The question you have to ask yourself then is, what would you want the women at this knitting club and the knitting community as a whole to do to make you feel less awkward and able to fully enjoy yourself?

The answer to this question is painfully simple: to be reached out to and actively included. If you've already made the step to go to the knitting event, you've already done something very courageous. The people there have somewhat of a social obligation to meet you 3/4 of the way there (seeing as you've already gone those 3/4).

That's what I try to do whenever someone (of any gender) wanders closer to the gaming table. I daresay that I do this more than my opponents and other people around try to do. And, honestly, I think I should do more, but I'm usually also in the middle of a game, and I'm unsure how I could/should do more to integrate that person. I guess I gauge their level of interest and go from there.

With women, I also don't want to go so far that my inclusiveness is mistaken for more than just trying to be inclusive. I try to bring up the fact that I'm married fairly soon in such a way that feels natural to the conversation.

So,

My wife and oldest daughter (15) both play. We attended Gencon together this last weekend, and my wife attends League night with me every week and is an active playtester. At one point this weekend she made a point to tell me that she had only spent $17 on her own games so far that day, in order to leave us more money to spend in the FFG booth on X-Wing product (as well as Conquest). I own at least 4 and usually 6 to 8 of every ship (except epic, 2 each of those) so that we can all have a sufficient number of ships when playing against one another. The second time she went to a tournament with me, she beat me in the finals so thoroughly she was irritated because she had the impression I must have thrown it in order to be crushed so completely.

At one point on Wednesday night after coming in 2nd/3rd on the first day of qualifying, I looked up and saw my wife and daughter arm in arm, singing and smiling because they were happy and having a great time. I remarked to Legionthree who was standing next to me that I am always a very fortunate man, but sometimes I am just more aware of it than other times. That was one of those wonderful moments where you KNOW how blessed you are.

Don't give up, they are out there. And if you find one, hold on. :-)

That literally was so beautiful that my eyes moistened at reading it. I, too, was at GenCon and wish I could have run into your jovial family. Happy Gaming!

There is a reason why jokes like WonderWaagh's are inappropriate (I am NOT reviving that, but it is pertinent). To illustrate I will continue the stereotyping.

Furthering your example; you as a male knitter show up at this otherwise wonderful knitting club. You are made welcome by most, but are still uncomfortable and feeling slightly out of place. Two or three of the dozen women present make awkward jokes about mens inability to chat and knit simultaneously, followed by vague innuendos about how you should pick up the tab for the evening refreshments.

If the other ladies present laugh at the jokes and/or otherwise support (or at least do not discourage) that behavior you will feel ostracized. The simple truth is, you ARE being singled out and those jokes ARE intended to distance you from the rest of the group. They are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways of making you appear and feel as one of "them" as opposed to the "us" of the group at large. They emphasize your differences, rather than emphasizing those things you have in common with the group. The "cure" would be for the group to clearly denounce those efforts, causing the "outsiders" to become those making inappropriate jokes and the "insiders" to be those who are inclusive and intent on knitting.

This is a technique that can be used consciously to create division and/or unity within group settings, not just some random theory of mine. If you want women (or minorities, or anyone else for that matter) to feel included, you need to call out the people who are doing their best to exclude them.

If the other ladies present laugh at the jokes and/or otherwise support (or at least do not discourage) that behavior you will feel ostracized. The simple truth is, you ARE being singled out and those jokes ARE intended to distance you from the rest of the group. They are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways of making you appear and feel as one of "them" as opposed to the "us" of the group at large. They emphasize your differences, rather than emphasizing those things you have in common with the group.

Yes, this.

Now, it might be that the lady cracking the joke is presuming that the gender issue isn't salient, and she's mistakenly doing it to highlight the fact that it isn't salient. The problem is: 'too soon'.

The "cure" would be for the group to clearly denounce those efforts, causing the "outsiders" to become those making inappropriate jokes and the "insiders" to be those who are inclusive and intent on knitting.

Yes, but that's also difficult. Because even if the majority of the knitting club express their solidarity with the guy, the guy is aware that his presence has sewn discord within the group, and the joke-cracker might have reason (justified or not) to now dislike the newcomer (even more).

So, what are better options?

So...is this like a xwing swinger thing?

I'm going to go out on a limb here (in my first post), and explain something I believe this thread has viewed in one and only one light. Kinetic's post above is (in my opinion), a very one dimensional example. Broadly stating that a group's jokes are intended to distance one from the rest of the group is not necessarily true. Some groups use joking and picking on people as a way to show camaraderie or trust. My assumption is that WonderWaagh was demonstrating that level of trust and bonding with this forum (and the people on it), when he made his joke (if my assumption is off, and he was using it as an example of what problematic statements can arise, then I'm lost on that part). Now, in this community (as in all), certain subjects and topics are taboo, and if this is what caused the negative reaction then that is clearly an issue. However, I would argue that given the nature of this topic, that the knee-jerk reaction was more due to positive sexism than from any taboo violation.

Changing the group's attitude and jokes as a result of one person, or specific to one person is (in my opinion), more isolating than anything else can be. Imagine being the only person who doesn't get a "your mother" joke/comment. Imagine being the player that the others don't fly their "ace" list against.

I am not, however, condoning racist, sexist, or any otherwise bigoted language or jokes. One should know ones audience when making jokes and quips. If a certain breed of joke makes someone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, then clearly those should be adjusted (or dropped) (unless this is the norm of the group. at which point said new person probably does not want to be a part of the group). I do think that most groups (especially tightly knit ones), tend to gauge and judge newcomers using broad generalizations and assumptions. The problem for the first woman to join a group is that those assumptions can be quite demeaning or otherwise sexist.

I don't believe that the extreme of denying a group its right to select and judge newcomers is right (especially for this community), but I feel that changing a group's dynamic due to someone else's "difference"'* is equally wrong. That is not to say accommodating people is wrong. I'd advocate that while accommodating people to help them join a group is good, doing that forever can be hurtful to the group.

*Note that difference could be anything: handicaps, gender, religious beliefs, age, ethnicity.

Western culture teaches men to be more aggressive and competitive than women, ...

I disagree with this. I think it's actually quite the opposite.

"Western culture" is a stand-in for modern culture. Aggressive and competitive behavior on the part of men, on the other hand, is a facet of traditional culture. I might grant you that the industrial revolution brought about a greater separation of gender roles, but the 20th century fundamentally changed the trajectory on that. We, in the West, are actually on the cutting edge of gender inclusiveness. It's just that many of us lament that we still have such a long way to go.

Western culture may be dominate globally, but it's not the universal modern culture. And while it's made great strides to undoing the traditional polar roles, there's a long way to go. We're still inculcated with the same values, just to a lesser degree and with conflicting messages throughout life that we have to sort out.

Western culture may be dominate globally, but it's not the universal modern culture.

Okay, let me first state my bias: I am not convinced that every culture (in terms of Han Chinese vs. Japanese, vs. Yoruba, vs. Brazillian, etc.) is all that unique. Sure, food, music, language, dominant colors, but I think of that stuff as window dressing. Regarding gender relations and other forms of social structure, I think rural/urban/industrialized/networked mode of life is much more important, and as such I do think there's an emerging universal modern culture, and the West leads in that because the West got there first.

No, I'm not saying that the West first developed urbanization; because that's simply not true. It is, however, the case that the West industrialized first, and the West was the first to develop truly inclusive political and economic institutions. I'm also not saying that the Western trend doesn't have its backwards steps, nor am I saying that the West hasn't been utterly sociopathic at times.

I just don't want to pretend that non-Western cultures are utopias of inclusiveness, because they're simply not.

And while it's made great strides to undoing the traditional polar roles, there's a long way to go. We're still inculcated with the same values, just to a lesser degree and with conflicting messages throughout life that we have to sort out.

I agree; ergo this thread. But let's not pretend that non-Western cultures have a lot to teach us about how to treat women, or put on the hair shirt about Western culture vis-a-vis other cultures when it comes to women's empowerment. When it comes to treatment of women, the West is as good as it gets, unfortunately.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (in my first post), and explain something I believe this thread has viewed in one and only one light.

Welcome!!

Kinetic's post above is (in my opinion), a very one dimensional example. Broadly stating that a group's jokes are intended to distance one from the rest of the group is not necessarily true. Some groups use joking and picking on people as a way to show camaraderie or trust. My assumption is that WonderWaagh was demonstrating that level of trust and bonding with this forum (and the people on it), when he made his joke (if my assumption is off, and he was using it as an example of what problematic statements can arise, then I'm lost on that part). Now, in this community (as in all), certain subjects and topics are taboo, and if this is what caused the negative reaction then that is clearly an issue. However, I would argue that given the nature of this topic, that the knee-jerk reaction was more due to positive sexism than from any taboo violation.

You're right, and WW's faux pas was that he counted on being trusted, while the rest of us felt that there were newcomers to this thread who wouldn't know that WW was being ironic. Also, while I really like WW and what he brings to this forum, the things he said were kind of hard to see in a good light. So when we jumped on him, it was very much due to positive sexism. We behaved differently than we would have if we hadn't had polite company.

I don't believe that the extreme of denying a group its right to select and judge newcomers is right (especially for this community), but I feel that changing a group's dynamic due to someone else's "difference"'* is equally wrong. That is not to say accommodating people is wrong. I'd advocate that while accommodating people to help them join a group is good, doing that forever can be hurtful to the group.

I disagree. I think the ethic of hospitality and inclusiveness both require a community to reasonably adapt. Now, if it's as you say, just for the time being while the newcomer can learn to trust the group and its rough-edged members, then you're right. However, what if the non-inclusiveness is structural? If it's structurally non-inclusive, then the community needs to consider its identity and its norms.

I don't have a wife. Can I play with one of yours?

Please be respectful.

This comment is a good example of how, at a minimum, a like / dislike / rating system could be very beneficial, especially if the dislikes are anonymous.

As a bonus, being able to set the minimum viewing threshold to 0 would be nice to filter out the -1's.

People keep tut-tutting at me without telling me why they disapprove. Can you elaborate on why you feel my post was disrespectful, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain it?

I don't have a wife. Can I play with one of yours?

Please be respectful.

This comment is a good example of how, at a minimum, a like / dislike / rating system could be very beneficial, especially if the dislikes are anonymous.

As a bonus, being able to set the minimum viewing threshold to 0 would be nice to filter out the -1's.

People keep tut-tutting at me without telling me why they disapprove. Can you elaborate on why you feel my post was disrespectful, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain it?

For the record; I think it was not *very* funny but took it as a joke.

Did not even think twice until after the following posts.

Edit; typo

Some of my jokes amount to little more than toilet humor, and others are so subtle they're lost on everyone but me. Obviously they can't all be winners.

I'm going to be brutally honest for a second. I understand where Mikael is coming from, and he alone has given me a reason as to why my post might have been over the line. I say "might" because I'm not entirely convinced that female posters would be immediately turned off from posting because I jokingly asked the males if I could play X-Wing with their wives. From everyone else, I get the impression that somewhere in the back of their mind is a little voice shouting "how dare he talk about my wife that way!", to which I've been thinking to myself this entire time... what way? All I said was "can I play with your wives?" If you take out the perceived sexuality - which you should, since I've done everything in my power to convey that there was none intended - all we're left with is a marginally creepy invitation to play a board game. As much negative attention as I get around here, I never imagined I'd receive these type of knee-jerk responses from the more rational posters on this forum. Perhaps there's some missed empathy on both sides of the table, but all I'm left with is the impression that there are some underlying confidence issues when it comes to letting strangers interact with their wives. And, as I asked before, how are these men - men who'd already spent the better part of the thread pining for women to play the game more - going to handle other strangers actually playing X-Wing with them? Something just doesn't jibe.

Now, considering the broader topic at hand, I'd be more than a little interested to see a woman's take on the issue. I would invite your actual wives to respond, but that appears to be off limits. Would any of you be brave enough to show your wife my post, and report her response here?

People keep tut-tutting at me without telling me why they disapprove. Can you elaborate on why you feel my post was disrespectful, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain it?

Dude, let it go, alright. We know your intentions weren't trollish.

Sometimes I laugh harder simply because no one else gets my humor. But seriously, some including me thought it was a little out of line. We shared, you shared, we agreed to move on.

Dude, let it go, alright. We know your intentions weren't trollish.

But people keep bringing it up.

I edited my previous post. Feel free to disregard it in the interest of moving on.

Wow... This one came off the rails pretty hard after I shut down for the night.

We're past that. Let's either get back on the topic now or let the thread drop.

so,

BACK ON TOPIC

In many cases, it does read like many of our wives don't have much interest in miniature battles games. I think that's perfectly fine, even if disappointing at times. I don't think any of us want to force people into this game against their will. I just don't want women to feel excluded from something they would otherwise enjoy.

In November, I'll be hosting a library event in which I explain the game to a teenage audience, which I presume will have roughly as many girls as boys attending. (My wife is the youth librarian at that branch, but I may also be doing the same program at other branch libraries.) I'll probably be posting about that in a month or so trying to get people's ideas for what to do.

For right now, I would like to open up discussion on the topic of how women might enjoy a somewhat different flavor of X-Wing. We've already talked about competitiveness. It's clear that many of the women posting here have said that they're plenty competitive. Also, it's been posted that the downside of competitiveness is when men express their aggravation at losing (to a gurl!) in less-than-polite ways. So, I think it would be a thought to take the edge off the competitiveness.

Any ideas?

For my part, I'm not hyper-competitive. I do like winning, don't get me wrong, but I don't live and breathe for victory. So, this is not just a gender issue. I do like narrative stakes, which I think this game doesn't tend to have enough of, despite all the missions that FFG has brought along with the game. I wonder if women players are structurally more likely to agree with me on this than male players are. If so, I think that might be an avenue worth exploring. (Also, it would give me even more justification for doing what I would otherwise advocate for anyway. )

Mikael. You and dagobah Dave have tons of really cool campaign ideas. Perhaps make something story driven for the games too?

Then the question is just what kind of story. I think galactic conquest might be too male.

Honestly I really am out of thoughts on how to proceed.

Some of my jokes amount to little more than toilet humor, and others are so subtle they're lost on everyone but me. Obviously they can't all be winners.

I'm going to be brutally honest for a second. I understand where Mikael is coming from, and he alone has given me a reason as to why my post might have been over the line. I say "might" because I'm not entirely convinced that female posters would be immediately turned off from posting because I jokingly asked the males if I could play X-Wing with their wives. From everyone else, I get the impression that somewhere in the back of their mind is a little voice shouting "how dare he talk about my wife that way!", to which I've been thinking to myself this entire time... what way? All I said was "can I play with your wives?" If you take out the perceived sexuality - which you should, since I've done everything in my power to convey that there was none intended - all we're left with is a marginally creepy invitation to play a board game. As much negative attention as I get around here, I never imagined I'd receive these type of knee-jerk responses from the more rational posters on this forum. Perhaps there's some missed empathy on both sides of the table, but all I'm left with is the impression that there are some underlying confidence issues when it comes to letting strangers interact with their wives. And, as I asked before, how are these men - men who'd already spent the better part of the thread pining for women to play the game more - going to handle other strangers actually playing X-Wing with them? Something just doesn't jibe.

Now, considering the broader topic at hand, I'd be more than a little interested to see a woman's take on the issue. I would invite your actual wives to respond, but that appears to be off limits. Would any of you be brave enough to show your wife my post, and report her response here?

I showed my wife your post.

She chuckled, then said "That's kind of creepy." But was not up in arms about it. I think she just doesn't care what someone on the internet says really, especially when she doesn't know them. I think if it was said in person she would be a bit uncomfortable and would just try to limit her interactions with someone who made that comment.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (in my first post), and explain something I believe this thread has viewed in one and only one light. Kinetic's post above is (in my opinion), a very one dimensional example. Broadly stating that a group's jokes are intended to distance one from the rest of the group is not necessarily true. Some groups use joking and picking on people as a way to show camaraderie or trust. My assumption is that WonderWaagh was demonstrating that level of trust and bonding with this forum (and the people on it), when he made his joke (if my assumption is off, and he was using it as an example of what problematic statements can arise, then I'm lost on that part). Now, in this community (as in all), certain subjects and topics are taboo, and if this is what caused the negative reaction then that is clearly an issue. However, I would argue that given the nature of this topic, that the knee-jerk reaction was more due to positive sexism than from any taboo violation.

Changing the group's attitude and jokes as a result of one person, or specific to one person is (in my opinion), more isolating than anything else can be. Imagine being the only person who doesn't get a "your mother" joke/comment. Imagine being the player that the others don't fly their "ace" list against.

I am not, however, condoning racist, sexist, or any otherwise bigoted language or jokes. One should know ones audience when making jokes and quips. If a certain breed of joke makes someone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, then clearly those should be adjusted (or dropped) (unless this is the norm of the group. at which point said new person probably does not want to be a part of the group). I do think that most groups (especially tightly knit ones), tend to gauge and judge newcomers using broad generalizations and assumptions. The problem for the first woman to join a group is that those assumptions can be quite demeaning or otherwise sexist.

I don't believe that the extreme of denying a group its right to select and judge newcomers is right (especially for this community), but I feel that changing a group's dynamic due to someone else's "difference"'* is equally wrong. That is not to say accommodating people is wrong. I'd advocate that while accommodating people to help them join a group is good, doing that forever can be hurtful to the group.

*Note that difference could be anything: handicaps, gender, religious beliefs, age, ethnicity.

You are incorrect, sir, and I while well intentioned Mikael was also incorrect in agreeing with you. What you said was eloquent, and sensible on the surface, but does not hold up in practice. Let me explain more fully.

First, it is indeed right to call a group out on its behavior when that behavior is negative. Note that this is not the same thing as saying they don't "have a right" to behave badly, but others have a "right" or even a responsibility to call them out on their shabby acts when they observe them. Others also have a right to leave that group, or expel that group from the vicinity. Speaking generally, you are perfectly within your rights to be a jerk but everyone else is perfectly within their rights to refuse to associate with you because of that fact.

Also, the idea that a group should not be required to change its behavior to accommodate a single person sounds very much like the juvenile attitude that the rest of the world should "accept me as I am". I agree that nobody has a right to demand others change, but the context of THIS conversation is how to get that aforementioned single person to want to remain within the group. You don't get that by mistreating them, then criticizing them for being unwilling to endure the abuse. If you want women to join your group, don't make misogynistic comments and then tell them they are "being emotional" because they don't like them.

The comment that it is "more isolating" to change behavior based on a single person is simply unsupported and untrue.

As for the group dynamic that includes light mocking and banter in an effort to express and increase camaraderie, that is exactly the technique/situation to which I was referring. Not only is that a real thing, it can be taught and done intentionally by professionals. The issue is not mocking, but the nature of it. It is the context of a comment that causes it to be inappropriate or not, and despite how simple it is to figure out it is something that so very many people are either unwilling or unable to grasp. I will explain it as quickly and succinctly as I can.

The words "inclusive" and "exclusive" are the key here. You want people to feel "included" if you wish for them to stay, you want them to feel "excluded" if you wish for them to go. A joke, comment, or action that highlights those things the individual has in common with the group as a whole will make them feel included. A joke, comment or action that highlights their differences will make them feel excluded. In the example of our hypothetical knitting man, if a woman in the group were to mock him about his love of knitting, when that is something that all the people present share, he can laugh along with the group and it will increase his sense of belonging (and will also increase the perception of his belonging in the eyes of the group). If she were to mock him about something exclusive to being male (bald joke, pay for the drinks, unable to multitask/etc.) then that would be highlighting a difference between him and the group as a whole. The latter would make him feel excluded, and increase the perception of him as an outsider.

This works in all cases. Human beings are hard-wired to consider themselves as part of a tribe, and the us/them perception is universal, instinctual, and absolutely unavoidable. Confusion about this is how a well-meaning white person, when part of a group that is predominantly black, can offend everyone by imitating a joke about black-ness, and why he feels uncomfortable when others (who are black) within the group make jokes about the same thing. It highlights the difference between him and the others, and isolates him. Making jokes about women highlights the difference between men and women, and causes the us (men) vs. them (women) dynamic to gain strength.

If you want to make women feel comfortable, go ahead and tease/mock/play against them as you would anyone else. But when it comes time to do so, do it in a way or about a trait that you all SHARE.

You are incorrect, sir, and I while well intentioned Mikael was also incorrect in agreeing with you. What you said was eloquent, and sensible on the surface, but does not hold up in practice. Let me explain more fully.

First, it is indeed right to call a group out on its behavior when that behavior is negative. Note that this is not the same thing as saying they don't "have a right" to behave badly, but others have a "right" or even a responsibility to call them out on their shabby acts when they observe them. Others also have a right to leave that group, or expel that group from the vicinity. Speaking generally, you are perfectly within your rights to be a jerk but everyone else is perfectly within their rights to refuse to associate with you because of that fact.

Also, the idea that a group should not be required to change its behavior to accommodate a single person sounds very much like the juvenile attitude that the rest of the world should "accept me as I am". I agree that nobody has a right to demand others change, but the context of THIS conversation is how to get that aforementioned single person to want to remain within the group. You don't get that by mistreating them, then criticizing them for being unwilling to endure the abuse. If you want women to join your group, don't make misogynistic comments and then tell them they are "being emotional" because they don't like them.

The comment that it is "more isolating" to change behavior based on a single person is simply unsupported and untrue.

As for the group dynamic that includes light mocking and banter in an effort to express and increase camaraderie, that is exactly the technique/situation to which I was referring. Not only is that a real thing, it can be taught and done intentionally by professionals. The issue is not mocking, but the nature of it. It is the context of a comment that causes it to be inappropriate or not, and despite how simple it is to figure out it is something that so very many people are either unwilling or unable to grasp. I will explain it as quickly and succinctly as I can.

The words "inclusive" and "exclusive" are the key here. You want people to feel "included" if you wish for them to stay, you want them to feel "excluded" if you wish for them to go. A joke, comment, or action that highlights those things the individual has in common with the group as a whole will make them feel included. A joke, comment or action that highlights their differences will make them feel excluded. In the example of our hypothetical knitting man, if a woman in the group were to mock him about his love of knitting, when that is something that all the people present share, he can laugh along with the group and it will increase his sense of belonging (and will also increase the perception of his belonging in the eyes of the group). If she were to mock him about something exclusive to being male (bald joke, pay for the drinks, unable to multitask/etc.) then that would be highlighting a difference between him and the group as a whole. The latter would make him feel excluded, and increase the perception of him as an outsider.

This works in all cases. Human beings are hard-wired to consider themselves as part of a tribe, and the us/them perception is universal, instinctual, and absolutely unavoidable. Confusion about this is how a well-meaning white person, when part of a group that is predominantly black, can offend everyone by imitating a joke about black-ness, and why he feels uncomfortable when others (who are black) within the group make jokes about the same thing. It highlights the difference between him and the others, and isolates him. Making jokes about women highlights the difference between men and women, and causes the us (men) vs. them (women) dynamic to gain strength.

If you want to make women feel comfortable, go ahead and tease/mock/play against them as you would anyone else. But when it comes time to do so, do it in a way or about a trait that you all SHARE.

If your contention is that anything that highlights the difference between men and women is inherently exclusive (and therefor bad), then this entire thread started off on the wrong foot. Why is it okay to say "we want more wives/women/females to play X-Wing," but not okay when a poster singles them out for an invitation to play the game (jokingly or otherwise)? I feel that's hardly different from your knitting example.

I see what you are saying, but the thread was about why women are so scarce in X-Wing and how to change that. In order to do so, an understanding of that dynamic was called for. You cannot fix a thing by ignoring it, and the relevant points I was trying to make apply to human nature of any gender.

I thought your comment was funny, actually, and didn't offend me (or my wife) in any way. Nor did I believe you had any malice when saying it. But that wasn't the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that if we want people to be part of our group, whether we are talking about X-Wing or not, then we need to make sure that our comments and actions include them and highlight our commonality, not our differences.

I see what you are saying, but the thread was about why women are so scarce in X-Wing and how to change that. In order to do so, an understanding of that dynamic was called for. You cannot fix a thing by ignoring it, and the relevant points I was trying to make apply to human nature of any gender.

I thought your comment was funny, actually, and didn't offend me (or my wife) in any way. Nor did I believe you had any malice when saying it. But that wasn't the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that if we want people to be part of our group, whether we are talking about X-Wing or not, then we need to make sure that our comments and actions include them and highlight our commonality, not our differences.

Well, getting women into X-Wing, specifically, is probably more a matter of exposure than anything else. If a woman is confident enough to post on the internet at all, I don't think what I wrote would would otherwise dissuade her from doing so here. If you've spent any amount of time in, say, general chat of a popular MMO, you'd realize that there are plenty of thick skinned gamer girls out there. So, the problem is less about how to get women involved in gaming (or how not to scare them off) than it is about this particular segment of the gaming community. Star Wars itself poses no barrier; there are plenty of female Star Wars fans out there. Miniature gaming, on the other hand, is a different story. What generalizations, if any, can we make about the average miniatures gamer and their reasons for playing the game?

So,

My wife and oldest daughter (15) both play. We attended Gencon together this last weekend, and my wife attends League night with me every week and is an active playtester. At one point this weekend she made a point to tell me that she had only spent $17 on her own games so far that day, in order to leave us more money to spend in the FFG booth on X-Wing product (as well as Conquest). I own at least 4 and usually 6 to 8 of every ship (except epic, 2 each of those) so that we can all have a sufficient number of ships when playing against one another. The second time she went to a tournament with me, she beat me in the finals so thoroughly she was irritated because she had the impression I must have thrown it in order to be crushed so completely.

At one point on Wednesday night after coming in 2nd/3rd on the first day of qualifying, I looked up and saw my wife and daughter arm in arm, singing and smiling because they were happy and having a great time. I remarked to Legionthree who was standing next to me that I am always a very fortunate man, but sometimes I am just more aware of it than other times. That was one of those wonderful moments where you KNOW how blessed you are.

Don't give up, they are out there. And if you find one, hold on. :-)

That is a great story KineticOperator! My 9-Year old son attends league nights with me, and is currently sitting in 5th place. I have three younger then him who are all looking forward to being old enough to go on a game night.

I just need to wait until they are old enough to not break someone else's toys... 7 is the hard age I have set.

I am curious what Mom will do when all 4 of the brood join me on game nights though...

Get her to join in too!! I can't wait till all of our kids can join my husband and I at the tables!! It's great to have our daughter there now and our son is slowly learning but still too young to have much of a attention span. The twins... well we will have to have a few years for them to grow up yet because they are only 3....

So,

My wife and oldest daughter (15) both play. We attended Gencon together this last weekend, and my wife attends League night with me every week and is an active playtester. At one point this weekend she made a point to tell me that she had only spent $17 on her own games so far that day, in order to leave us more money to spend in the FFG booth on X-Wing product (as well as Conquest). I own at least 4 and usually 6 to 8 of every ship (except epic, 2 each of those) so that we can all have a sufficient number of ships when playing against one another. The second time she went to a tournament with me, she beat me in the finals so thoroughly she was irritated because she had the impression I must have thrown it in order to be crushed so completely.

At one point on Wednesday night after coming in 2nd/3rd on the first day of qualifying, I looked up and saw my wife and daughter arm in arm, singing and smiling because they were happy and having a great time. I remarked to Legionthree who was standing next to me that I am always a very fortunate man, but sometimes I am just more aware of it than other times. That was one of those wonderful moments where you KNOW how blessed you are.

Don't give up, they are out there. And if you find one, hold on. :-)

That is a great story KineticOperator! My 9-Year old son attends league nights with me, and is currently sitting in 5th place. I have three younger then him who are all looking forward to being old enough to go on a game night.

I just need to wait until they are old enough to not break someone else's toys... 7 is the hard age I have set.

I am curious what Mom will do when all 4 of the brood join me on game nights though...

Get her to join in too!! I can't wait till all of our kids can join my husband and I at the tables!! It's great to have our daughter there now and our son is slowly learning but still too young to have much of a attention span. The twins... well we will have to have a few years for them to grow up yet because they are only 3....

Essentially i think the green one is right

Its exposure to the game...despites having only one actual female character of any depth in the OT 'star wars' is pretty accessable to anyone mail or female, we've all seen the film.. the prequels do this even better (depsite being IMO worse films) as you have more strong female characters and they are not there to be a 'love interest'.

Try getting your missus to play 'Blitzkrieg Panzer Commander: Stalingrad Expansion' and you start getting problems as its just not that accessable to women... i mean that sort of game would leave a lot of guys cold.

Essentially , i think most gamers were geeky types at school, we were not the guy always picked first for sports etc and found cameraderie that the 'jock' types got by playing D&D or Runequest or Warhammer or whatever. Your less 'socially mobile' female in my experience tends to graviate towards niche music as its more 'balanced' towards women/girls.

There are always exceptions.

When i was at school i hung out with two groups of people (until they realised i was really good at sports and made me do them... i hid it well for years)... my wargaming group of about five guys and four or five girls i used to hang about in the art department with and talk about goth and indie music.

Whenever we got the girls to come to an RPG event they were great at it but all the boys got really awkward, in our cyberpunk campaign the 'lad' character who always went to strip clubs and chatted up any female NPCs just couldnt get a line out in the company of a real girl... pretty funny at the time.

"So geeno, whats your character doing in down time?"

"erm i'm going to go to that club again"

"What the stripper joint?"

"Erm yeah...."

"What's your character going to do while he's there..?"

Bit mean of me to wind him up i guess.

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.