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.

I don't think it's an barrier per say at all.
But just like you can imagine a cinema showing Ironman 3 is likely to be disproportionately full of people who like Marvel, there's still doing to be DC fans in the theatre, just fewer.

It's just a question of how much it skews, but I think wargames will always skew fairly heavily to male dominated.
In the same way video games are equalising by stuff like CoD is still male dominated (albeit as you said women are still involved).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a nice sentiment but I don't think the data we have supports that, at all.
I actually find the idea that men and women think exactly the same to be somewhat ludicrous, it's just so clearly not the case.

They're interested in violent video games, they're interested in all other kinds of traditional gaming, they're even interested in miniature paiting, but they're specifically not interested in wargaming. That's some incredibly specific evoutionary adaptation!

Everyone is very busy avoiding the question:
Of those women that ARE interested in traditional games, WHY are they seemingly avoiding wargaming specifically. Is it biological fear of tiny toy soldiers?

Cronch wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a nice sentiment but I don't think the data we have supports that, at all.
I actually find the idea that men and women think exactly the same to be somewhat ludicrous, it's just so clearly not the case.

They're interested in violent video games, they're interested in all other kinds of traditional gaming, they're even interested in miniature paiting, but they're specifically not interested in wargaming. That's some incredibly specific evoutionary adaptation!

We don't see 50/50 representation in violent video games though.
Women are disproportionately more likely to enjoy non-violent videogames like Minecraft.
I think the point of departure is pretty clear, women are less interested in violence than men. Which is corroborated just about everywhere you look.

Perhaps true and perhaps not true, its hard to say. Give it another 20 years and we might see a total reversal of the numbers. Change takes time and sometimes even when there are no barriers to entry, it still takes time for new generations to come along to fill the gap. Because those who are current generations already have other interests and focuses in their lives.

The women who might well be interested in CoD are simply doing something else with their time and life.

Give it more years and a continual lack of barriers and a greater amount of promotion and heck the numbers could equalise or even flip over.



~The key is to realise that what we see today isn't universal, its a simple snapshot in time. If we define things by today we get them wrong for tomorrow and yesterday.




In the distant past the sciences were "beyond women"*. There were no women in science barring one or two here and there; with the majority of women "not understanding such advanced things". The thinking was "alien" to a womens mind more suited to domestic tasks.
I hope I don't have to elaborate that changes in perception, education and the removal of barriers of entry has resulted in a modern society where women are no longer regarded as being incapable of science. Sure its not perfect, but even in the snapshot today we can see that the snapshot of the past was critically wrong at a fundamental level. It was perhaps correct that, at the time, the lack of the right kind of education meant that many women couldn't understand the sciences as they lacked the foundations in them.



*based on slightly extreme viewpoints here and no specific period/nation though I'm guessing something early Victorian or such perhaps or earlier or something.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a nice sentiment but I don't think the data we have supports that, at all.
I actually find the idea that men and women think exactly the same to be somewhat ludicrous, it's just so clearly not the case.

They're interested in violent video games, they're interested in all other kinds of traditional gaming, they're even interested in miniature paiting, but they're specifically not interested in wargaming. That's some incredibly specific evoutionary adaptation!

We don't see 50/50 representation in violent video games though.
Women are disproportionately more likely to enjoy non-violent videogames like Minecraft.
I think the point of departure is pretty clear, women are less interested in violence than men. Which is corroborated just about everywhere you look.

Even if you're right. Even if 5% of women will go for traditional hobbies unlike 10% men, why are they going for other forms of hobbies (boardgames, cards, rpgs) and specficially avoiding wargaming. Remember, those women already chose fictional violence as their entertainment, there is no global population bias, they're the "violent" outlier. And even that violent outlier avoids wargaming. why? Why only this one sub-type is shunned by women, even when figure painting isn't?

Jadenim wrote:I think the most interesting point in that article is the win at all costs attitude that can be very common in war gaming, particularly in public locations, which can be very off putting to new comers and people with a more casual interest, regardless of race, gender, etc. (but ads yet another barrier for those in a minority in the hobby). It also links to Kirotheavengers point; if you get brought into the hobby as a group activity with existing friends, you’ll see less of that issue.

That was my take away as well. Also of note is that the 'social dynamics' are a big part of what gets girls/women interested and involved and will make them want to stay.

My wife played rugby for years and every year they'd have loads of fresh faces join up, only to quickly evaporate. The beat way to keep them interested was to build relationships with them. I dont mean dating them(but to be fair, thst happens too). I mean building peer relationships and friendships. If they were friends with the girls on the team, if they would open them to the social/party side of the club, they were far more likely to stick around and not let 'their friends' down. Even for individual/solo sports like running, most girls I know don't train solo, they run and train with a team - the social dynamics will always be there. The other thing I learned is if you have girls in your group, you are more likely to get other girls to join. Sisterhood is a thing and I sure as hell have nothing bad to say about it.

You tend to see 'better' social dynamics in board games and rpg's and its not necessarily due to the cooperative or collaborative nature being pushed more heavily, but it is certainly a part of it- and I don't think it's much of a mystery why this then draws more female gamers than wargames. Us wargamers are a hyper intensive and obsessive lot and often solo-gamers. Look at the push back, often from those that lean towards the win at all costs or competitive at all costs spectrum when this is brought up. There is a strong sense, especially online where each person is an island, and each opponent is essentially an npc. Disposable pick up game culture. Effectively 'one night stands' of gaming. when someone proposes investing in, or developing their community and accommodating the other guy/person or that the social aspect is more important, you can almost hear the pile on coming. This I can imagine is very unattractive. Basically, to me at least, the biggest road block isn't so much a competitive game aspect in wargaming (girls are competitive too!), its often a lack of, and sometimes hostility towards social dynamics and peer-relationship building in favour of disposable npc opponents and lack of investment in their community.

Why is the one hobby sub-type 'WARgame' shunned by women? Why do they gravitate instead to stuff like DnD or boardgames, which focus on things other than the WAR?

Because women are less interested in violence, and so are less interested the more central violence comes to the game.

I don't think Minecraft is equally violent to 40k at all, not all games have the same focus, even if they all contain some measure of violence.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a nice sentiment but I don't think the data we have supports that, at all.
I actually find the idea that men and women think exactly the same to be somewhat ludicrous, it's just so clearly not the case.

Well the data is what? Women enjoy marvel films as much as men, they never used to buy comics in the 70's and 80's like boys did. What data changed there? Is this data a snapshot of now? Or does it demonstrate trends?

I mean, what are women doing voting? Everyone knew that was a something men should do. The anti suffrage movement was led and dominated by women. They were best placed to understand that women weren't suited to those sorts of decisions and thinking. And yet despite it being something with minority support amongst women we passed a law including them in the franchise and something utterly weird happened and loads vote now.

And why aren't men wearing makeup? In the glory days at court and in important social affairs men loved getting made up. Why do women think just they should wear make up now, bring back men in powdered wigs! I know some people think it isn't something men do, but the data for the majority of human civilisation seems to support them wearing it.

As the academic papers linked above point out, when Britain and Europe were more militarised pre WW1, well to do men and women were encouraged to play games like Kriegspiele. What changed? (Well in this case we know what changed - WW1 was hell and people got cool to the idea of playing with war and glorifying it in the same way they had a decade ago - there was still a requirement for boys to soldier but the wider militaristic ethos died off when peoples sons and husbands did. And of course we realised despite the high level of volunteers we were fine with conscription ultimately).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why is the one hobby sub-type 'WARgame' shunned by women? Why do they gravitate instead to stuff like DnD or boardgames, which focus on things other than the WAR?

Because women are less interested in violence, and so are less interested the more central violence comes to the game.

I don't think Minecraft is equally violent to 40k at all, not all games have the same focus, even if they all contain some measure of violence.

Malifaux is a wargame. It has (seemingly!) the largest % of female gamers of all popular wargames. It's 100% about violence.
Hell, there's plenty of boardgames that are all about war. There's the entirety of CCG scene which is all about smashing your opponent into ground, there's no cooperative or social aspect to a Magic match.

But yeah, women just don't like violence. The attitudes straight from Stepford sure aren't part of the issue, it's Just Biology.

This whole thread reminds me of
https://twitter.com/LisaMcCray/status/1401597106822029314?s=19 for some reason.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why is the one hobby sub-type 'WARgame' shunned by women? Why do they gravitate instead to stuff like DnD or boardgames, which focus on things other than the WAR?

Because women are less interested in violence, and so are less interested the more central violence comes to the game.

I think you are missing peoples challenges to your statements. They are happy to say for the sake of argument there is a split of say 90/10 or 95/05 or whatever when it comes to women who like violence. They are then challenging you that of those girls that like violent pursuits - Gears of War on the computer, rpgs with heavy amounts of fighting, boardgames where you conquer the world, boxing in the real world, etc - why they are appearing in every formally male dominated for the latter half of the 20th century sub group in significant numbers, bar wargaming?

Wargaming isn't more violent or competitive than other options. They are painting model so already doing better than me. But the actual toys on the table game? Why only this.

I think the portrayal of 40k is definitely different to MtG.
MtG's tagline appears to be "outwit, outplay, overpower", for 40k it's "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war".

Are these more warlike boardgames more popular with women, or less popular? Because in my experience women engage more with the more passive games like Catan or Pandemic.
The very heavily warlike stuff tends to draw more of the sausage fest typical of wargames.

You'll also notice I never said women don't like violence, I said they're less interested in it.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
As the academic papers linked above point out, when Britain and Europe were more militarised pre WW1, well to do men and women were encouraged to play games like Kriegspiele. What changed? (Well in this case we know what changed - WW1 was hell and people got cool to the idea of playing with war and glorifying it in the same way they had a decade ago - there was still a requirement for boys to soldier but the wider militaristic ethos died off when peoples sons and husbands did. And of course we realised despite the high level of volunteers we were fine with conscription ultimately).

I recently finished "A Game of Birds and Wolves," which details the use of Wrens (the Women's Royal Naval Service) during WW2 to wargame anti-submarine tactics when the British were on the losing side of the Battle of the Atlantic. And from the records and from the remaining women's testimony, they absolutely loved it. Not only that, but they were absolute aces when it came to wargaming. They regularly schooled actual naval officers who came in to train and ended up teaching the correct anti-sub tactics that would eventually see Britain control the waters again.

I've never understood the "women don't like violence" explanation for male-dominated wargaming, even it it was true. We're moving toys on the table and rolling dice. It's utterly bloodless. It's not like in order to win a combat I would actually need to square off against an opponent. I'm not getting blood splashed on me or getting cuts to simulate damage. We're not uncorking vials that smell like piss and gak for us to waft under ours noses to simulate the aftermath of battles.

I have a focus group of two in my household. Here is what they tell me about the subject.....

1. My daughter likes wargames, but has been playing them since she was 7. She typically does not want to get involved playing outside the home/our small group because she does not want to deal with people she does not know for a game. She is a bit of a lazy gamer in the fact that she is eager to play, but doesn't want to do much other than play.

My wife feels that the social skills of many of the players she has come across are lacking for a variety of reasons. Again, she would rather stick to our small group. She is slightly more engaged and enjoys painting models and maybe a bit of fluff about her stuff.

2. Lack of models that are representative of the type of games they want to play. This was more my wife, who wants to play female models in female warbands, or mixed company groups. Most of my Historical games do not do that so they are less interested in going beyond the game. If I do all the leg work, they will play.

Oddly, they love the Burrows and Badgers stuff and also like playing Orks in various settings? However, when painting the wife prefers to paint ladies, while my daughter prefers not to paint minis at all despite being a painter in acrylics/digital herself.

For some reason though, they were not interested in Frostgrave using the Female warriors/wizards models thought. I still have not cracked the code on that one!

3. Barrier of Knowledge to Entry. Neither of them want to dig super deep into very complex or detailed rules. They want to keep it light, play a game and move on with their lives. They are not looking for much more than a bit of entertainment with family and friends. The social side of things matter.

This holds true with card games, board games, and wargames. They will play, but do not want to read the actual rules to learn how. They prefer to be taught or guided at first by a mentor, and then go it alone.

4. Wargames (typically) only offer one solution to an issue, where RPGs offer many more. The wargame solution is violence. Sometimes, they want their folks to do other stuff and appreciate games that can accommodate Co-op and RPG lite much more than strict VS. games.

They also prefer games with strong, easily recognizable themes/gimmicks. For example, they prefer a game like Burrows and Badgers or Blood Bowl over something like DBA or Warhammer Ancients.

5. They prefer smaller games where each model matters more. The mass battle games and unit vs unit skirmish games are less interesting to them than model vs model skirmish. They did not really articulate why though as it is not like they create elaborate stories, goals, or have particular favorites in their skirmish models.


That was two females in my household who play wargames. This is their opinions interpreted by me. They are not representative of all players or people. Some of these may be reflections of my own views or my small groups views on gaming, since they are part of that group. Plus, I may have misunderstood or misrepresented some of their feelings but I did my best to put them down here for posterity and discussion.

 infinite_array wrote:
I recently finished "A Game of Birds and Wolves," which details the use of Wrens (the Women's Royal Naval Service) during WW2 to wargame anti-submarine tactics when the British were on the losing side of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Amusingly DSTL staged a reenactment in Liverpool recently

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/women-winning-battles-recreating-the-wrens-unit-which-helped-win-the-war

Very cool! Although it's a shame that there doesn't seem to be any pictures.

Also, it looks like there's going to be a film based on the book? I wonder if we'll see an uptick in women interested in wargaming if it does well.

Ah the pictures were on the original article I saw, sadly the .gov site didn't pick up on any of them and I couldn't find it anywhere else.

Edit - found it.

https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/watu-wargame-report/

Ha, I knew I should have dug a little deeper on Paxsims. I thought I had found a link to the article but it was broken.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a nice sentiment but I don't think the data we have supports that, at all.
I actually find the idea that men and women think exactly the same to be somewhat ludicrous, it's just so clearly not the case.

Keep proving my point for me, champ!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's a nice sentiment but I don't think the data we have supports that, at all.
I actually find the idea that men and women think exactly the same to be somewhat ludicrous, it's just so clearly not the case.

They're interested in violent video games, they're interested in all other kinds of traditional gaming, they're even interested in miniature paiting, but they're specifically not interested in wargaming. That's some incredibly specific evoutionary adaptation!

We don't see 50/50 representation in violent video games though.
Women are disproportionately more likely to enjoy non-violent videogames like Minecraft.
I think the point of departure is pretty clear, women are less interested in violence than men. Which is corroborated just about everywhere you look.

At this point in my life I know more women in their late 20s and mid 30s who enjoy playing Call of Duty, Battlefield, Fortnite, etc. than I do men playing those same games, so color me doubtful that there is any validity to your claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why is the one hobby sub-type 'WARgame' shunned by women? Why do they gravitate instead to stuff like DnD or boardgames, which focus on things other than the WAR?

Because women are less interested in violence, and so are less interested the more central violence comes to the game.

I don't think Minecraft is equally violent to 40k at all, not all games have the same focus, even if they all contain some measure of violence.

Thats a nice sentiment but it could just be that wargames are and have been the most conservative and impenetrable "old boys club" of the nerdy communities, as well as being the smallest and least visible. In that case it becomes pretty self explanatory why women are increasingly visible in other communities.

"Why are women less represented in wargaming"

I'm obviously not saying no woman ever enjoys competitive sports, but generalising; women are less interested in that than men.

is literally all you need to known to answer the question.

I think people confuse the IRL trend of men being more likely to engage in violence with interest in a game that is violent. It is the same line of thinking for the old 'video games cause violence' uproar that has thankfully died down at this point. It also assumes that IRL men are more likely to be violent mainly because of an inherent interest in violence, which is not accurate either.

And fyi for some people; if you bring up the 50/50 argument anyone sensible will immediately disregard you. It is basically putting up a scarecrow with a sign 'I do not have a legitimate argument'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
"Why are women less represented in wargaming"

I'm obviously not saying no woman ever enjoys competitive sports, but generalising; women are less interested in that than men.

is literally all you need to known to answer the question.

Only for people that wish to artifically restrict themselves to a level of thought so simplistic it cannot manage nuance. No one is actually so dumb as to be incapable of that, which leaves the question of why bother engaging the topic at all?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
With respect, maybe most women aren't that interested in this stuff and don't want to spend their free time with the genetic abyss of warhammer night.

What makes wargaming and miniature model hobbying different from DnD, Larping, Streaming, Video Gaming, shooting, football, wrestling, rugby, rowing, hiking, kayaking, kickboxing, judo, archery, gymnastics, swimming, running and billing other things?

Aggressively testosterone-fuelled marketing designed by people who aren't aware that anyone other than twelve-year-old boys exists?

Right, as opposed to wrestling, video gaming, football and shooting, which are all advertised extremely gender-neutrally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:
"Why are women less represented in wargaming"

I'm obviously not saying no woman ever enjoys competitive sports, but generalising; women are less interested in that than men.

is literally all you need to known to answer the question.

Only if you don't finish the question ".....than they are in other, traditionally male-dominated hobbies that have been seeing more and more women taking part?"

I mean, if we see women in MMA, I don't think it is the violence of imagining little toy men shooting at each other that is turning them off.

I'm still trying to see 40K or AoS as being highly violent. I mean sure its a wargame, but really you're spending ages building, painting and getting your models ready for the tabletop; at which point they engage in battle akin to chess pieces.

You move them around, you roll dice, you make pew pew sounds and boom and things "die" by being taken off the table.



Sure if you want you can play out the scene in words with detail; or you can write stories/blogs about it or whatever. But in general terms there's nothing violent. Heck at most games you'll shake your opponent's hand at the end and say thanks for the game and such.

The violence in 40k is more than just pushing toys around.
I don't think any 40k player will tell you they're just pushing toys around.

If you go to GW's shop, the headline describing 40k is "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war". Thats a pretty well known quote in the hobby and I think its fairly representative as well.

As I pointed out earlier, its very different to how Magic advertises itself for example.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The violence in 40k is more than just pushing toys around.
I don't think any 40k player will tell you they're just pushing toys around.

If you go to GW's shop, the headline describing 40k is Thats a pretty well known quote in the hobby and I think its fairly representative as well.

As I pointed out earlier, its very different to how Magic advertises itself for example.

Whilst I get what you mean I think you're going to have to elaborate your point here.
Right now you're basically saying its super violent because "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war"
And because gamers will go "hey cool I blew your tank up"


Which you can get from playing Battleships. "You sunk by Battleship"


One is represented by a peg on a board, the other is represented by a 32mm space marine on a table.

I don't know why my fiancée would not want to buy roman legionaries from warlord for Hail Caesar. Its interesting. All she'd have to do is go online order them, pain them and then look for an opponent on our local group.

I do know though, that she would rather pay a £200 for a facial beauty mumbo jumbo treatment that may or may not work(which I think is a waste of money), than buy piety and pain from GW and some paints.

I also know she plays sudoku on her phone but absolutely detests traditional PC or console computer games.
But for all intents and purposes this would make her a gamer for the gamer demographic statistic...

My initial thought is that this may well be a product of a generational thing.

I suppose if the new generations are being educated from an early age in way that encourages girls to participate in what traditionally were male past times, and rewarding them for participation you'd well see a demographic shift in a couple of decades. Perhaps ? Who knows. Maybe there will be some unpredictable side effects like mental health issues being more common/ Or maybe less common? Maybe overall happiness will increase or decrease? Not sure I want to experiment with my kids future personally. They can choose what they want to do, and I will support them if its within my means and allows them to find purpose.

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.

 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 agree with this completely.

On the flip side, yes, women ON THE AVERAGE do tend to be less interested

We're not talking about why Jane Q, whose hobbies include baking pies and reading romance novels isn't interested in wargaming, we're talking about why Jill Q, whose hobbies include building net decks and smashing people with them at the LGS isn't interested in wargaming.

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

Honestly, I think it's for the better at this point.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It also assumes that IRL men are more likely to be violent mainly because of an inherent interest in violence, which is not accurate either.

What is your argument for this claim?

I'd say it is quite accurate that males are geared towards violence, conflict and competition. Mammal males fight for rank and access to females, whether it's a pride of lions or a herd of mountain goats. Males flex muscles, show off their resources and dominance. Females avoid that - it's too costly and risky. They are going to get a chance at reproduction anyway, while males have to prove their worth over other males.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150811-do-animals-fight-wars

These (and other) instincts in humans may have been watered down (or rather painted over) by civilisation and culture but I think it is hard to deny they are there, to surface the moment they are allowed to by circumstances.

Add to it the fact that neuropsychology gets quite a lot evidence for many of our decisions and choices being made subconsciously and driven by instincts and hidden urges and the intelligent and conscious part of us is apparently there to come up with excuses and justifications post-factum, should someone challenge us (or should we challenge ourselves in our heads).
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2011.227

And sure, there are outliers. In a 7billion species they are bound to be. But for proper science look at statistics, not anecdotes.