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.
How often was that discussion started by a woman? I should like to see their input more often otherwise it’s just a bunch of men arguing about it to the best of our abilities.
Started by her? Never that I've seen. No girl i know walks into a room and goes, "yo so let me tell you why this hobby sucks for me".
Usually it starts by someone commenting they never played with or seen a chick play 40k before and then it goes into some scientific debate with some other dudes. I've been guilty of chiming into it like I'm doing now.
You’re literally in a thread that started like that.
Maybe I misunderstood the question. I was referring to real life. I've never seen my wife or any girl approach someone in real life and start a debate on why chicks don't approach the hobby. And in case I'm misunderstood I'm not saying the Op is fake or anything. She's asking an online form about how to make friends in a store. I'm sure chicks do that. I was just answering what I thought was your question.
Nah there was no offense intended. I just wanted to highlight a point that a woman asked how to make herself more included in her local community. I should like to see more of the female perspective and n these topics, but I understand that the perspective is disenfranchised by various rhetoric. We need more women’s voices, so we can have a better idea of what exactly is going on. Also, referring to women as chicks may be considered in bad tastes and is considered a derogatory term for women. It’s so common that it is entirely understandable that some would not know that however. On an international forum it would be best to respect that particular convention.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
JNAProductions wrote: Hecaton, do you think women face more hurdles than men do joining a war gaming group?
It depends on what you mean by "hurdles." I think there's a lot of messaging that women receive from society at large, and not really from within the gaming space, that stereotypically nerdy hobbies are not for them and that they should avoid them to avoid being labeled as low-status. Some women internalize this to the point where it becomes a preference; is that really a hurdle? Hard to say.
Edit- after a response I'm just deleting mine. I think its best you just go into a store and see the interactions yourself. This theory-craft stuff is too much.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/16 13:52:13
Open again for business, once again a reminder to follow the rules of this site or suffer the consequences, bans and warnings have been handed out to those who couldn't follow this simple injunction since I posted it last.
To those who are posting thoughtfully, my thanks. Unfortunately I had to remove some really quality posts by some users (Tawnis especially) as they were too intertwined with rule breaking ones, my apologies to those people and I really wish I could have kept them but they made no sense as stand alone posts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/15 22:20:16
ingtaer wrote: Open again for business, once again a reminder to follow the rules of this site or suffer the consequences, bans and warnings have been handed out to those who couldn't follow this simple injunction since I posted it last.
To those who are posting thoughtfully, my thanks. Unfortunately I had to remove some really quality posts by some users (Tawnis especially) as they were too intertwined with rule breaking ones, my apologies to those people and I really wish I could have kept them but they made no sense as stand alone posts.
Eh, it happens when wading into such things, no sweat. Thanks for all the work you do keeping things as clean as feasible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/15 22:51:38
And the above exchanges and those removed proves the OPs point perfectly. Still far too many toxic individuals in this hobby.
As for Hecatons claims that we “the pro-female marines “ side were claiming that the inclusion of such would make the imperium more moral, it’s none sense. The only person to make such claims were him in trying to debunk our arguments. Representation in real life and improving the morals of the community were the claims. No change to the “imperium” was ever suggested.
Andykp wrote: And the above exchanges and those removed proves the OPs point perfectly. Still far too many toxic individuals in this hobby.
As for Hecatons claims that we “the pro-female marines “ side were claiming that the inclusion of such would make the imperium more moral, it’s none sense. The only person to make such claims were him in trying to debunk our arguments. Representation in real life and improving the morals of the community were the claims. No change to the “imperium” was ever suggested.
Yeah... I was trying to figure out if there were some imaginary lines hec was reading between or what On earth he could have read to think that. It’s either trolling or false memories. Maybe we should have a chat about how best to approach people like that? The only purpose arguing with them serves is reinforcing to others that we will not as a community tolerate attitudes that marginalized women and others, and hopefully to change that aspect of the tabletop wargaming culture. Changing their mind when they are that engrained in their beliefs and cultural attitudes bears a negligible chance. And the argument is rather circular.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, someone else mentioned that their wife experienced discomfort in the community from women more so than men. Internalized misogyny is absolutely a thing, and membership in a minority does not exclude biases against that minority. Case in point, implicit bias screenings have similar trends in both black and white cops for implicit biases against black people. What this means here is that women in the hobby may participate in the discriminatory behaviors that other men are. Virtue of being a woman does not exclude attitudes that discriminate against women.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/16 04:26:49
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Same. The pro-female space marine arguments are always more about representation than adjusting the factions morality. I'd love to see even a single link to an argument on Dakka were someone made the argument you are saying crops up "quite often".
Yeah, I can only speak for myself but I've always wanted female marines/eldar/CSM/guard because I like variety, painting some female models without having an entire army made of women and also a bit more realism in terms of background: it makes sense that human shaped armies have some females in their ranks. In fact one of my favorite armies has always been Drukhari, which is the only army with 50/50 males/females ratio for their infantries. And they're 100% evil, probably the most cruel faction in the entire 40k universe. So no, more females in the SM/guard ranks won't make those factions more "moral".
Octopoid wrote: Maybe not referring to women as "chicks" is a good starting place, hm?
It's not. Culturally, in many areas it's considered normal and acceptable to refer to women as "chicks." Depends on where you live and your specific (sub)culture.
Here it's also common but far from being acceptable. Like racism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/16 07:57:03
On the issue of using the word “chicks” to refer to women, it’s clearly recognized as offensive in wider pop culture. I present one of the classic 80’s villains:
Yeah, terms like “chicks” is disrespectful, some women may not mind it but it’s not a term many will care for. The fact we are having to have this conversation is a sign of the work that still needs to be done.
Andykp wrote: Yeah, terms like “chicks” is disrespectful, some women may not mind it but it’s not a term many will care for. The fact we are having to have this conversation is a sign of the work that still needs to be done.
That but also consider that the terminology can vary a lot based on generation and context. There are times when certain terms are perfectly fine to use, and other times where the same word is not appropriate.
It's a little like swearing in that the same word can be used in multiple ways in different context and can run the gauntlet from openly encouraged and casually accepted all the way through the hate speech and criminal act.
It's more complex because whilst swearing generally sticks to the same kinds of situation, a lot of gender and social terms change a LOT over time generation to generation and as society itself changes. So it can be very easy to be using terms that are insulting without any intent because those terms originally had totally different contextual meaning. Heck terms can shift from suitable to unsuitable to insulting and back to suitable. It's a very fluid situation made hard by the fact that not everyone keeps up "with the times"
Yeah... that’s how progress happens. It wasn’t that long ago that the n word was cool to say and normal.
My grandma once told me that the f word was the most vile word said in her youth. I replied that the n word was not only normal and OK but used in such rhymes we learned as “eeny meany miney moe catch a tiger by the toe” because it wasn’t tiger they said... they really aren’t a moral authority on what’s ok and not ok to say. Culture changes and the time in which women were commonly called chicks was a time when women were considered submissive to men. The words change to reflect the change in attitude.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
macluvin wrote: Yeah... that’s how progress happens. It wasn’t that long ago that the n word was cool to say and normal.
And to complicate things it still is. However only within certain social groups and situations. However that is further complicated today because those social situations are also presented to the masses through media such as the TV. So suddenly you've got generations getting mixed messages on the meaning and use of certain words.
Language is constantly evolving and changing when its used. New words come; old words go; words that stay change meaning in subtle and overt ways.
Heck some words change a lot - Gay used to mean happy. Today it still technically has that meaning, but you'd only interpret it as such if it was in a medieval or similar style presentation. Otherwise today it has a stronger meaning as a term to describe homosexuals. I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Three totally different meanings all for the same word and three different connections and associations.
Overread wrote: I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Having been in those trenches, that would be *because* of the homophobia of the times (for me, Thatcher's Britain, which also gave us section 28).
Overread wrote: I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Having been in those trenches, that would be *because* of the homophobia of the times (for me, Thatcher's Britain, which also gave us section 28).
Overread wrote: I know it also had a brief stint as a generic casual derisory term for "anything" during my school days. "That lesson was so gay" etc.. was used.
Having been in those trenches, that would be *because* of the homophobia of the times (for me, Thatcher's Britain, which also gave us section 28).
This was well into the Blair era
Yoof!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/16 23:39:22
Sim-Life wrote:Its pretty clear that you seem to think OPs experience was with some kind of formless misoginistic blob rather than actual humans with thoughts and perspectives of their own and that the OP is a perfect creature, incapable of misunderstandings but fully capable of discerning peoples motives and opinions instantly from a few hours of interactions (presumably because she's a woman and therefore correct in all things). It's also clear that you play in some kind of echo chamber where everyone must conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled. If you kick everyone that disagrees with you out of your group you're going to eventually find yourself alone.
I'm not going provide any other comment on this, as I think your own words echo what I want to say:
Don't put words in my mouth to portray me as sexist in order to strengthen your argument.
Now that you might be a little more self-aware, I'd also like to just say you're only slightly wrong on that last point - I do expect everyone in my group to "conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled", because the standards we hold eachother to are pretty basic ones of respect and inclusivity. Evidently, it seems those standards are too high for your group. It's not "disagreement" to disrespect someone's existence, it's the bottom of the barrel.
Also I never said she can't be trusted because shes a woman. I said women aren't infallible.
And what does that mean? It means that you don't trust her perspective. I'm not saying that you're mistrusting her *because she's a woman*, but simply that you aren't trusting her in general, which is still the problem. The point is the same - you aren't willing to trust the perspective of the only person in the room.
A.T. wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of any systemic indication that men are shunned from groups because of their gender - could you show me some indications of that?
No. You said that you were waiting for someone to point out if you were acting in a perhaps unkowningly discriminatory way and that was my intent, nothing more.
Okay - can you elaborate on what that discriminatory way is, because I don't see it. I don't believe PenitentJake identified any either (and my thanks be to them for their very detailed analysis and observation of that interaction, it was very well put) - so please, could you perhaps elaborate more and spell out to me what I'm doing wrong?
Hecaton wrote:In general I see this on the supposedly pro-woman side quite often; in the talks about female space marines, there seems to be a lot of people who think that the Imperium automatically becomes more moral if it's woman doing the baby-killing, genocide, and brutal oppression, since women have some sort of special moral license that men do not. And in the real world, oftentimes there's an idea that women need special accommodations in the hobby as opposed to being treated like equal members of it.
I've never seen anyone express this view at all in any of those threads here, let alone "often".
Tawnis wrote:We all have our own biases and perceptions based on our interpretations of events. (One of my favorite quotes is "There are three sides to every story, your side, their side, and the truth.") However, by the logic your using, what's the point in trusting anyone's personal account of any given situation, they are all effected by personal bias.
She came to us in good faith asking for some advise on inclusion, why is the default response to doubt instead of to trust?
...
At the end of the day, no one here can know exactly what happened and why it happened. All we have is a newer member of the community who was looking for advise, and boy did we gak the bed in trying to be the welcoming and inclusive community that almost everyone seems to claim to either be or at least want to be.
Exactly this. No-one is saying "blindly trust everyone", but similarly, "don't trust anything and downplay people's feelings of being marginalised" will only continue to create that feeling of marginalisation.
It wouldn't be empowering to the player, either, unless it was divorced of the context of the setting. Saying that women are now shown to be as expendable as men in a given media/setting would be *disempowering* to women, not *empowering*.
I don't really think you have the authority to claim what is and isn't empowering to other people. You can say how you personally wouldn't find it empowering, but if people say that they find XYZ empowering and positive to them, you don't really have the right to say that their experiences and wants are wrong.
PenitentJake wrote: 1) I don't think there are a lot of posts by men who say they feel excluded from the hobby.
That's because they know that nobody will care if they say so lol.
Judging from the response in this thread, we can hardly say that women are treated any better*. So why do we still see more complaints from women about being excluded? It is still disproportionate.
*that's not to sweep any feelings of exclusion under the rug - but I don't appreciate the use of male exclusion to sweep women and non-male exclusion under the rug either.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay - can you elaborate on what that discriminatory way is, because I don't see it.
My original post can be taken at it's face value. You had dismissed the idea of men feeling excluded in the hobby with the question "So where's the flood of men complaining about their hobby experiences feeling excluded?" - and I pointed out that you had blown off just such an individual a few posts earlier, telling them not to conflate their 'non-issues' with concerns of sexism towards women.
After which you shifted your question from "men shunned" to "men shunned because of their gender", so I decided to leave that alone.
Out of curiosity: is there any data as to how many women actively play 40k?
As I've read a little bit of this thread I will clarify just to be sure....I absolutely couldn't care less what gender you are when playing warhammer as long as you act decently towards fellow players.
As to the OPs question: I think women and men should be treated equally when trying to enter the hobby, but I guess there can be misunderstandings. Some people come across as hostile, not because they necessarily are, but suffer from resting bitch face.
If someone actively tells you to get out because you are a woman, well then that person is an idiot and should first be called out as an idiot and then ignored.
Octopoid wrote: Maybe it's just that this site isn't worth it, and I've toyed with the idea of asking for a perma-ban. May yet.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. People on this forum are just too invested in fighting each other, when the actual answer is just to find a positive, kind, respectful, and welcoming community and to display the same kindness in return. Easier said than done sure, but it's better to take the time to find a community like that than to endure one that isn't. That's not a political statement, that's just life advice.
I honestly feel bad for the OP, she opened the thread asking for advice and instead got 11 pages of "anti-sjw" versus "anti-fash".
We can be better than this, we just have to be willing to.
I'm not going to go back through those threads. If you've read them, you've seen what I'm talking about.
I've read quite a few female Space Marines threads here and on other boards, but i don't remember even a single post claiming something like that Space Marines doing evil things would be less evil if they would be female.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/17 19:08:57
Sim-Life wrote:Its pretty clear that you seem to think OPs experience was with some kind of formless misoginistic blob rather than actual humans with thoughts and perspectives of their own and that the OP is a perfect creature, incapable of misunderstandings but fully capable of discerning peoples motives and opinions instantly from a few hours of interactions (presumably because she's a woman and therefore correct in all things). It's also clear that you play in some kind of echo chamber where everyone must conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled. If you kick everyone that disagrees with you out of your group you're going to eventually find yourself alone.
I'm not going provide any other comment on this, as I think your own words echo what I want to say:
Don't put words in my mouth to portray me as sexist in order to strengthen your argument.
Now that you might be a little more self-aware, I'd also like to just say you're only slightly wrong on that last point - I do expect everyone in my group to "conform to the agreed upon standards lest they be exiled", because the standards we hold eachother to are pretty basic ones of respect and inclusivity. Evidently, it seems those standards are too high for your group. It's not "disagreement" to disrespect someone's existence, it's the bottom of the barrel.
Also I never said she can't be trusted because shes a woman. I said women aren't infallible.
And what does that mean? It means that you don't trust her perspective. I'm not saying that you're mistrusting her *because she's a woman*, but simply that you aren't trusting her in general, which is still the problem. The point is the same - you aren't willing to trust the perspective of the only person in the room.
No, your standards aren't too high, just different. I feel that the best way to respect a person is to treat everyone the same way, you might think its to treat everyone different based on their gender or race. I've had a lot of different friends over the years from various walks of life and none have ever had a problem with me so I guess I'm doing something right.
Also I will never trust a single persons judgement because a single person is usually wrong.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay - can you elaborate on what that discriminatory way is, because I don't see it.
My original post can be taken at it's face value. You had dismissed the idea of men feeling excluded in the hobby with the question "So where's the flood of men complaining about their hobby experiences feeling excluded?" - and I pointed out that you had blown off just such an individual a few posts earlier, telling them not to conflate their 'non-issues' with concerns of sexism towards women.
I didn't "blow them off" nor say that their experience wasn't valid. When I described their comment as a "non-issues", I was talking about how being neurodivergent isn't an excuse to be sexist, and how there's a very big difference between being anti-social and being a sexist.
I called it a non-issue because it wasn't anything to do with the topic of sexists being sexist, not because it wasn't important in it's own right. I made that comment so that we wouldn't start conflating the idea of being anti-social for neurodivergent reasons with being anti-social for sexist ones.
The aforementioned quote of said individual wasn't "complaining about their hobby experiences being excluded", which they themselves later clarified! Their comment was, and I quote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:I should specifiy that it wasn't you I had an issue with when I said that. Sexism and racism are not excusable by social disorders. However, what can come off as sexism and racism can be. My issue was with someone's implication that we can just get better at socializing, and that's that.
It wasn't a complaint about feeling excluded, it was simply stating that people can't just "get better at socialising", which I 100% agree with!
After which you shifted your question from "men shunned" to "men shunned because of their gender", so I decided to leave that alone.
Because I assumed that we were talking about gender, one of the, if not the main, central premises of the thread?
So, just to be sure I got that right - you believed I was being sexist because I called something which wasn't necessarily part of the topic a "non-issue"? In which case, I apologise for the miscommunication that you thought I was devaluing neurodivergency, which I assuredly don't, and would like to clarify that I referred to it as a non-issue because neurodivergency hasn't got anything to do with people being sexist, which was the main point being discussed.
I feel as well that it definitely *is* pertinent to reiterate that I definitely do not see a flood of comments (or really, any comments) from men who feel that their gender excludes them, but I see them from non-men. I don't believe that's sexist to point out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote:No, your standards aren't too high, just different. I feel that the best way to respect a person is to treat everyone the same way, you might think its to treat everyone different based on their gender or race. I've had a lot of different friends over the years from various walks of life and none have ever had a problem with me so I guess I'm doing something right.
No, see, that's the thing - I don't treat them differently either. I treat them *all* with the same respect, how they want and ask to be treated. Their gender, race, or sexuality doesn't come into it, because they're all to be respected and treated well regardless. That means respecting pronouns, what language to use around them, what sort of humour they like, physical boundaries, conversation topics, energy levels, what we want to get out of our shared experience - that kind of respect and thought.
And honestly, all those things? Those should be pretty basic standards to maintain.
Also I will never trust a single persons judgement because a single person is usually wrong.
Well, at least I know who not to come to if I have any issues. That's a lovely vote of confidence there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/17 20:10:13
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I called it a non-issue because it wasn't anything to do with the topic of sexists being sexist, not because it wasn't important in it's own right.
Everyone reads the same situation differently, through their own lens. I know more than a few people who have suffered terribly, and in one case fatally, with these issues and so seeing them described as non-issues in a seemingly flippant 'that would be good' sendoff was never going to sit well.
But then this entire thread has been one long argument about what people have been reading between the lines.
You mentioned earlier that the gender aspect was the vital context - that was your lens. Right, wrong, probably a bit of both - I think that's what Sim was getting at when they said not to trust a single persons judgement.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I called it a non-issue because it wasn't anything to do with the topic of sexists being sexist, not because it wasn't important in it's own right.
Everyone reads the same situation differently, through their own lens. I know more than a few people who have suffered terribly, and in one case fatally, with these issues and so seeing them described as non-issues in a seemingly flippant 'that would be good' sendoff was never going to sit well.
As someone who well knows what you are saying from personal experience, when I call it a "non-issue", I'm sure you well know that I am referring to this SOLELY in the context of what this thread was about, not as it's position outside of this thread. I apologise if that's how I came across, but I assure you, I do not regard that as a "non-issue" when in the appropriate context.
You mentioned earlier that the gender aspect was the vital context - that was your lens.
No, it wasn't. It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
Now, is there anything else to do with that topic in what I said that you wish to talk about?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/17 22:03:06
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's in the thread title. You see the bit where it says "for women"? There's the gender aspect right there.
And what one person might view as sexism, might really just be a result of social awkwardness, as alluded to by many of the early responses. Sometimes it's hard to know what the situation really is, and even people IN the situation can mis-judge it.
Even eye-witness testimony is shown to be highly suspect in criminal court.
Always assume best intentions, but still don't automatically take everything at face value and based on one side of the story.
