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.

Oh look, and now we have gakky behavior apology turn up in the shape of bUt MaLeS aRE AgReSSiVe cUz BiOLoGy!

As I said, it's for the best that so few women decide to be exposed to the time capsule of the 1860s that wargaming is...

Cronch wrote:

So far the leading theory is that the word WAR is a female repellent, like holy water against vampires.

Your hyperbole is not productive to the discussion, no one has claimed such.

Cronch wrote:
Oh look, and now we have gakky behavior apology turn up in the shape of bUt MaLeS aRE AgReSSiVe cUz BiOLoGy!

Whaaa? Where did you get it???

It doesn't explain rude behaviour. It explains interest in competing in a fake war with toy soldiers (or lack thereof).

Violence of different genders species to species varies a lot depending on the species. There are females in mammalian species that will hold their own territories and will kill any female or male that invades them. They'll only tolerate a male for breeding and then he's got to get out quick before she tries to kill him. I forget which species, but one of the weasel family of animals (mustlids) has that very behaviour pattern in captivity* and when captive breeding is done with them now the male has to have an escape hole to flee down.





Or what about the classic example of how in lion prides, male lions do less active hunting than the females in general.

It's actually interesting to note that in many herd groups, whilst the males "fight for dominance"** or resources; the lead females often have a greater influence on herd position.


There's also plenty of species that operate in small or loan social groups. Bears, for example, raise their young alone without a male being around. Those females thus directly competing with territories and resources with females and males.

*captivity can exacerbate some violent behaviours

** fighting is often a last resort. Posturing and competing are more common. Animals don't really want to fight if they can help it. Even Deer in a rutt will more likely bellow and strut and do some connected pushing to show strength

Yes, of course. I guess my point was that posturing/competing/asserting dominance and violence associated with these activities are more similar to wargaming culture than, say hunting or protecting cubs.

No more or less than any other social interaction and perhaps a lot less than most competitive sports I'd say. Why can women compete on the hockey pitch but not the boardgame? Especially when wargames tend to attract a greater portion of less socially dominant/confident personalities anyway?

Again we hit the problem that wargames are not that different from a vast number of other hobbies that women do take part in every day. They compete, they asset dominance* etc...



Again we seem to have an undercurrent in this thread that somehow wargames are more violent and warlike than, well, than anything else. And yet my direct real world experience is that they are highly non violent, far more social and creative.


*I should note that the popular "wolf alpha" book that popularised the idea of group dominance was refuted years later by the same author. Dominance is a sort of human concept and even then its more extreme. Especially within humans where our behaviour and social position can change significantly depending on our surroundings; you might be bottom in the pub; top in the gameclub, equal with your wife and just the child to your parents.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's always amusing to see the extremists on both sides go at it hammer and tongs, however politely.

Both sides have a point... but neither are 100% correct either.

Yes, the hobby skews heavily toward white men. That can't be argued. There are groups of wargamers who are going to be... shall we say, too friendly? to women seeking to join the hobby and come off creepy. Be that due to being outright creepy, or due to mere social awkwardness, it is a fact. This cannot be argued. There are also are going to be some individuals and even groups who ARE going to be hostile to outsiders, especially ones who are not white men. This also cannot be argued.

But arguing that therefore ALL groups of white men are hostile in various ways to outsiders, especially those who are not white men, is EVERY BIT AS RACIST AND SEXIST. This concept of inherent racism and sexism in white men CAN be argued every bit as vigorously as the concept of women being completely uninterested in wargames.

Can we, as wargamers, do better at attracting and keeping non-white, non-male participants? Of course we can. But not all of us are awkward geeks, leering letches, or racist misogynist jerks either, not by a long shot.

On the flip side, yes, women ON THE AVERAGE do tend to be less interested - LESS interested, as opposed to NOT interested - in violent movies, violent stories, and yes, violent games. Minorities likewise have less interest in subjects that skew heavily white, in part due to racist encounters as mentioned above, and in part to having other things to deal with that are just a wee bit more important to their lives. Income differences pay a big part here; wargaming does tend to be a bit pricey to get into.

So the struggle to get more women and minorities involved in our hobby does go beyond merely being more welcoming to them once they reach the game store or game club. There are other, more systemic issues that need addressing as well to allow them the time and resources to participate more.

I'm going to need you to strip this of nuance and present it as a series of points which are 100% good or 100% bad, lest I be forced to report it off topic

wargaming as a hobby may appeal more to men than women as its got a lot of stuff to collect, learn about, horde and itemise (all those minis, terrain, paint etc)

this behaviour is seen most extremely in those on the asbergers (and autistic) scale where men outnumber women by a significant margin, and both conditions are thought to be the extreme edge of male brain development

i'll also speculate that the sheer amount of stuff involved in wargaming (compared to boardgaming for example) may also put off women who, anecdotally at least, seem fare less tolerant of 'mess'. Most boardgames can be put back in the box when not in use and put away tidily, putting away a all the minis, terrain and game boards is far trickier and takes a lot more space
(i'd love to know what the sex ratio is on those who clamour for one huge box to put everying in on boardgaming KS compare to that of the whole project and to the active commentator pool)

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/gender-bias-autism
Early research of most mental disorders used men as patients, and as such the diagnostic tools are designed to find autism in men best. And so,the idea that only men get autism continues to be perpetuated.
It' the same with ADHD, where women and girls with ADHD usually go much longer undiagnosed and untreated because their symptoms aren't at the deep end of the spectrum.

Cronch wrote:

Malifaux is a wargame. It has (seemingly!) the largest % of female gamers of all popular wargames. It's 100% about violence.

Malifaux is probably the least violent wargame, and possibly pushes a bit towards being a card game.
It's all objective driven so it's possible to win without 'killing' any of your enemies characters.
It's very thematic with lots of story, whimsy and strategy, but it's not that violent even though the characters are, if that makes sense.

Compare that to any other game, which even if it does have objectives they are usually more violent.


Back on the topic, my wife likes games (she bought into and entered a Flames Of War tournament) and painting minis. She doesn't like going into GW stores and was put off from playing FoW in the games club because of the other players being a bit odd and borderline creepy.
Even as a guy I don't find most gaming clubs particularly inviting; I've been to a few on my own and just sort of loitered around a bit and then left unengaged, but I think the UK culture is that the clubs are more of a dedicated space to playing pre-arranged games and whilst there's 50 players in there it's almost 25 separate islands sharing a room.

Cronch wrote:
As I said, it's for the best that so few women decide to be exposed to the time capsule of the 1860s that wargaming is...

As I referenced above in the two academic papers women were more engaged with wargaming back then in Europe as part of the general militarism in society and continuous colonial wars.

For everyone tempted to wax lyrical about why women are less violent, better looking, and more multitasking than men, please stop and first answer the question put to you multiple times.

For those women just as bloodthirsty as your average 40k player, delighting in chopping people up in Gears of War, kicking kittens whenever they spot them and laughing manically when their druid sacrifices a young child in D&D (I admit I just play wargames, what other stuff people do hobby wise is a mystery to me, though if D&D doesn't do that I call shenanigans), what stops them playing wargames. They play many games like this, ones we tend to play as well, what is stopping them in this niche area, especially given the counter pre-war historical example when they did?

I haven't answered it because it's a stupid question.
There's plenty of men that delight in all those things that don't also play wargames.
So there's nothing that needs answered.

Besides, we've already acknowledged that other factors also exist, such as wargaming presenting an all-boys club image with a lot of socially awkward and/or creepy individuals.

The point is that a lower interest is also a factor.

In my experience, the main draw to Malifaux is representation. Malifaux has a very diverse cast of female heroes cast as the heroes of the setting and really always has. Of the original 12 masters, 7 were female and I'm pretty sure its currently an even split at 27 masters a piece.

Representation matters a lot. Whether we like it or not, and particularly when we're children, we look to people like us to figure out our place in the world, and as an extension, what our place in a fictional setting is. When there's no material that shows characters like us, or worse, shows us our place in the world is strictly as victims, villains or similar, it's a lot harder to see it as a place we belong.

One of the worst side effects of this is the tendency to turn this into a self fulfilling prophecy. Videogames didn't start as a male dominated market, but over time as it was marketed more to young boys a lot of the female and generic protagonists and cartoon violence was dropped in favor of things that presented a male power fantasy and objectified women. You can hardly be surprised at the lack of interest from women in your games when you've hit Duke Nukem levels.

The final step of this is the old boys club. You get the people with closed minded attitudes; likely fear as much as anything, that see this thing targeted to them, where they feel safe from cooties and make it their bastion. It does not take much to send the message that "you are not wanted here" and that's doubly true when the game itself makes little effort to say otherwise.

Representation is a good point r.e. Malifaux, and I think a big reason some people get into it. My wife has a few of the Malifaux crews to paint.

For women and POC, etc, then there's minimal representation in say, American Civil War or Napoleonic games.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Why Are There So Few Women in Wargaming?

https://www.wired.com/story/women-wargaming-sexism-harassment/

"A combination of a high barrier to entry and outdated, misogynistic attitudes keep women out of a hobby where they could thrive."

Do you think this article aims at 'traditional' wargamers in terms of the discussed demographic (it is also the one that gets professional interest as they use that group to recruit to professional wargaming roles)? Though the barrier to entry is presumably the same for both men and women, unless women in the west have lower disposable incomes at the 'GW recruitment' age?

If there was a certainty about my local game store, is exactly the opposite: we would have done everything to have more female players! My experience is quite the opposite: the girls think to be a strategy and/or roleplay gamer is to be a nerd/loser, so they kept themselves away from the game stores. The things are changed when it started the trend of the cosplay, but only because the girls are more interested in the fancy costumes, than in the games.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Though the barrier to entry is presumably the same for both men and women, unless women in the west have lower disposable incomes at the 'GW recruitment' age?

I wonder if the barrier to entry is more about priorities than income disparity?

For example, are men more likely to want to spend £95 on a toy than women?
At the risk of stereotyping, my wife spends an awful lot more on hair care, cosmetics and clothing than I do (because I'm a beardy grognard and she cares about her appearance), so she'd have less money in the pot for frivolities even with the same income.


I also wonder if the interest in war is more skewed towards people in countries who are generally regarded as the successors/bullies and have never really been occupied. We (predominantly US/UK) have been subjected to all the war movies and glory without really experiencing the horrors. But does the same apply to people from cultures where war has been devastating like Japan?

Herzlos wrote:
[…]
I also wonder if the interest in war is more skewed towards people in countries who are generally regarded as the successors/bullies and have never really been occupied. We (predominantly US/UK) have been subjected to all the war movies and glory without really experiencing the horrors. But does the same apply to people from cultures where war has been devastating like Japan?

I'm Italian and I can say you are wrong: the interest about the various kind of war games (videogames, 3D games, softair…) is pretty strong here, so I wouldn't say it is related to have a recent tradition of victorious wars.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Why Are There So Few Women in Wargaming?

https://www.wired.com/story/women-wargaming-sexism-harassment/

"A combination of a high barrier to entry and outdated, misogynistic attitudes keep women out of a hobby where they could thrive."

Do you think this article aims at 'traditional' wargamers in terms of the discussed demographic (it is also the one that gets professional interest as they use that group to recruit to professional wargaming roles)? Though the barrier to entry is presumably the same for both men and women, unless women in the west have lower disposable incomes at the 'GW recruitment' age?

If there was a certainty about my local game store, is exactly the opposite: we would have done everything to have more female players! My experience is quite the opposite: the girls think to be a strategy and/or roleplay gamer is to be a nerd/loser, so they kept themselves away from the game stores. The things are changed when it started the trend of the cosplay, but only because the girls are more interested in the fancy costumes, than in the games.

How is this different than how your average male views strategy and/or roleplay gamers?

Cronch wrote:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/gender-bias-autism
Early research of most mental disorders used men as patients, and as such the diagnostic tools are designed to find autism in men best. And so,the idea that only men get autism continues to be perpetuated.
It' the same with ADHD, where women and girls with ADHD usually go much longer undiagnosed and untreated because their symptoms aren't at the deep end of the spectrum.

That may be right although I'm not convinced (and I certainly didn't say or intend to imply only men are autistic or suffer from asbergers, only that both are more prevalent)

but i'd say if men are more often at the deep end of a spectrum disorder which (as opposed to one where you have it or not) that shows exactly what i'm referring to, hobbies that have aspects that mesh well with these will tend to have a degree of bias towards male participants as they'll find it a more comfortable place to be

 Laughing Man wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Why Are There So Few Women in Wargaming?

https://www.wired.com/story/women-wargaming-sexism-harassment/

"A combination of a high barrier to entry and outdated, misogynistic attitudes keep women out of a hobby where they could thrive."

Do you think this article aims at 'traditional' wargamers in terms of the discussed demographic (it is also the one that gets professional interest as they use that group to recruit to professional wargaming roles)? Though the barrier to entry is presumably the same for both men and women, unless women in the west have lower disposable incomes at the 'GW recruitment' age?

If there was a certainty about my local game store, is exactly the opposite: we would have done everything to have more female players! My experience is quite the opposite: the girls think to be a strategy and/or roleplay gamer is to be a nerd/loser, so they kept themselves away from the game stores. The things are changed when it started the trend of the cosplay, but only because the girls are more interested in the fancy costumes, than in the games.

How is this different than how your average male views strategy and/or roleplay gamers?

Let's say it is a matter of percentage: the 95% the females and the 70% males saw the gamers like a bunch of loser/nerd. Now the things are changed, but thank to the cosplay, not to a real interest in the games.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Why Are There So Few Women in Wargaming?

https://www.wired.com/story/women-wargaming-sexism-harassment/

"A combination of a high barrier to entry and outdated, misogynistic attitudes keep women out of a hobby where they could thrive."

Do you think this article aims at 'traditional' wargamers in terms of the discussed demographic (it is also the one that gets professional interest as they use that group to recruit to professional wargaming roles)? Though the barrier to entry is presumably the same for both men and women, unless women in the west have lower disposable incomes at the 'GW recruitment' age?

If there was a certainty about my local game store, is exactly the opposite: we would have done everything to have more female players! My experience is quite the opposite: the girls think to be a strategy and/or roleplay gamer is to be a nerd/loser, so they kept themselves away from the game stores. The things are changed when it started the trend of the cosplay, but only because the girls are more interested in the fancy costumes, than in the games.

How is this different than how your average male views strategy and/or roleplay gamers?

Let's say it is a matter of percentage: the 95% the females and the 70% males saw the gamers like a bunch of loser/nerd. Now the things are changed, but thank to the cosplay, not to a real interest in the games.

So how do you reconcile this idea that women aren't interested in games with the fact that other stereotypically nerdy hobbies like CCGs and board games are much more representative? Again, it's literally only wargaming that has this issue, and certain wargames like Malifaux have avoided the problem as well.

Where I live comics, roleplay games, card games, strategy games, board games were considered things for nerd/loser by the girls, so I don't need to reconcile nothing.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Where I live comics, roleplay games, card games, strategy games, board games were considered things for nerd/loser by the girls, so I don't need to reconcile nothing.

Given we have pretty good demographic data that says otherwise, have you considered that the commonality with all these things may just be you?

I have a population of 60.000.000 of people who confirm my statement, so why are you annoying me with these inferences? Don't you like the reality in which I live? I'm sorry: it is something I can't change. Don't you like the fact I have described my personal experience? I'm sorry, but I thought (and I still think) it is pertinent to the topic of this thread. Do you thing I have made a false statement? You should know the reality in which I live and then use that knowledge to confute my statement. I don't know how you will reply, but because you are talking about a reality you don't know and because you haven't written nothing useful to this discussion, I will not reply to you; I'm sorry if I have written something you don't like.

Herzlos wrote:
Representation is a good point r.e. Malifaux, and I think a big reason some people get into it. My wife has a few of the Malifaux crews to paint.

For women and POC, etc, then there's minimal representation in say, American Civil War or Napoleonic games.

Even outside of historics, Wargaming is generally pretty far behind when it comes to diversity. It certainly hasn't caught up to the wave of updated tropes that the genre has dived on. The genre has moved on past frail healers and beautiful elven mages that guide nature. A lot of the recent fantasy popularity has come from character archetypes that give women more to work with: tomboyish thieves and muscle bound amazons and rotund dwarves covered in engine grease. There's just a lot more appeal these days without having to feel like you're forcing yourself in the door. It certainly doesn't hurt that Game of Thrones provided a big invitation with a good selection of heroes to seek to emulate. Wargames just don't do that currently and I think there's little surprise there's not much of a female audience as consequence.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
I have a population of 60.000.000 of people who confirm my statement, so why are you annoying me with these inferences? Don't you like the reality in which I live? I'm sorry: it is something I can't change. Don't you like the fact I have described my personal experience? I'm sorry, but I thought (and I still think) it is pertinent to the topic of this thread. Do you thing I have made a false statement? You should know the reality in which I live and then use that knowledge to confute my statement. I don't know how you will reply, but because you are talking about a reality you don't know and because you haven't written nothing useful to this discussion, I will not reply to you; I'm sorry if I have written something you don't like.

That's the thing: Your lived experiece is objectively counter to reality. DnD's player base is 40% women, as is Magic: The Gathering's. Paizo's player base is even more diverse. Every genre but wargaming has a reasonably even split between men and women who play the games, and wargaming has its outliers as well (again, Malifaux). So you're clearly an outlier here.

Small local (national) digression:

I can confirm that what Grim Reaper says is (unfortunately) mostly (not entirely) true. Culturally speaking, we're behind the curve on average by something like 10 years (which is fun because the avant-garde here being free by common conceptions are usually 10 years ahead... so it's more of a 20 years gap of incommunicability).
Even if Internet and YouTube are good catalyst, a small portion of Italian speak even a low level of English.

That said, there are A LOT of gamers and a lot of girls that plays also on Italy (that's obvious, I know). I've found out that many of them (for the reason Grim Reaper explained: essentially a social stigma still alive and partially kicking) don't interact socially and so seem to not exist... But they are there.

LARP and Live events, Play by Forum, Play by Chat are those where it is easier to find and connect with them. Then you'll realize a lot of them play boardgames, RPG etc... They play privately because they can't be bothered to do that in public.

For example Luca Giuliano is a prominent Italian games author, and he has a recurrent program on the national radio.
Lucca Comics and Games is almost on par with Essen in term of participation.
10 years ago of a random survey I promoted about intelligent gaming (I collected 800 responses) I believe that 25% were female.

60 millions is a huge number. A very small minority will count up to a few millions anyway.

On the opposite side of the argument, a fun fact to convey you the cultural misconception and obscurity of games here: dependencies from lottery or casinos in Italian are called "Ludopatia". Meaning "game sickness".

The bets industries (casinos, sports bet, scratch lotteries and lotteries in general) very carefully position themselves here as "games". Also, "game" is commonly used for "sports" even if we have both words.
Please do realize that, if you talk about "games" to an Italian in Italian, it's very much probable that they will intend either sport or bets. Not D&D for sure.

Never underestimate how much people mask their interests to be socially accepted. In high school I went on a date with a girl, she was a cheerleader, I was on the football team, but we didn't have much in common to talk about. In reality, that wasn't really the case. She shared a lot of the same interests I had, but both of us were only projecting the people we thought we were supposed to be to be accepted.

A lot of the explosion in geek culture is just a result of the internet providing a place where people can share their interests and realize they're not alone in them. That sense of community makes it a lot easier to be open about those interests elsewhere, which in turn, helps other people feel like they can share their own interests.

 LunarSol wrote:
Never underestimate how much people mask their interests to be socially accepted. In high school I went on a date with a girl, she was a cheerleader, I was on the football team, but we didn't have much in common to talk about. In reality, that wasn't really the case. She shared a lot of the same interests I had, but both of us were only projecting the people we thought we were supposed to be to be accepted.

A lot of the explosion in geek culture is just a result of the internet providing a place where people can share their interests and realize they're not alone in them. That sense of community makes it a lot easier to be open about those interests elsewhere, which in turn, helps other people feel like they can share their own interests.

Very true.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Women are often less competitive than men, in my experience they prefer shared activities to competitions - that's very much not wargames, at least not the traditional/popular ones.

You've clearly never played Mrs. dreadblade at Monopoly