Because [insert high percentage here] of D&D gamers are guys and WOTC wants to get more women playing?
And? Are you implying that having a male version of Astrid's would drive female gamers away? I'm not trying to get rid of Astrid's, I think it's a good idea. But where's the equality? Feminism is about equality. Women get a special place, men should get a special place too.
Once you've established that we need to reach out to more than just women, there's the possibility of opening a floodgate for all minority and social groups clamboring for their own board, which will clutter up the boards and segregate everybody to their own little corner.
So: Diversity and gaming section please. GZ?
I'm sure this has been bought up before but: why isn't there a male version of Astrid's?
What type of discussions would take place there?
If by "take the issues seriously" you mean "agree with my assumptions and political stance and will move from there" then you're absolutely right. Happy discussion!
However, having a Male Board would be like having Children's Day in addition to Mother's Day and Father's Day-- every day is "Children's day"-- we get days (and boards) to celebrate/ discuss the minority and the uncelebrated.
I'd actually love to see it be even more than gender; I'd love to see Astrid's become a "Diversity in Gaming" forum, where all sorts of issues - gender, race, sexual orientation, etc - can be discussed, in the context of gaming (not just D&D).
I totally agree. I think it's sad that people feel that they have to post threads dealing with being gay and their game in the Mature boards and that those threads are recommended to be moved there... that's a problem- and a huge push that a Diversity in Gaming board would be a good thing.
I'm 100% for equality- not "women get more" mentality in terms of society.
However, having a Male Board would be like having Children's Day in addition to Mother's Day and Father's Day-- every day is "Children's day"-- we get days (and boards) to celebrate/ discuss the minority and the uncelebrated.
That's an inappropriate use of the word "minority", Autumn. Even white males are a minority. We may have the most significant plurality (i.e. "the largest minority"), but we have nowhere near a "majority" (as in, more than 50%). As far s the whole "every board is my board" mentality... why do women not feel that they have a safe haven on every other board? Instead of asking for another board for yet another group, shouldn't we be asking how we are contributing to the division in the first place?
One last thing, I have no problem with Astrid's. Now that I've posted there several times, I realize that it isn't some women's club. I would like to see it renamed "Diversity In Gaming" so as to represent a more holistic mentality, though, since it seems divisive as it's represented. In other words, why is "Women In Gaming" more important than "Latinos In Gaming" or "Asians In Gaming"? Come to think of it, I've had more trouble convincing Latinos to try out D&D than women...
I don't care if WotC tries to adapt their marketing stratgy to get women's attention. I hate the idea of a female only sub-forum (which from the looks of this thread, Astrids is not). I hate when people try to create a double standard to favor a certain race or sex unless it is needed. But most of all, I hate when people lie or ignore the real facts in order to do it.
As other people have noted, Astrid's is not a female-only forum. Many men do post there.
However, I don't think that having, say, an Asian Student Union on a college campus is racist, or is the same thing as enforced segregation where asians sit in the back of the bus or whatever. Similarly, I don't have a problem with having a men-only bachelor party, or having a men's movement retreat that is men only. Those are not sexist unless there are unequal real-world resources or perks that come from them. (i.e. For example, if crucial business deals were set up at such gatherings.)
As such, if there is sufficient interest for a men's issues forum, I think it should be considered. So the question is: If there were a forum on men's
issues, would you post there? I think I would.
There is no logical reason why we couldn't have a forum devoted to talking about men in D&D, which would also allow anyone to participate. Suspect we'd find low demand, though, on "what's the point?" grounds.
The elephant in the room, which connects to the idea behind Astrid's Parlor, would be a forum devoted to extending D&D beyond its stereotype as a pure geek pursuit. Problem is, the stereotype is often accurate, and the issues raised would be more explosive than one of Astrid's fireballs.
As other people have noted, Astrid's is not a female-only forum. Many men do post there.
However, I don't think that having, say, an Asian Student Union on a college campus is racist, or is the same thing as enforced segregation where asians sit in the back of the bus or whatever. Similarly, I don't have a problem with having a men-only bachelor party, or having a men's movement retreat that is men only. Those are not sexist unless there are unequal real-world resources or perks that come from them. (i.e. For example, if crucial business deals were set up at such gatherings.)
As such, if there is sufficient interest for a men's issues forum, I think it should be considered. So the question is: If there were a forum on men's
issues, would you post there? I think I would.
From this thread, it's clear there's a lot of support for a Diversity in Gaming board. I think it's fair to say we have legitimate beef.
However I have played first edition and one of the major gripes I did have with it was that all female characters were significantly weaker (as in at some points a +4 to damage, +2 to hit weaker) than a male counterpart with no ingame benefit to playing a girl (I still played them but it meant I very rarely played a fighting class because frankly in first ed if you weren't a male human you did get screwed over), I'd have prefered something either a dex benefit (your more flexible without all that bulky muscle) or a social one your better at talking and dealing with people something anyway.
EDIT
Forgot to type this just add it to the above sentence.
than the lack of icons leading to gendered classes in 4th ed.
I agree I was just saying that I was more bothred by the fact (in 1st ed) girls got a penalty in the core rulebook with no real corresponding benefit (for all races) beyond a "Well you aren't affected by nymphs" roleplaying type thing.
Wait, doesn't that make gay men the ultimate adventurers?
Anyway, it's been pointed out that being lighter gives female characters a slight advantage in 3.5 (as well as the female-specific PrCs - there's only one male-only PrC and I think you also have to be evil to take it)
As such, if there is sufficient interest for a men's issues forum, I think it should be considered. So the question is: If there were a forum on men's issues, would you post there? I think I would.
From this thread, it's clear there's a lot of support for a Diversity in Gaming board. I think it's fair to say we have legitimate beef.
A few people posting on a complaint thread isn't sufficient to sustain a forum.
I already agree that in principle a men's issues forum would be a legitimate and equal counterpart to Astrid's Parlor. My question is whether you would actually post regularly about men's issues with regards to D&D.
Considering that men are the majority and are VERY vocal at times.....
Masculinism, beware of it.
Women are a majority on earth and can be VERY vocal about it.
Feminism, beware of it.
I'm 100% for equality- not "women get more" mentality in terms of society.
However, having a Male Board would be like having Children's Day in addition to Mother's Day and Father's Day-- every day is "Children's day"-- we get days (and boards) to celebrate/ discuss the minority and the uncelebrated.
For the record, I agree with the concept of a "Diversity in Gaming" board. I just wanted to comment on this post.
In Korea, Children's Day is an official holiday. Families go to parks and enjoy picnics and carnival rides. It's a good time.
I agree with making Astrid's for all genders/diversities in gaming.
Women are a majority on earth and can be VERY vocal about it.
Feminism, beware of it.
See... Masculinism is frequently much a reaction aimed at percieved 'excesses' of feminism and 'unjust treatement' of men (and at worst.... It fall much into anti-feminism diatribe).
It's pretty much boiling down to 'the society is against males!', from all I see.
See... Masculinism is frequently much a reaction aimed at percieved 'excesses' of feminism and 'unjust treatement' of men (and at worst.... It fall much into anti-feminism diatribe).
It's pretty much boiling down to 'the society is against males!', from all I see.
Just to let you know, this post shows how little you know about it and how close-minded you are towards it and sexist issues as a whole.
Just to let you know, this post shows how little you know about it and how close-minded you are towards it and sexist issues as a whole.
Masculinism is a la mode here in Quebec. Fathers for Justice and all that.
It *is* like that. I'm neitheir a girl nor a feminism, but the things that you hear... eh.
Masculinism is a la mode here in Quebec. Fathers for Justice and all that.
It *is* like that. I'm neitheir a girl nor a feminism, but the things that you hear... eh.
Fathers for Justice is a group for father's rights, partially masculinism, but it wouldn't be a representation for all, just as any singular feminist organization doesn't represent all.
It *isn't* like that.
Masculism, however, is not merely a response to feminism. There are many issues, such as military conscription and fatherhood, that are regarded by proponents as concerns for men in their own right.
It's pretty much boiling down to 'the society is against males!', from all I see.
That is different than 'society is against females!'
?
See... Masculinism is frequently much a reaction aimed at percieved 'excesses' of feminism and 'unjust treatement' of men (and at worst.... It fall much into anti-feminism diatribe).
It's pretty much boiling down to 'the society is against males!', from all I see.
I'm heavily involved in grassroots masculism here in my local area, and let me just say that from my perspective, masculism is not about taking away women's rights or reacting to feminism in any way. Many of the organizations I work with are feminist organizations. This is because the end result of both masculism and feminism is the achievement of gender equality. We simply use different means to achieve this end. Much of what has occured in the feminist movement is very positive. I don't think that anyone in the masculist movement could rationally argue that women shouldn't be in the workplace, for example. Some of what has occured, though, in an attempt to close the gender gap has actually made the problem worse. Sexism hurts everyone, men and women. Masculism isn't about making the wall between the genders more male-friendly, it's about tearing the wall down.
Gay/lesbian/bi issues belong in the mature forum, not a diversity forum.
The reason for this is simple and not at all homophobic.
Sexuality is a mature topic. Everyone has a gender/race and we can discuss issues in an open forum. Sexuality, however, belongs in a closed forum (not in my opinion, but that's the CoC). Hetero- and Hom o- and A- sexuality all belong in a separate place from more . . . "child-friendly" topics like sexism and racism.
I know that sounds silly, but it's true.
A diversity forum would be limited to issues of gender and race and I guess social class and possibly religion, while sex is still taboo and put in the mature forums for those who can legally have sex.
I would actually say religious discussion should be mature as well.
Also, worrying about gender pronouns is stupid and the argument reminds me of the Life of Brian scene where the guy (or girl) keeps correcting his (or her) superior when he's (or she's) trying to say something about rights.
It isn't hard to write gender neutral, just switch class descriptions to plural, because in truth all classes are plural. The class description describes all members of said class, not just one. Any gendered pronoun, regardless of interchangability would be incorrect.
So instead of :
A wizard casts spells. He/She does this by throwing stuff at people and imagining they're made of fire.
Wizards cast spells. They do this by throwing stuff at people and imagining they're made of fire.
VIOLA. Quit crying like little girls (or boys).
So to sum up.
For:
Gender neutral descriptive text through avoiding all gender in the book (I'd also like at least 2 illustrations per class, one of each gender and hopefully of various races).
Diversity forum (for gender/race/class).
Against:
Sexuality and religion being discussed outside of Mature Forums.
A wizard casts spells. He/She does this by throwing stuff at people and imagining they're made of fire.
Wizards cast spells. They do this by throwing stuff at people and imagining they're made of fire.
Except that using "they" to refer to singular beings is improper grammar.
VIOLA. Quit crying like little girls (or boys).
There's no reason to be blatantly inflammatory.
Except that using "they" to refer to singular beings is improper grammar.
EvilVegan used the plural. Look at his quote again.
Wizards cast spells. They do this by throwing stuff at people and imagining they're made of fire.
Sexuality is a mature topic. Everyone has a gender/race and we can discuss issues in an open forum. Sexuality, however, belongs in a closed forum (not in my opinion, but that's the CoC). Hetero- and Hom o- and A- sexuality all belong in a separate place from more . . . "child-friendly" topics like sexism and racism.
I know that sounds silly, but it's true.
There's a huge difference between sexuality and the physical act of sex. Even G-rated kids movies frequently have blatant sexuality in them -- i.e. two people will often fall in love, kiss, and get married. I'd say that things that regularly appear in G-rated movies should be considered "child-friendly".
EvilVegan used the plural. Look at his quote again.
Ahh. My mistake. Thank you Zherog.
Part of his post was still blatantly inflammatory, though.
Gender in gaming more generally is also a worthy topic, but the topic implies a more meta concern about the interaction between gaming and society, and the ways in which gaming can reinforce, subvert, or otherwise influence its players and vice versa. It is also a more 'gender neutral' topic name then 'women in gaming', even if many of the discussions would still center on female gamers, just as most of the random threads on the topic that popped up before Astrid's existed did.
However, it's not exactly the same topic as the one Wizard's originally wanted, even if a lot of that original topic could be rolled into it.
Diversity in Gaming is also a worthy topic, and 'Gender in Gaming' could be rolled into it, and it could expand the scope of that into a wider societal view. Lest you think that people don't want to discuss things like (real world) race in gaming, those discussions are out there.
In fact, way back in the early days of Astrid's, back when it was a thread and not a forum, I at one point got into a discussion of that very topic that ate up like two pages. Sadly, those posts were eventually deleted for being off topic (and rightly so, I suppose, since Astrid's was a single thread and thus the we were drowning out the original topic). This discussion, though, was extremely reasonable and rational and interesting, not at all the flame-fest one might expect, and I would love to see that kind of discussion on these boards again. A Diversity in D&D forum would be a nice, if token, show of social conciousness on Wizard's part. And there's no reason to restrict it to the RPG or 4e boards. A gleemax forum on 'Diversity in Gaming' would be a nice show.
And from a business standpoint - At least in the US racial minorities are also largely underrepresented in the D&D community, and as such it could serve the same kind of business sense as Astrids.
But. Again. Such wouldn't be the kind of thing Wizards was going for with Astrids, and it is their forum, and even as intended, Astrids still covers a topic worth discussing, so I'm not going to complain about its existance.
That said, The Iris Network has already been linked, and deserves to be linked again. It's not as busy as the Wizards boards, but it is specifically set up for such discussions by people who want to engage in them, and WotC staff have occassionally been spotted there.
That said, The Iris Network has already been linked, and deserves to be linked again. It's not as busy as the Wizards boards, but it is specifically set up for such discussions by people who want to engage in them, and WotC staff have occassionally been spotted there.
The people on that forum have made me laugh a lot...and not for the right reasons.
Then start your own forum.
...? Start my own forum about laughing at another forum?
Gay/lesbian/bi issues belong in the mature forum, not a diversity forum.
That follows the flawed line of thought that a lot of people have, which can be summed up with "gay = gay sex." The fact is, heterosexual romance is a big part of fantasy games/stories, but LGBT romance is underrepresented, and you don't have to talk about having sex to talk about LGBT issues. A man falling in love with a man or a woman falling in love with a woman should not be considered more risque, and the discussion of their representation is not a topic that would be harmful to children. You can talk about other orientations in public just fine, and it doesn't offend people (at least, where I live), and it shouldn't be different on a forum.
EvilVegan, to address your "they" point: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dinosaur_comics.png
To discuss the main topic at hand...
While the act of giving a place to discuss women seems noble, I personally do not support it in its current state. By giving a single "minority" their own forum (I know, it's not "just theirs," exactly, but it's focused on the discussion of them especially), you are not only showing a disregard for the topic of male issues, but issues of all other "minorities." If you're making a women's forum, I don't see why it wouldn't be fair to also make a forum for ethnic minorities, and one for LGBT minorities, and so on. Fact is, while women (and men) should definitely be able to talk about feminine issues pertaining to D&D, the same could (and should) be said for any other "minority," and none is more deserving than another.
We should not be striving to make subforums for people to group up and talk about individual minorities as if their issues only apply to them. Underrepresentation and stereotyping are widespread and not specific to any group, and as such, I believe, as many in this topic have, that we should change Astrid's to a forum for diversity and social issues for ALL groups and individuals (either that, or allow such discussion to take place in General Forums). We shouldn't only be talking about feminine issues here, and many social issues of feminism also apply to other groups; I see no reason why we can't include all of them in a single subforum.
As a side note: if (I said if because I'm not active enough to know if this happens or not) women (or anyone else) finds that other subforums are uncomfortable, intimidating, or offensive, then using a single subforum as a "safe place" completely fails to attack the issue itself. If there are problems with sexism/racism/etc. in these boards, it is a problem for the entire boards, not just a topic for discussion in one subforum.
If Wizards fails to recognize other minorities and change the womens' forum to a diversity forum, then I'm actually going to have to concede to the "utility" argument; the only reason I could see for keeping it a feminine-issues-only forum would be so that they can get feedback from a specific market they want to tap into, which I would find grossly distasteful.
Wizards, all groups and individuals deserve equal representation, and if you want to talk about a perceived minority, it would be greatly disrespectful to all other groups if you didn't also include them. Make it a complete diversity forum or make it a general topic.
I agree I was just saying that I was more bothred by the fact (in 1st ed) girls got a penalty in the core rulebook with no real corresponding benefit (for all races) beyond a "Well you aren't affected by nymphs" roleplaying type thing.
Uhm... what penalty is that? I have all the first edition rulebooks, and I do not recall any kind of stat penalties for female characters. There was a strength limitation, but few characters (male or female) reached that limit anyways.
On to the topic, I myself would be hesitant about visiting a 'male issues' forum, due to the shudder-inducing topics that would no doubt crop up there. However, I do appreciate Alyss stating that she wants equality for men as well as for women.
shudder-inducing topics...
Just what sort of topics are you imagining?
Here are some that I would bring up in such a forum:
The morality of a male-only draft according to D&D alignment.
Males portrayed as rapists/murderers in popular fantasy.
The stereotype of the "stinky, overweight grognard" in gaming culture.
Anything else of that nature, really.
...? Start my own forum about laughing at another forum?
I perhaps missintreted you previous statment to mean "I would like to discuss those topics, but I don't want to discuss them on those boards because I don't appreciate the discussions that go on there or the way in which they are conducted", and responded with a statement meant to convery "these are big internets, I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find a place to discuss these issues in a manner you find productive, and even if you can't find one, you could create one".
I apologize missinterpreting, and for failing to convey my intended message.
Uhm... what penalty is that? I have all the first edition rulebooks, and I do not recall any kind of stat penalties for female characters. There was a strength limitation, but few characters (male or female) reached that limit anyways.
Sorry didn't mean a "penalty" penalty i.e. -2 to stat x just the general impression first edition gives that if your not playing a male, human your going to lose out. Such as exceptional strength 18-18/00 jumping the to hit/damage bonus from a +1/+1 to a +3/+6 even though 90% of the races including a half-orc who get a strength bonus being unable to reach that high a strength score or the level limits being typically in a 6-11 range for demi-humans.
If you want to play an elven fighter (since multi-classes can't specialize in a weapon and even when you hit the level limt you need to put XP in it slowing your multi-class progression in the 1-2 classes you can still get better in) better enjoy that infravision and other benefits because you'll still be 6th level when the humans a 14th level one.
Wait, doesn't that make gay men the ultimate adventurers?
I think this is the very problem with having a gender related forum at all, because it is not just a matter of gender, but sexuality and sexual preference as well. Things like that should probably belong on a (im)mature forum where it can be filtered away from discussion about the game itself.
Gender has no real meaning in the game anymore. D&D players are D&D players, and anything outside of playing the game itself should problem belong on another type of forum.
Otherwise you need a specific forum for all out of game related issues not just females who play D&D, but homosexuals, people who don't like to role-play, people who don't like combat, etc/whatever that causes the players problems when sitting down to play with other people. Something like a therapy forum where people can work out their issues because of people who make the game bad experiences for other players.
It is not just limited to females. So either no forum, or a forum for each type of person that is segregated for some reason within the game. When exactly will there be rules for homosexuals within the core of D&D? I doubt it will exist even in the interest of being PC because it isn't really that big of focus with the game to have sex. So since you cannot include that as a part of the game, and cannot really have that as an area of discussion then you do not need a place like Astrid's in the forums.
Everyone should just look at everyone else as another gamer. Any personal issues wiht other players of this nature, need to be taken to a website dedicated to resolving those problems.
And to be more sure that everyone can stay with persons with similar concerns and points of view, we should split these forums into age categories, because who can seriously say that a 13 years old gamer's concerns has any interest for 30 years old and more gamers ?
Later, it would be a bright idea to split all these forums based on the races and sex played by the gamers, who should send their characters sheets (with their DM positive note) and their ID cards to WotC staff to prove who they are and what they play.
And after, we could easily send all the ones who do not respect the boards rules into jail.
I hope that one day, everyone will have his own personal D&D edition and will be able to play with their own clones within isolated bunkers.
Reverse Discrimination, of course.
Just discrimination. Otherwise it would be easy to refute.
Just discrimination. Otherwise it would be easy to refute.
Fair enough. The whole 'reverse' part of it is just a misnomer anyway. The key word there is discrimination.