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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Take horse riding, many of the pony and riding clubs are full of women to the extent that a guy is rarer. And yet we know that there's no real gender divide on if people wish to ride or not

Except there is.

I'm the very poster child for this exact example.

Grew up in a horse riding family, both parents, even to the extent of them dabbling in training racehorses and my grandparents owning them.

I had three ponies between the ages of 4 and 8 or so.

Could not give less of a gak about horses and horse riding, even with the encouragement of my parents and actually having access to my own horse.

I had entirely more fun building forts out of the hay bales than I ever did riding.

Yet the legion of teenage girls my folks had queuing up to help out, not just with exercising but all the grunt work like mucking out and cleaning tack, was seemingly endless, if one aged out and went on to Uni or whatever, there was always a younger friend of one of the others chomping at the bit, pun intended.

I can testify that there was no prejudice on behalf of my folks, they only cared that whoever was helping was competent, treated the animals well and fit in with the other people, but they never once had a boy even show a hint of interest.

So while technically there's no barrier to either gender, there's clearly something in the wiring of the female brain that sparks something around horses that is much less common in male brains. Clearly it can happen, my dad is evidence of that, but it's far more infrequent.

I can only speculate as to whether it's nature or nurture that causes it, but my own experience over my entire lifetime tells me it's very real.

As someone who lives in a rural Western State of the United States, there is no gender gap in horse riding and ownership.

In fact, your discussion points bolsters the idea that most gender gaps in a hobby are built out of socio-economic and regional cultural differences than anything inherent to said hobbies.

It's a hobby in which you are supposed to be building your own custom characters. It should be inclusive basically by definition.

I think it is smart of Games Workshop to include female characters in Warhammer Quest Blackstone Fortress and in the Shadespire warbands. If you're trying to introduce a female to one of those games for the first time, I think they are likely to be more interested and more engaged if they can play a female character. Especially if they are young. That probably matters less for larger scale games where you are controlling a whole army. And once you've played that kind of game a few times, the instinct to want to play a character that is like yourself probably fades away. So I imagine that male gamers, given a choice of Blackstone Fortress characters to play, plenty would choose the female eldar character. But someone new to gaming probably would be drawn more to a character of their own gender. That might be a small difference, but something that makes it easier for people to get engaged in the first place.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think it is smart of Games Workshop to include female characters in Warhammer Quest Blackstone Fortress and in the Shadespire warbands. If you're trying to introduce a female to one of those games for the first time, I think they are likely to be more interested and more engaged if they can play a female character. Especially if they are young. That probably matters less for larger scale games where you are controlling a whole army. And once you've played that kind of game a few times, the instinct to want to play a character that is like yourself probably fades away. So I imagine that male gamers, given a choice of Blackstone Fortress characters to play, plenty would choose the female eldar character. But someone new to gaming probably would be drawn more to a character of their own gender. That might be a small difference, but something that makes it easier for people to get engaged in the first place.

And that's pretty much all anyone's asking for when they talk about inclusivity: Actually including women/minorities in positive roles in the game, instead of stuff like this. Black Library has usually done a pretty good job of this with the occasional stumble, but on the gaming side representation only started recently (the fantastic Severina Raine model, for instance), discounting the Sisters of Battle (a range ignored for so long it became a running gag) and T&A models like Vect's slave harem. It would also be nice if GW used some of their very talented women writers on the game side of things instead of just novels, but baby steps.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I think it is smart of Games Workshop to include female characters in Warhammer Quest Blackstone Fortress and in the Shadespire warbands. If you're trying to introduce a female to one of those games for the first time, I think they are likely to be more interested and more engaged if they can play a female character. Especially if they are young. That probably matters less for larger scale games where you are controlling a whole army. And once you've played that kind of game a few times, the instinct to want to play a character that is like yourself probably fades away. So I imagine that male gamers, given a choice of Blackstone Fortress characters to play, plenty would choose the female eldar character. But someone new to gaming probably would be drawn more to a character of their own gender. That might be a small difference, but something that makes it easier for people to get engaged in the first place.

This is true of my wife and daughter when we play games. They gravitate to female characters and armies first.

No, that's not all anyone's asking for. Some ridiculous people are asking other people to believe that "It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest".

And once you've played that kind of game a few times, the instinct to want to play a character that is like yourself probably fades away

Considering how many people play humans only in 40k or indeed, any other game, and how vehemently some people defend the sanctity of male-only marines, I'd say it's not entirely true.
I do wish we had stats to show if the popular opinion that women play tyranids/sylvaneth more than anything holds any actual water, because it'd be proof that they do gravitate to armies that are not dudebros.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
No, that's not all anyone's asking for. Some ridiculous people are asking other people to believe that "It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest".

Ah. Of course. And we're back to ignoring the women who are actually saying that the reason they try to get into gaming and stop is because of misogyny and harassment.

 Easy E wrote:

This is true of my wife and daughter when we play games. They gravitate to female characters and armies first.

I'm a blonde farm boy who grew up in the middle of nowhere. For some reason I'm super fond of Star Wars.

This stuff is really easy to see in kids. They look to see their role in everything and if they don't see themselves, they assume its not for them. I run into this all the time with my daughter as well.

Seriously though. We had a massive thread here on Dakka when that news article broke in the first place. Predictably, it was mostly men jumping to the hobby's defense, saying that it couldn't possibly be true, or that if it were true then those broken stairs would have been immediately thrown out.

Nearly all of the comments from women simply talked about how pervasive the problem is, and how it happens to them all the goddamn time.

Lots of people are super fond of Star Wars.

I don't think it's really as prominent in movies or even playing whole armies. I'm sure most Sisters of Battle players were men. And surely people aren't playing Tyranids because they see themselves as a mindless alien insect. But for something where you're picking a few characters, I think it can make a big difference.

Of course, different armies are meant to appeal to different kinds of people to broaden the appeal of the game. Tau are very different in a lot of ways to any of the other armies, and someone could be very interested in Tau even if they didn't the aesthetic of most other armies. But adding army (or character) variety can certainly broaden appeal of the game in general, without losing customers that already like the game.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Seriously though. We had a massive thread here on Dakka when that news article broke in the first place. Predictably, it was mostly men jumping to the hobby's defense, saying that it couldn't possibly be true, or that if it were true then those broken stairs would have been immediately thrown out.

Nearly all of the comments from women simply talked about how pervasive the problem is, and how it happens to them all the goddamn time.

Also women talk about how men don't listen when they talk about how pervasive the problem is, and how it happens all the time. The men respond by saying of course they listen and haven't heard anything so it's not an actual problem, and go on ignoring women talking about the problem.

I've noticed a pattern though. Someone says: "You're sexist," and the response is never "Damn, I've been working on it, but I guess I have more work to do. Any suggestions?" It's always "I'm not sexist, but..."

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Lots of people are super fond of Star Wars.

And the number of girls dressed as Jedi that show up at my door each Halloween has increased dramatically starting in 2016.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Man, it's a shame we can't ask people that might be effected by sexism in the community about their experiences. That's just a shame that we can't do that. Guess we'll never know.

So you have a questionable dill weed, and an article that throws all other participants in the hobby into the same category, without numbers or anything to back that up.

Scuseme but that ain't quality journalism.

Additionally. Play the fething game, live and let live. If you have such a dill weed in your group throw him out.
There case solved. It is not the bloody companies issue to keep the community welocming, that is the communities job itself.
The company can help along with decent ruleset and boons for fresh starters but that 's it.

BuT iT's WhItE MaLe TeRrOrIsM!

Yeah, that article was quite questionable.

I especially enjoyed the part where the accusations against "gamers" ended with her stating her belief that she was harassed by them. I guess a lot of people still haven't figured out how trolling works and that edgy internet feths are abound.

In the case of the rude customer, that person should have been booted from the store. If I'd been there I'd of planted my boot up his ass for acting that way.

Also, maybe don't go around telling a bunch of strangers your personal history, especially in regards to assault? That isn't going to end well at all.

Well, of course Vox isn't quality journalism. It isn't any kind of journalism. It makes sense that someone who bases their worldview on what they read on Vox is going to seem delusional to sane people.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
No, that's not all anyone's asking for. Some ridiculous people are asking other people to believe that "It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest".

Ah. Of course. And we're back to ignoring the women who are actually saying that the reason they try to get into gaming and stop is because of misogyny and harassment.

I wouldn't ignore them, I would just ask why not be more aggressive and push your way in? That's what I do when I encounter a D-bag at a game store, I either engage and make fun of them until they leave or push my way past and ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, of course Vox isn't quality journalism. It isn't any kind of journalism. It makes sense that someone who bases their worldview on what they read on Vox is going to seem delusional to sane people.

Oh I was referencing the original article that the Vox one links to. Also, when you go down that road of "x isn't a real source" you just open a can of worms that the person you're debating with will then use against your sources later.

I think it is better to examine the contents of said article and debate the facts as they are.

Unfortunately, in the young womans case it's her word against the store owner. How do we determine the truth here?

 Togusa wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
No, that's not all anyone's asking for. Some ridiculous people are asking other people to believe that "It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest".

Ah. Of course. And we're back to ignoring the women who are actually saying that the reason they try to get into gaming and stop is because of misogyny and harassment.

I wouldn't ignore them, I would just ask why not be more aggressive and push your way in? That's what I do when I encounter a D-bag at a game store, I either engage and make fun of them until they leave or push my way past and ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, of course Vox isn't quality journalism. It isn't any kind of journalism. It makes sense that someone who bases their worldview on what they read on Vox is going to seem delusional to sane people.

Oh I was referencing the original article that the Vox one links to. Also, when you go down that road of "x isn't a real source" you just open a can of worms that the person you're debating with will then use against your sources later.

I think it is better to examine the contents of said article and debate the facts as they are.

Unfortunately, in the young womans case it's her word against the store owner. How do we determine the truth here?

Well, she won the largest sexual harrassment settlement ever at the time (for Manitoba), so that seems to lend some credence to her.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
No, that's not all anyone's asking for. Some ridiculous people are asking other people to believe that "It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest".

Ah. Of course. And we're back to ignoring the women who are actually saying that the reason they try to get into gaming and stop is because of misogyny and harassment.

I wouldn't ignore them, I would just ask why not be more aggressive and push your way in? That's what I do when I encounter a D-bag at a game store, I either engage and make fun of them until they leave or push my way past and ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, of course Vox isn't quality journalism. It isn't any kind of journalism. It makes sense that someone who bases their worldview on what they read on Vox is going to seem delusional to sane people.

Oh I was referencing the original article that the Vox one links to. Also, when you go down that road of "x isn't a real source" you just open a can of worms that the person you're debating with will then use against your sources later.

I think it is better to examine the contents of said article and debate the facts as they are.

Unfortunately, in the young womans case it's her word against the store owner. How do we determine the truth here?

Well, she won the largest sexual harrassment settlement ever at the time (for Manitoba), so that seems to lend some credence to her.

Does it though?

She asserts that there was a culture of harassment.
Her Boss says otherwise.

How much of the evidence that was supporting her can we as the public see? I did a quick search and couldn't find any of the hard presented evidence outside of testimony from her as a witness. Same for his side.

Need I remind you of cases where people get away with crimes they obviously committed? Courts can be wrong, they're not infallible.

Could it have been a frivolous lawsuit brought by someone just looking for money? Sure. Bill Cosby could have been unjustly framed. Is either terribly likely? Not really.

And disregarding the specific high profile case for a moment, Dakka has its own thread of horror stories. You don't even have to scroll down more than a few posts before you start getting into misogyny and worse.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Could it have been a frivolous lawsuit brought by someone just looking for money? Sure. Bill Cosby could have been unjustly framed. Is either terribly likely? Not really.

And disregarding the specific high profile case for a moment, Dakka has its own thread of horror stories. You don't even have to scroll down more than a few posts before you start getting into misogyny and worse.

Erm what?
Mind pointing me to that?

NVM found the post i belive.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Could it have been a frivolous lawsuit brought by someone just looking for money? Sure. Bill Cosby could have been unjustly framed. Is either terribly likely? Not really.

And disregarding the specific high profile case for a moment, Dakka has its own thread of horror stories. You don't even have to scroll down more than a few posts before you start getting into misogyny and worse.

Just remember that after a few pages it leaves hobby shops and becomes far more open and general - and the fact its from 2016 and isn't still even running suggests that these issues are rarer rather than common.

 Overread wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Could it have been a frivolous lawsuit brought by someone just looking for money? Sure. Bill Cosby could have been unjustly framed. Is either terribly likely? Not really.

And disregarding the specific high profile case for a moment, Dakka has its own thread of horror stories. You don't even have to scroll down more than a few posts before you start getting into misogyny and worse.

Just remember that after a few pages it leaves hobby shops and becomes far more open and general - and the fact its from 2016 and isn't still even running suggests that these issues are rarer rather than common.

Oh things have certainly gotten better. It's not solved by any means, but a lot of good progress has been made by game companies, stores, and the community in addressing a lot of these sorts of issues. I would caution against using "Well the thread's dead, so that means it's over" as evidence, however. Individual threads die all the time, for a variety of reasons, and we've still got wonderful cringe repositories like r/RPGhorrorstories where we can hear about more of this stuff going on.

 Togusa wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
No, that's not all anyone's asking for. Some ridiculous people are asking other people to believe that "It's a male dominated hobby because of harrassment of women who express interest".

Ah. Of course. And we're back to ignoring the women who are actually saying that the reason they try to get into gaming and stop is because of misogyny and harassment.

I wouldn't ignore them, I would just ask why not be more aggressive and push your way in? That's what I do when I encounter a D-bag at a game store, I either engage and make fun of them until they leave or push my way past and ignore them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, of course Vox isn't quality journalism. It isn't any kind of journalism. It makes sense that someone who bases their worldview on what they read on Vox is going to seem delusional to sane people.

Oh I was referencing the original article that the Vox one links to. Also, when you go down that road of "x isn't a real source" you just open a can of worms that the person you're debating with will then use against your sources later.

I think it is better to examine the contents of said article and debate the facts as they are.

Unfortunately, in the young womans case it's her word against the store owner. How do we determine the truth here?

Well, she won the largest sexual harrassment settlement ever at the time (for Manitoba), so that seems to lend some credence to her.

Does it though?

She asserts that there was a culture of harassment.
Her Boss says otherwise.

How much of the evidence that was supporting her can we as the public see? I did a quick search and couldn't find any of the hard presented evidence outside of testimony from her as a witness. Same for his side.

Need I remind you of cases where people get away with crimes they obviously committed? Courts can be wrong, they're not infallible.

Courts aren't infallible. I recently got out of a parking ticket because of a clerical error, for example. They are, nonetheless, reliable, and now that the court has ruled it's a false equivalence to present the question of whether she faced harassment as an open question. The court ruled in her favour and you still can't bring yourself to believe her? Might I remind you that these courts tend to be occupied by judges that ask women if they couldn't have tried harder not to be raped? Not the defense lawyer, mind you, but the judge.

She asserts that there was a culture of harassment. Her boss says otherwise. The courts notorious for the sexism and hostility to women still sided with her after going to the trouble of a trial.

Let's go back to that culture of harassment. You meet a d-bag at the store and you push past him. Good for you. Now, meet a d-bag morning, noon, and night. Find them everywhere, your whole life, and have people tell you to be more considerate and understanding of all the d-bags you meet. Have them shrug and disbelieve that you meet d-bags because they haven't met them, or if they have you're just over-reacting. After all, you're told, boys will be boys and somehow that makes them entitled to be d-bags to you. Oh, and if you push past them suddenly everyone knows that you're the d-bag because you didn't politely roll over and giggle at the d-bag, or appreciate that someone might deign to give you 'attention.'

As a man you meet a d-bag at the store and whatever. As a woman you're worn down by d-bags over the course of years, if not decades, all the while having your complaints ignored, disbelieved, and criticized (after all, maybe you were the d-bag). Men are not worn down by this culture of harassment because they don't face a constant, endless, barrage of gak and then told they'd be prettier if they smiled more.

If literally everyone you meet seems like a "d-bag", but nobody else thinks they are... maybe it's you?

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
If literally everyone you meet seems like a "d-bag", but nobody else thinks they are... maybe it's you?

There you go. That's why things like sexism and racism are considered 'structural' or 'baked-in' because of stuff like that. Consider the logic of it: Meet a squirrel in the morning and you've met a squirrel. Meet squirrels all day and maybe you're the squirrel...? Does this logic not seem both flawed and prejudiced? It's flawed because of course you can meet a-holes all day while being kind, considerate, and attentive yourself. It's prejudiced because you're leaping to the judgment that it must be the plaintiff's fault, without any question of who they met and what happened. It's specious, yet nonetheless repeated endlessly for some reason.

It's repeated endlessly because the vast majority of human interaction on a daily basis is fine. So when someone not only presents an aberration from our largely functional society occurring but a repeated pattern of negative interactions that defy all statistics it makes sense to question what is really going on.

For example I suspect in many cases that a regularly victimized individual who has awful experiences with a variety of unrelated individuals has some characteristic that predatory types are looking for. Something perhaps even beneath the conscious level that makes them attractive to predatory types. Something that makes the donkey-cave think the individual won't speak up and will go along with their negative gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on socially awkward males making bad passes on female gamers-- I actually think they should. If someone is socially awkward and comes across someone they are attracted to who happens to share an interest with them, they should express that. It sucks to be hit on when you're not interested and doubly so when it's done badly, but people should be free to do so. Yes, it can make things uncomfortable but if someone is socially awkward they should not be further shamed and isolated. There really is nothing inappropriate about hitting on someone during a social activity. It is not the work place and there's no power relationship being abused. And for the socially awkward it is probably one of the few places in their life they feel comfortable.

The guy who comes into the store who hasn't bathed in forever probably thinks everyone else in the store is a jerk for not wanting to play a game with him. They players who cheat or are sore losers probably think everyone else is a jerk for not wanting to play with them. I guess people are free to associate with who they want. Though, anecdotally, it does seem like miniature gaming and role playing tend to attract a disproportionately high percentage of people who have trouble interacting socially, or who tend to live a little bit in their own fantasy world.

Fo sure. It sort of makes sense that public gaming would be attended by social failures. If they had the social skills to assemble a gaming group themselves they wouldn't need the public venue/event.

For example I once played an opponent who wouldn't speak to me. He made gestures and pointed at things and I honestly assumed there was a hearing/speech issue. But then someone he knew came up and said hello and they had a short chat. The person just had crippling social anxiety and just couldn't talk with anyone until they had been around them a few times. It was super creepy/uncomfortable/rude at the time, but now I think good on him for making the effort.

Nurglitch wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
If literally everyone you meet seems like a "d-bag", but nobody else thinks they are... maybe it's you?

There you go. That's why things like sexism and racism are considered 'structural' or 'baked-in' because of stuff like that. Consider the logic of it: Meet a squirrel in the morning and you've met a squirrel. Meet squirrels all day and maybe you're the squirrel...? Does this logic not seem both flawed and prejudiced? It's flawed because of course you can meet a-holes all day while being kind, considerate, and attentive yourself. It's prejudiced because you're leaping to the judgment that it must be the plaintiff's fault, without any question of who they met and what happened. It's specious, yet nonetheless repeated endlessly for some reason.

Whilst this is an international forum many of the people taking part come from nations that share similar culture concepts and ideals. Therefore when someone appears who is posting comments way outside of what most consider normal and when others from their own country (as noted on the profile flag) also state that its abnormal then the person's conclusions do come into question.

Perhaps the region they live in is significantly different from the majorities experiences; perhaps they live in a "rough area" or one with a higher proportion of cultures from different backgrounds and ideals. Or perhaps their impression and interpretation of the behaviours of others is flawed etc... Without more data is hard to say and such arguments/debates can often go in circles.


Age also comes into it, the impressions of a teenager are going to differ to those of a mature adult or a senior adult. What might be innocent banter within one generation might be interpreted very different by another generation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The guy who comes into the store who hasn't bathed in forever probably thinks everyone else in the store is a jerk for not wanting to play a game with him. They players who cheat or are sore losers probably think everyone else is a jerk for not wanting to play with them. I guess people are free to associate with who they want. Though, anecdotally, it does seem like miniature gaming and role playing tend to attract a disproportionately high percentage of people who have trouble interacting socially, or who tend to live a little bit in their own fantasy world.

It's also important to note that people often behave within tolerances that the group allows for, even if marginally. Ergo that person who hasn't washed in forever is still tolerated at the group.

In addition sometimes people express themselves poorly or don't communicate the issue in the right way. Ergo they might not have told the guy he stinks or they might have worded it in such a way as to make the issue a conflicting one which can thus shift it into one of competing egos - now he's not washing not just because he doesn't care/understand why its important, but because its now a matter of pride and battling egos and not being "told what to do" etc... (yes sometimes ego based arguments can sound very childish and stupid to those on the outside).

I think we've all seen when there are people "silently excluded" who can often be totally oblivious as to why because its not communicated to them and changes in their attitude and behaviour are not openly encouraged by the group. And yes there is a difference between trying to force a person to change and encouraging a person to change. One can build negative connections and hostile associations whilst the other can not only encourage and support but even reinforce the behaviour in a positive way.

To make this on topic: has there really been a growth in socially awkward young men causing problems to any degree that might cause or contribute to a "down turn" in the hobby industry?

I doubt it. In fact it's probably the reverse as the more obsessive awkward types you have in your customer base, the more the company likely makes in revenue. When people are basically buying their social interaction by playing in public gaming (be it miniatures, magic cards or something else) they're probably pretty likely to open up their wallet.