"Women in wargaming" Topic

"In every edition of the Great Wargaming Survey, a small number of the respondents identify as female. That small number usually works out to somewhere between one and two percent of all participants, so it's not much to go on. However, as there are now three editions of the survey (it's open till August 19th if you haven't filled it in yet!) and as a substantial number of participants both in 2015 and this year indicated they had not taken part earlier, there is perhaps enough data to compare over the years and say something moderately sensible (sensible from a data point of view, not necessarily when it comes to my conclusions 😉 )

In the open ended questions, it's remarkable how many respondents of any gender either state they would like to see both more minorities and women in the wargaming crowd, or observe to what degree wargaming is a white-male dominated hobby. Well, from the survey's results, it's obvious something can be done about that. To take care of the obvious first: no, ‘mansplaining', boys-club-behavior, grumpy old men and bad hygiene, all those do not make your wargaming club or FLGS more inviting. Female wargamers are at the club, at the store, or at your game for the same reason as any other wargamer: to make new friends, roll some dice and let the story play out, and see who has the best tactics…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

I think you have to consider the gaming situation in different countries.

In the U.S., much of the gaming occurs in private homes, and there are many reasons why it can be complicated for a woman to accept an invitation to a game…

What basis are you using for that statement Bill? Granted my gaming experience is probably not at extensive but most of my gaming has been done in a club setting, some private homes but not many. Also, Why should that be more complicated? If the games are in private homes might not the host's wife be present anyway whether she is an active participant or not? A couple games at a friends house his wife was present AND provided us with a wonderful meal. My wife, and young son, were both present during two games hosted at my home. Those in my group who had homes were nearly all married, the unmarried ones just had apartments or condos.
I just don't see the rationale behind that statement.

And then most be wives or companion, doing it to please or just to be along. And yes despite the PC background bull constantly thrown at you, if you don't plug it out, women are different, less warlike, gentle, and would be genetically different (not just in size) from men,(even those with unorthodox preferences for ex Prinz Eugen..;) and that explains why. And 1000s years of ways and habits and customs do not necessarily have to fundamentally be wrong because a few 1000 of excited odd casts in search for a way of earning from it, claim Nature to be wrong. And yes we still would benefit from more of them to partake to our games, if only as they are 50% of the population! And bring good things in them. I will again try to bring in "mine" but a tough job. They would have to really like it, not just do it to be nice.

I just finished a beginning drawing class. Started with two males, finished with one. And I did a colored pencils class--one other male showed up for one session. Both (female) instructors told me this was normal. What they didn't do was go around muttering about how their hobby had to become more inclusive and how they had to change their hobby to make it more male-friendly. They just offered the best courses they could and welcomed any male who was interested, just as they welcomed any interested woman. Perhaps in this one instance, we should accept the wisdom of the women.

Armand, I think you posted a link related to this before: it went to some sort of wargames podcast which, again, went from "there are few female, black or Hispanic wargamers" to "what are the men doing wrong, and how can we get more white women?" I'm with Jcfrog: probably not all or even most of the low percentage of female historical miniature gamers is the result of male misbehavior. The hobby is probably a bad fit on a genetic or cultural level for many.

Our low black and Hispanic numbers in the US are another matter, especially considering the large pool of black and Hispanic vets. Possibly if more of our too-limited missionary projects visited heavily black and Hispanic schools? And I've noticed in my own armies a tendency to paint units all in caucasian flesh just as they all have reddish-brown hair. It would tell a Black wargamer that "this is not your history." Well, one of my projects for this winter is to "integrate" units where this is historical, and possibly to raise a few black units where this is appropriate. Anyone have any other ideas?

Obviously the painting of recent armies with "diversity" is a also true to life. can tell you that painting non-elite French units with many "whites" inside is becoming odd.
But, we cannot go Hollywood stupidity; this is history, even WW2 mostly had no diversity or rather integrated diversity. And forget totally about it in Napoleon's times (yes the Neapolitan etc…), just as society was homogeneous. Hence my previous post about the lack of interest from "them" for "our" historical games. BTW how many of us play west African kingdoms or have a remote knowledge of Chinese warlike history (not me)? I will experiment with my female specimen soon. Decided to try Sharp practice. But unfortunately have no "army" (but nappies- too much for her) that are appealing to her historical traditions, as I know it would help. Might end up having to paint 17th cty Russians to fight my poles with By sword and flame.Even when visiting castles she is lost and barely follows the intricacies of feodalty and fortifications. ;)

Well speaking of diversity I did actually did organize and paint the redoubtable 7th Neapolitan Regiment. For those of you not familiar with Napoleonic minutiae, the 7th was a regiment comprised of Black colonial troops from the Caribbean area. Reputed to be one of the worst regiments in the French Napoleonic Army it was transferred to Neapolitan service where it was noted as one of the best regiments in the Neapolitan army, kinda speaks volumes about the overall quality of the Neapolitan troops at that time.

Yes, females don't play the wargames because of their simple, peaceful minds. Oh and we shouldn't go "Hollywood" by making sure we geek out to all those times when the good white guys in pretty uniforms killed all those dark savages(probably to take their land). Jeez.

Women and POC are not some weird alien species- they are people who like fun things, just like white men. It's just that for most of history, they have been excluded. And social barriers were erected to keep it that way.

This is a problem across gaming spheres. Nerds have carved out their own little bully niches and dub themselves the "real" gamers. It's a cultural phenomena that seems intrinsic to white men, especially as they age (which isn't surprising because they were the beneficiaries of such exclusion). You see the same gatekeeping with many areas of culture (music, movies, etc.) but the more niche, greater the effect a few vocal bullies can have.

It's adapt or die and some areas are embracing it and flourishing. D&D and MTG, for example, have seen huge increases in POC and women. Meanwhile, others become more insular and are dying off. It doesn't help that a certain type of wargamer tends to fetishize some of the worst parts of human history (look, I only have all variations of Nazi armies for historical accuracy, you see, and I prefer Wehrmacht…) combined with pedantry and a penchant dense "realistic" rules. Not exactly inclusive.

Keep in mind women and POC are *much* better represented in boardgaming. Why do you think that is?

But fictional wargames do seem to be doing a little better. Warmahordes and GW both seem to get a trickle of variety and seem to have adopted much more inclusive imagery. Also the Clix line used to and the current Star Wars games seem to be doing better than average at mixing it up. Maybe it's just because they like making money? Perhaps fictional settings also have the advantage of not having all the historical baggage. Who knows?

There is a big difference between being prevented from doing something and not being interested in doing something. Sci-fi & fantasy have the advantage of being whatever it wants to be. Depending on the board game it may have nothing to do with anyone's ethnicity or gender, and could be more cooperative than a 1vs1 wargame. AD&D 5E opened up player races to cover almost any interest (they haven't done oozes, puddings, and jellies yet I think). How many people are actually building armies and planning games to keep people out or discourage them from participating?

Gotta give Striker a +1 on that. Only a few ladies are interested in wargames, especially historical which by their nature are more rigid. I know more women interested in the Sci-Fi and fantasy stuff.

What's wrong with white males? Are you saying we are obligated to have other races or women present at our games and that will make the games better? Why? Good people make a good game period. Doesn't matter to me what gender or race they are. I see people as individuals.

>What's wrong with white males?
Individually? Nothing. We are talking about why there don't seem to be many non-white male wargamers and what may be barriers for such gamers.

>Are you saying we are obligated to have other races or women present at our games and that will make the games better? Why?
Did you read the topic? But yes, having more open, less exclusionary games is definitely better. Everyone, regardless of gender, color, disability, etc. should feel comfortable coming to the table. No one is forcing anything (though discomfort with even suggestions greater accessibility is indicative of how subtly pervasive the issue is).

>I see people as individuals.
Cool. That's the goal. But also don't ignore history which absolutely didn't do this. And we are still dealing with the effects, including self sorting.

Striker: It's not usually active discouragement, it's generally more subtle. Things like environment, passive-aggressive/hostile comments towards outsiders, etc. There is also the issue of casual gamers being disparaged as not "real" gamers.

As you correctly point out, Sci-fi and Fantasy both tend to push back more against historical biases. And boardgames have absolutely encouraged more styles of play than directly competitive. Wargames can also do so, but have been slower to adapt as a whole. One of the most fun games I have was a WW2 skirmish using Two Hour Wargames Chain Reaction. All the players were Americans and the Germans were controlled by reaction tables. Since the forces are somewhat randomized, it was a fun, fast playing game with plenty of tension.

I saw a similar game played with All Things Zombie that encouraged players to model themselves in miniature that attracted a diverse player group that proceeded to get into all kinds of crazy zombie related hijinks and only get 1 of them eaten after wrecking a car trying to get away! Needless to say the rest were very appreciative of the unintentional self sacrifice.

Increased exposure to things like LOTR, GOT, Marvel movies, Star Wars etc. also fuel greater interest across the board in gaming such subjects. Depictions of historical conflicts tend to just underscore the tragic human cost, so don't have the same effect.

I guess I'm not sure what barriers are in place to keep people away. Just talking strictly historical games or periods (no sci-fi/fantasy) "History is boring" – there's not much I can do about that. I have absolutely no interest in Napoleonics and that will keep me from playing those games. If someone is not comfortable that the north fought the south in ACW I can't really change that. What I would like to see is WHY groups of people (since it's not individuals we're talking about) don't want to participate. If it's actually rude/bigoted/hostile behavior presented by the players, or the expectation that this is "what will" happen if I play, then that's a problem of social skills. If wargames are too focused on "war" (yes I know someone like that) then that person isn't going to be interested in most games. If it's not seeing enough "people like me" that's more of a wargamer topic and one that can be addressed, and I would say mostly change by manufacturers making those figures, who rely on gamers buying those minis. My opinion is that many historical gamers (in any form) are pretty well versed in actions/places/events that would fall into zones of interest of the underrepresented group (just general term, not good/bad), gaming ties in lots of topics besides war (music, art, society, science, etc). My concern with this topic when it comes up is that I don't hear a lot of WHY but a lot of CHANGE. If someone would personally like to have more groups represented at the game table they are free to take steps to make that happen and I personally would enjoy playing in those games. If we're going to start looking at quotas (no I'm not saying we should do this or that anyone did) then I'm skeptical of the goal. No, having a female at the table is not open mike time for all the great sex jokes and if you can't control your enjoyment for blue humor then you need to be taught how to behave. I think most gamers in the "majority crowd" would welcome and enjoy having people play who aren't typically seen around games and a handful would be actively opposed to it.
So with all that, many rules allow any type of people or location to be portrayed so that's not a barrier. There may be an issue of tactics since history was written from a certain point of view, but that's been changing steadily for quite a while. I'd say the minis are the hardest part to change, from both the player and maker end, part of the problem has to be source info again.
I think overall it's a problem of exposure. For instance model builders. How many people outside of the modelers even know it exists? Now add that to your community of choice and the problem is worse. I don't see anything that keeps an ethnic group our of modeling besides being exposed to it and I'm sure there are people who would jump at the chance to get into it, if they knew of it. Fantastic female modelers and painters (usually painters) show up on FB and magazines, but how many girls are introduced to it? Nothing says my daughter can't partake and she likes to paint and I'm all for it (plus I get to buy more to "share"), but she likes Gundams and not awesome tanks. Now if we go to a game or store and some guy is being a freak and creeping her out I'm on that as a parent not as a defender of all women and he (assuming a he) is reacted to as a person not all men in the hobby. I don't see any fix to the "casual gamer" label. It's in everything and it's a people problem. I'm not a "real airsofter" because I don't spend $600 USD on a tac vest or use low-cap mags. I'm not a "real model builder" because I don't scratchbuild everything. I don't like "XYZ band" so I'm not a metal fan. Any group someone is involved in has those "true" people. To them I say off! But it's one of those traits of all group activities no matter the ethnicity or gender.
Can we get a survey or some research done to see why people don't participate? It may not even be a problem, just a reality. It could also be a problem that nobody has voiced. It could also be just a case of spreading the hobby love to one and all, and if some jump in great, and if some don't that's fine too.

I'll have to remember jamesmurp's post next time I want to play pool at an all-Korean joint, join the ladies only gym, and play for the Harlem Globetrotters. They have to include me because of history.

Excuse me, why can't a group of white males enjoy something together and not be racist? I don't have hate in my heart for any race or gender, only individuals. I don't hate women, I hate Joseph Mugabe, I don't hate black people. I also hate Bill Clinton, and Hitler but I don't self hate my own race. Only people.

Can you understand that? People are just people, I don't see race or gender like you do,

Yeah, I agree with all that but lets face it guys, the ladies/girls just smell better, and they're much prettier!!!

White knights who speak on behalf of other races and sexes who never asked them to always blow me away with their complete lack of self-awareness. As if they have no voice of their own and require a white male to defend their interests and gatekeep on their behalf. It's a lazy form of bigotry all it's own.

Well there is a sort of exclusion which isnt the type where someone actively dislikes another group but rather where it's considered "The way it has always been" or "Normal". That type of exclusion is rooted in ignorance or severe discomfort to change which in turn can lead to amazingly intricate rationalization to maintain a status quo. These people arent necessarily sexist or racist but their severe anxiety over change can amount to the same result.

In these cases, those most fearful of the concept of change generally fall back on convenient tropes to justify their exclusionary behavior. Thus, women are less warlike or maybe black people are less cerebral. This is sexism and/or racism incorporated into the fabric of baseline normality. In these cases, it does take movement and awareness by the controlling class to effect reforms which would mean, in this case, that white male wargamers are the ones who need to reach out.

I guess what I am trying to say TGerritsen, is that youre dead wrong.

Happy Holidays.

Wow, what fool assumes black gamers are less cerebral or women are less warlike? What fool denies anyone a seat at the gaming table for gender, race or preference? I've found gamers to be mostly more inclusive and welcoming, not less. The factuality of historical gaming being less diverse than say, boardgaming or fantasy gaming I suspect is less based on some dark cabal of racism and sexism than other factors that are as yet ill understood.

I'm not sure if it's even a problem per se unless people overtly exclude outside people from playing.

My local library advertises a once per month Ladies Knitting Circle. That is clearly exclusionary by gender. What if I am a man who likes to knit? Are they a dark cabal of misandrists? Or are they just unaware of their exclusion? Or are they allowed to knit with only ladies if they so desire? I don't have an answer to that. If I honestly had an issue (I do not), I'd ask- politely. You catch more flies with sugar than salt. I bet if I asked, they'd probably let me join if I respected their group.

My point was about people who are not a gender, race or preference who feel the need to speak on their behalf without their consent or request. That is a common form of arrogant, almost authoritative bigotry born of unconscious bias. These people often feel they are doing justice, but in reality have diminished faith and low expectations in the people they seek to defend.

In many ways this is worse than the bigotry you describe (and imply of me based on nothing I've said). Overt bigotry is easily spotted and thus more readily opposed. The bigotry I am discussing is more insidious since it hides beneath a veneer of civility or desire to be just while masking a sense of superiority and implied inferiority or helplessness that only they can correct.

I despise bigotry in all its forms, not just the kind that is easy to spot.

Happy holidays indeed.