It’s a pretty well-established fact that role-playing games aren’t exactly popular with women, and neither are the related nerdy activities of computer gaming or board gaming. Recent studies suggest that about 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 MMO players is female. That’s a better ratio than at my kickboxing club, where it’s about 1 in 20 – and that’s in rural Japan, supposedly a sexist society. I’d guess it’s a better male-female ratio than exists in NZ or Australian amateur rugby. However, I’d suggest that the rate of women in role-playing clubs I’ve been a member of has been lower than 1 in 20, on average, and most people who game are pretty aware that the number of women who come to the game is low. For example, the club I went to in London had at most 2 women in a room of maybe 40 men (this happened once!) and I think one of them was a friend of a player and not playing herself.
I suppose also I’ve been led to think about this as well by the controversy over “I Hit it with my Axe,” in which the response to a video of a group of women gaming was really sexist, including such fine sexist tropes as commenting first (or only) on their appearance, setting higher standards of required intellect or knowledge than equivalent male gamers, and judging them on their sexual behaviour (they’re porn stars, so their out-of-game sexual activity became an important part of the controversy). I don’t think many of the people commenting at the Escapist website, or in the other websites during the aftermath, ever stopped to think about whether the women playing might object to being called ugly, or being held to a higher standard of appearance than male gamers, or having their playing style judged, or whether the extent to which this was being done was greater than perhaps might be done for a group of men.
The hobby generally also has a pretty serious set of markers indicating that women aren’t welcome, and although women who game might not care about, or might even appreciate, some of these markers, the fact remains that things like bikini-clad babes, novels with only male protagonists, obligatory skimpy clothing on women, and default mediaeval worlds with default gender relations all serve to tell women “this is a man’s world,” just like the nude calendar hanging in the workshop tells a woman it’s a man’s space, even if she happens herself to appreciate it aesthetically.
So there’s a natural barrier to women’s inclusion in the hobby. Having seen these markers in game stores and computer games and online, the woman who wants to game is going to turn up to a group or a club and walk into a room that is maybe 90-95% male, mostly men who don’t have a great deal of success with women, she’s going to be stared at and ogled (this happens in every public rpg setting I’ve ever seen), and then she’s going to have to come to terms with a complex set of rules. She’s going to have to enact those rules in a social setting characterised by multiple people talking over and past each other, a kind of environment where women are much more likely to be interrupted or overruled by men, and all the while she’s going to be subject to (and probably aware of) a set of judgements and expectations which are probably not the same for her[1] as they would be for a new male player joining. And, inevitably, someone’s going to hit on her at some point, and some other guy who’s not very good with women is going to stare and pander to her too much and make her uncomfortable.
So how did this come about, and is there anything that can be done about it? I think it’s partly an accident of history, in that when the hobby started in the 70s it developed in a very gendered section of nerd culture. Indeed, I think all of nerd culture in the English-speaking world, not just gaming, started off as very male-dominated, maybe because of its origins in science and tech. In Japan, for example, nerd culture seems to be much more gender-balanced[2], and I think this might be a result of it having grown from different cultural roots (i.e. anime) and being more connected to mainstream pop, as well as quite androgynous sub-cultures like Visual Kei. Anyway, so if the hobby starts in a gender-unbalanced subculture, it’s much harder for women to enter the subculture later because the traditions of the subculture have grown up around its gendered history. But beyond this historical accident, I think there is an element of the fundamental nature of the game – 4 or 5 people sitting around a table talking about a topic – which women have traditionally had difficulty dealing with when the people doing it are mostly men. Men in groups tend to unconsciously overrule, interrupt, ignore and belittle women when they speak, and this makes it difficult for women to stick it out in these groups unless they’re really good at mixing it up with men. But this problem is easily fixed.
When I first started studying at Adelaide University in 1991, the student union produced a pamphlet for all new students explaining about good behaviour in tutorials, and a significant part of that pamphlet was devoted to pointing out to new male students how traditional male tutorial behaviour unconsciously discriminated against and excluded women from participation. It also gave a series of tips on how to avoid this traditional behaviour, most of which started from the standpoint of “you aren’t the centre of the universe, even though you think you are because you’re a 17 year old male.” I actually paid attention to this pamphlet and, in my English classes, I could see pretty clearly what was happening. I could also see that some tutors had taken the issue seriously, and would work to make sure that people got an equal chance to speak, and that women didn’t get overruled or ignored. This isn’t necessary for women who speak easily and loudly, but for a lot of women and some men it is.
It’s also easy for men to form subtle, quick alliances against women without even realising it. For example, one of my friends (female) in a tutorial some years back witnessed the following conversation (in a class not oriented around women’s studies):
- Female Student A: “That’s because of the patriarchy”
- Male Student B: “You mean like a kind of conspiracy of men? That’s crazy.”
- Tutor, to male students in the room: “Hey lads, don’t forget to meet me after class to discuss the next stage of our conspiracy against women.”
- Male students: general sniggers and “okay”s
In this conversation the tutor rapidly orients his conversation to form a kind of alliance with the other guys against a woman’s idea, and the guys quickly slip into form with him, ignorant of the irony that they’re doing exactly what the girl criticised in order to dismiss her point.
A tutor who had even basic training in how to handle gender issues in class would never, ever have done this: if the girl’s point was stupid (as in this case, I seem to recall, it actually was) he would have found a way to point this out to her without making her feel small and excluded. Feeling small and excluded is not an issue when you’re not in a minority, but if you’re the only person in the room from a particular group, and the means of exclusion is clearly related to your membership of that group, you’ll get the message pretty fast – that you aren’t welcome.
I don’t think that these kinds of interaction problems can be solved by women by themselves. They need the engagement and support of men, or the only solution will be for women to play in separate groups, which is okay I suppose but not, in my view, ideal. I don’t believe that women need different games to men, or even a different gaming environment[3] – they just need men to apply the same standards to them as they do to each other. The games themselves are not naturally inimical to women’s tastes or desires, but they’re difficult for women to enter when the natural, unmonitored social environment in which they occur is inimical to women’s interests.
Role-playing actually comes with a built-in stabiliser to solve a lot of these problems – the DM. It’s the DM’s responsibility to make sure all players are heard, all players get a chance to put their ideas, and all players get equal consideration. If a DM sees some of these things happening in his or her campaign – women being talked over [seen it!], women being talked down to [seen it!], women being told what to do [seen it!], men getting credit for women’s ideas [seen it!] – to a woman in the group more often than the men, then the DM can step in to try and reverse this problem, for example by getting the woman to repeat what she said, or pointing out to everyone that that idea was actually Kate’s, not Bob’s as they’re saying. The DM, removed from the cut and thrust of player interaction, is ideally placed to do this. And not just for women either – shy and new players often need a lot of this sort of help. The problem for women is that sometimes these patterns persist long after they’ve got used to the game and the players, and they happen in a gendered way – i.e. more to the woman than to the other players.
As a concrete example, players often compliment the originator of a good idea after it works out. The Ogres are a steaming pile of corpses, the treasure is in hand, and no-one’s hurt, so the player who suggested using the strap-a-mine-to-a-dog approach gets thanked. But I’ve seen campaigns where, if the idea was the woman’s, nothing would be said. Only men got credit for good ideas. It’s like all the male players had just subtly wiped her from a small part of their in-game manners. So, as DM, it was easy for me to point out to the players whose idea it was and how well it worked, at which point they’d all naturally chime in with thanks and accolades, because they didn’t deliberately intend to exclude her – it just happened that way[4]. So I’ve brought her gaming experience up to par with theirs, without any confrontation or awkwardness.
It doesn’t take much effort for a DM to do this, and to remain aware both of a general responsibility to ensure all players get equal consideration, but to be particularly aware of ways in which women are being treated differently and to redress them[5]. If we all do this, then one of the main barriers to women’s participation – a quite confrontational social environment full of loud men – will be overcome without necessarily even making much effort or changing it much, and they’ll stick around longer, which will make it easier for other women to game. And then the other barriers – the social markers indicating it as a male-only space, the farting, the Body Odour, and the highly sexist bulk-standard mediaeval environments – will fall as well. And in my opinion, that makes the game better for everyone.
I suppose, in conclusion: role-playing is a social activity, and when discrimination happens in social activities, it can only be fixed by people working together, not by the victims bearing up under it and trying to break through. I know a lot of role-players seem to come from a libertarian or quite individualistic perspective (possibly partly driven by their experience of “membership” at high school, which tended to work against us when we were the nerdy outsiders), and the idea of consciously looking at the way your social organisations work is anathema to them, but in this case, if having more women in the gaming world is of interest to us, we have to recognise that it won’t necessarily happen organically. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to work to subtly reorganise those social relations to make it easier for women to join. The presence of the DM makes this social reorganisation easy and hassle-free, if the DM is willing to do a very small amount of work to fix the problem, until the players work out how to change their behaviour themselves, and the problem goes away.
—
fn1: This is classic “entry” behaviour, as characterised in the old joke that women have to work twice as hard as men to get half the recognition – this is what happened when women first started entering male-dominated workplaces.
fn2: Even the word for nerd in Japanese, Otaku, stems from a polite form of “you” traditionally used by middle-aged women and also adopted by nerdy guys to refer to each other. Or so I’m told.
fn3: Though I think there’s lots of space for this too
fn4: This is an important point here, which gets missed a lot in gender debates. A lot of the stuff men do to exclude women is not done deliberately, and they would stop doing it as soon as they found out they were. This was the central point of the pamphlet I read way back when, and it means that these social elements of the game are the easiest to fix, even though they’re the subtlest, especially if you have a neutral observer – like a tutor or DM – to check them and make them change.
fn5: I’ve seen other ways too, such as when my German player was getting very uncomfortable at the implication that the group he was in was going to commit genocide, and I had to step in to try and guide them down a different path – it’s not like he was generally squeamish, but there are some things that a German is not comfortable with and the game is meant to be fun.
—
Update: Sysuro in comments has pointed out an error in my original post, based on a misreading (perhaps) of a table in a study (which I discussed previously here). I’ve updated the first paragraph to represent this. The discussion of the error is in the comments.
March 27, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Thank you very much for writing this. I will certainly attempt to be more aware of the situation. My personal group is 50% women, and I want very much for the environment to not seem exclusive (for example, by setting up the group to be 50% women…). All of this information helps.
Right now, all of the group are new to gaming, or at least the current edition of the game, so everyone is being polite and waiting their turn while in the learning stage. I’ll have to watch to see if things change once the “rules” are more internalized and the real playing begins. I suspect I’m a little lucky, though. Most of the players I selected for my group are quiet and polite naturally (even the men), so if they get out of hand, gentle correction should be enough.
March 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
Awesome post
March 28, 2010 at 10:18 am
I confused.
Your conclusion: “This study suggests that amongst high-roleplaying MMO gamers, about 1 in 350 players is female”
I believe this conclusion is not supported by the study (or by any of several other studies).
Unless I am missing something, studies show that woman make up a significant proportion of those who play in online RPGs. A minority, yes. But a sizeable minority.
From that study:
“Compared to the low RP groups, high role players tend to be slightly younger, have a higher percentage of females,…”
“The survey data showed that role players skewed much more female and younger than the general population.”
More precisely – Table 2 appears to show that the high RP group was 25% female (compared to 17% female and 21% female for the low and medium RP groups).
So where did you find the number of 1 in 350?
Or am I misreading something?
Carl
March 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
Also note:
“According to a new study, women make up 40% of the population of EverQuest II.”
http://www.gossipgamers.com/everquest-ii-where-girl-gamers-go-to-avoid-testosterone/
“When it comes to online role playing games, women spent more time playing than men, according to a University of Southern California study of gender differences among gamers. Among those who played EverQuest II, a game developed by Sony Online Entertainment, women spent 29 hours a week in the game, compared with 25 hours for men.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/12/women-play-harder-than-men-in-online-games.html
Carl
March 28, 2010 at 11:03 am
ah! I’m not sure if you’re right! I got the percentage of women from table 2, which gives it as “0.25”; table 3 gives percentages as, for example, 30.43%, so I’ve assumed that the figure in table 2 says “0.25%”, which would be 1 in 400 (I think I calculated that it had to be a single woman, with rounding, based on the numbers given somewhere else). I raised these small numbers at the site where I found the study and the author didn’t dispute them. The figures aren’t stated anywhere in the text so I can’t compare. The phrase “skew mroe female than the general population” is true whether the percent is 0.25 or 0.21.
But the tables are inconsistently formatted so it’s perfectly possible that the 0.25 is in fact 25%, as you say. It would be consistent with the other links you gave, so I’m going to edit it accordingly.
It really is very very poor form to have two completely differently formatted tables in one study. The row heading clearly states “% female,” so that 0.25 should be “0.25%.” If it’s not, that’s shocking! Peer review should have picked up that little error…
(In my defense, in real-life role-playing circles there are so few women that it’s perfectly possible to imagine 1 in 350 as a viable number!)
March 28, 2010 at 11:03 am
that should say “true whether the percentage is 0.25 or 25.”
March 29, 2010 at 10:58 am
One big problem I have had in my game is pronouns. I made a decision early on to use female pronouns whenever possible. Because I want women to feel like the game is designed for them too and male pronouns dominate every damn book I have read.
But what I have noticed is that my decision may have consciously shut off the male pronoun, but I will instinctively put “they’ and other generic pronouns into the text instead. Describing the default/example person as female just isnt natural to me. And I take that as a big indicator that there is really a problem in this department, when someone who is consciously trying to be progressive on this issue is fighting their own socialization to tilt towards males.
March 29, 2010 at 10:59 am
Forgot to add:
So my editor gets the task of pointing out to me on page after page after page; “hey, you are using generic pronouns here”. Poor bastard.
March 29, 2010 at 11:12 am
a lot of people feel uncomfortable with the generic pronoun because it reads a bit ugly. But I think it’s fine. I recall Ars Magica used a different gender in each chapter, which is kind of cool. I tend to slip into the use of “he” a lot but I try not to.
April 2, 2010 at 10:40 am
[…] I think is worth reading. I don’t always agree with the author, faustusnotes, but I know a good article when I see one. I recommend you go read it (when you’re done reading this […]
April 8, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Eh, I don’t care much whether women are at the table or not. Just like how I’m happy to watch or play sports without women around, I’m happy to game that way too.
I think this whole insecurity about the lack of female gamers is precisely that – an insecurity. Girls in general don’t play games that have rules as much as boys do, especially in adulthood, and I don’t know why we have to be terrified at the prospect that this might be true.
April 9, 2010 at 8:18 am
Your statement in italics is just not true, Noisms. It’s a feminist fabrication from the 70s. Girls play rules-bound games just as much as boys. Look at young girls playing those hand-slapping games, women playing softball or (worst of all) netball, card games, etc. The reason that girls don’t play some rules-bound games is that the games are a male domain that they don’t want to enter. Consider, for example, fencing (lots of silly rules) vs. boxing (a very few rules). There are a lot more girls fencing than boxing. Why?
I haven’t posited this post as an insecurity and I don’t think it is on my part or anyone else’s. It’s just a small part of the desire to make the gaming world open to everyone. It’s certainly not something anyone has to support or be interested in, but it’s not an insecurity.
April 9, 2010 at 6:09 pm
There are a lot more girls fencing than boxing. Why?
I’ll tell you why: Boxing is all about toughness and upper body strength, two things which most women don’t develop and don’t have a wish to develop (of course there are exceptions). Then there’s the sociological explanation – fencing is a rich person’s sport and perfectly accessible to the idle rich of both sexes; boxing is a working class sport which provides young jobless men, but not women, with a chance at getting out of the ghetto. Rules have nothing to do with it.
Your citations of softball and netball are also pretty dubious. I never said that no girls ever play any sports. But compare statistics for sporting participation in men and women and I’m sure you’ll get my drift.
Also, I can’t believe you’ve never played a card or board game with a group of women before and not got into an argument because they want to override a rule in the name of some daft reason or other and you don’t agree!
April 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm
So you admit that culture is an important influence on why girls play games. Obviously upper body strength and toughness are an issue, but riddle me this: why is kickboxing more popular with women than boxing? And why are the martial arts in Japan so popular with women? Because the culture is different, and so they can participate.
I raised the examples of softball and netball because they’re very popular with women (and netball is very unpopular with men). Why is netball unpopular with men? Because it’s a chicks game, so men don’t want to enter the world. Sound familiar? I also raised the issue of netball because it is the most rules-bound of any ball sport, and yet it’s a women’s sport. Also hockey, which is much more rules-heavy than soccer, is more gender balanced. Why?
I read a book many years ago called, I think, Little Girls by an Italian sociologist which described the way that girls and boys interact with rules, and the thesis of that book was that women are constantly enmeshed in rules from an early age, and that rules exist to control women and guide men; that girls internalise these rules and enact them in adult life. Which is why girls schoolyard games are so complex and rules-heavy (those hand-slapping games, the skipping-rope games) and you cannot deviate from them. With both of those schoolyard games, deviation from the rules is the definition of failure.
Girls are happy with rules; they’re happy to try and enter rules-light environments (soccer is the fastest-growing women’s sport in Australia), but they’re reticent about entering a sport or activity with a heavily male culture and strong markers of male possession of the field. My partner has an excellent story of being accidentally forced to enter a train-collectors’ convention. She was the only woman there, and the sense of all those men watching her was way more intimidating than the content of the convention. I think we’ve all seen this with role-playing groups, particularly the kinds of clubs where people meet in London, for example.
April 9, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Culture is an important influence on anything, as is biology, so why should games be any different? I’m not sure what your point is here; of course culture is going to influence whether girls play sport or not, but I’m neutral about whether that’s a good or bad thing.
Kickboxing is more popular with women than boxing because a) it mostly revolves around lower body strength and b) it has a keep-fit image. (Biology and culture again.) Again, I’m neutral about whether that’s a good or bad thing – I don’t care whether every woman in the country does it, or none at all.
The argument in Little Girls sounds like typical exceptionalist bullshit. It’s funny how certain differences between men and women are played down while others are accentuated. “Rules exist to control women and guide men” my arse – if anything rules in games exist to prevent young men from committing acts of violence, the very definition of control. I take anything sociologists say with a pinch of salt anyway – it’s probably the single field of academic study where personal politics have completely overshadowed anything approaching a discipline.
I’m not surprised that your partner was intimidated at the train-collectors’ convention; I bet if I had to go to an Anne Summers party with a load of women I’d feel intimidated too. I see this as entirely natural. Of course newcomers to a group shouldn’t be made to feel unwelcome, but the idea that a woman in a room full of men or vice versa won’t feel like the odd one out is bizarre.
April 9, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Kickboxing does not revolve around lower body strength, and is essentially equivalent to boxing in its physical requirements. I should mention here that I’m a kickboxer and have been for 15 years. I’ve done a variety of other martial arts too, and the distinction between the popularity of boxing and kickboxing is remarkably cross-cultural – I’ve seen it in Australia, Japan and the UK. It’s because boxing marks itself out as a male-only sport, while kickboxing doesn’t. They have the same physical and rules-based requirements.
How come claiming rules exist to control women and guide men is “exceptionalist bullshit” but making some kind of half-arsed social darwinist argument like “girls don’t like rules” is not? You started this line of exceptionalism. It’s also pretty rich to be complaining about personal politics overshadowing a discipline while defending a social darwinist line. I note, however, that you are conspicuously avoiding discussing the playground games girls play, where failure to follow the rule to the letter is the definition of losing. Why do you think these girls who are biologically programmed to hate rules love those games?
Also, rules don’t just (or even mainly) exist to prevent young men from committing acts of violence. The single most disputed rule in soccer is… offside! Which has nothing to do with violence and everything to do with making the game functional. Rugby is full of rules, but precisely none of them have any relationship to violence.
I don’t think I’d be intimidated at an anne summers party, unless I had to wear the lingerie.
April 9, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Kickboxing does not revolve around lower body strength
You’re claiming that a sport which involves lots of kicking as opposed to boxing, which involves no kicking at all doesn’t, by comparison, revolve around lower body strength? Well, you’re the expert…
I’ve done a variety of other martial arts too, and the distinction between the popularity of boxing and kickboxing is remarkably cross-cultural – I’ve seen it in Australia, Japan and the UK. It’s because boxing marks itself out as a male-only sport, while kickboxing doesn’t.
Ah ha. I see. So the popularity of boxing and kickboxing isn’t cross-cultural because of a combination of culture and biology, it’s entirely down to culture. Right. And boxing marks itself out as a male-only sport in all those cultures. Right. I wonder why that might be… Couldn’t be anything to do with biology and needing highly developed upper body strength, no, of course not…
Regarding social darwinism, I’m not sure you understand what social darwinism is, otherwise you wouldn’t be accusing me of it. Look it up in an encyclopedia some time, or even wikipedia.
I’m not making an argument from an exceptionalism – I’m treating both sexes the same way: both men and women are to certain, and varying, degrees affected by their biology. No exceptionalism there. Then a sociologist comes along and tells me that “rules” are used to guide men, but on the other hand, no, they don’t guide women, they “control” them. The very basis of that argument is an exceptionalist one.
Why do you think these girls who are biologically programmed to hate rules love those games?
I love how my original position, that “Girls in general don’t play games that have rules as much as boys do, especially in adulthood” has changed into “Girls are biologically programmed to hate rules”. Thanks for clearing up my own opinion for me!
You may have missed these words: IN GENERAL. AS MUCH AS BOYS. IN ADULTHOOD.
Rules don’t just (or even mainly) exist to prevent young men from committing acts of violence
If young men argue about something, especially when they’re fuelled on testosterone from playing a sport, there’s always a danger it will flare up into violence. Thus rules are needed so disputes can be solved peacefully. This is undoubtedly a major reason why complex and strictly enforced rules exist in sports. (I’m not talking about rugby or football or whatever – I’m talking about the distant past when these practices we today call “sports” were developing.)
I don’t think I’d be intimidated at an anne summers party, unless I had to wear the lingerie.
There’s nothing more intimidating than a dozen drunk fortysomething women with their blood up.
April 9, 2010 at 10:55 pm
As it happens I went to kicboxing today, Noisms. I did three 3 minute rounds of pad work – 2 of punching, one of punching and kicking. Then I did 3 three minute rounds of bag work, 1 of kicking, one of punching and kicking, and one of punching only. Then I did sit-ups and push-ups. The thing about both sports is that the primary source of power is the use of body weight, not strength. This is why when you look at a lightweight boxer you’ll see they actually often have scrawny arms and chest. It’s more important to be able to move your bodyweight through your hips than to be strong. Martial arts like karate and tae kwon do do use leg strength for snap kicks, and as a consequence of not using bodyweight in their kicks, they don’t do much kicking to the leg and have under-developed defences against heavy kicks. This is also true of wing chun, where the kicks focus on soft points and the head. The only boxers for whom strength is essential are heavy weights, for whom there is no upper weight limit; they always need to be stronger to deal with people much bigger than themselves. Of course, boxers end up being strong because of the exercise they do; but stamina and good technique are key to the art. If you look at boxers and kickboxers they have almost exactly the same physique because they use the same body movements to deliver weight through the same methods.
It’s also worth noting that women aren’t just weaker in their upper body – they’re weaker in their legs too. They have a higher ratio of fat to muscle all over, so by your “biological” explanation for their aversion to boxing, they would avoid kickboxing too. They don’t, to the same degree. The reason boxing has a male-only culture internationally is that it was inherited internationally from the UK, where it is very old. Kickboxing, on the other hand, developed recently and doesn’t have a history of male dominance (being a new sport). It also needed to grow in competition with other sports like boxing, and the old men of the sport chose to do this through appealing to women.
If you really think that an argument that girls don’t like rules and boys do is not “exceptionalism,” but “rules have different purposes for boys and girls” is, you’re being very silly.
It’s a pretty common belief of some kinds of feminist and some kinds of conservative that women benefit from rules more than men, and need to be careful about straying outside them. How do you square this with your theory? And what reason do you have for women liking rules-oriented activities less than men? Have you ever played with young girls (in the platonic sense!)? They’re real sticklers for rules.
You’re very carefully avoiding the point about netball and girl’s schoolyard games. What is your explanation for the fact that when an alternative to basketball was invented for women, it was invested with fiddly rules? It’s a game for adults, until the development of soccer the most popular women’s game in the commonwealth, and still is more popular than soccer outside of Australia. Surely if they hate rules, some other game would have come to the fore – like, for example, basketball?
As for men and violence – Aussie rules football has no send-off rule, yet it’s got a less violent image than rugby league. How does that work?
April 10, 2010 at 1:08 am
Come on man, read through that first paragraph again. It’s incoherent! You’ve proved you know more about martial arts than me with the infodump; well done. But when you start making statements like lightweight boxers have scrawny arms and chest (I don’t think you mean lightweights, who usually aren’t scrawny by any stretch – you’re probably talking about flyweights and bantamweights, who are scrawny by virtue of the fact they only weigh about 50 kilos), and “the primary source of power is the use of body weight, not strength” (as if you don’t need strength to move body weight), you start to sound a bit crazy.
I’m not sure why we’re talking about kickboxing anyway; are you arguing that more women kickbox than men? I think I even said that women kickbox for cultural as well as biological reasons (it has a keep-fit image).
If you really think that an argument that girls don’t like rules and boys do is not “exceptionalism,” but “rules have different purposes for boys and girls” is, you’re being very silly.
You’re missing the point, as well as mischaracterizing my argument (again) but I can’t be bothered explaining, to be honest.
It’s a pretty common belief of some kinds of feminist and some kinds of conservative that women benefit from rules more than men, and need to be careful about straying outside them. How do you square this with your theory?
I’m not sure what you mean. I square it with my theory by discounting it… I’m not that kind of feminist or that kind of conservative.
You’re very carefully avoiding the point about netball and girl’s schoolyard games.
Lol! Did you read my last post? I was mostly talking about adults, I’ll say again, because that’s what’s germaine to the discussion: “Girls in general don’t play games that have rules as much as boys do, especially in adulthood.” Why this means that I’m saying girls don’t play netball or schoolyard games that have rules, I have no idea.
As for men and violence – Aussie rules football has no send-off rule, yet it’s got a less violent image than rugby league. How does that work?
To reiterate: I’m not talking about modern sports, but their historical development and the roots of what we now call “sport” and “rules”.
It’s clear this is degenerating into one of those “let’s argue about what I want your position to be, not what it really is” debates (maybe on both of our parts), so let’s draw a line under it here, shall we?
April 10, 2010 at 10:22 am
Noisms, I have spent 15 years improving my own right cross or teaching other people how to. Rest assured, it has almost nothing to do with arm strength and everything to do with how you turn your hips and push with your thigh. People have this enduring image of boxing as a simplistic and brawny sport, but it’s not; it’s a very elegant, subtle set of moves that takes years to get right. I raised boxing and kickboxing because they have the same physical requirements but one has many more women in it than the other, primarily due to the absence of those cultural markers that tell them not to try it. Kickboxing has been around a lot longer than it’s “keep-fit” image (my teacher in Australia was a no-rules kung fu fighter in the 70s), but they have deliberately encouraged that image to break down the old image it had of crusty men killing each other. Boxing has refused to do that because they openly state that they don’t want women involved.
I think you’re changing the ground of your argument to suit. Netball is an adult game, and until recently in Australia was the most popular women’s sport; it probably still is in the rest of the commonwealth. It’s rules-bound and finicky. Other very popular sports for women include softball (rules-bound and pernickety), cricket (rules-bound and pernickety) and soccer (rules-lite). In Australia and New Zealand Aussie rules (rules-lite) and rugby (rules-heavy) are growing in popularity. Your theory doesn’t square up against the actual behaviour of modern women in modern sport; why do you think it works in any other hobby?
The main determinant of women’s entry into a hobby as a group is the predominance of markers aimed to discourage women, and the number of men in the hobby already. The latter is overcome gradually (as in soccer); but the former usually needs an effort by the existing sporting authority to overcome. The martial arts, Rugby and Aussie rules (in Australia) have specifically tried to do this, while boxing hasn’t (there are some jurisdictions in Australia where women can’t compete as amateur boxers, but kickboxing organisations are willing to register them as kung fu fighters; the boxing association regularly makes sexist comments about women fighting). The same is true in our hobby, and it has nothing to do with the rules – fuck, how do women even know that the game is rulesbound, from the outside?
April 18, 2010 at 9:57 pm
[…] into child-minding their less-than-year-old child on a Saturday night so she could game. I’ve previously mentioned that I think maybe Japanese nerd culture is more gender-balanced than in the west, and this is […]
May 11, 2010 at 2:31 am
[…] form of analysis can also help us answer questions like Why don’t more women game? or what kind of games are better for younger or older people? Perhaps we can determine that […]
October 24, 2010 at 12:22 am
[…] issue of gender inclusivity in gaming has been around the traps for as long as gaming, and is something I’ve discussed on this blog before. One of the main reasons for this in both the computer and table-top gaming […]