity behind hazing rituals for example-- peer pressure is... an unfortunate thing.

Eh. I can kinda vouch that they're largely rooted in tradition, and not without learning purposes.

Silly as it may seem to an outside observer, they actually aren't as absurd as they sound.

Edit: But I digress; a discussion for another day.

Yeah, as interesting as the subject of initiation ceremonies is, it is probably not too on topic for why women don't take part in 40k. You can draw a long bow to it, but saying they don't play 40k because of initiation ceremonies used by fraternities is...pretty out there.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
So, give us an example of one of your "good" hazing rituals that does enforce leadership, integrity or reliability?

The guys are given an extremely difficult/tedious task, but warned about it by several brothers beforehand.

If they don't exploit the information, they showed integrity.

If they exploit the information in a way where the whole group benefits/gets a break, they showed teamwork.

If they exploit the information selfishly, letting a select few of themselves off easy, they misused the information, and missed the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Look at the stupidity behind hazing rituals for example-- peer pressure is... an unfortunate thing.

Eh. I can kinda vouch that they're largely rooted in tradition, and not without learning purposes.

Silly as it may seem to an outside observer, they actually aren't as absurd as they sound.

Edit: But I digress; a discussion for another day.

Yeah, as interesting as the subject of initiation ceremonies is, it is probably not too on topic for why women don't take part in 40k

I agree. But it's so darn easy to get sucked into these derailings.

I need help

We should stay on topic, but... In groups which go through a hazing ceremony (not necessarily one of those criminal 'take him drunk and naked into the woods and make him find his way back' ones, and yes in my eyes that counts as murder), there are higher rates of bonding and acceptance within the group towards the individual and vice versa (from the individual to the group), and acceptance by a group which an individual feels responsible to and accepted by does have a great effect on things like self esteem, which in turn can affect things like grades or even health.

However, this is balanced by an increase in bias towards out groups (amongst other things), and while this often manifests in a simple rivalry between frats or houses or what have you, if the existing bias towards outgroups is more, for lack of a better word, negative (i.e. significant views about another race or gender) then the problems that can arise are very clear.

So it is both good and bad. Not to seem like I'm trying to get the last word, or that I believe everything that I say is correct, but back on topic now? It is an interesting enough thread that I don't want it all derailed and what not...

Eldercaveman wrote:

Crazy yanks and your frat clubs

I actually think this in an interesting point. After reading 90% of the posts here, many of the posters who claim that guys are all over any single female who walks in to a store are American. Maybe this action is more rooted in the American society than other places. Obviously a huge generalisation but I mean the American movies/TV I watch are like this, and when I lived in the USA people thought I was shy because I didn't hit on every female in a room.

In my experience, within the UK, if a female walks into my FLGS (or old FLGS), the opposite happens, people shout less, talk less and continue playing their games. It's still a very odd situation to walk into, and I can understand the feeling of "not fitting in" but it certainly isn't intimidating. I know if people go silent when I walk in a room if feels like they either don't want you there, or were talking about you but I'm not scared of those people.

On the (off-)topic of fraternities, in my experience they're harmless, and the media is very keen to paint them as evil and dangerous. I've never been in one - UK universities don't do such weird things, but I knew guys who were in them when I was in the USA.

They're "harmless" so long as you keep a good distance from them and don't try to party with them.

 Melissia wrote:
They're "harmless" so long as you keep a good distance from them and don't try to party with them.

Much like you don't appreciate the negative generalizations being made in this thread toward women, I don't think you should be so swift to negatively generalize in a way that condemns a massive social-cultural niche.

 Melissia wrote:
They're "harmless" so long as you keep a good distance from them and don't try to party with them.

I wouldn't know, I've never been involved with my friends' fraternity activities, everything seemed to revolve around copious amounts of alcohol which isn't really my cup of tea. My experiences with them outside such things were fine though.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
They're "harmless" so long as you keep a good distance from them and don't try to party with them.

I wouldn't know, I've never been involved with my friends' fraternity activities, everything seemed to revolve around copious amounts of alcohol which isn't really my cup of tea. My experiences with them outside such things were fine though.

You guys keep referring to these things as fraternities making it soundalike something from a movie, it all just sounds like a Saturday night with my rugby club.

Lets face it how often do you come across a gaming club that is rowdy? I can't see this being a reason for the lack of woman n 40k, I think as Melissa pointed out earlier in the thread, the main reason is probably learned behaviours passed n from archaic stereotypes of the things genders should and shouldn't do.

Eldercaveman wrote:


You guys keep referring to these things as fraternities making it soundalike something from a movie, it all just sounds like a Saturday night with my rugby club.

]

To be fair that's not a bad analogy.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
They're "harmless" so long as you keep a good distance from them and don't try to party with them.

Much like you don't appreciate the negative generalizations being made in this thread toward women, I don't think you should be so swift to negatively generalize in a way that condemns a massive social-cultural niche.

Tell me this.

Would you recommend a young lady go drinking at a party where she is one of maybe three women amongst ten to twenty young, virile boys, whom are also going to go get heavily drunk?

I'm just being realistic here. I don't like drinking to begin with (and I haven't drank a drop of alcohol in.... close to a decade), but if you're going to do it, you need to be careful around whom.

 Melissia wrote:


Would you recommend a young lady go drinking at a party where she is one of maybe three women amongst ten to twenty young, virile boys, whom are also going to go get heavily drunk?

Only if said women implicitly trusted the "boys" in question.

But like you illustrate, such an example is rather unrealistic, largely due to how unsafe it can tend to be. In a strictly objective statement; the ratios of male to female are much more female-friendly than you seem to believe.

Not in my experience. But all of this kind of misses the point-- yes, a group of white men CAN be intimidating, without even intending to be so.

There is a reason less girls are interested in warhammer than other hobbies. I think its the same reason that less men are interested in ballet, knitting, horseback riding, etc, than women.

 Melissia wrote:
The overwhelming majority of which are societally enforced, rather than biological.

I used to think so, but now I think there is a difference in genders. This starts really early. My 2 year old daughter loves shoes. My 4 year old son does not care -- one pair is good enough for him. My daughter loves frills on her dress. My son does not care about clothes -- hes more interested in toy cars.

Neither me or my wife has encouraged either of our children in any direction. We both are very stern on letting our children play with what they want to -- regardless of gender roles. While its possible that 90% of their preferences fall in what society calls 'gender rolls' randomly, I doubt it.
As a parent of small kids I spend a lot of time with other parents of small kids. It just happens. You see the same thing with other kids. LIttle boys like trains, cars, etc... Little girls like princesses, ladybugs, etc.

It's not a bad thing at all. It just is what it is. It does not make a girl a freak for wanting to play warhammer. If anything it makes her smart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CU040Hqbas

This girl knows more about how modern day marketing affects the things we like than the majority of adults.

Melissia wrote:Not in my experience. But all of this kind of misses the point-- yes, a group of white men CAN be intimidating, without even intending to be so.

I find it hilarious that people think a group of geeky white guys are intimidating. Especially at a public location (GW/FLGS) where they are absorbed into their games with toy soldiers and dice rolls.

In all honesty, a group of kindergartners would be more intimidating. You honestly don't know if one them is going to randomly crap their pants or something else disgusting that you'll have to deal with. At least adults at a FLGS typically don't defecate on themselves.

labmouse42 wrote:There is a reason less girls are interested in warhammer than other hobbies. I think its the same reason that less men are interested in ballet, knitting, horseback riding, etc, than women.

 Melissia wrote:
The overwhelming majority of which are societally enforced, rather than biological.

I used to think so, but now I think there is a difference in genders. This starts really early. My 2 year old daughter loves shoes. My 4 year old son does not care -- one pair is good enough for him. My daughter loves frills on her dress. My son does not care about clothes -- hes more interested in toy cars.

Neither me or my wife has encouraged either of our children in any direction. We both are very stern on letting our children play with what they want to -- regardless of gender roles. While its possible that 90% of their preferences fall in what society calls 'gender rolls' randomly, I doubt it.

This. There are gender differences. I don't think they are as extreme as people make them out to be and their are certainly men and women with interests that are outside their socially enforced gender roles. I really don't see how liking princesses is particularly feminine either. How is that different from a little boy wanting to be a prince who goes off and has afternoon tea and crumpets? How is little girls wanting ponies different than a boy wanting to be a cowboy? I think certain slight differences are greatly exaggerated.

Madcat87 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CU040Hqbas

This girl knows more about how modern day marketing affects the things we like than the majority of adults.

The majority of adults know very little about anything outside of their specific life experiences and don't seem particularly interested in learning more.

The misogyny in the article (and this thread) is hilarious. Most women deal with creepers ("aggressive friendliness" if you want to invent a new word for it I guess) everywhere, the well-adjusted ones know how to handle it and move on. His white-knight fail of an entire gender just goes to show he's part of the problem; the guy saying "Well if we weren't such stinky ogres to these beautiful creatures that deign to grace us with their presence, they would totally enjoy our overpriced, awkward hobby full of passive aggressive manchildren!" is a bigger part of the problem than an honest creeper, because at least the honest creeper isn't deluding himself. He just wants to get him some. God bless him.

It's so blatantly obvious that women don't play 40k because of the activity and environment it's performed in that by like halfway into page 1 the whole thread did an about-face into some sort of call to arms for eliminating gender roles. Like the discussion is so dead in the water and the article is so bad that we decided we would have more fun talking about gender activism in a wargaming forum instead.

Claiming "Well society makes it that way!" with the implication that women would totally be into wargaming en masse if human history would just cooperate and play out differently than it did, is just as bad as the article linked in the OP - you're assuming agency for this entire group of hypothetical alternate-reality people while denying agency to those people that exist now (You don't like wargaming because *society* told you not to like it! Not because you think it's dumb! Trust me - I know your thoughts better than you!)

If someone wants to start a discussion where we explore an alternate reality wherein hundreds of years of gender roles were somehow not enforced (maybe by like 1400 the thought police really got their system down) and see what the average wargaming store would look like then and assess whether it's an objectively better reality than what we have, and try to figure out with a straight face whether all the smokin hot sorority chicks would be playing space wolves or black templar or Cryx or whatever during happy hour I would love to see how that plays out.

I'm with Davespil - gamestores don't have alot of women in them because wargaming is not an activity that appeals to most women, and who cares?

Your post contains internal contradictions. Are these intended?