In reply to katisara (msg # 4):

Take as an example the illustrations in most gaming books: I have been told by the women that I have talked to about this that they are almost all deeply offensive and inappropriate: that the way they portray women is 'Objectifying' and 'Submissive'. They also find that the books lack 'strong roles' for female characters, and relegate them to 'support staff'.

Or another complaint that I have heard is that the other gamers at the table always assume that any female gamer is there to 'Snare a husband who will make good money thanks to his technical skills.' or if she is there with an established partner 'Only humoring your boyfriend.' and 'Not serous about the game.' which have convinced them that gamers are rude, obnoxious, and exclusionary.

I don't know about the rest of you but if I were running a game and someone said any of those things they would be asked to take their property and leave the table: but several of the women I have talked to about this say that these kind of comments get mummers of agreement rather than censure.

I know that at least a few of the people who frequent this board are women, have you experienced this kind of chauvinism and rudeness?

I don't think it's exactly the gaming industry.  I think it's mostly a vocal minority that goes out of their way to make women feel uncomfortable.

Look at it this way: at cons, there's only a couple of guys who actually decry "fake geek girls".  But they cause enough ruckus that people believe this is actually a thing.  Unfortunately, in the internet age, that minority has access to blogs and news sites, so they can spread their sexist message loudly.  I know a lot of female gamers, and female cosplayers, and only a couple have actually been accosted by someone accusing them of being a "fake geek".  Of those, it's all been trolls on the internet.  I don't doubt that it's happened in real life, but it is less common than the chatrooms and forums would have you think.

Okay, but which game? Looking through my library, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, Call of Cthulhu all portray women as basically equivalent to and as well dressed as men. Even D&D I recall to handle women about equivalent, with the exception of female monsters like sirens or succubi. The only game I've played recently that I recall being objectifying to women was Exalted, which featured some MAJOR fan service on the cover.



I have seen some gamers like that. They seem to die down once you get past 25, fortunately. However, in my personal experience, the table has always been at least 25% female, frequently with the female dragging the male in.




Not on RPoL, fortunately. In fact, quite the contrary. My user name sounds female, and I believe I was chosen for at least one game because of it. I applied to a CoC game and was accepted. The game died almost immediately, and one of the players contacted me, saying he was starting up a new one with just his favorite players. I accepted and he subsequently assigned me the only female character.

However, the nature of a board like this means that women are by default fairly anonymized. No one knows Cruinne is a lady until she tells us.


Edit: I did realize my Shadowrun game has always always been all men. Not sure why that is. When the game is accepting players, I've never had to turn away an RTJ. I'm not sure on the gender ratios in the other games I play. But my in-person games have always had women players.
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:49, Mon 26 May 2014.

I went over many of my gaming books and the trend seems to be that those whose genre has some sort of history of misogyny has illustrations that support that (D&D, AD&D 1st and 2nd, and arguably the Superhero games up to M&M. The first ed Shadowrun is a bit iffy due to the prevalence of male characters (way outnumbering female), but afterwards seems alright, perhaps due to the origins of the genre in the late 70s early 80s (cyberpunk. Fantasy is another ball of wax, but one that doesn't seem to affect Shadowrun too deeply).

Texts themselves seem to be alright, unless you're complaining about pronoun usage, in which case you can bite me. All I care is consistency.

First and second ed Shadowrun were bad about women's fashions.  They weren't dressed to kill so much as undressed.  The books that dealt with fashions gave some clear examples.  CP2020 was similar.  OD&D used to limit the maximum strength a female human character could have, although I think that was removed in 2e.  So, there is a history of inequality in gaming, although I do agree that I can't think of nearly as many recent examples.

So I see two major issues here:

1) More males than females in illustrations. As long as there are SOME females in illustrations (as serious characters, not as just succubi and wenches), I'm not too bent out of shape if the characters in the book approximately hit the demographics of the audience or the setting. For example, if you have a game set in Iceland played primarily by white guys, I sort of expect 7 out of 10 pictures to be of white guys. It's only if it's 10 out of 10 pictures are white guys that I might take umbrage. I think you could convince me otherwise though.

2) Fashion. Generally I'm a realism buff, so Red Sonja won't really cut it. I enjoy the 'Women in Unreasonable Armor' arguments, the whole concept is indeed goofy and needs to be corrected. For Shadowrun, if she's walking around in a bikini, it would be an issue. Flipping through Google Images though, I'm seeing short skirts and bared midriffs, which is about appropriate for rockers and drug addicts (who are SR characters, regardless of gender) illustrated based on real-life fashion in the late 80s.

A similar search on CP2020 shows a few women basically in their underwear, so unless that's from a section called "underwear of the future", yeah, that's probably going the wrong way.

("Superhero RPG" is a bit too generic for me to do any useful searching, so no comments on that.)

I have a harder time finding illustrations of warrior women whose outfits protect them as well as their male counterparts. Superheroes get shafted with boob windows and surprisingly low necklines. Platemail and body armor get protrusions that would guide a sword into their chest, or bared midriffs to helpfully reveal organs to enemies.

Right now I'm looking at the old version of the Shadowrun 4th core book, at the archetypes in particular. 6 women. 3 have low necklines (including the street samurai, what the heck?), 3 have bare arms/shoulders, 1 has a bare midriff: not one of this group of example women is head-to-toe armored. Contrast that to the 10 men: only 1, the combat mage, has a lowish neckline. 3 have bare arms/shoulder. No sixpacks to be seen, and several of these men are fit enough to have something to show off, and 5 of the men are dressed so only head and hands are visible. None of the women have Con for a skill, so it's not like they're using sexy tactics. Sure, none of their poses are needless eye-candy. The art in the recent Shadowrun books is a lot better than the old stuff. It's still skewed.

There's still an underlying default for the women to be wearing a little less than the men. Default that charactersbare assumed male until proven female, and the usual proof that a character is a woman is for her art to needlessly bare skin in a way we don't see from the men.

It's pervasive. It's really annoying. If there were some men and some women going unarmored, some men and some women going fully armored, that would be awesome. For what it's worth, I'm gay: I like to see beautiful women. I don't like when beautiful women are the only women to be found.

-edit- I was looking at the 20th anniversary, not the old one.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:55, Tue 27 May 2014.

In reply to Taurarius (msg # 12):

I notice this too.

1: Yes female armor needs to sometimes accommodate an expanded chest area: BUT, they had ways of doing that when this kind of armor was still in active production which did that without compromising it's protective value: do your research!

2: There is no excuse for these bare midriffs and so on in combat situations. Perhaps I can forgive them on spell casters and monks who cannot wear armor anyway and for whom therefore freedom of movement is paramount, but in such cases it should be that both genders are so attired.

3: The super hero genre is hopeless. It has been so mired in the cultural moires of teenage boys and the 1940s for so long that I consider it irretrievably corrupt. If one wishes to play in that genre one ether accepts the tropes of it or must deliberately reject them which would not sell many copies in an RPG. This is in part why I generally refrain from participating in such content.

4: RPGs, being fantasy, rarely display people who are unattractive. This is unfortunate but inevitable. I mostly have learned to ignore it and take my cues on appearance from real life instead of the illustrations.

5: I think this preponderance of attractive and poorly dressed women is one of the core objections that real women have with the gaming industry, they don't feel like they are being viewed as heroines but instead pieces of eye candy, which they naturally object too. Does anyone have ideas on how to alter this behavior on the gaming industry's part?

Those are all my comments right now, discuss some more.

As long as we're talking about the pictures of both sexes, then I agree.  For instance, consider the typical Conan the Barbarian picture.

I'm in two fantasy games on RPoL currently: Warhammer FRP 2e, and Anima. The two rulebooks are polar opposites on this issue.

There are no women in skimpy outfits in the WFRP2 core book. The most I can find in the pics for the careers are two guys with their shirts off.

Anima has excessive amounts of fanservice. It's not a game where warriors have to wear armor (dodging is an alternative), but some of those unarmored women are showing a lot more skin than the men. The chapter on classes has a decent mix of mostly clothed characters, including roughly equal numbers of men and women in full armor. But as the book goes on, there are a lot of absurd, disfunctional outfits. It gets even worse in the supplements.

I have to say, I'm kind of a fan of this guy:
http://i0.wp.com/nerdbastards....png?resize=418%2C556

(Powerboy, a superhero).



1) Vote with your dollars. Don't buy books that feature this. (Fortunately, Hasbro seems to be working hard to reverse the trend with D&D.) I know most RPGs are a 'labor of love', but they still have costs, and they do it in hopes of recognition. Take that away, and it'll drop.

2) Introduce other people to games which you think are better. Some people really care about representation, and will choose a game based solely on that. Others don't. But if you're hosting a game day and there are no superhero games there at all, your gamers are more likely to come away with 'friendly' games.

3) Don't write/work for those companies.

RPG players are generally a pretty liberal group. I'm not nearly worried about this in the long-term, compared to just about any other entertainment industry.

A related question; how do people feel about gender-limited group, such as boy scouts?

I'm okay with it.  Sometimes it's nice for boys/girls to simply hang out with boys/girls.  There are so many other times/places where the genders mix and learn from one another, that it can be fun to just have a kid's version of boy's night out, or ladies night, in the form of girl guides or boy scouts etc.

I personally have a problem with this nomenclature. It implies that girls are not capable of blazing new trails scouting ahead of an army but only serving as 'guides', and I find that deeply offensive. I find the American system of "Girl/Boy Scouts" much more affirming and sportive of young women's ambitions and development.

I can only speak for my sister, who was in girl guides for about 10 years and went through the entire system right up to meeting the governor general of Canada.  She made lifelong friends, went on amazing trips, grew in her confidence as a girl, and eventually a young woman, and has nothing but great things to say about the experience.

First time I have ever heard someone say such a thing, but that's your right to be offended by whatever you want to be offended by.

I don't have any daughters, but we did merge troops with a girl scout pack (gaggle? Not sure.) Apparently the quality of Girl Scouts can vary significantly. The worst I've heard was basically a monthly sewing session. The best is equivalent in difficulty to cub scouts (plus home economics).

I'm not part of the organization and don't have any family members who are, so I don't have a lot of space to complain, but from an (uninformed) outsider's perspective, it seems like they're playing softball and I'm not sure why that is.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 20):

I am not meaning to disparage the good work that this organization does or imply that the mere name should be enough to discourage people from joining, but rather state that like all names it has a certain degree of power to shape the mind and spirit and thus I vociferously suggest that both organizations should adopt the more empowering 'Scouts' title as those in some areas have done.

In reply to katisara (msg # 21):

Having been a boyscout in my youth I can state that this is true of that side of the organization as well. Some groups are much more organized and active than others, and lead their members to accomplish more and greater things than others. I am not entirely sure what makes the big difference between these groups but I have distinctly noticed that the better ones I was involved in were among the ones where the parents were also scouts in their youth and were more active within the troop.

I've been thinking about that Alexei, and it's an interesting point.  However I really quite like the term guide.  I know a couple wilderness guides (I live up in northern BC in Canada) and they are people who literally hold the lives of the people they are guiding in their hands.  They have to know tons about the area they are responsible for, and often they are the only ones who have the skills needed to keep everything running for the groups that rely on them.

It's a very 'rugged' type of career. It's interesting that you see it as somewhat demeaning.

Perhaps that is because we don't have much in the way of wilderness left in the lower 48 of the USA, and certainly not people who work as guides for those areas professionally, the closest thing which I have experience with is 'Tour Guide', which is one of the most inane and demeaning jobs I can think of. It also beings up images of 1800's novels with the 'Native Guide' slavishly obeying the arrogant and idiotic white hero, which is a kind of dastardly arrogance that ought to be expunged from the earth.

Scout by contrast has associations with professions of power and prestige such as 'Talent Scout' and service in the armed forces, with taking great risks and earning great rewards, something I for one would encourage in any girl I was raising.

I guess, as usual, it all is about your perspective.

Fascinating.  This is clearly a cultural difference.  Thanks for your perspective.

And yours as well, I think I can see how in some other places the title of 'Girl Guides' is every bit as significant and positive as 'Boy Scouts', as well as why in the USA they changed the name.

I'm a guide for groups in the wilderness at times.  I'm also a Boy Scouter (adult Scout).  I don't think the term "guide" is demeaning.  That's just my 2¢.

Ex Boy Sprout here.  I can see where you're coming from, but here it's Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts.  We don't use the term "Girl Guide" so I can't comment too much on it.

However, even with more equal terms, there's still sexism between the two.  When I was in the boy sprouts, we went camping once a month.  We learned dozens of knots, wilderness survival techniques, first aid, CPR and predecessors to CPR, how to lash and rig a shelter out of almost nothing, canoeing, swimming, cooking, tracking, and many other skills to survive in the wilderness.  That was our big deal.

My girl scout friends... learned to sell cookies.  I'm sure there had to be more that they did, but that was their big deal.

That's the leaders.  I've met many Girl Scouts who did all that wilderness stuff, but they had a leader who was willing to take them out into the wilderness.  If I ever have a daughter (or daughters), they'll be doing all that stuff -- I already have a mess of Girl Scout event patches sewn onto one side of my Boy Scout jacket.  I gots to represent my job, yo.

I was sort of a liaison to/with the local Girl Sprouts (or whatever) when I was younger for a season (Summer/Fall) and we went canoing, cooking, camping, and what seemed like a much more balanced experience than the local Boy Sprouts (who exclusively went camping and learned to kill things... never really my cup of tea, but I was with them for 7 years).

I learned to dance in a room full of girls. Best. Summer. Ever.