"What a LAME theme for a convention!" Topic

I find the theme troubling.

Yes, presently there are far more women heroically serving in our armed forces NOW than ever before, and Yes, there have been many women involved in war and battle since time immemorial, but the numbers, except for a few cases are largely minute. This does not argue against the theme. But women have been involved in war at the pointy end of the stick far more than in stabbing end of the stick. That is, as the victims of war.

Anyone who has read history knows that 95% of the "courage and heroism" exhibited by women in War is as the victims who pick up the pieces of their shattered lives, homes, families, farms, towns, and peoples, and begin the slow and laborious process of rebuilding the society that the men have smashed. This often after they themselves have been raped, mutilated, or carried off into slavery. That's the true heroism of women in war, when you have lost literally everything and you stubbornly start to rebuild, and not only rebuild the posessions and food production, bu tthe generations themselves through child-birth, child rearing, and comforting the survivors. It is in the interrelationships and cooperative ties of women that every war has had its damage patched, respun, recreated, however you wish to term it.

I am reminded of the women in the ancient world who were carried off into slavery, or moved with their husbands, as the Assyrians did, to deserted and wild spaces and there began to build again, or to found a new life somehow in the new land where they were taken.

I am reminded of the women in the camps of the armies from the Middle Ages onward to the 20th century, who, in a time before mess-halls and government issue did all the domestic duties from laundering to cooking, to taking care of a soldiers "stuff" bearing his child, and trying to raise a family in the harshest, violent, near criminal environment, and who in the end, would range, after the battle, across the stricken field to find "her man" and tend his wounds, or bury him.

I am reminded of those pictures I saw of Dresden, or Rotterdam, or Hamburg, or Nagasaki, of women, a few hours after the raid, when the fires were out, cleaning up the mess and trying to salvage some little part of the life they built thorough careful accumulation, work, and saving, of saving a few fragments of family heirlooms, or clothing, or a childs toy.

I am reminded of the women who would take in and befriend even enemy soldiers who were hurt, or sick, or wounded, or even just dog tired, and who did it not even because as one said, "My own son is missing, and I hope some woman over there is befriending him" but simply because of heartfelt human compassion.

This is a different kind of courage, a different kind of glory from what we think of in war games. I do not know how we will show it-- or game it.

I recall to all of you that heart-tearing (at least to me) scene in Saving Private Ryan when you see the mother come out of her kitchen and, on the front porch sees the olive-drab green car winding up the long winding road through the endless fields of wheat, and her legs go out from under her and she collapses on that porch. She KNOWS one of her sons has been taken from her, but WE KNOW that all but one has been taken from her.

I am at a loss to wonder how we could honor her enough, or that such "honor" might be but empty mockery.

Go read "The Trojan Women" by Euripes, especially Hecuba's speech when her heart breaks at the funeral of hector sson, brutally murded by the victorious Greeks.

Sooooo, why do you find the theme troubling, as you never explained that in your post?

Dear History Gamer

It seems to me I explained it very well.

I respectfully disagree. Seems like you kind of got lost there with your thoughts.

Dear History gamer

The essential points are.

1. "Women have been involved in war at the pointy end of the stick far more than in stabbing end of the stick. That is, as the victims of war."

2."Anyone who has read history knows that 95% of the "courage and heroism" exhibited by women in War is as the victims who pick up the pieces of their shattered lives, homes, families, farms, towns, and peoples, and begin the slow and laborious process of rebuilding the society that the men have smashed."

3."This is a different kind of courage, a different kind of glory from what we think of in war games. I do not know how we will show it-- or game it."

There you are, the essential points.

A radical feminist would say that the very nature of our games glorifies the destructon and violence of war. A radical feminist would also say that the theme only honors those whomen who engage in the masculine ideal and response of power and violence.

I do not go that far.

I say only that the vast majority of game are constructed to MODEL or SIMULATE the violence and destruction of war.

As for women in war and involved in war, far far more, as I said, are the victims of war and their courage in rebuilding and recreating in the face of often utter devastation, is far and a way a more tremendous courage than merely bringing death and destruction.

The theme thus is troubling in that it not only ignores the courage of victim (all of the examples are female warriors or monarchs), there does not seem to be any way in our games to MODEL or SIMULATE that courage.

If it is your aim to only honor those who are 5% or less of the the numbers of women in war, that's fine. But I find that troubling, and therefore think it's a topic best left unaddressed, and -- unthemed.

Otto

I truly wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying and your point. Thank you for the clarification. :-)

Expressing your disagreement with a convention theme choice doesn't equate to the hatred of women.

With all due respect Don, some of the comments have been absolutely cringe worthy.

The theme thus is troubling in that it not only ignores the courage of victim (all of the examples are female warriors or monarchs), there does not seem to be any way in our games to MODEL or SIMULATE that courage.

No convention theme has ever addressed any of the victims that so presumably you have felt this way for many years?

As for women in war and involved in war, far far more, as I said, are the victims of war and their courage in rebuilding and recreating in the face of often utter devastation, is far and a way a more tremendous courage than merely bringing death and destruction.

Isn't that reflecting a modern bias, though? Throughout most of history, both men and women (and children!) have borne the horrors of war fairly equally. It is only in a "modern" society that so many male civilians are called to arms; in earlier societies, they were just more victims.

Dear Alte Fritz

Nice to hear from you again, it has been a long time since we spoke. Missed our conversations.

In answer to your question, yes. This Christmas markes the 50th year I was in war games. About 30 years ago I became uneasy as my studies broadened beyond narrow battle accounts and begane to tudy more and more the consequencs of war. It was one of the reasons for my "flight into the Imagi-nations" where more and more such things might be screened- up to a point.

But eventually that is not a large enough fig-leaf. The consequences of "glory" are deep, and terrible, and I find that I can no longer just wave them off.

Actually I have started thinking of games that would reflect what I was talking about. Working on a few now.

Otto

Dear Editor

You ask "Isn't that reflecting a modern bias, though? Throughout most of history, both men and women (and children!) have borne the horrors of war fairly equally. It is only in a "modern" society that so many male civilians are called to arms; in earlier societies, they were just more victims."

Is a horror borne equally less of a horror? Is it not first and foremost a horror even if only in the mind and born by none?

Do the tears of a million give solace to the tears of the one?

Does the mother in Babylon Mesopotamia grieve less of her murdered child than the mother in Babylon New York? Does a husband in Magdeburg grieve less for his raped daughter and murdered wife than one today.

Is not the life and happiness of another as sweet to him as is our own? Is the sun less warm to him than to us, the air less sweet, the joys of his family and life less than our own? Do we feel more than he does? Do we not make of him by this thought a lesser thing? Do we not say that "Because times were so bad they felt the scourge less, the pain of the knife less, the ache of a dead child less? What matters then that "the other" lived a tousand years, or a thousand days, or a thousand seconds ago?

No I don't think this is a modern sentiment at all.

Yes victims have always been with us, and suffering and anguish have always been a part of war. But I do not recall ever hearing of women and children slaughtering an invading army and murdering them all. War has always been almost completely a man's preserve, and one in which unrestrained violence has ruled. That is the opinion of most military writers from Tsun Tzu to Clausewitz. In war game we distance ourselves from this by the rules, the games and the armies, and the assumption that there is almost a "code duello" between combatants. In more genteel times we could often (as in the 18th century) call in some moderationa nd modulation of the violence by rules of courtesy and "chivalry."

As I said before, some women have joined the armies and doled out death and destruction and violence as good as the men. But it remains a liminal case. Most combatants and even just ordinary soldiers remain male, and it remains that most of the victims are femalss, the old, the young, and their property.

War games has always dodged these heavy and ominous moral questions because we have always called it a game. We have hid behind the fig-leaf of, "Our little lead soldiers create no little lead widows and oprhans." Our pretty scenery is not torched or flattened, nor little lead lives smashed.

It is a good and proper thing to honor the self-sacrafice, courage, and heroism of soliders, those who sacrafice so much for their country, for their families, for all of us, they are to be honored whatever sex. Honoring the famale soldier might be a better theme.

But for me, honoring women in war skirts too close to the edge for I cannot forget that there are far more women "in war" who do not wear a uniform and are not armed and dangerous. That is what I find troubling. A soldier, male or female, gets his pay and his weapon and takes his chances, but the vast majority of females, they are simply targets, and after the armies have done their worst, the women have to clean it all up- that is, unlike the soldier, they have no chance at all.

I was less tender-hearted when I was young.

As I said, it's troubling to me, but if you see nothing wrong with such things…. have at it.

Otto

All philosophical objections aside, the point is: a convention is for selling and demonstrating hobby products. The Convention Theme should help people promote hobby products, for sale and display.

For example: if you have a "Julius Caesar" theme, then presumably somebody might play a Caesar game and have a good time, and decide impulsively to rush down to the dealer area and buy some Caesarian Roman figures, or Barbarians to fight them, or etc., etc.

That presupposes that people in the dealer area have product to sell, in some way related to the theme.

So how will this theme accomplish that? What percentage of any manufacturer's line involves female military miniatures? How many games will really be able to feature them?

It's an unwise theme choice simply because there are so few opportunities for people to make use of it, or for dealers to capitalize upon it.

Klumpenproletariat – exactly. Seems some want to make more of this than is really there.

Look at it from the reverse. Let's say some women see the announcement – perhaps former or active military – and come to check it out. Does anyone really think they are going to feel that was worth their time, let alone money? What will they really see to support this supposed theme? This isn't even a good marketing tool, as there is nothing for them to see, except the t-shirt.

At least with the over-used Civil War or Napoleonic themes one could argue that for every gamer, there are a thousand people interested in those periods outside of the hobby.

I think this is just a storm in a teacup. I don't see the theme being any worse than any other theme. I do see a bunch of Archie Bunker types getting all upset about the threat to their hobby.

Threat to their hobby? You've got to be kidding.

Of course it's worse than any other for all the very valid reasons given. It serves no purpose other than a LAME attempt to show how "enlightened" we are. Much like some of the postings here.

So let's use another sitcom reference – It's like an episode of the Jeffersons where some dorky white guy tries to show he's "down" with the plight of his minority brothers. He thinks he's showing them how much he understands but all he ends up doing is looking stupid.

altfritz- AMEN!! And besides, how many can even remember the the theme from the LAST convention. This is the ultimate tempest in a teacup. And some of the comments have been particularly grim (on par with what I'd expect from a bunch of dull minded 15yr old males…).

Remembering the last theme is not the point. The point is to support the current one. I fear most can't really do that given this theme.

Instead of insulting people here, perhaps you both can enlighten us how you'll be supporting this convention so we can follow your example?

Oh PLEEEZE… All this over a CONVENTION THEME??? Hg, you take this FAR too seriously…

This is so ironic. All we are saying is the theme is impractical for a wargame convention. The only people being too serious about this are the ones who think this belief somehow defines our view on women in general.

Are you saying you want to run a theme game but can't think of one? Is that what this is all about?

It's really not that hard to understand.

It's about the same as having a theme around reconnaissance aircraft. Have they made a contribution to warfare? Sure. Do they lend themselves to being practically expressed as the subject for a miniature war game (and an entire convention)? No.

They would limit the scenarios to middle of the 20th century and onwards, I guess, unless you could ACW-era ballons(?) Would satellites count? Someone I know ran a modern game which started with recon photos of the target from which to plan and then when the players saw the table things were somewhat different.

Every theme is going to be restrictive. What did we have last year? War of 1812 *yawn*

I will admit the theme is not the best that could have been chosen. But then again I don't go to the convention for the theme. I go there to purchase new items for periods that do interest me and also to see what new periods that I might be interested in getting involved in and to play some games.

Truth be told, the main reason I got five of my buddies to go to Cold Wars back in '99 (?) was the Boxer Rebellion theme. Awesome games that year kept some of us coming back annually, with the others making occasional visit.

And nobody did some Force on Force dealing with Jessica Lynch?

Eric, shame on you, you know she defeated the entire Republican Guard before passing out from her wounds and did so without even firing a shot. My heroine!

VR
James Mattes

<a>elsyrsyn:

Again, single figures on a game board, hardly something to build a theme around, especially if you are using 15mm, 10mm, 6mm figures. I'll leave micro armor out of the discussion. Unless you are suggesting the themes are now being built around adding one figure to each game?

Napoleon would be only a single figure on a game board, too. As would Caesar, or Alexander, or anyone else you care to name. Are you suggesting that an event themed around their battles would be lame, too?

Doug

It sounds like to me the valid question is how to design a convention-themed game using a woman or women as the central figure(s). It's a valid query. One suggestion would be to depict a F&IW scenario where the frontier womanfolk are the majority of the defenders against a raid by hostile Indians.

"Napoleon would be only a single figure on a game board, too. As would Caesar, or Alexander, or anyone else you care to name. Are you suggesting that an event themed around their battles would be lame, too?

Doug"

Apples to watermellon. Your examples offer specific captains in history versus a gender. I suspect some such theme has been run on the wars the people you named were involved in. One of the people you named had a series of wars named after him. But, since they all commanded armies, you easily could focus on battles where they were present. That does not equate to this theme at all. Perhaps you could show how to tie that to a gender, especially since I can think of only one army commanded by a woman – and even that fact is uncertain?

Honestly though, I really could care less about the theme. If the CD wants to run this theme, that is his business. GMs who like to support themes will have a hard time making this one work, at least with anything above a skirmish level game. But then again, who really cares. :-)

Just watched Return of the King for the umpteenth time and still cheer when Eowyn takes off her helmet and slays the witch king…"I am no man!" Let the women have their theme!…plus I have five daughters so got to cheer for them!

Can't wait to attend the show. I really didn't think twice about the theme, some people have way too much time on their hands and should get a hobby. oh, wait……….

I tend to place more emphasis on the PEL than the overall theme. That and driving distance.

My wife was intrigued by the theme and is coming to the convention with me. She was not impressed by a few of the stereotypes presented in few of the offerings, but I could see her drooling over possibly participating in the Night Witches sessions, a topic with which she is well familiar.

I wonder if part of the friction in this discussion is the fact that the door to the Old Boys Clubhouse is about to get knocked on by more of them "No Gurlz Alllowwed"?

Are these the same people that are crying about growing the hobby/cons?? Here is a perfect opportunity to bring in new gamers. Are you afraid of a little competition?

Are people still wasting time and energy talking about the lame theme…get over it…it's lame, it's meaningless and it's almost time for the convention to begin…hopefully no snow, but given the weather I've got a feelin'…

db

"My wife was intrigued by the theme and is coming to the convention with me."

I guess you'll be buying less stuff now. :-)

"She was not impressed by a few of the stereotypes presented in few of the offerings,"

Wait till she sees them in person.

"…but I could see her drooling over possibly participating in the Night Witches sessions, a topic with which she is well familiar."

That'll really put the "H" in HMGS.

"I wonder if part of the friction in this discussion is the fact that the door to the Old Boys Clubhouse is about to get knocked on by more of them "No Gurlz Alllowwed"?"

Personally, I'd welcome a few more women. I just hope they don't resemble the guys already there. :-0

"Are these the same people that are crying about growing the hobby/cons??"

Not really.

"Here is a perfect opportunity to bring in new gamers."

All the women I know who have attended our cons never wanted to go back. I understand that. :-)

"Are you afraid of a little competition?"

From what? Maybe the upside is that if more women attended, some of the guys would shower more. On second thought, probably not. :-(

History Gamer…whether you intended it or not, and I suspect not, by saying "Personally, I'd welcome a few more women. I just hope they don't resemble the guys already there. :-0" you just swerved into an whole different topic, that has been the subject of no small amount of discussion among long time convention attendees…lot's of "changes" goin' on inside that convention hall…sometimes you can't tell the players without a program…

db