So, it’s been a while. In fact, it’s been a long time. But an important topic has drawn me from my blogging hiatus. It’s the topic of perceived misogyny in gaming in particular, but consumerism in general.
First, I’d like to introduce the reader to a concept that I think is very valuable to understand before we continue. It is this: Not every product, service, idea, or marketing caters to us personally, or to whatever demographic groups we may inhabit.
Pretty basic right?
Let’s have an example just to clarify.
I’m not in the market for a pickup truck. I have no real need for a pickup truck in my life. I’m not the target demographic for pickup trucks. Is it reasonable for me to expect pickup trucks to be designed to appeal to me? Wouldn’t they sell more pickup trucks if they DID design them to appeal to me? After all, if they design a product that appeals to me I might buy it, right? Designing pickup trucks to appeal to me would naturally increase their sales, right? So if we’ve established that they could sell more pickups if they market to me, then we can infer that by not marketing to me, it is evidence they do not like me or think little of me. Wait, what?
That doesn’t follow at all.
Ok, so now that we have that established, let’s take a look at a couple completely isolated comments from people you may have heard of.
First is from a man named Gary Gygax, in a comment on an internet forum geared towards old school gaming in 2005.
Notice what he says. He says that in his experience, both during the writing of it, and playtesting of it, girls lost interest in the game. He says that he believes their lack of interest is related to human biological differences between males and females. That females derive greater satisfaction from games that have more socialization. I think the implication is that war gaming, simulated violence and combat (which is what he understood the game to be about and is implied in his comment) were less interesting to the average female.
Now, let’s define misogyny:
-
n.Hatred or mistrust of women.
-
n.Hatred of women.
Do you sense hatred of women in his comments? Do you get the impression he mistrusts women? Or do you get the impression he thinks the game as he understands it is simply less appealing to females than males due to the typical content?
To me, I think it’s pretty obvious. He seems to be saying that the nature of the game as he understands it, is more satisfying to males than females because of something about our biology.
But wait, we’re often told there are no biological differences and that gender is a social construct. Ok, but what does the science say? Are there biological differences between what males and females might be interested in? To not address this topic is to completely avoid the key element of his comment.
Here, check out this little bit of a youtube video from Debra Soh. She’s kind of an expert on this topic. It should be noted here that there are lots of ways to acquire and digest this information. But I like Dr. Soh, and I think the guy doing the interview is funny. If you don’t like his style, I urge you to do some research. This scientific understanding isn’t particularly controversial.
So what Gary said wasn’t misogynistic, nor was it anti-woman. It was, as best as he understood, a reasonable reading of scientific thinking, both then, and now.
Having said that, I would argue that he was wrong. But not about male and female satisfaction. I think he was wrong in that the GAME could be changed. Changed in a way that might attract more female gamers while still satisfying male gamers. So he wasn’t some awful woman hater, so much as having a more limited understanding of what a TTRPG might be able to provide. He actually kind of admits this when he says he doesn’t know how to write such a game. The man simply isn’t capable and he knows it.
Ok, so the next isolated comment that has been dug up out of the history bin is this one from a man named Jonathan Tweet. Perhaps less famous than Gary Gygax, Tweet is still a pretty well known game designer. He helped design and write the 3rd edition of D&D, as well as a newer game called The 13th Age. So here is his comment.
Ok, so there’s a bit more to unpack in this one. It opens up, pretty much exactly like what Gary said. Jonathan appears to believe that RPGs “as currently construed” appeal more so to men because they involve things men tend to be more interested in. I don’t honestly even know how this is controversial. Again, see my comment above about pickup trucks. It’s perfectly ok to have products that cater to certain demographics. Tweet seems to imply that up to this point, RPGs have attempted to cater to men. Gary’s comment absolutely confirms this, since he states that he didn’t know how to write an RPG to attract females. I repeat, not catering your product to a demographic, or recognizing that a product is not properly catered to a certain demographic does not imply any ill will toward that demographic.
Ok, he goes on further to say why HE thinks women are more attracted to other tangentially similar hobbies. I mean, maybe he’s wrong, he seems to be guessing, but that guess is largely predicated on the above understanding on differences in male and female biological inclinations. Is that awful? I don’t think so. Is he wrong? I think probably somewhat. But, I’ve actually had the opportunity to hear Mr. Tweet speak. Both at a presentation at Gen-Con and on several podcasts. And it is incumbent upon me to say that the above comment is in no way indicative of all his thinking on this topic. That he is, in fact, incredibly open minded and even interested in opening up the hobby to demographic groups it has previously ignored. And that to pillory him as hating women based on it, rather than based on a real conversation is ignorant at best and downright mean at worst.
Further, I think the hobby is massive and growing. To hold up these two narrow comments that existed as subsets of conversions, as evidence of some broader misogyny of these men or the hobby is kind of silly, really.
The scientific reality is that males and females do often see things differently, deriving differing levels of satisfaction from them. This is good. This is diversity. We should encourage it. Moreover, designers and marketers are not evil or wrong for attempting to cater to their perceived target demographic. It’s often they will be wrong. They may view their demographic too narrowly, and lose potential business. But this is not evidence of hatred or exclusion. It’s simply targeted marketing and design. Just like with the pickup truck example above.
So what does all this have to do with charity? Charity is a concept I try to live my life by. What it means to me is basically this: Give people the benefit of the doubt. If you’re unsure about someones ideas or intention (usually meaning you haven’t discussed something with them personally) then you should seek to interpret their comments in the most charitable way possible. A lot of people don’t do this. We live in an age of internet outrage. We are addicted to it. We consume it like food. And there is no shortage of people willing to provide it.
Well, if you can help it, don’t participate. If someone out there is digging up 15 year old comments on forums and using them to pass judgment on the dead, or to impugn and entire hobby, maybe turn down the volume on those voices. If someone is trying to use an internet tweet to prove someone is awful without actually talking to them about it, maybe look elsewhere for content. That’s what I do. And I’m a lot happier for it.
