Now, she feels that I spend too much time with X-Wing and not enough with her. It's not really fair of me to tell her "well, let's play X-Wing together, if she really doesn't enjoy the game - which it is clear she doesn't.

You just have to find what you both enjoy, and find a good balance between that and xwing.

Quite so.

I did not create this thread to lament my situation. My situations is pretty **** good. The problem, I think, is that our hobby isn't inclusive enough. But, maybe I'm wrong. I think that the question of non-playing wives might be the best way to figure the problem out. In my case, it's because it's not the kind of game my wife wants to play, which has nothing to do with gender exclusion (I think). But, the sheer gender imbalance in the overall hobby is something that gnaws at me.

Hey, you're right. I agree bigtime there- and I think one of the biggest problems is a lot of people like us have the nerve to look at female gamers with suspicion and ask, "Is she a real gamer?"

And this does apply to tabletop stuff- not just screens and pixels. A lot of guys are so used to the concept of it being a primarily male demographic- even though in the last ten years (at least in videogaming in particular) the gap has lessened significantly. I do not know if it has for tabletop things, but I am certain the disparity is not as big as it once was.

As a result I firmly believe that an unspoken code of, "Don't suspect or treat differently, those who are new or not like you" needs to be pushed and reaffirmed into our minds, so that we do not so easily shy away those who want to join in on the fun.

I really do thing that is an ongoing problem, especially in the gaming world. Us females are not taken seriously when we show up to play, we are just a pair of **** and have no higher mental capacity to play "your" games or that can we can even come close to comparing to your level of play. Your brains (and eyes) just stop at the boobs and get target locked there. Lucky for me I had a supportive husband and his friends took me in, showed me the ropes without to much heckling (though I still get that because I also cosplay). I know that it's often hard for females to even get the courage to go up and ask to try a game that you guys are playing (yes, you guys can be intimidating to us or sometimes the gamer "funk" is just too overpowering for our sensitive noses). It makes it even harder when we are instantly under suspicion and are already categorized as fake.

Don't get me stated on 'gamer funk'... i once made a semi-serious proposal to put a mini 'trial size' can of lynx deodorant in every 'Games Day' goodie bag at a reasonably high level GW meeting...

Wow! Tough crowd!

I really don't get why people got so offended by a so basic joke. It was obvious it was only intended as a joke!

I also didn't really care about the comment until some people got the feeling that they needed to act like some knights in shinning armor and defend the poor wives under the threat of being used by WW.

Please guys, don't act so high, we all do those kind of joke from time to time, more often than not in my case. And guess what, I tell them to girls directly and (I know, big shocker here) they laugh at them! And they are even more creepiest than this one, if only this one really qualify as a creepy joke...

For what it's worth my lady Sian said 'clearly a joke' and wasnt bothered by WW's comment.

Then again WW you wouldnt want to play Sian, she's a sore loser... she might not pull your arm out of its socket but she would whinge for ages

For what it's worth my lady Sian said 'clearly a joke' and wasnt bothered by WW's comment.

Then again WW you wouldnt want to play Sian, she's a sore loser... she might not pull your arm out of its socket but she would whinge for ages

It's alright, I'm a very apologetic winner. As much as I like winning, I hate to see people lose.

So I couldn't decide if i was gonna make a "does my invisible girlfriend count" or a "slave leia gold bikini roleplay" joke.

In the end i decided to do neither. You're welcome!

Sharing your hobby with your significant other can be a great thing. Just don't push them to hard if they are not intrested...

I think the problem is that the idea of rushing to a woman's rescue is almost (depending on how bad everything is) as handicapping as putting her in that situation in the first place. Honestly, the best way to handle this (the idea of involving women into x-wing), is indifference towards the gender issue. Treat them as they are (and should be viewed), a new player. Find out what they like, find out what they're good at. Criticize, but in a constructive manner. Push their strengths (and limits). Most of all, stop bloody well changing how you act around specific people.

...

Here's me posing a thought (question?) to you:

Why are you trying to involve more women into the game?

The reason I started this thread and the reason I want to involve more women in the game is because the gender imbalance is something that I find awkward. If there's something structural about preferences, that's one thing. However, I don't think it is. I think that there's exclusion going on, and that just ain't right to me.

While the white-knight syndrome might be a bit over-the-top, and I might have been guilty of it vis-a-vis our ork, I do think that if we want to change our norms of exclusiveness, then that has to happen from within.

And, yes, I do think I go out of my way to include all new players, and I don't think I (would) treat female new players any differently. If I saw exclusionist behavior in my group towards minorities, I would speak up the same way.

So I couldn't decide if i was gonna make a "does my invisible girlfriend count" or a "slave leia gold bikini roleplay" joke.

The reason I started this thread and the reason I want to involve more women in the game is because the gender imbalance is something that I find awkward. If there's something structural about preferences, that's one thing. However, I don't think it is. I think that there's exclusion going on, and that just ain't right to me.

While the white-knight syndrome might be a bit over-the-top, and I might have been guilty of it vis-a-vis our ork, I do think that if we want to change our norms of exclusiveness, then that has to happen from within.

And, yes, I do think I go out of my way to include all new players, and I don't think I (would) treat female new players any differently. If I saw exclusionist behavior in my group towards minorities, I would speak up the same way.

Oh god, I just got this vision of a Blazing Saddles / X-Wing mashup, and it was glorious.

Humans are divided into two tribes: Those who play X-Wing and those who don't. What is this 'gender' that you speak of?

Kinetic, I'll reply to this piecemeal (since it makes it easiest to explain my rebut), and will elaborate at the end.

Your first point, that it is "right to call a group out on its behavior when that behavior is negative" leads me to the clear cut statement that you, sir, cannot define what is negative to all groups and people. What is considered negative to some might be considered friendly and amicable by others. I am not saying that the group should not accommodate a new member by policing up its rougher edges, however stating that it is a responsibility to call them out on "shabby acts" is an extremely rigid view. If what the group members are doing is their culturally (as defined by the group) acceptable norm, then even expecting someone to call another out simply isn't going to happen. Once again, I reiterate that accommodating someone new and even changing group dynamic can (and should) happen, however simply assuming that "negative" values of the group will change instantly with the inclusion of one new individual is just not feasible. What one person defines as a "jerk" could be what others consider the norm.

Moreover, you lead me to my secondary concern, that of positive sexism. Too often I see groups of men change their entire demeanor to cater to a female player. This should be different from that of how a group deals with newer players. Being more forgiving and flying easier lists against a new player is a good thing, doing it because they are a female player is not.

In your second point, your rebutting of my contention that a group should not be required to change its behavior for a single person, I feel that you have taken an extreme view point in order to counter my statements. I am not saying that the group should remain confrontational or overly critical, however changing attitudes entirely in order to keep one player can disrupt group integrity. In no place did I mention abuse or mistreatment of the person, I merely state that when the group changes its attitude or treatment of one person (or to one person), that this can create isolation. Assume, for a second, that a group has an "in" joke. We'll assume this joke is, perhaps, whenever someone gets tabled, that the winner calls the loser his (female dog). We'll also assume, that, with the inclusion of a new female player, that this "in" joke is used on every single person, except her. Assume that the group did the "right" thing and chose simply not to call her that. Not only is that group participating in positive sexism (and making decisions for her), but is also leaving her partly out of the group. Now, I understand if she (or any other group member), brings it up that she or he does not wish to participate. However, my argument stems that any sort of different treatment creates an inherent inequality. Likewise, if a player refuses to use his "ace" list against another, or plays more casually, such actions can be perceived negatively by both the recipient and the group.

As I've noted, the community got surprisingly up in arms about Wonderwaagh's comment regarding wives (to be fair, wife jokes are usually taboo in more communities anyway). I think the problem is that the idea of rushing to a woman's rescue is almost (depending on how bad everything is) as handicapping as putting her in that situation in the first place. Honestly, the best way to handle this (the idea of involving women into x-wing), is indifference towards the gender issue. Treat them as they are (and should be viewed), a new player. Find out what they like, find out what they're good at. Criticize, but in a constructive manner. Push their strengths (and limits). Most of all, stop bloody well changing how you act around specific people.

In your third point, bringing back the knitting example, you identify the idea of us vs them. I'll agree that malicious comments or actively excluding people will create that identity. However, I would contend that groups that do make observations about outsider things are judging and interviewing the person in question. If the group's jokes are that far from what is acceptable for the new player, and the group is unwilling or unable to adapt to that player (at least during the new time frame), then clearly this match isn't meant to be. A group, for instance should not be expected to put up with an abrasive or haughty new member, and likewise a new member should not have to deal with an elitist group that cannot accept him or her.

Here's me posing a thought (question?) to you:

Why are you trying to involve more women into the game?

If it is, as WonderWaagh says, an issue of exposure, then maybe we as a community need to reach out. If you believe that the community is overly abrasive or otherwise hostile towards female players, then we as a community should try to improve (ourselves).

Honestly, I feel that the large problem is that the community's actions that drive away women tend not to be malicious, but rather negligent and unintentional. I feel that players (especially single ones) in a rather small community (of gamers) give an unfortunate amount of attention to those of the opposite gender who share their interests. This isn't unique to X-Wing, nor is it something I think we as a community can fix here (on the interwebs).

EDITED: Clarification. And font. Always the font.

First of all, let me reiterate. I wasn't offended by WW's joke, nor was my wife, neither do I suspect him of misogyny. But the OP is wondering why women feel excluded, and his joke (yes, it WAS A JOKE, I get that!) is an example of why. A person doesn't have to be offended to feel excluded, which is the point that many people who have spent most of their lives as members of the majority simply cannot or will not accept/comprehend when considering the point of view of the minority.

Imperial, I categorically reject the notion of absolute moral relativism. The idea that what is or is not right changes completely based on who is present is ridiculous, and easily one of the worst artifacts of the modern liberal movement (Yes, I'm liberal. Very. No, I don't accept this new brand of liberalism). Making "jokes" about making someone your ***** is very, very inappropriate in pretty much every public setting in the world. Its roots are **** within the confines of criminal detention facilities, and I am afraid I don't need a thin skin to object to the use of that statement in public. **** jokes aren't funny, full stop, no matter how common they are. Treating women like second class citizens, or making racist comments, or threatening violence because of minor disagreements, all of those are WRONG, are shabby behavior, and I will not make room for that sort of behavior in my presence. Men, adult, grown-up, head on straight men of character do not accept that sort of behavior in their presence either (we are talking about the all-male groups, adult women do not accept it either). I might not stop you, but I WILL make you aware of your actions.

It is darkly humorous that you will defend so vigorously behaviors that in other contexts you would complain about. We have all entered those game stores where the local clique uses in-jokes and implication to make newcomers feel excluded, and few of us return. I am simply saying that you should extend your mind a bit and realize that those dynamics are always in play, 100% of the time, every day and in every encounter you have with other human beings. Be aware of it, you may control your own behavior if you wish to.

Finally, you are all welcome to play with whomever you choose and may speak and/or behave in whatever way you wish. I don't disagree with that at all. HOWEVER, if you then wonder why you find it difficult to attract and retain players who differ from your groups norm (whether that norm is defined by gender, race, class, something else or some combination) then you should revisit this thread and the points I have been making. I can assure you that venues I frequent who encourage (or at least fail to discourage) the type of boorish behavior you are inadvertently defending tend to go out of business as the "in" group continues to exclude an ever increasing number of players.

While the white-knight syndrome might be a bit over-the-top, and I might have been guilty of it vis-a-vis our ork, I do think that if we want to change our norms of exclusiveness, then that has to happen from within.

And, yes, I do think I go out of my way to include all new players, and I don't think I (would) treat female new players any differently. If I saw exclusionist behavior in my group towards minorities, I would speak up the same way.

Quite a bit of this thread has been pointing out that although few people are intentionally exclusive, there are plenty who are unaware of the effects of their behavior. So comments like that do need to be called out, even if they are probably just jokes, otherwise we fall into the same trap.

Obviously, there won't ever be one set of standards for language and behavior, but the discussion of those standards is a sign of inclusiveness. I first saw WonderWaagh's joke out-of-context, in a quote box that someone else was criticizing, and it was offensive. But the criticism made it obvious that the rest of the thread didn't take it for granted, and looking back through the pages I saw the comment in-context (and realized who had said it), revealing its origin as a humorously-intended (but poorly chosen) joke.

Stuff like this comes up way too often in stores, clubs, or groups, and usually goes unchallenged. So yeah, we have to change ourselves.

And as a pet peeve; knights are only a problem if they do it because the person in distress is a damsel. People should stick up for people.

Kinetic, firstly, your tone could use some work. You are attributing a lot of values and assumptions to me. While I know that you do this based on the points I am making, know that to me you are taking them in the most negative and extreme way. It feels to me that you are twisting my words to make it seem like I am defending the scum of the earth, whereas I am merely 'defending' groups of "rougher" people. I am also trying to bring to light the concept that we (as gamers, tabletop and otherwise) tend to treat women differently, and that that is inherently wrong (wish I had a solution). Also that positive sexism is almost as bad (and can be even more detrimental to future growth) as outright negative sexism.

Once again, going at it piecemeal.

Your first point, that one doesn't have to be offended to feel excluded, while true, doesn't help with anything. It's a great truism, but as it pertains to the idea behind women entering the table top gaming world, it doesn't solve any issues.

The majority tends not to be able to empathize properly, nor see the view of the minority. My point (and the point I was making in my last post) is that the minority/majority relationship needs to be shifted into newer/order players, not women/men. How we get there is another matter entirely, and I feel that the community that reads this (and actively posts or reads these forums) is probably also *not* the community that needs to change.

I want to bring up your statement that "treating women like second class citizens, or making racist comments, or threatening violence because of minor disagreements, all of those are WRONG, are shabby behavior, and I will not make room for that sort of behavior in my presence." I don't think anyone on the forums would reasonable argue against the first part (and I don't know where in my statements you get any of those idea from). My claim is that any time you treat a woman differently (flying different lists, being more casual, 'defending her' from others), you *are* treating her as a second class citizen. I'm not going to go all "patriarchy" or any of that, just understand at its fundamental level any different treatment creates imbalance.

Moreover, your statement that "men, adult, grown-up, head on straight men of character do not accept that sort of behavior in their presence either" implies that people who do not agree with your set of morals and values are not part of the subset of "adult men." Look, I've been with 'real men'. In bad places. Those kinds of things are accepted because it's the cultural norm in those circles.

Your second point, about moral relativism is your opinion. I would almost argue that the fact that this is a point of contention proves the relativistic nature of it. Your claims about what is and is not inappropriate in "every public setting in the world" are simply not true. I haven't been completely around the world in my travels, but I've associated with various people and groups that have had moral compasses ranging from the very top the the lowest of the low. The extremes of right and wrong do not change, but the middle ground tends to. I'm not insinuating that the X-Wing communities are even remotely close to either end of the spectrum. My point in bringing up the fact that groups have various norms was in reference to your statement that these jokes have no place and that it is the responsibility of people to confront those who make off color jokes. The truth is, what is an off color joke to one person is quite simply not to another.

Your claim about me that you find "darkly humorous" is one that I find quite rude. Your implication that I need to extend my mind is quite demeaning and is based off of assumptions.

Back to the topic at hand (and sorry Mike, for derailing a wee bit, I like pushing against the grain a bit, and the backlash to Wonderwaagh's comment piqued my interest)

Mike, I'm glad that you'd be able to react to new female players as simply new players. I'm not sure how one would address the issue of exclusivity honestly. The problem (as I see it), stems too from the fact that this community (forum posters) is itself very insular, and a minority of the X-Wing community as a whole.

Outside of a massive (and I do mean massive), PR/Introduction campaign of sorts I just don't know how one could reach people on a massive scale. I know I for one was introduced to this by the wonderful reviewers at shut up and sit down, so maybe pushing this sort of thing along broader channels. My next question to you (forums as a whole) is:

Where do you expect to find female gamers interested in tabletop gaming? From other miniatures games? From other forms of "gaming?" If it is from another gaming outlet (video games, miniatures) do we just accept the natural disparity inherent in these forms of entertainment?

I honestly don't have an answer, I'm just curious.

I think the *BEST* way to fix this isn't even to push women X-Wing pilots.

I think it's to push an introductory X-Wing (displaying ease of play) into more open areas.

Wow, some of you really have thin skins and get offended way too easy over nothing. I will clue some of you in and divulge that woman are not frail little crystal roses that break if you look sternly at them. Put a group of women together and you will find they are far more crass than most men. They just hide it better. The misogyny term has been thrown out there, it is equally sexist to treat them as those frail crystals or assume you need to play a white knight and protect them. It is likewise sexist of women to lump all gamers into a misogyny group of socially inept goons.

My group that I game with are all 20's to 50's aged professionals with girlfriends, wives, kids, etc.. We don't care if you are female or male and want to throw some dice with us. Just be a good sport and don't expect the group dynamic to change just for your lil' butt. And yes, we do joke quite regularly and it may not be for the feint of heart but it is within the realm of emotionally stable adults. There are even some gals that come around and they can run with the big dogs on all accounts and never require rescuing.

Way too much hand wringing. Lighten up and don't sweat the small stuff. Get upset when someone tries to blow you up or shoots at you. Everything else is small fries.

"Be cool to eachother". - Bill & Ted

Wow, some of you really have thin skins and get offended way too easy over nothing. I will clue some of you in and divulge that woman are not frail little crystal roses that break if you look sternly at them. Put a group of women together and you will find they are far more crass than most men. They just hide it better. The misogyny term has been thrown out there, it is equally sexist to treat them as those frail crystals or assume you need to play a white knight and protect them. It is likewise sexist of women to lump all gamers into a misogyny group of socially inept goons.

Fair enough, but do you think that the gender imbalance in our hobby is just because of preferences then?

It seems like you're implying that the most of us are saying that women are more frail than men are. I don't see us as saying that. I think men would crack just as easily (more easily?) is we were made to feel unwelcome in some way.

Then there's the matter of sexual attraction, and the matter of physical insecurity. It doesn't make me a sexist pig if I realize that women have different concerns about their security and even reputation than men do. It's taken my mother and my wife many years to drum that one into my thick head.

I'm debating whether I should try and clarify some of the points that Mikael and Kinetic Operator have to say. But I don't know if that's a good idea. I've seen very little of what I'd consider truthful self-reflection due to the overall tone of the rebuff has been to gloss over the idea that any mishap has been done, that its still a joke, and that the conjecturally applied women don't take offense at this (which is the most common second defense of the modern joker when confronted with the consequences of a racial or sexist joke.)

The tone has largely been argumentative versus considerate, implying "deeper issues" of the other side of the argument versus a consideration of points applied to the objectable parts of the behavior and also a support based on the typical gaming male that has no idea about the topic at hand, and is rehashing common points that have already been discussed countless times in this type of argument.

I'd also like to remark that many posting here are men anyway, who have very little formal education into social psychology. Being in society does not count as a formal education mind you.

Mikael, Kinetic Operator, MajorJuggler and I have found the content objectionable. I would not say that I am very respectable on this forum yet, but the other three represent an epitome of thoughtful, powerful contribution.

So... you don't want an apology, you want me to say that what I did was wrong. Is that it?

So... you don't want an apology, you want me to say that what I did was wrong. Is that it?

Sure sounds thoughtful and apologetic.

--

Actually on second thought... I don't want you to say you did something wrong, as that becomes questionable on sincerity... (funny how neither sarcasm nor sincerity translate well over the internet eh?) i want you to consider what we've said and think you might have done something wrong.

Mm. I love mind control.

I've considered what everyone has said, and it appears that I made a handful of people uncomfortable for some nebulous and ill-defined reasons. That was not my intention, and for that I apologized. That having been said, I stand by my words, as I always do. If there are better reasons as to why what I said was wrong beyond abstract feelings you may have, please feel free to elaborate. More than one person has stepped forward to admit that they see nothing wrong with my post, which means the matter may not be as black and white as you think. If you're expecting me to have some kind of moral epiphany here, you're going to find yourself sorely disappointed.

Blail,

We had happily moved on from Waaagh's crucifixion. Why did it need to be rehashed?

I'd also like to remark that many posting here are men anyway, who have very little formal education into social psychology. Being in society does not count as a formal education mind you.

No formal education in social psychology per se, but I think my education can hold its own in a slightly broader context. That said, even specialists in the field of social psychology could have vehement disagreements on the matter.

But I'm not sure what the comment on our lack of erudition is supposed to accomplish. I realize that you're calling myself, KO, and MJ respectable and all that, for which I thank you, but treating us like a judicial panel with WW in the dock is not going to change anyone's behavior. Certainly not WW's.

You don't need a sociology degree to discuss this kind of issue. This is about everyday experiences, which I think everyone can relate to to and has some experience of. Saying that people are in some way not qualified or knowledgeable enough on a subject (which is an assumption) only serves to dampen discussion.

My sig is becoming more and more apropos all the time.

Saying that people are in some way not qualified or knowledgeable enough on a subject (which is an assumption) only serves to dampen discussion.

Okay - go report yourself to the English language police in this thread. In this case, think you're using the word 'dampen' incorrectly. It seems the word 'inflame' is in order.

Okay - go report yourself to the English language police in this thread. In this case, think you're using the word 'dampen' incorrectly. It seems the word 'inflame' is in order.

Unless you have an English degree, you're not qualified to correct his choice of words.

Saying that people are in some way not qualified or knowledgeable enough on a subject (which is an assumption) only serves to dampen discussion.

Okay - go report yourself to the English language police in this thread. In this case, think you're using the word 'dampen' incorrectly. It seems the word 'inflame' is in order.

No, I mean 'dampen' I am saying that, if you accept this viewpoint, discussion ends at that point. We all have to go 'oh, I guess you're right, let's leave it to the 'professionals''. In reality, this is not some nebulous, theortetical issue to only be discussed in essays. It is a real issue and in order to find solutions, everybody needs to be involved, because ultimately, it's these people who it affects.