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.

 Crimson wrote:
If there indeed are male players that would be driven off by inclusion of women (which I greatly doubt), then good riddance!

Basically, it all boils down to who one cares more about. You care more about the girls that want to play, Friendly Commissar cares more about the insecure dweebs that would feel uncomfortable when there are women around…

3. And no, I wasn't meaning that. I wasn't saying hey you are a racist. I meant one thing and one thing alone... you were speaking of fear of this "social engineering". My point is, it's always been that way. Go back in time and try to be gay, I beg you to try to. Go back and try to live life as a black man without being slurred and treated like gak. Do we think its horrid? Yes. But in those times that was the socially acceptable thing to do. What is acceptable and not acceptable in society has always been made up. Go back in time and monogamy was a-okay but now it would be decried, marry an 11 year old in certain places won't get an eye bat but here people will flip tables. That's what I was talking about.

I think you mean polygamy (multiple marriages, especially one man having many wives), as monogamy (one man, one wife) is the current rule of society and law, both.

Child-Marriage is a totally different thing... but again a thing that was, previously, socially acceptable, but is no longer. Sort of. What we think of as child-marriage was not actually (not in Europe, anyway) 11 year olds getting married to old guys, or even to other 11 year olds. Most commonly, noble families would agree that their children, who were at the time 11 or whatever, would be wed... and then they'd wait 7, 8, 9 years until they actually had the ceremony and consummation.

 StarTrotter wrote:
In reality, that's just something that needs improving in general. I'd certainly go to far more hobby shops if people didn't stink as much

As I have asked a bunch of time already, have you told them ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
In reality, that's just something that needs improving in general. I'd certainly go to far more hobby shops if people didn't stink as much

As I have asked a bunch of time already, have you told them ?

Sometimes yes sometimes no. For the most part I'm just trying to jest here and there because these types of threads can get nasty real fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

3. And no, I wasn't meaning that. I wasn't saying hey you are a racist. I meant one thing and one thing alone... you were speaking of fear of this "social engineering". My point is, it's always been that way. Go back in time and try to be gay, I beg you to try to. Go back and try to live life as a black man without being slurred and treated like gak. Do we think its horrid? Yes. But in those times that was the socially acceptable thing to do. What is acceptable and not acceptable in society has always been made up. Go back in time and monogamy was a-okay but now it would be decried, marry an 11 year old in certain places won't get an eye bat but here people will flip tables. That's what I was talking about.

I think you mean polygamy (multiple marriages, especially one man having many wives), as monogamy (one man, one wife) is the current rule of society and law, both.

Child-Marriage is a totally different thing... but again a thing that was, previously, socially acceptable, but is no longer. Sort of. What we think of as child-marriage was not actually (not in Europe, anyway) 11 year olds getting married to old guys, or even to other 11 year olds. Most commonly, noble families would agree that their children, who were at the time 11 or whatever, would be wed... and then they'd wait 7, 8, 9 years until they actually had the ceremony and consummation.

.... bah! I slipped up there pretty badly. yeah, I meant polygamy there. As per child marriages, I think I was opting for India. It's been a long time since I last read it but it was in a history textbook of mine I believe where it was an older man with a young girl. They'd be married at this age although nothing would usually happen for at least a few more years. I wish I could check right now. Either way, what is socially acceptable at times changes and that's what I was focusing on.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Women would be more interested in the game if the setting were less ridiculously sexist. Stop writing women out of the setting, stop the ridiculous imbalance in male and female characters, stop sausagefest40k.

I'm not so sure that's the actual impediment here, though. I've met more females who liked the setting but had no interest in the game than those who were interested in the game but put off by the setting.

I always introduce Da Orkz first.

They provide much needed humour.

Well, I guess you should try to tell it seriously, but in a friendly manner. Because if you are saying it in jest, it will likely not be taken seriously, and if you are being confrontational, it will not work. It likely will not work if you are the only one complaining too.

.... bah! I slipped up there pretty badly. yeah, I meant polygamy there. As per child marriages, I think I was opting for India. It's been a long time since I last read it but it was in a history textbook of mine I believe where it was an older man with a young girl. They'd be married at this age although nothing would usually happen for at least a few more years. I wish I could check right now. Either way, what is socially acceptable at times changes and that's what I was focusing on.

As far as I am aware, this is still a common practices amongst certain hardline, fundamentalist Hindu sects, which is to say that it happens, but is not like an everyday thing... and is the source of some controversy in India... much like polygamy in certain Mormon off-shoots in the US.

However, I don't know enough about the various sects of Hinduism, or their reception in modern-day India, to know how widespread such a thing might be, or what it's general reaction is.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I guess you should try to tell it seriously, but in a friendly manner. Because if you are saying it in jest, it will likely not be taken seriously, and if you are being confrontational, it will not work. It likely will not work if you are the only one complaining too.

Doh! I meant THESE threads. You know the female player/females on the field. Naw, I say it in a friendly manner to the people I do. Admittedly I'm sometimes a tad bit shy around absolute strangers so that's why I don't.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You may note that we are on a wargaming forum discussing gender in wargaming. That might give you an indication as to why we are discussing the gender divide in wargaming. Though if that is not clear to you, let me just restate that: you are in a thread on a wargaming forum taking about gender in wargaming, so people will be talking about gender in wargaming.

And what I'm suggesting is that this basically amounts to trolling. You're not really discussing gender in wargaming or gender in 40k, you're using wargaming to launch a discussion about much broader and thornier issues that are deeply divisive and prone to starting vicious arguments.

These conversations come up all the time and they accomplish nothing but creating ill will.

As to social engineering... on one level, certainly any level of understanding of human nature and social interaction gives people the ability to shape the evolution of that nature and society. It is no different from the tens of thousands of years of social engineering that have occured every time more than two people have existed together in human history.

No, social engineering is a deliberate and conscious attempt to impose a worldview onto society, rather than allowing society to develop organically.

As to making people conform to "correct behaviour"... well... there are certainly advantages to keeping slaves and treating women as baby factories. Hell, why not rebuild the spartan ethos of male homosexuality in a soldier elite caste who rule the nation? After all, correct behaviour is in the eye of the beholder, not an absolute.

That's kind of my point. Slavery, patriarchy, all of these evils you seem to want to force me to defend (which is very obnoxious, btw) are the result of social engineering. And yet, you want to use social engineering to impose your worldview, because...you're right, unlike everyone else?

Besides, other than broad trends, it is exceptionally difficult to perform social engineering towards a vague goal of "niceness" to all people. Ever tried herding cats? It is however significantly easier to work through fear and prejudice to enforce outcomes.

Congratulations, you have just given yourself license to be a self-righteous bully. You decide you know what is right better than everyone else, and you give yourself permission to use fear and prejudice to force conformity with your goals on others. Like I said: terrifying.

friendlycommissar wrote:
[No, social engineering is a deliberate and conscious attempt to impose a worldview onto society, rather than allowing society to develop organically.

As to making people conform to "correct behaviour"... well... there are certainly advantages to keeping slaves and treating women as baby factories. Hell, why not rebuild the spartan ethos of male homosexuality in a soldier elite caste who rule the nation? After all, correct behaviour is in the eye of the beholder, not an absolute.

That's kind of my point. Slavery, patriarchy, all of these evils you seem to want to force me to defend (which is very obnoxious, btw) are the result of social engineering. And yet, you want to use social engineering to impose your worldview, because...you're right, unlike everyone else?

Just to make sure I understand things right: slavery, patriarchy and co comes from deliberate and conscious attempt to impose a worldview onto society, while dorks playing warhammer 40k and not wanting any female player is something that grew organically, and changing that would be another deliberate and conscious attempt to impose a worldview onto society?

friendlycommissar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You may note that we are on a wargaming forum discussing gender in wargaming. That might give you an indication as to why we are discussing the gender divide in wargaming. Though if that is not clear to you, let me just restate that: you are in a thread on a wargaming forum taking about gender in wargaming, so people will be talking about gender in wargaming.

And what I'm suggesting is that this basically amounts to trolling. You're not really discussing gender in wargaming or gender in 40k, you're using wargaming to launch a discussion about much broader and thornier issues that are deeply divisive and prone to starting vicious arguments.

These conversations come up all the time and they accomplish nothing but creating ill will.

As to social engineering... on one level, certainly any level of understanding of human nature and social interaction gives people the ability to shape the evolution of that nature and society. It is no different from the tens of thousands of years of social engineering that have occured every time more than two people have existed together in human history.

No, social engineering is a deliberate and conscious attempt to impose a worldview onto society, rather than allowing society to develop organically.

As to making people conform to "correct behaviour"... well... there are certainly advantages to keeping slaves and treating women as baby factories. Hell, why not rebuild the spartan ethos of male homosexuality in a soldier elite caste who rule the nation? After all, correct behaviour is in the eye of the beholder, not an absolute.

That's kind of my point. Slavery, patriarchy, all of these evils you seem to want to force me to defend (which is very obnoxious, btw) are the result of social engineering. And yet, you want to use social engineering to impose your worldview, because...you're right, unlike everyone else?

Besides, other than broad trends, it is exceptionally difficult to perform social engineering towards a vague goal of "niceness" to all people. Ever tried herding cats? It is however significantly easier to work through fear and prejudice to enforce outcomes.

Congratulations, you have just given yourself license to be a self-righteous bully. You decide you know what is right better than everyone else, and you give yourself permission to use fear and prejudice to force conformity with your goals on others. Like I said: terrifying.

I wouldn't call it trolling. It's just a controversial topic that leads to people getting frustrated.

Wait so what makes something deliberate and what not? Would not suffrage and activism social engineering and not the natural way? Thing is, slavery, patriarchy, etc are just as engineered as the suffrage move. Because at some point, most people wanted it to stay that way and it took people speaking out and trying to make change occur bad. Engineering is a tool for "good" and "bad" and I put "" around them because that implies things being one way or the other and not just arbitrary.

Also you are putting words into others as much as others are you.

Congratulations, you have just given yourself license to be a self-righteous bully. You decide you know what is right better than everyone else, and you give yourself permission to use fear and prejudice to force conformity with your goals on others. Like I said: terrifying.

If I have to use fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost-fanatical devotion to the Pope (and a snappy red outfit) in order to get people to stop being asshats to female gamers because they're female... or just females in general... then I'll do that.

By hook or by crook, this is the mother-fethin' 21st century. As a society, we should be long past such stupid things as gender inequality in the workplace, in societal constructs, in social expectations, in domestic life, in politics, and especially in our PretendyFunTimes hobbies. And yet... here we are.

There's no excuse for that kind of BS when you sit down at my gaming table, and I don't tolerate it. It is a thing I will not countenance for long.

Nothing "grows organically" in a society, save that it is an impression that has a basis in the status quo with the force of tradition behind it, and those organic growths are, without fail, enforcements of racial and gender stereotypes and discriminators.

We would have never grown away from slavery organically, this is why it required the deaths of a million Americans in a civil war to contest the issue, and then an additional century of civil rights struggles, and we're *still* judging people based on the color of their skin! We are not "growing organically" into a post-racial society, it still requires people to take action, to say "racism has no place here, it is unacceptable, it is not appreciated, and it will not be tolerated" in the work-place, in the home, out in the streets, and in the hobby shop.

 Psienesis wrote:
If I have to use […] an almost-fanatical devotion to the Pope […] in order to get people to stop being asshats to […] just females in general... then I'll do that.

That is so not going to help you .
Congratulations for your determination, though.

How about the snappy red outfit? Think that will help?

Yeah, I got the reference the first time .
It all depends on how you will use it.

To burn witches and remove heresy of course! Unless he is one of those.... radicals.

Burning witches will get people to stop being asshats to females?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Burning witches will get people to stop being asshats to females?

Yes Sister and I don't want to have to repeat myself again. Anybody can be a witch, beware the psyker for demons can spawn from their brains.

 StarTrotter Unrelenting Rubric Terminator of Tzeentch wrote:
Anybody can be a witch, beware the psyker for demons can spawn from their brains.

Well said, StarTrotter Unrelenting Rubric Terminator of Tzeentch!

 Psienesis wrote:
If I have to use fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost-fanatical devotion to the Pope (and a snappy red outfit) in order to get people to stop being asshats to female gamers because they're female... or just females in general... then I'll do that.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.' - Nietzsche

By hook or by crook, this is the mother-fethin' 21st century. As a society, we should be long past such stupid things as gender inequality in the workplace, in societal constructs, in social expectations, in domestic life, in politics, and especially in our PretendyFunTimes hobbies. And yet... here we are.

"Gender inequality in our PretendyFunTimes hobbies." How can you type this and take yourself seriously?

There's no excuse for that kind of BS when you sit down at my gaming table, and I don't tolerate it. It is a thing I will not countenance for long.

Then don't tolerate it at your table.

Nothing "grows organically" in a society, save that it is an impression that has a basis in the status quo with the force of tradition behind it, and those organic growths are, without fail, enforcements of racial and gender stereotypes and discriminators.

That's simply not true. Look at how much people's opinions on gay marriage have change in just the span of a decade, from a majority against to a majority for. Nobody imposed that on people. That was just a result of gay people coming out and being more visible, and a cadre of writers in Hollywood who dedicated themselves to presenting likable gay characters. You can't force people to be open-minded, all you can do is be honest and show them the truth.

We would have never grown away from slavery organically, this is why it required the deaths of a million Americans in a civil war to contest the issue, and then an additional century of civil rights struggles, and we're *still* judging people based on the color of their skin! We are not "growing organically" into a post-racial society, it still requires people to take action, to say "racism has no place here, it is unacceptable, it is not appreciated, and it will not be tolerated" in the work-place, in the home, out in the streets, and in the hobby shop.

Yeah. This would be a much stronger argument if racism was natural and organic, and not the result of a deliberate effort by powerful social institutions to legitimize the industrialization of the slave trade in the 17th century. We didn't grow organically into a racist society,

And really, this should be a clue as to how utterly ridiculous and self-righteous you people are. You are not abolitionists. You are not fighting slavery. You're talking about changing a tabletop wargame so that it appeals to a different audience.

Stop pretending that the goals you have set out are meaningful. This is not social justice activism, this is lazy slacktivism.

friendlycommissar wrote:
Yeah. This would be a much stronger argument if racism was natural and organic, and not the result of a deliberate effort by powerful social institutions to legitimize the industrialization of the slave trade in the 17th century. We didn't grow organically into a racist society,

Does that explain why Arabs were, and are still pretty racists toward black people? And Iranians toward Arabs and Turks. Or why East-Asian are usually very racists among themselves? Or all those other racism all around the world?

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.' - Nietzsche

I'm a very strong believer in the idea of thought-crime. There are certain beliefs that one can hold that are simply not conducive to a stable, productive, beneficial society, especially a society built upon the ideals of liberal democracy. Such beliefs need to be countered when and wherever they are found, to show that such beliefs are, flat out, wrong to hold. I don't care that the Constitution gives you (non-specific) the right to believe in racist things... by the same token, the Constitution gives me the right, as a private citizen, to tell you that having such beliefs in my presence is going to earn you my ire and derision, because racist and sexist beliefs are, to me, sure signs of ignorance, and I do not tolerate ignorant people for long, and the Constitution also gives me the right to bounce you out of my business if I don't want to do business with sexists or racists.

That's simply not true. Look at how much people's opinions on gay marriage have change in just the span of a decade, from a majority against to a majority for. Nobody imposed that on people. That was just a result of gay people coming out and being more visible, and a cadre of writers in Hollywood who dedicated themselves to presenting likable gay characters. You can't force people to be open-minded, all you can do is be honest and show them the truth.

There have been gay rights marches, protests, and actions for going on fifty years now. Ever heard of the Stonewall Riots?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

This is not a "new" thing. The idea that Americans are to be recognized as having equal rights in the eyes of the law, goes back to the founding of the country, but it is an ideal that we have never, ever lived up to.

Yeah. This would be a much stronger argument if racism was natural and organic, and not the result of a deliberate effort by powerful social institutions to legitimize the industrialization of the slave trade in the 17th century. We didn't grow organically into a racist society.

Actually, we did. We went from having slavery being a thing enforced, and enabled, by the Age of Imperialism, and the economic systems that made it an attractive industry, into being a common feature in society. This lead to the organically-grown belief that white people, by dint of being born white, were automatically superior to black people. This further extended itself to include only white people from certain countries, and who were members of certain religions. No one forced white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants to believe that they were a superior group to Irish Catholics or Italians, or Greeks, or Spaniards... but that was certainly an organic outgrowth of the slavery system in the United States of the 19th century and the waves of immigrants to the United States during the 1800s. This belief persisted until well into the 20th century and is, in fact, still present now in some sectors.

And really, this should be a clue as to how utterly ridiculous and self-righteous you people are. You are not abolitionists. You are not fighting slavery. You're talking about changing a tabletop wargame so that it appeals to a different audience.

Stop pretending that the goals you have set out are meaningful. This is not social justice activism, this is lazy slacktivism.

If that's what you think, then you don't really understand what social justice is. I'm not *just* talking about changing a tabletop wargame. I fight racism and sexism wherever I find it, whether that's at my place of business (which is, thankfully, very forward-thinking in most of its policies when it comes to such things), out at a public restaurant or some other social setting, and, yes, at the gaming table, where I tend to spend a good percentage of my time.

Inclusiveness should not hurt anyone, and anyone it does hurt is being hurt because they, for some reason, are holding onto ideas that serve an exclusionary agenda, whether that agenda be against female gamers, male gamers, trans gamers, straight gamers, gay gamers, bisexual gamers, Christian gamers, non-Christian gamers, white gamers, black gamers, red, yellow, green, purple or neon-clear gamers. There's no room for that kind of BS at my gaming table, and I won't tolerate it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

friendlycommissar wrote:
Yeah. This would be a much stronger argument if racism was natural and organic, and not the result of a deliberate effort by powerful social institutions to legitimize the industrialization of the slave trade in the 17th century. We didn't grow organically into a racist society,

Does that explain why Arabs were, and are still pretty racists toward black people? And Iranians toward Arabs and Turks. Or why East-Asian are usually very racists among themselves? Or all those other racism all around the world?

This is exactly why I hate it when you people try to conflate sexism and racism, because its just an argument that goes nowhere. Suffice to say that racism is a very complicated subject, and that when we talk about racism in the context of slavery and the ongoing conflicts between whites and people of color, we're talking about the consequences of the promotion of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism wrote:scientific racism

and I have zero interest in arguing about it with someone in a conversation about female players in 40k.

Look, you're NOT going to be engaging in any massive social engineering programs to completely alter the way men and women interact, so why even pretend that's a serious topic worthy of any discussion? Here's the problem: Women aren't interested in playing Warhammer as it currently exists. You seem completely oblivious to the actual reasons why that is. You want to change that even though it wouldn't really accomplish anything meaningful and would probably ruin the game for a lot of people, and would definitely drive a lot of people out of the community. You can't really explain why it should be changed except to vaguely imply that everyone who thinks you're tilting at windmills is a racist-sexist-homophobe.

All you people do with these kinds of arguments is make people think feminists are awful, self-righteous jerks. Is that really what you want to devote your time too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
I'm a very strong believer in the idea of thought-crime.

Stopped reading there. Welcome to my ignore file, you silly, silly person.

 Inkubas wrote:
While I applaud women in the hobby/game, I find that the vast majority of players I see are men. I've tried to get my wife into the game and while she likes the idea of Salamanders and flaming things, it's been a no-go for me. My friend (the guy I split my first Dark Vengeance box set with) has also tried to get his long time girlfriend to play and it bores her to tears. She at least likes to paint units/models and even though she doesn't know the game has enough sense on tactics to help him with a few games against me here and there...

What are some of the experiences that you guys have come across with female players? Is there something about the hobby or the community that is a deterrent? Are you guys seeing more women players? If you're a female player, what has got you to start and continue playing the game?

Personally, I'm going to try to get my wife to paint a few figures. After she paints a few and grows attached to them, I'm going to get her to play a few games then, hopefully, apocalypse games!

Two of my ex's (Wife and Girlfriend) played WFB and 40k respectively. My ex GF was very competitive to the point that we faced each other in a GT and I got dumped after I won - no loss to me.

My current GF isn't one to play the games or paint models, but she does appreciate painted models as an art form and she's willing to make some terrain and boards when we get our house.

Thankfully she's a former art student.

And you do know the way you argue just makes people see you as at least slightly sexist right? Anyways, you've devoted just as much time if not more to this argument.

Needs more werewolves and vampires...

*joke*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If there indeed are male players that would be driven off by inclusion of women (which I greatly doubt), then good riddance!

Basically, it all boils down to who one cares more about. You care more about the girls that want to play, Friendly Commissar cares more about the insecure dweebs that would feel uncomfortable when there are women around…

Those guys would reeeaallllyyyyy benefit from having a little female interaction in there lives.

friendlycommissar wrote:
Look, you're NOT going to be engaging in any massive social engineering programs to completely alter the way men and women interact, so why even pretend that's a serious topic worthy of any discussion?

Because it's not a massive social engineering program. Other hobbies are able to have much better gender balance without excluding people or constantly making them uncomfortable, the only difference between those situations and gaming is that certain gaming communities tolerate behavior that would get you kicked out of a group elsewhere. Expecting people to live up to minimum standards for good behavior in public is not an unreasonable demand.

Women aren't interested in playing Warhammer as it currently exists. You seem completely oblivious to the actual reasons why that is.

No, you just refuse to accept that the reasons have a lot to do with how the community treats them, not the concept of a tabletop wargame.

You want to change that even though it wouldn't really accomplish anything meaningful and would probably ruin the game for a lot of people, and would definitely drive a lot of people out of the community.

And you know what? Those changes and excluding those people would be good things. If your game is ruined because there are more female characters (who aren't just there to be sex objects) then I don't want you in my hobby anyway. If you're going to ragequit because the community won't tolerate you being a creepy every time a woman enters the store then, again, I want you gone. Feel free to come back when you're capable of being a decent person.

Stopped reading there. Welcome to my ignore file, you silly, silly person.

Ah, that old classic. When you can't deal with the substance of an argument just make a big deal about how you're blocking the person making it.

 StarTrotter wrote:
And you do know the way you argue just makes people see you as at least slightly sexist right? Anyways, you've devoted just as much time if not more to this argument.

I find that anything but mindless, unthinking agreement will get one accused of sexism. But I'm not sexist in the slightest. I'm just aware of how humans actually behave, which you and the others remain blissfully ignorant of. There's nothing sexist about being aware that many women silently reject and ostracize men who aren't attractive by society's standards. That's just understanding how people actually act. You just have to open your eyes and observe the world around you and you see it happening everywhere, all the time.

It's really telling that you people conflate race and sex all the time, its why you're always confusing sexism with heterosexuality. See, race is a social construct, it doesn't actually exist on the genetic level. It's an illusion. There are no meaingful physical differences between blacks and whites.

But sex is real. Hormones are real. Phremones are real. We have different races because powerful elites constructed a concept of race to suite their needs in the Age of Imperialism. We have a concept of gender because humans reproduce sexuallly. Men and women are attracted to each other for biological reasons and that shapes a tremendous amount of human social interaction. And sex does create additional complications when men and women co-mingle.

Some people find those complications stressful, and want to avoid them. For some people it can be really, intensely painful to be confronted with the absolute disinterest of the opposite sex. Calling that sexism and comparing it to racism is really ridiculous. Really, it just displays a lack of compassion that is really sad. And to mask it as social justice, that's a real tragedy.

friendlycommissar wrote:
But sex is real. Hormones are real. Phremones are real. We have different races because powerful elites constructed a concept of race to suite their needs in the Age of Imperialism. We have a concept of gender because humans reproduce sexuallly. Men and women are attracted to each other for biological reasons and that shapes a tremendous amount of human social interaction. And sex does create additional complications when men and women co-mingle.

Some people find those complications stressful, and want to avoid them. For some people it can be really, intensely painful to be confronted with the absolute disinterest of the opposite sex. Calling that sexism and comparing it to racism is really ridiculous. Really, it just displays a lack of compassion that is really sad. And to mask it as social justice, that's a real tragedy.

So why doesn't my group all start trying to screw the one girl in our group and does this mean because I'm bisexual I can't join either group because I could potentially want to get in a relationship and/or feth them?

The problem is, what you said comes off as a bunch of guys hiding in a treefort with a NO GIRLS ALLOWED sign

friendlycommissar wrote:
There's nothing sexist about being aware that many women silently reject and ostracize men who aren't attractive by society's standards.

Well, as long as you're talking about men that other men would/should also shun. Because that's what we're talking about in this context. Women who join gaming groups aren't shunning men who just aren't 10/10 hot, they're shunning men who are creepy and obnoxious s that I wouldn't want to be around either.

Men and women are attracted to each other for biological reasons and that shapes a tremendous amount of human social interaction. And sex does create additional complications when men and women co-mingle.

I guess gay and bisexual people don't exist in your world?

Some people find those complications stressful, and want to avoid them.

So we need to exclude women from your precious male-dominated hobby so that creepy awkward men can have a "safe" place to be creepy and awkward?

For some people it can be really, intensely painful to be confronted with the absolute disinterest of the opposite sex.

So then play the game just like you're playing the game with another guy, don't start obsessively fantasizing about any woman who happens to walk into the store. If you don't look at every member of your preferred gender as a potential date then you won't be disappointed when you don't get one.