Because of this, I would like to ask humbly that discussions and posts about gender differences in behavior be listed amongst the forbidden topics. The reason I say this is because regardless of whether or not there is any evidence to support the idea that men are better at math, or that women are better at remembering important dates, in all likelihood, someone is going to be offended by these statements, and is likely going to say something equally offensive, or upsetting, in response.
Note: I should like to point out that these stereotypes are not just being posted by men. A lot of them are being posted by women as well. Therefore, don't assume that I'm trying to single anyone out. This is an issue that I think affects everyone equally.
Edit: I have tried to make some clarifications of my general argument in this post.
You argue for a woman's issues forum, but then request that gender differences be a banned topic?
This seems like a step back. Amongst the issues that women face in gaming are gender differences, or perceived gender differences - and these should be allowed to be discussed.
The entire point of Astrid's Parlor is the perceived notion that the ladies aren't getting treated the same as the guys. One of the most fundamental topics the board should address is "how are men and women different when it comes to gaming?" I mean, that difference is the entire reason the forum exists in the first place, right?
And not to add to the stereotypes, but aren't women supposed to be better communicators, and hence able to talk this sort of thing out, instead of resorting to "OMG, ban it!!!"?
I also agree that the majority of gender differences that are offered in the above-mentioned threads are unhelpful, even in the context of the gender difference threads in which they are offered. But banning the topic of gender differences is illogical and ironic, given the premise for the creation of Astrid's in the first place.
I may be wrong, but I think someone said that Dove is actualy a guy. My apologies if it's wrong.
Is there some relevance to that which I am missing?
Because of this, I would like to ask humbly that discussions and posts about gender differences in behavior be listed amongst the forbidden topics.
I would say that people have been interpreting your post exactly as it is written. If that's not really what you wanted, then cool, we're all on the same page.
I would say that people have been interpreting your post exactly as it is written. If that's not really what you wanted, then cool, we're all on the same page.
If that's all I said, then yes, I would agree. However, you're missing the part where I said, and I quote:
My concern about these conversations is that they typically degenerate into a list of stereotypes about the gendered behaviors of men and women. For example, some have suggested that men are better at math than women, that women are better at remembering things like birthdays and anniversaries, that men are better at driving, that women are better at roleplaying, etc. The problem I'm seeing with these conversations, is that these stereotypes are ultimately upsetting to both men and women, and there are a lot of people who are not shy about voicing their displeasure, often by making posts containing additional statements about gendered behaviors that are equally offensive to both men and women.
In any event, my second post served to clarify any misinterpretations that may have been the result of ambiguity on my part in the first post, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
We often want to talk about advice for D&D products that appeal more to women than is prior products. Part of this is inherently going to be "What do women like that is different than men?" Sometimes the answers will be stereotyped, or just plain dumb, but that's inherent in discussion.
Where it can go off-topic is if the discussion leaves gaming entirely, but in general we allow wide-ranging topics in Astrid's Parlor as long as it connects at least somewhat to gaming.
While I'm not thrilled at some of the stereotyping that has occurred, I do think that gender differences are a part of Astrid's Parlor discussion.
Okay, that's fine. However, the gist of my general argument isn't that people shouldn't be discussing these issues. The gist of my argument is that people shouldn't be resorting to stereotypes while discussing these issues. Granted, I may not have been very clear on that fact in my first post, but I think my second post more than clarifies my intent. So can we please get past the fact that my first post sucks, and just agree that people shouldn't be resorting to stereotypes when discussing these issues?
I'm not really sure how my original post got so badly misinterpreted, so rather than responding to the criticism, let me try to clarify my original point, which is this: People shouldn't stereotype. About ethnicity, about culture, about religion, about gender. People shouldn't stereotype. The examples that I listed in my original post are stereotypes, and I don't think that they should be used as evidence of anything other than how wrong stereotypes are. There is a way to discuss stereotypes without stereotyping, and I don't think that the people on Astrid's, or any other messageboard, should be using stereotypes to support their arguments, regardless of how valid a poster might think that a particular stereotype is. I hope that my point is now clear.
I agree with DoveArrow's idea. But, I do wonder if he means to take it as far as I do.
For instance, if at any point during the thread someone has to point out that X isn't always true (women like roleplay over combat, men memorize all the rules, men always roleplay women as sluts or victims), then the rest of that thread is engaging in stereotyping and should be shut down. Whenever we (I include myself in this) start talking about hypothetical situations in which group A has/doesn't have characteristics Y, then we are engaging in stereotyping. The biggest problem with this is that the thread then devolves into people reaching entrenched opinions that are usually based more on emotion than any real facts and we start arguing past each other. I've seen almost every thread in Astrid's go that route and it really doesn't matter what the OP was.
Here's my suggestion: let's keep it personal. This is strange because 'keeping it personal' is usually where the flaming begins. But, I would much rather read someone's post on their personal experience with gaming and how that helped/hindered their enjoyment than a sociopolitical discussion on the unfairness of pronoun usage in WotC materials. I'm not saying its not important, I'm just saying that there really isn't much more to be discussed that hasn't already been said. But, getting into the mind's eye of a female gamer and hearing what she does or doesn't like about gaming is much more interesting and useful to me if I'm going to try and get more women involved in gaming. That's what I think the focus of Astrid's should be.
Here are some threads that I think are good examples of what Astrid's should be (no particular order):
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1030114
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1024679
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1029189
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1025534 (reluctantly)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1028044
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1028243 (this really applies to anyone though)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1023047
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014902
There are others but I didn't want to get ridiculous about it.
I'm not sure how community management would be able to distinguish "stereotyping" and "discussing genuine differences between men and women" in a way that could be applied evenly and fairly.
They can't. There are over 3 billion men and over 3 billion women on the planet. Any discussion of genuine differences between men and women (beyond something biological) assumes that men and women each share traits that make them indistinguishable from each other but different from the opposite gender. That's the definition of stereotyping.
If that's all I said, then yes, I would agree. However, you're missing the part where I said, and I quote:
In any event, my second post served to clarify any misinterpretations that may have been the result of ambiguity on my part in the first post, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
Your second post states that you didn't know why your first post was being "misinterpreted". It also implies that the criticism of your first post is unwarranted. My point was to show you why everyone else is interpreting your first post the way they have been, and that, under such an interpretation, their criticism of your proposal is quite appropriate. I am saying that your first post is not being misinterpreted. In fact, it is being interpreted exactly as it was written. Rather, you presented it poorly.
According to both of your posts, your goal is to reduce the use of gender stereotypes in discussion, a noble goal, certainly, if a little misguided in my opinion. (But I'll get to that in a moment.)
Taking the thread title and the content of your first post, it seems that you are presenting your proposal as such: "I see a problem - the use of gender stereotypes in Astrids Parlor discussions is unproductive and, more, disruptive. I suggest a solution - Ban all discussion of gender differences."
Your second post clarifies that you are not, in fact, proposing such a solution. That's fine. I think everyone here agrees that it would be a bad idea. But, as you say, the problem, "the use of gender stereotypes in Astrids Parlor discussions is unproductive and, more, disruptive", remains. Do you have any other solutions to suggest? It seems to me that what you are actually asking for is stricter moderating. But unless the posts are breaking the CoC, nothing can really be done there.
As I said, I'd get to it in a moment. My problem with attempting to eliminate the use of stereotypes in discussion is that it's ultimately useless to do so. A stereotype is, at it's base, a blanket statement about a group. It is not necessarily true, false, derogatory or inflammatory. Even if I prefaced every general statement I make about a group with "In my experience, I find that...", someone else could come along with "Well, that's just a stereotype.", leading to a useless (and disruptive) argument over the validity of my experience.
The problem is not with the person making blanket statements, but rather with the second person assuming the first person doesn't know what she's talking about. It's far more productive in the long run to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are speaking from personal experience, thus bypassing side-tracking arguments and actually addressing the statements made rather than devolving into personal attacks.
I'm not sure how community management would be able to distinguish "stereotyping" and "discussing genuine differences between men and women" in a way that could be applied evenly and fairly.
Well, here's what I would say. If you take a sentence that compares two groups of people, then switch the nouns out for two other groups of people- such as Christians vs. Muslims, Europeans vs. Asians, young people vs. old people, etc.- and the sentence suddenly comes across as offensive, there's a good chance that it's a stereotype. For example, take the sentence men are better at math than women. Now switch out the nouns 'men' and 'women' for 'Christians' and 'Muslims.' You see how the sentence suddenly takes on a whole new dimension of offensive? On the other hand, try women have two X chromosomes, while men have an X and Y chromosome. The sentence doesn't even make sense anymore. So in general, I think that's a pretty good litmus test.
Edit: I am sure there are exceptions to this rule. I just can't think of any, at the moment.
If ... the sentence suddenly comes across as offensive, there's a good chance that it's a stereotype.
"comes across"? "good chance"? These are not qualifiers that make me think that's the sort of policy that can be applied evenly and fairly.
One person's stereotype is another's valid comparison. I don't think there's anything to be done about that and trying to define the line between the two begs more problems than it solves, imo.
Edit: I am sure there are exceptions to this rule. I just can't think of any, at the moment.
Men have balls; women never will.
Now switch out the nouns 'men' and 'women' for 'Christians' and 'Muslims.'
I think that's a pretty good litmus test.
Men are generally stronger than women.
Men are generally more linear thinking than women.
(Both are true statements)
Christians are generally stronger than Muslims. (offensive)
Christians are generally more linear thinking than Muslims. (maybe offensive)
I do not like the litmus test you have proposed.
They can't. There are over 3 billion men and over 3 billion women on the planet. Any discussion of genuine differences between men and women (beyond something biological) assumes that men and women each share traits that make them indistinguishable from each other but different from the opposite gender. That's the definition of stereotyping.
Bingo.
There are no "facts" about the differences between the mental abilities/perceptions/attitudes in men and women that apply in all cases.
Hence, it boils down to one of two things:
1) You accept the fact that the only way to have any meaningful discussion on the difference between the two largest, most varied groups on the face of the planet earth is to use observed trends that tend to be true more often than they are false (which most times involves perceived trends, as no one has ever done a study of all people everywhere to see if they are true or not), which will invariably attribute characteristics to individuals that do not actually have them, aka stereotype people.
2) You accept that there are no meaningful differences between the two groups that apply to either group as a whole, and hence that there is no reason to treat the groups differently.
And of course, God forbid that one group actually be better than the other at anything, especially if it is true. What kind of discussion can you have about differences when you are restricted to not discussing how one group is better or worse at any given thing than the other?
Honestly, Dove, tell me, what are the reasons for having Astrid's Parlor that aren't reliant on stereotypes? Not all women think they are being repressed, or that the game objectifies women, so we can't play the "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" stereotype card. Not all women think that using the male pronoun in gender ambiguous situations is inappropriate, so that can't be discussed. Not all women are in the minority in their play groups, so you can't even play the "we're underrepresented!" card without it being a stereotype. Heck, the last group I played with was 50/50 men/women right across the board (other than me, because I was the only single one at the table).
Even using our own definition, Astrid's Parlor is a stereotype that should be avoided.
Unless you want to agree that there should be a special Men's Issues board? Remember, if it doesn't work just as well when you turn it around, it must be a bad stereotype, and should be done away with, right?
Men have balls; women never will.
I dunno - surgery can do wonders these days.
Edit: I am sure there are exceptions to this rule. I just can't think of any, at the moment.
"Former convicts are more likely to commit a crime than nonconvicts." (Substitute ethnic groups of your choice to make it offensive.)
"Men are, on average, physically stronger than women." (Substitute the male (or female) sexual orientations to make it offensive.)
"Conservatives champion a free market economy, while liberals tend to favor greater government regulation." (Substitute women and men to make it offensive.)
Those seem like three rather reasonable statements that fail according to your test.
"Former convicts are more likely to commit a crime than nonconvicts." (Substitute ethnic groups of your choice to make it offensive.)
I'm going to leap on a hand-grenade and point out that (according to DOJ data, don't blame me) you could actually go ahead and put in certain ethnic groups in there and the statement would still be factual.
Point being is that what you refer to as "stereotypes" often times are based on factual differences between males and females. I think part of the problem comes with defining what you mean by stereotype. For instance, "on average women are more nurturing than men" is a factual gender difference. If I then meet woman Z and tell her, "You are a woman, therefore you must be nurturing" now I am stereotyping her. Stereotyping occurs only when it is assumed that all individuals from group Z will exhibit a characteristic typical of group Z. For instance returning to the crime data, we know that certain minority groups are more likely to find trouble with the law, but if you assume that a particular individual from that groups is likely a criminal, now you are stereotyping (and probably prejudiced, since you're now talking about a negative trait).
My understanding is:
Stereotype: Occurs when you assume that a group difference (either real or imagined, either positive or negative) applies to all individual members of that group (i.e. "you're a black man, you must be good at basketball").
Prejudice: Same as above, with the exception that the trait is a negatively valued one ("you're a Southerner, therefor you must be illiterate")
Discussion of the science of gender (or racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) differences does not, in and of itself, fall into either category, so long as it is acknowledged that groups differences don't necessarily inform us much about specific individuals coming from those groups. As another poster mentioned, the odds of any two groups being exactly the same on every variable are astronomical.
Besides....although I agree that our discourse should all be polite and logical and well-cited, I don't think any of us have the right to insist that we never be "offended" by ideas that challenge our view of the world. I think, Dovearrow, I would agree to you that we should all be mindful of possibly offending others, and keep our discussions polite with that in mind. But I wholeheartedly disagree that whole topics should be banned because some might find them displeasing to their worldview. If everyone could do that, there'd simply be a lot less communication in the world.
I'm going to leap on a hand-grenade and point out that (according to DOJ data, don't blame me) you could actually go ahead and put in certain ethnic groups in there and the statement would still be factual.
A statement being offensive is not strongly correlated with it being non-factual.
A statement being offensive is not strongly correlated with it being non-factual.
Yes, that's exactly my point. If a statement has basis in fact, it is worthy of discussion, even if some individuals would prefer for it not to be true (i.e. are offended). What is "offensive" can become subjective (some people after all are "offended" by Astrids altogether), but a statement of fact retains value above its emotional impact. This differs from a statement which is made only for its offensive emotional impact, but has little to no basis in fact.
If a statement has basis in fact, it is worthy of discussion, even if some individuals would prefer for it not to be true (i.e. are offended). What is "offensive" can become subjective (some people after all are "offended" by Astrids altogether), but a statement of fact retains value above its emotional impact. This differs from a statement which is made only for its offensive emotional impact, but has little to no basis in fact.
I think it's important to point out that 1) many of the statements being made have no basis in fact, 2) many of the people making the statements often don't take the time to differentiate between what is a fact and what is a stereotype in regards to gendered behavioral differences, 3) even if some of the statements are based in fact, the statistical significance of those differences are often so small that they can't account for the dramatic differences in numbers of women playing D&D compared to men, 4) women purchase fantasy books, figurines, clothes, jewelry, and other roleplaying products in significant numbers, so the idea that they aren't playing a roleplaying game based in fantasy because of gendered differences in interests seems a little flawed here, and 5) these supposed factual statements about gender differences are often used, both implicitly and explicitly, to justify an argument that Wizards shouldn't be focusing attention on bringing more women into the game quite simply because women's interests and behaviors are so different from men's that any efforts to bring them into the game would simply be a waste of time.
In any event, if all of the people posting on Astrid's were as thoughtful, respectful, reasonable, and knowledgeable about the subject of gendered differences as you are, Avalon, then I doubt I would have any problem with the discussion of these issues. However, not everyone is, and a lot of people have become very upset by these issues. In fact, one person was so upset by the attacks that were directed at them during one of these discussions, that they no longer want to post on the board.
Meanwhile, as far as allowing the discussion of offensive topics is concerned, if the general consensus is that offensive topics should be discussed, regardless of how disruptive, or offensive they might be, then why, may I ask, have discussions of Jack Chick and katanas been banned? :D
I've mentioned else where that I think the katana ban is silly (as were the flames that precipitated it)...I have no idea who Jack Chick is (and if its a banned topic we can leave it at that).
As a real-world example there was a case recently in which some students began playing rough at recess during games of tag. Rather than punish the offending students the school banned the game of tag altogether for all students. I think this kind of thing is wrong on multiple counts.
1.) Rather than disciplining the naughty it gives them power to affect the whole community
2.) It punishes the innocent
3.) Even the victims of the rough play (bullying?) will be further stigmatized as the entire community turns on them, blaming them for the loss of tag.
Banning topics from the entire community seems to be similar in some respects, even though I agree with you Dovearrow, that some folks just seem to delight in offending others or otherwise can't handle a mature discussion. Just my skewed view of the world.
In fact, one person was so upset by the attacks that were directed at them during one of these discussions, that they no longer want to post on the board.
Just to note that that person that left was being sexist during most of their time and was greeted back with the same attitude. ;)
why, may I ask, have discussions of Jack Chick and katanas been banned? :D
The katana ban was temporary (and has since been lifted) because it was not engendering any discussion, and was just an opportunity for people to abuse one another like some sort of 4chan discussion. I'm unfamiliar with the Jack Chick ban.
The katana ban was temporary (and has since been lifted) because it was not engendering any discussion, and was just an opportunity for people to abuse one another like some sort of 4chan discussion. I'm unfamiliar with the Jack Chick ban.
I am intimately familiar with it, because I once asked, quite innocently, why there was such a ban, and then watched as people started flaming each other inside my thread. That told me pretty definitively why the ban was put on in the first place. :P
Just to note that that person that left was being sexist during most of their time and was greeted back with the same attitude.
Yeah, and as I recall, you were the one doing most of the greeting.
In any event, I don't think it matters who was doing what to whom, or for what reason. I think what matters is that a lot of people were upset by the discussion (you included), and someone got so upset that they left the board because of it. To me, that seems like a pretty good reason to ban such discussions in the future.
How is CM to determine the difference between legitimate and illegitmate discussions of gender? The definitions you've provided seem rife with subjective determinations. I would not be comfortable with that kind of ban in any board.
The problem is in definition. It's easy to ban discussions of katanas and Jack Chick. Does the thread contain repeated use of the words "katana" or "Jack Chick"? If yes, the thread is closed. Very little is left to CM's subjective discretion.
How is CM to determine the difference between legitimate and illegitmate discussions of gender? The definitions you've provided seem rife with subjective determinations. I would not be comfortable with that kind of ban in any board.
I don't think there needs to be a distinction. Discussions of differences aren't allowed. Period.
As far as what to look for, I don't think it's hard to spot. For example, here's a list of some statements that just shouldn't be allowed because of their propensity to upset and offend. Note: These are in no particular order, and I make no distinction between which ones might have some evidence to support them, and which do not.
-Men are stronger than women.
-Men are better drivers than women.
-Women are better drivers than men.
-Women are better at remembering important dates than men.
-Women are better at performing repetitive tasks than men.
-Men are better at math than women.
-Women are better nurturers than men.
-Women are better at verbal skills than men.
-Men are better at visual-spatial skills than women.
-Women are more emotional than men.
-Men are better at critical thinking skills than women.
-Men are more violent than women.
-Men are better soldiers than women.
-Women are better pilots than men.
-Women are more dextrous than men.
-etc.
-etc.
I could probably list a dozen more if I really thought about it, but I think this gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. All of these, and I do mean all of these, have the propensity to upset, or offend someone, just as much as the discussion of Jack Chick. And while it may seem like a pretty long list, I think it's pretty obvious what they all share in common. They're all hotly contested, highly disputed examples of gendered differences between men and women.
By the way, if you have any doubts about how volatile these conversations can get, try starting a conversation about any one of these subjects. For example, try suggesting that men are more violent than women, and that's why there are so many more men playing a game that simulates violent combat. Or try suggesting that female characters should get a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Bluff checks because women are better at verbal skills than men. See how far either of those conversations get before your thread devolves into a series of rants and flame wars. Better yet, ask Jonathan Tweet about his experience when he wrote a blog entry suggesting that men have evolved to enjoy hunting and warfare and that's why more men play D&D. Ask him how he felt being the subject of some pretty nasty comments because of that entry. I think you'll find that if you do either of these things, you'll see why I am of the opinion that these conversations are not productive in the least, and why I think the only result that comes out of these conversations is that a lot of people come out with a lot of hurt feelings.
I don't think there needs to be a distinction. Discussions of differences aren't allowed. Period.
So you want to have a discussion forum about Women in Gaming, yet people aren't allowed to compare the different experiences that a man and a woman would have. I am sorry, but, IMO, the topic that you are asking to be banned would result in the neutering of Astrids.
Jack Chick is banned because his ideology is, essentially, hate speech.
And I ask again, if the general consensus is that offensive topics should be discussed, regardless of how disruptive, or offensive they might be, then why has the discussion of this particular offensive, and disruptive subject been banned?
Also, aren't stereotypes often used in hate speech?
Also, aren't stereotypes often used in hate speech?
They are used in hate speech. They are not by themselves hate speech.
So you want to have a discussion forum about Women in Gaming, yet people aren't allowed to compare the different experiences that a man and a woman would have. I am sorry, but, IMO, the topic that you are asking to be banned would result in the neutering of Astrids.
Well, for starters, saying that certain artwork is objectifying of women is not a reference to a gender specific trait. Neither is objecting to the exclusive use of male pronouns in writing. People can talk about a lot of issues that affect women, culture, and gaming without saying that women are X or that men are Y. Therefore, I don't think that banning discussions of gender differences would do anything to the other conversations that occur in Astrid's Parlor.
They are used in hate speech. They are not by themselves hate speech.
And again, this disputes my original question, how?
Well, for starters, saying that certain artwork is objectifying of women is not a reference to a gender specific trait.
But as soon as someone say that "women would find this art offensive", the thread gets locked.
Neither is objecting to the exclusive use of male pronouns in writing.
Until someone mentions that women are turned off by excessive use of male pronouns.
People can talk about a lot of issues that affect women, culture, and gaming without saying that women are X or that men are Y.
Not meaningfully, not they can't. Not in my opinion.
Therefore, I don't think that banning discussions of gender differences would do anything to the other conversations that occur in Astrid's Parlor.
I'd be surprised if there were a single thread in Astrid's Parlor in which someone didn't at some point make a generalization of one gender.
But as soon as someone say that "women would find this art offensive", the thread gets locked.
Or they could issue a soft warning, telling people that they should use "I" statements, like "I find this art offensive." They could also suggest that people say things like "Some women find this artwork offensive."
Until someone mentions that women are turned off by excessive use of male pronouns.
Again, soft warning.
I'd be surprised if there were a single thread in Astrid's Parlor in which someone didn't at some point make a generalization of one gender.
And you see this as a good thing?
They could also suggest that people say things like "Some women find this artwork offensive."
It's still stereotyping.
Or they could issue a soft warning, telling people that they should use "I" statements, like "I find this art offensive." They could also suggest that people say things like "Some women find this artwork offensive."
Some men are better drivers than women.
Some men are stronger than women.
Some women are better nurterers than men.
Frankly, Dove, I think this idea is ridiculous. You can't end a stereotype by ignoring it; you only end it by discussing it with other rational people while paying no attention to the Neanderthals who refuse to even discuss the matter.
Or they could issue a soft warning, telling people that they should use "I" statements, like "I find this art offensive." They could also suggest that people say things like "Some women find this artwork offensive."
So, you're seriously suggesting that a statement that would be unacceptable would suddenly made acceptable by the addition of a one-word rider?
Sorry, but that just sounds a little silly to me.
It's still stereotyping.
It is not stereotyping. Some women don't like the artwork. Just like some women are champion pogo stick jumpers. The word 'some' does not, in any way, imply 'all.'
It is not stereotyping. Some women don't like the artwork. Just like some women are champion pogo stick jumpers. The word 'some' does not, in any way, imply 'all.'
So, to use your own bit earlier on, there is absolutely nothing offensive by saying "Some black people are ignorant, lazy, good for nothings" or "Some jews are money horders that steal babies"?
I'm pretty sure statements like those are going to be deemed unnacceptable regardless of what qualifiers you put on them.
Frankly, Dove, I think this idea is ridiculous. You can't end a stereotype by ignoring it; you only end it by discussing it with other rational people while paying no attention to the Neanderthals who refuse to even discuss the matter.
And I would say that you can't end hate speech by ignoring it either, and that you only end it by discussing it with other rational people. Yet, for some reason, everyone thinks it's okay to ban discussions of Jack Chick, which is an example of hate speech, but doesn't think it's okay to ban discussions of stereotypes about gendered behavior.
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of rational discussions, how is responding to offensive, and sexist remarks, with equally offensive, and sexist remarks in any way rational?
Honestly, you think I sound ridiculous? Take a moment to consider what you're saying.
Yet, for some reason, everyone thinks it's okay to ban discussions of Jack Chick, which is an example of hate speech, but doesn't think it's okay to ban discussions of stereotypes about gendered behavior.
I would, actually, very much prefer to shine a very bright spotlight on Jackie Boy and let the whole world see what a nut job he is.
They could also suggest that people say things like "Some women find this artwork offensive."
In which case it's a lot more complex than the ban on katanas or Jack Chick. Now it's not merely discussing gender differences but discussing gender differences using blanket statements. Again, that's going to rely on subjective determinations.
Moreover, you're just creating a "magic talisman" which won't change the issues in the forum -- it will just teach people to write the word "Some" and write the same disruptive posts.
And you see this [every threa din Astrid's suffering this issue] as a good thing?
I see it as an inevitable thing because any rule designed to address it would either be ineffective or would cause every thread in Astrid's to get locked.
So, to use your own bit earlier on, there is absolutely nothing offensive by saying "Some black people are ignorant, lazy, good for nothings" or "Some jews are money horders that steal babies"?
I'm pretty sure statements like those are going to be deemed unnacceptable regardless of what qualifiers you put on them.
Look, if you think the 'some' qualifier suggestion is dumb, then that's fine. However, nobody's questioning the idea of using "I" qualifiers instead when talking about likes and dislikes, so it sounds to me like people are nitpicking rather than really taking a moment to consider my suggestion seriously.
And by the way, not for nothing, but I think it would be helpful if we stopped talking about the moderators as if they're stupid, robotic automatons that only respond to issues according to a very rigid set of programming rules. The moderators respond to a lot of issues that are a lot more nebulous and difficult to define than the issues that I'm describing. For example, do you really think that a moderator would look at either of the two statements that you just made and say, "Oh yeah, that's fine, because the person used the word 'some' as a qualifier?" Conversely, do you think they'd come down hard on someone who started a thread about 101 Ways to Determine if You Play Too Much D&D, because it stereotypes D&D players? The answer is they wouldn't, because they're capable of recognizing the subtle differences that make your two examples unacceptable, and my example as a fun, lighthearted thread that isn't going to offend anyone. Therefore, rather than trying to nitpick my suggestions because they can't respond to every single, unrealistic, hypothetical scenario that people can come up with, can we please look at these suggestions more as general guidelines and not as rigid, foolproof rules that can account for every single situation under the sun?
However, nobody's questioning the idea of ....
Now, now ... no need to stereotype. :P
However, nobody's questioning the idea of using "I" qualifiers instead when talking about likes and dislikes
And nobody (except you) is suggesting a blanket ban on generalizations, so why should we?
And by the way, not for nothing, but I think it would be helpful if we stopped talking about the moderators as if they're stupid, robotic automatons that only respond to issues according to a very rigid set of programming rules.
Nobody is. We're discussing making a blanket ban akin to the Jack Chick and katana bans (and the temporary ban on alignment articles in Regdar's). Banning a thread is serious business and it is imperative that such threads be done uniformly with minimal disparity of enforcement among the WizOs. Moreover, the rules have to be crystal clear for the forum members, since they have to be able to easily discern when they are violating a ban. Grey areas are anathema to that.
If the standard you employ is going to rely on a lot of subjective determinations, then the ban is worthless. People won't know when they post something if they might get the thread closed because there's no bright line to avoid. Everything becomes a crap shoot. That's not a rule that engenders frank and friendly discussion.
Bans have only ever been employed when the rules are very crystal clear and for good reason. Don't mention "Jack Chick". Don't mention "katana". Don't submit an article about "alignment". Easy to apply. Easy to comply.
"Don't make unfair general comparisons of genders"? Absurdly vague. Impossible to apply evenly. Impossible to know if your post complies.
can we please look at these suggestions more as general guidelines and not as rigid, foolproof rules that can account for every single situation under the sun?
No, we can't, because the penalty you advocate for a breach of the proposed rule is to close the thread, which is a severe action. It is either going to result in Astrid's being shut down altogether, because lots of people are innocently going to make posts that cause each thread to get banned, or it's going to drive people out of the forum because people won't want to post comments for fear of having their posts cause a thread to be closed.
I find it helpful simply to add something the long the lines of, "What I'm about to say might be controversial and I don't mean it to be offensive but I'd like to discuss research that suggests..." or something along that lines. I think if you mentioned what the intent of your discussion is upfront it defuses the ire of people who may think you're intentionally being offensive.
On the other hand if you ARE intentionally being offensive, well, what can I do?
*All* of the suggestions are supported with examples that have nothing to do with D&D or gaming in the first place.
If the examples are real -- actual threads in Astrids -- the threads do need locked because they are off topic for the Board, not because they are potentially offensive.
DoveArrow, can you provide "offensive examples" of threads related to women in gaming that would serve as demonstrations of how a relevant topic is offensive?
DoveArrow, can you provide "offensive examples" of threads related to women in gaming that would serve as demonstrations of how a relevant topic is offensive?
I can, but I am afraid that if I listed them, it would appear that I'm targeting specific people, which I'm not. However, I see at least four right now on the front page that I think are examples of the kinds of threads I'm talking about. I think a brief glance at the titles of some of them will also indicate which ones I'm referring to.
Female Gamers and Jealousy I guess might fit the theme. maybe.
Women Don't Want Feminist Games: Vampire et al sure seems to fit the theme. So that's one that clearly does.
Male and Female Gamer Stereotypes sure seems like a candidate. Let's make that two clear ones.
I see several others that might end up getting into the world of stereotypes. But they don't scream stereotype discussions to me.
*shrug*
I took a quick glance at some of the topics (I only looked at the first page for the record)...I didn't see anything there that blew me away as patently offensive. I'm guessing you might be referring to some that select out one gender or another (i.e. "Female gamers and jealousy"?). I think one could rightly say that such points are *not* limited to one gender or another (you could reasonably argue that male gamers would become just as jealous as females if their gf gamer were rping romantic relations with another male gamer). I think these kinds of things are best handled within the thread though, rather than banning the thread.
I think too that what's "offensive" could be quite subjective. If we start banning anything that could be offensive to *anybody* I think the result ultimately will be a severe restriction in free speech. Even if it might be "guerilla tactics"...if some posters succeed in banning "gender differences" from the board...other angry posters are going to start claiming that any discussions of feminism, female experiences in D&D, etc...are "offensive" to them...and the result will be closing down the board altogether. That's just one reason I think we have to be very careful when advocating any form of "censorship".
Best,
Av
I understand that you're trying to eliminate trolling and other bad behaviour, but it seems counter-intuitive to try to eliminate discussion that very well could be valid. I think it would be more productive to try creating something like a guide on how to avoid stereotypes in posts, then see about getting it stickied.