Overly defensive replies on internet forums.

[YorkNecromancer]

We've got a thread on feminism. We've got a thread on sexuality. We're due a thread on race any day now.

This pleases me, because on BoLS, we have some very cool people. The discussions here seem a cut above the stuff I see elsewhere, and the oubliette in particular seems to attract a pretty intelligent and informed crowd of all political persuasions, which encourages me to post the essay I have written below. It's not really anything original - just a collation of my thoughts. However, they seem pertinent, because there have been a number of people who have posted statements in the mentioned threads that have caused offence - and I don't believe these people were trolling or being cruel.

So this is basically a collection of some thoughts for discussion.

Ahem...

Race, gender and sexuality are huge issues in our society – if you think they aren’t, well, you’re probably a white heterosexual, cisgendered male. You are privileged.

What do I mean by privileged? Do I mean that you wake up to bathe in money? No. Do you spend your days knee-deep in all the sexy times you could ever ask for because you have no issues talking to the opposite sex? No. Do I mean that you were never bullied by anyone and have lived a life free of pain and suffering? No. No, you can be a white, straight, cis male, and have experienced all kinds of horrible, horrible things that were no fault of your own, but the fact remains, you are still privileged.

White Straight Male Privilege is a way of saying you are at the top of society’s ladder. You are the apex of the tree. Society is set up for you, for you to enjoy. If you don’t, well, that could be down to your status on the ladder (working class males have less privilege than middle, who have less than upper), or any one of a hundred other factors. We can’t all be Brad Pitt, after all.

But how does this privilege manifest then, if It doesn’t mean sex/money/happiness? It’s actually really simple. Privilege is the ability to say “That problem doesn’t affect me, so I don’t think it’s a problem.” You rarely see it written this way, but at it’s core that’s what privilege is. Most often, privilege manifests itself as a really horrible defensiveness when a complaint is made by someone who is not privileged. You’ve seen it here, on this site.

Someone says: “Why don’t Games Workshop paint their models to look like humans of African descent?”

A privileged white male responds: “Paint an army however you like”. Because it’s not a problem for me, so logically, it’s not a problem. The little black kid who sees nothing but an ocean of white faces painted on the (thousands upon thousands of) models in White Dwarf probably views things differently.

Someone else says: “Why are there no female 40K models?”

A privileged white male responds: “Women aren’t interested in combat or action”. Again, it’s not a problem for me, so it’s not my problem. The little girl who’s a piratical tomboy and wants to model herself as a Space Marine Captain may view things differently.

As I’m sure you’re aware (if you’ve been on the internet for more than four seconds), these aren’t the only replies that get posted. “It’s just political correctness” is another popular one – because as we all know, showing respect to people with less social power by refusing to use words that start with “N” and are an anagram of “ginger” is an intolerable restriction on freedom of speech. Or something.

Of course, there are others, and all are progressively more horrible. Everything from the “logical” (read: stupid), pseudo-intellectual rebuttal (“Would you complain that African art doesn’t feature white people?”) at one end, to death/rape threats at the other. The most common is of course, either a request to shut up, or more usually, a command. Or some pathetic “sammich” joke, because jokes about how women are second class citizens? Comedy GOLD my friend, comedy gold.

But the thing is: there are problems. We live in a hideously unfair society, and saying “shut up” doesn’t make these complex, deep-rooted issues go away. In fact saying “Shut up, there’s no problem” IS PART OF THE PROBLEM!

This is the thing for me: why does our community almost instinctively do this? Why does it force black, female, or whoever to justify their need to see different representations of humanity, or just representations of themselves in the medium they love? They shouldn’t have to justify why I want to see myself represented – we white straight cis guys already have so much representation; can’t we give a little over to people of other races and genders? And if we’re not in a position to do that for them, can we at least not tell them they’re wrong when they complain about it? Couldn’t we just say “Wow, yeah, you’re right. That does suck.” without needing to defend the hobby or ourselves?

Can’t we enjoy the things we like while at the same time admitting they have some serious problems?

To quote Alcoholics Anonymous, admitting there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Here’s the thing: I love wargaming. I mean, I [EXPLETIVE REDACTED] LOVE WARGAMING. I go to bed at night, and I’m thinking of conversions. I wake up, and on my drive in, I may be listening to the radio, but in my head, I’m planning paint jobs. To date, I have a full army for every 40K codex except Chaos Daemons, with a minimum value of 1500 point (my Sisters of Battle) to 30,000 points (my Deathwatch army).

And like everyone who has a hobby they love, I want to share it. This is especially important when you consider that wargaming, by nature, requires face-to-face social interaction. We play a social hobby.

At my last school, I ran the wargaming club for five years. In the third year, I held an assembly where I explained what wargaming was, and why everyone should do it, and afterwards, we had a boost in numbers – as well as our first female gamers. Why had they shown up then? Because in my assembly, I had used photos of female gamers I had found on the internet, and I had explicitly stated we needed female gamers. When they walked in, they all said to me “We wanted to come for ages, but we didn’t think we were allowed because we’re girls”.

And that is the reality of our hobby. It is exclusionist. It is cliqueish. Our hobby doesn’t want to recruit people of different genders and ethnicitites, and you will notice I use the word “hobby”. Because here’s where I think people get stuck.

I’m not talking about you. I’m not talking about your gaming club, or you FLGS, or your local GW. For all I know, you’re all black lesbians, gathered around rolling dice and sharing good times. That’s great. If you’re all straight, white, cis guys doing the same? That’s great too. You guys don’t have the problem.

The hobby does.

And while we can talk about how Privateer Press and Infinity are making steps to improve things, we all know what I mean when I say “the hobby”.

I mean Games Workshop.

Games Workshop are the ones who decided that there are no female space marines, and no black people in space. You know, unless they’re jet black with demonic red eyes but it’s okay because they’re actually good people inside – they were born as white men before the geneseed made them black! It’s not problematic! It’s not! (Actually, it really, really is, but that's off-topic.)

So when we discuss the problems with race, gender, or whatever, that’s who we’re attacking. And we’re not even attacking them. We’re pointing out they’ve got a problem, exactly like we would with a friend: “Seriously Jeff, you’re my friend and I love you, but I think this pyromania’s a little out of hand now. Seventeen churches in a week isn’t something you’ve got ‘under control’. I think you’re an addict and need help. I’m here for you, buddy.”

I’m a white, straight, cis, guy. I love wargaming, and I don’t think I’m ever going to stop. But my hobby has problems. It has problems with race, and with gender. I admit this, want to change it, and hope you agree with me. If you disagree, I hope you will disagree from an informed perspective that legitimately includes the experiences of those outside the bubble of white, straight, cis, guys, because their opinions matter too – just because it’s not a problem that matters to you, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.

And there you have it.

TL;DR – Just because you don’t think something is a problem doesn’t mean you’re right. And if someone accuses GW of sexism or racism, don’t get defensive and demean their argument, because they’re not having a go at you or saying you’re a bad person.

[Gotthammer]

Related post on House of Paincakes (http://www.houseofpaincakes.com/2012/10/so-sinsynn-asked-for-people-from-thenon.html).

[YorkNecromancer]

Like it. They're bang on when they say


with GW / Jes Goodwin’s seeming desire to make plastic kits consisting of nothing but alternate head sculpts I’m hoping that if/when the various Imperial plastics get redone there is a bit of ethnic variance amongst the seventy odd noggins they’ll pack in each box.

It's like: we have more choice of mustache type than gender. Seriously, we have, like, fifty-odd Space Wolf heads with every type of facial hair under the sun, not to mention all the other Blood Angels/Dark Angels/Chaos/Catachan/Cadian/Blue-Skinned Aliens but not one woman or black person? Not one?! Seriously?!!

[Necron2.0]

Don't forget, however, that just because someone doesn't care about something, that doesn't necessarily mean they're actually privileged. Sometime apathy simply means … you don’t care. Not everything is a political statement.

It’s like when a friend came to me all breathy with his latest conspiracy theory. He laid out this elaborate plot on how some shadowy organization was plotting world domination. After presenting his evidence, I responded very simply, “I don’t care.” To this, he demanded I explain myself. I told him it was quite simple, regardless of who is in power, it is NOT going to be you … or me, either. Whether it’s the current bunch of buttheads or some other bunch of buttheads, either way you and I are both “fudged.” So what’s the point of caring for something you cannot change.

It’s also like Europeans complaining about Americans not being concerned with what is happening in Europe. The reason is quite simple - we’ve got our hands full worrying about the Texans … or the Okkies, or the New Yorkers, or “Wackidonians”, or ….

Fundamentally, everyone does have the right to simply not give a @#$!.

[YorkNecromancer]

Fundamentally, everyone does have the right to simply not give a @#$!.

You are completely, and utterly, 100% right. So these people's opinions are therefore irrelevant in every possible way. Remember, "talking" online isn't like talking face-to-face. Posting takes time, and effort, carrying with it the absolute implication that the person posting does care. The apathetic's overt lack of opinion therefore explicitly means that what they say carries no value, as it doesn't concern them.

So, they should shut the hell up and not post. By their own admission, they have nothing to add. They don't care? Great. Seriously, great. Good for them. They can clear off to look at something they do care about, and let the people who do care have an adult conversation. If a person's only contribution is "I don't care about this", then they are of absolutely no use to that discussion, and they are wasting everyone's time: they have NOTHING to say, and they're saying it too loud, the little attention seekers.

[daboarder]

Race, gender and sexuality are huge issues in our society – if you think they aren’t, well, you’re probably a white heterosexual, cisgendered male. You are privileged.


So you've just been racist, misandristic and I don't even know what the word would be for discriminating against heterosexuals.

You're being just as bigoted as those you decry! a stupid stereotype is a stupid stereotype regardless of who its about.

[Necron2.0]

Posting takes time, and effort, carrying with it the absolute implication that the person posting does care.

Or they could be drunk, bored or both, and can type 100+ words per minute. ;)

[Deadlift]

The thing is we all made the choice to play in the Games workshops universe. To invest some of our time to learning (and loving) the vision that is the Grimdark future of 40k. Don't like the way they choose to portray it ? Vote with your wallet, don't support the company by continuing to buy their products. I know I couldn't. I also don't wish them to change 40k to reflect today's society because it isn't today's society.
I like to think I can differentiate between 40k and real life.

It could be argued that race is no longer an issue in the far future as procreation between different ethic types has reached the point where everyone is racially the same ;)

[GrauGeist]

Someone says: “Why don’t Games Workshop paint their models to look like humans of African descent?”

Someone else says: “Why are there no female 40K models?”

Games Workshop are the ones who decided that there are no female space marines, and no black people in space.

You mean, like Salamanders? They're consistently painted as if they were of African descent. Yes, it's one Chapter, but it's non-zero.

And 40k females, definately include Sisters & Callidus Assassins, along with Eldar Banshees / Dark Eldar Wyches. As with the dark-skinned people, not a lot of choices, but definitely do exist.

GW has things, if you choose to look for them. If you choose to ignore them, to claim they're not there, that's on you. Not GW.

[Deadlift]

To be fair, GW did do away with the Salamanders being black African and made them Black charcoal black with red scary eyes. not a great choice but again were talking 38 thousand years in the future.
However give York some credit. He does have a point in that many of us can at least identify with the heroes and villains of the background. Not everyone can

On a side not, when did the oubliette become so ****ing depressing. I remember when it was serious and a laugh in equal measure. Not so much at the moment :(

[YorkNecromancer]

You're being just as bigoted as those you decry! a stupid stereotype is a stupid stereotype regardless of who its about.

Cool story, bro.


You mean, like Salamanders? They're consistently painted as if they were of African descent. Yes, it's one Chapter, but it's non-zero.

As far as the Salamanders go, I believe I covered that with the comment


no black people in space. You know, unless they’re jet black with demonic red eyes but it’s okay because they’re actually good people inside – they were born as white men before the geneseed made them black! It’s not problematic! It’s not! (Actually, it really, really is, but that's off-topic.)

As far as them being


consistently painted as being of African descent

Ummmm... No. Just no. The Marine Codex taks of them having "coal black skin with red eyes", and the one Salamander marine with a bare head has clearly been painted with Chaos Black and highlighted with Mechanicus Grey. Not to mention the codex explicitly uses the phrase "demonic appearance". That doesn't sound like Samuel L. Jackson to me. That sounds like some seriously problematic material.


It could be argued that race is no longer an issue in the far future as procreation between different ethic types has reached the point where everyone is racially the same

Which is a lovely sentiment, but the problem is that race is an issue now In Real-Life; it's not about the in-game universe; it's about little kids feeling excluded because a game which they could fall in love with is culturally stuck in 1987 and no-one at company headquarters has the basic human decency to go "You know what? This is unacceptable. We should change this, and through actual integration, rather than creating what is effectively a segregated ghetto like LEGO Frien... sorry, the Sisters of Battle".

As I said, the issue is not with individual gamers, but with GW's refusal to move with the times:


I’m not talking about you. I’m not talking about your gaming club, or you FLGS, or your local GW. For all I know, you’re all black lesbians, gathered around rolling dice and sharing good times. That’s great. If you’re all straight, white, cis guys doing the same? That’s great too. You guys don’t have the problem.

The hobby does.


As for



GW has things, if you choose to look for them. If you choose to ignore them, to claim they're not there, that's on you. Not GW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism

Your argument is invalidated, because the examples you quote are pure tokenism. An all-female army is just as bad as an all-male one. And the Eldar are the token race that has some measure of gender parity, but it's still 60:40 male majority for Kabalites. The Wyches as you rightly point out have a 60:40 female majority... and are the ones with the skintight fetish wear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory

So yeah. There are female models, but they're not designed for female players. If women like them? Great. Doesn't mean they're for them. We'll have some equality when we get official plastic Cadian heads and not a moment before.

These are the problems. If you choose to ignore them, to claim they're not there, that's your privilege talking right there.

Thanks for proving me right.


On a side not, when did the oubliette become so ****ing depressing. I remember when it was serious and a laugh in equal measure. Not so much at the moment

Sorry buddy. I think that's mostly my fault. What can I say, I'm misanthropic enough to see problems everywhere, and sanctimonious enough to want to do something about them. It's a horrible, horrible combination.

[daboarder]

What an *******! well done mate, well done.

[GrauGeist]

Cool story, bro.

As far as the Salamanders go, I believe I covered that with the comment

Sorry buddy. I think that's mostly my fault. What can I say, I'm misanthropic enough to see problems everywhere, and sanctimonious enough to want to do something about them. It's a horrible, horrible combination.

No, nubcake, you didn't.

I have Codex: Armageddon, and that's not what it gives for Salamanders background.

The fact that you claim one thing, and then dismiss it when it doesn't conform to your preconcieived notions proves you to be a troll.

That said, I don't feel like further conversation with you. You're just looking to stir the pot, and I'm not interested in playing that particular game here. Have fun with your humblebrags of "privilege" and hotlinks to Wikipedia.
____

Oh, yeah, you're nod actually doing anything. Doing implies getting off your lazy ***, rather than posting junk on an obsure website, hoping people will agree with you.

[GrauGeist]

What an *******! well done mate, well done.

How do I Ignore him? Is there a button or something I can press to do that?

[daboarder]

How do I Ignore him? Is there a button or something I can press to do that?

Personally I don't know, I just stop looking at people's posts

[Nabterayl]

How do I Ignore him? Is there a button or something I can press to do that?
Left click the name, go to "view profile," then click on "add to ignore list" on the left side.

[Gotthammer]

Salamanders were originally introduced as having coal black skin and red eyes, this was retconned in Codex: Armageddon to the African appearance, and then retconned back to jet black in the last marine dex.

Daborder- York is talking about systematic discrimination. So while in Australia you or I may not necessarily be overly advantaged, we're both white (by squinting at your avatars), so the problems that affect Aboriginal, Lebanese or Chinese people as a whole, not individuals, will probably not even register in our awareness. It's where the concept of awareness campaigns come from - making people outside an affected group able to see the problems.

I'm also disappointed in BoLS that almost every reply has been exactly what happens and what York was railing against- nitpicking, dismissing and ad hominem arguments rather than trying to discuss these very real issues.

[daboarder]

Daborder- York is talking about systematic discrimination. So while in Australia you or I may not necessarily be overly advantaged, we're both white (by squinting at your avatars), so the problems that affect Aboriginal, Lebanese or Chinese people as a whole, not individuals, will probably not even register in our awareness. It's where the concept of awareness campaigns come from - making people outside an affected group able to see the problems.


I still say that's largely crap,

My mother and her parents were horribly discriminated against when they immigrated here from scotland, simply because they had a different accent. Furthermore I myself have been refused work and tenancy simply because I'm white. (just for info, this was trying to find a job in chatswood and multiple times trying to find a room in kensington)

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, I'm saying that assuming I've had a charmed life and never been subject to it because of my own race is the worst bit of stupid hypocrisy.

[Gotthammer]

Again, it's not about individuals. It's that as white people today we're statistically very unlikely to be discriminated against, or disadvantaged. But if one of us were Aboriginal it would be likely that we'd be illiterate. But that doesn't mean I assume every Aboriginal person I meet is probably illiterate. Not every person feels the 'benefit' or privilege, and the different facets of it all intersect (money / class is a huge one, and geography too), but if you took a sample of the country, generally speaking the white people would be less discriminated against than non-whites.

[daboarder]

depends on the country, japan is one of the most systematically xenophobic societies on the planet, and lets not even mention say, Dubai or Saudi Arabia, both place where westerners are treated with common contempt and barely tolerated for the sake of business.


off topic,
One thing we very rarely see is a comparison of the divide between aboriginal communities and other rural communities, I know the divide in literacy, education, health care and general life is HUGE between aboriginal communities and the developed parts of the country, but the outback is a pretty isolated place, regardless of skin colour and it would be interesting to see what the literacy is like in rural australia (I'm willing to bet its quite low).

I guess I'm just really getting sick of being told that EVERYTHING we try to do is motivated by bigotry of some sort. Take for example a recent report (cannot remember if it was federal or territory) that decried community services for NOT taking aboriginal children away from families not suitable for raising children....this was about a month after Rudd apologised for the stolen generation....(remember that they thought they we're doing the "right thing" at the time)

[Wolfshade]

The game was created by middle class white men, for middle class white men, so of course their modelling reflected middle class white men. Or at least it did originially and there is no reason why this could not change.

They have attempted to restore some balance look at the Sallies, whom you dissmiss, the Sisters of Battle, who are female, the Callidus assassin is female. Banshees, Wyches are also. Not to mention the numbers in fantasy.

A question is in the far flung future would there be variations in skin tone and appearance? or should the game reflect the society or it's players?

You bring up the argument of tokenism, and this is the problem that any attempt to introduce balance will be seen as purely tokenism and rather than a progress way to resolve the issue just an awkward shoe-horning of diversity into the game.

If we look at the world's infantry forces, how many of them actually have female front line fighters? Very few, so is wargaming being mysoginistic or is it reflecting on current society?

[Psychosplodge]

I remember when Salamanders were white...

I don't think it's a deliberate snub, it's like wolfie says, the game was made by a bunch of white dudes.

[Wolfshade]

There is this thing called the Bechdel test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/posts/Screen-Test) that simply looks at female roles in films, as the clip points out it doesn't mention if it is a good film or bad, it just comments on the role of females. Similiarly, having gender/race equality in wargaming doesn't make the game a good system.

There is a problem with the perception of the hobby, however addressing this issue through a diversified and equal model range would not solve the problem. If you look at a lot of these niche hobbies they appear to be performed by similar groups of people. Bingo played by old women for example.

The reason for this is quite simple. Social Group theory. Now while I dislike sociology I think it has import here.

Take table top wargaming, GW were an initial pioneer of it, it was created by a group of middle class white men, they would then tell their friends, who would be almost exclusively other middle class white men (not discounting that they have partners that may not be but these, while they may be incorporated and function as a friend they are an associate to the group) who would tell their friends and so on and so forth. Then some of those white men have children who they bring up to be white and middle class, introduce them to the hobby and the cycle continues, white middle class telling white middle class.

Similiarly, if you look at rock clubs while the gender balance is improving, again this is predominately a white club, in the same way the rap/hiphop type club is a african/afrocarribean place predominately.

We like to socialise and interact with people of our own "type". The more cross overs there are the more intimate you become. If you consider your close friendship group then how much diversity and equality are in it? My close group of mates are all white, about my age, straight, majority of them are married, no kids, listen to rock music, all at least degree educated in the sciences, all working full time, all own their own homes, all 40k, play similiar computer games and board games and it continues..
But if I look at my friendship groups, there is a mixture of male/female, straight/homosexual but what there is not, there are no non-whites. Does this mean that I am racist? Or does it mean that there are very few areas of my life where there is a cross-over with non-whites? At school this wasn't the case and I had a friends across all races, though all male as it was a single sex school.

[Gotthammer]

Psycho - it's often the unintentional snubs that are the worst as it shows the person doing it didn't even consider it. For instance you're excusing the lack of portrayals of non-whites because the creators didn't mean it. I mean in the 20 odd years of GW it just never occurred to put a non white person who wasn't from planet ethnic stereotype in an illustration?
Which is the point about privilege - you don't think about how not seeing yourself in media can affect people when you're always able to find a positive portrayal of yourself.
There's a subtle message when you're either not shown or shown only negatively - this is not for you, you are not welcome here. It's why people using gay and rape and so on in game stores really gets under my skin, because gamers don't interact with those groups very often because they unconsciously send out vibes that if you are gay, or a woman, or ethnic given some of the slurs I've heard used, you are not welcome in this group. It may well be unintentional, but it still hurts. See the link I posted for more on that sort of thing.

And there are plenty of inclusive things created by middle class white people, from comics and games to tv and books. I really fail to see why gaming lags behind so badly.

[daboarder]

http://www.coolminiornot.com/articles/1310-ethnic-skintones

[Psychosplodge]

I suppose I am very much guilty of that, I'm more conscious to not use rape analogies/jokes as it offends even me, but I have been known to use gay but then so do all the gay people I know.... (though wolfie pointed out in the LGBT thread that some people are still relating it to homosexuality as an insult which wasn't really how we used it *shrug*)
Keep in mind though it started in the eighties, you can't judge it by todays standards, which are massively different despite only being 20-30 years ago.
I do think york did a sensible thing actually requesting girls come join them.

[YorkNecromancer]

I have been known to use gay but then so do all the gay people I know...

Yeah, everyone insults their friends, so if your gay friends are okay with that? Great. It shows you have good friends. But we're not talking about that. Individual examples are not relevant when discussing a culture as a whole, and we are talking about the culture as a whole, and how it presents itself. It's like entering a discussion on drag-net fishing and dolphin depopulation in the fishing industry by talking about how when you fish downriver, you never catch a dolphin, so you don't get why people are complaining about fishermen catching dolphins. It's a completely false comparsion, because we're not talking about you and your river -we're talking about an industry and the seas, and the industry has the problem.


Keep in mind though it started in the eighties, you can't judge it by todays standards, which are massively different despite only being 20-30 years ago.

But 6th edition was released last year! That means the whole game system has changed SIX TIMES. Hull points? Not in 3rd edition. Lasguns for Space Marines? Not since first. Grey Knight Nemesis Force Halberds having a bolt pistol with four shots in that you had to keep track of? Gone with the wind. Ruleswise 1st edition 40K and 6th are barely recognisable as the same game! I haven't rolled on a model's Cool stat in twenty five years! So 40K isn't twenty years old. It's a current product, and it can and has changed... at least as far as dice rolls go.

Seriously, ask the question: why do people think it's okay for the rules to be changed on a five year cyclical basis (and be honest with me - how many times have you argued that a rule regarding dice rolls should be changed to improve the game? A huge element of the discussions on BoLS is on how people want the rules to change) but that changing the fluff in such a way as to simply acknowledge the fact that black people and women exist is a step too far and things should just stay as they always have?

Why is it that the dice roll rules are malleable, but the fluff is set in stone? It's not like I'm arguing that we should change Horus' name to Twinkle McFluffleberry. Just that in the grim darkness of the far future, there's a place for gamers of all ethnicities and genders.

40K may be the most awful future imaginable, but that doesn't mean it should exclude people in Real Life, today in 2013.

I mean, honestly: how do we, as gamers, lose by having more options? Because that's all female and ethnic options would mean: MORE options, not less! I literally do not see the down side. An argument against inclusivity is an argument against new and exciting plastic kits.

[Psychosplodge]

True but the range has changed slower. An eighties rogue trader marine is still recognised as a space marine.
You would need a new range available to go straight away to do what you're asking.
Maybe when SOB are redone, and a new guard release, then we'll get more of what you want? Though didn't we agree a female in combat armour (like the cadians wear) looks pretty much like a male in combat armour last time it came up?

[Wolfshade]

But isn't the argument that it is reflecting 2013, where very few women actually see combat.

As for ethnicity, this is harder and there are very few decent looking ethnic heads around, but then is a sealed unit any race/colour you care for. Though looking at Japan, say, it doesn't seem to be negatively effecting GW sales.

Just because we have the models for a group doesn't mean that that group plays it. The argument is akin to saying girls only play SoB and boys never do, which is clearly not the case.

[Mr Mystery]

Ethnicity?

Paint however you want. No reason a given Marine has to be a particular skin colour. Hell, 90% of their models (well, majority) wear a helmet anyway.

Gender?

Already enshrined in the background. Geneseed doesn't work on women.

And seriously....why should any company have to reflect diversity in what are essentially toys? They're bits of plastic and resin. It's not as if any slogan or sigil in any of the GW games is anything like 'Up Yours Darky Wop Gaylord' is it? So there's no direct racism, homophobia or sexism at all.

There is of course perceived racism, homophobia and sexism. But guess whose problem that is? Here's a top tip! It's not the manufacturer.

And tell me, ethnicities....we're talking about modls with exaggerated features for aesthetic reasons yes? Would a deliberately sculpted 'black' face not just be utterly offensive, as it would have to riff off a stereotype to be recognised? That would be a hell of a lot worse if you ask me.

As for 'privilege'? I simply refuse to go around apologising for my incredible good fortune of being born a white heterosexual male into a middling class family. I got lucky. I'm quite aware of that. Doesn't mean I have to join some kind of crusade to force through equality.

[YorkNecromancer]

You would need a new range available to go straight away to do what you're asking.

GW release new plastic kits every now and then. Should be company policy that there should be at least one female/ethnic head per kits for races where it is appropriate (IG, etc...)

Plus there's the new SM codex due out in September. It would be the perfect time for female Space Marines. It won't happen, because the heat death of the universe will happen before that rubbish little bit of fluff is changed, but there will undoubtedly be new SM infantry. Given the INSANE number of heads in the SW Grey Hunter kit, no-one can even begin to suggest that it's impossible to do. Yeah, it'll never happen, but only because of GW's company culture, not because female SM's will cause the world to end.

They could do it, and easily. But they won't.


Though didn't we agree a female in combat armour (like the cadians wear) looks pretty much like a male in combat armour last time it came up?

Yup. You can't tell the difference between men and women in modern armour except for the face. All I want is Cadian heads with female faces, and plastic Catachan Vasquez.


why should any company have to reflect diversity in what are essentially toys?

Because being inclusive is cool.


So there's no direct racism, homophobia or sexism at all.

Exactly what I said. It's not intended, but it IS there. Saying it's not a problem IS THE PROBLEM.


Would a deliberately sculpted 'black' face not just be utterly offensive, as it would have to riff off a stereotype to be recognised?

Not if you've got a good sculptor. Dragonforge's are lovely: http://dragonforge.com/Painting%20service/for%20sale/conversion_parts.htm


I simply refuse to go around apologising for my incredible good fortune of being born a white heterosexual male into a middling class family. I got lucky. I'm quite aware of that.

Ummm... where did I ask you to apologise? I don't remember asking you to do that.

What I said was "Just because you don’t think something is a problem doesn’t mean you’re right. And if someone accuses GW of sexism or racism, don’t get defensive and demean their argument, because they’re not having a go at you or saying you’re a bad person."

In response to which you denied there was a problem, then got super defensive.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

First up: great first post. It's good that we're having these conversations all throughout nerdery at the moment. At the end if the day, what I think it's fair to say that we want is this: a community which is safe, welcoming and open to all who want to take part and have fun in an amicable way. Yes, that does involve examining ourselves and our own attitudes. It doesn't mean you need to hate yourself or embark on a crusade, just that you take into account how your circumstances affect your views of the world and other people.

On GW, it's worth noting that in the Space Marine background, with the exception of a couple of chapters (Salamanders and Raven Guard), their skin actually changes colour depending on the environment they're in. Few people actually take advantage of that fact when painting, but it is there.

On female figures, there are more than they used to be. Some races are better than others (hi, Eldar!). It's ridiculous that there's no way to get female IG, especially when the background is full of them (in the hands of better writers, like ADB). That's almost certainly one of the reasons the Toughest Girls of the Galaxy was so popular. There's room to do much, much better.

[Psychosplodge]

Just because we have the models for a group doesn't mean that that group plays it. The argument is akin to saying girls only play SoB and boys never do, which is clearly not the case.

I wouldn't push the argument that far. Plus seems to blokes more interested in the SOB girls seem to have a thing for tanks and space elves judging by this forum :D

[Wolfshade]

I wouldn't push the argument that far. Plus seems to blokes more interested in the SOB girls seem to have a thing for tanks and space elves judging by this forum :D

It is the absurditiy of it that I am trying to point out. It is akin to saying people don't play monopoly because they are not an iron, top hat, dog or race car.

Those dragonforge heads look like a nice tokenism to me, which is what one of the complaints are about.

[Mr Mystery]

GW release new plastic kits every now and then. Should be company policy that there should be at least one female/ethnic head per kits for races where it is appropriate (IG, etc...)

Plus there's the new SM codex due out in September. It would be the perfect time for female Space Marines. It won't happen, because the heat death of the universe will happen before that rubbish little bit of fluff is changed, but there will undoubtedly be new SM infantry. Given the INSANE number of heads in the SW Grey Hunter kit, no-one can even begin to suggest that it's impossible to do. Yeah, it'll never happen, but only because of GW's company culture, not because female SM's will cause the world to end.

They could do it, and easily. But they won't.



Yup. You can't tell the difference between men and women in modern armour except for the face. All I want is Cadian heads with female faces, and plastic Catachan Vasquez.



Because being inclusive is cool.



Exactly what I said. It's not intended, but it IS there. Saying it's not a problem IS THE PROBLEM.



Not if you've got a good sculptor. Dragonforge's are lovely: http://dragonforge.com/Painting%20service/for%20sale/conversion_parts.htm



Ummm... where did I ask you to apologise? I don't remember asking you to do that.

What I said was "Just because you don’t think something is a problem doesn’t mean you’re right. And if someone accuses GW of sexism or racism, don’t get defensive and demean their argument, because they’re not having a go at you or saying you’re a bad person."

In response to which you denied there was a problem, then got super defensive.

I wouldn't say I got defensive.

You're making pretty bizarre claims, and even weirder demands. For instance, simply to satsify your own agenda and opinion, you want female Space Marines. Even though the background has always stated the geneseed doesn't work on female anatomy. You then write this off as a poor reason, just because.

What would female Marines actually bring to the table? I see no actual advantage.

Yes, inclusion is cool. But it's not as if the game or background is itself exclusive of anyone. After all, you aren't limited to SoB if your female, or Salamander if you're of African descent. You can play whatever you wish.

You go on about how being privlieged, I just don't see discrimination. I disagree entirely. I can see discrimination. It's easy to spot. However, you seem to be actively looking for it, or at least evidence for it, and then leaping to a conclusion.

Do you seriously, honestly, genuinely believe anyone ever has looked at getting into the hobby, and been put off entirely by the general lack of melanin and oestregen displayed in the models? I doubt it. I really do doubt that.

The problem here is entirely perceived.

Now, if an individual encountered sexist/homophobic/racist players, then absolutley that is cause for alarm and action.

But lack of boobies on a model? The way many people paint? Belt up dude. You're just looking for issues where frankly there are none.

Again, the only way to represent different ethnicities and genders is with exaggerated sculpts, and that's far, far more likely to cause offense than my having painted my dudes white.

[daboarder]

I wouldn't say I got defensive.

You're making pretty bizarre claims, and even weirder demands. For instance, simply to satsify your own agenda and opinion, you want female Space Marines. Even though the background has always stated the geneseed doesn't work on female anatomy. You then write this off as a poor reason, just because.

What would female Marines actually bring to the table? I see no actual advantage.

Yes, inclusion is cool. But it's not as if the game or background is itself exclusive of anyone. After all, you aren't limited to SoB if your female, or Salamander if you're of African descent. You can play whatever you wish.

You go on about how being privlieged, I just don't see discrimination. I disagree entirely. I can see discrimination. It's easy to spot. However, you seem to be actively looking for it, or at least evidence for it, and then leaping to a conclusion.

Do you seriously, honestly, genuinely believe anyone ever has looked at getting into the hobby, and been put off entirely by the general lack of melanin and oestregen displayed in the models? I doubt it. I really do doubt that.

The problem here is entirely perceived.

Now, if an individual encountered sexist/homophobic/racist players, then absolutley that is cause for alarm and action.

But lack of boobies on a model? The way many people paint? Belt up dude. You're just looking for issues where frankly there are none.

Again, the only way to represent different ethnicities and genders is with exaggerated sculpts, and that's far, far more likely to cause offense than my having painted my dudes white.

Your my hero mystery

Edit: id like to add tha a lot of us would like to see female IG. The reason we do t is far more likely to be political (shooting wome n is pretty not ok by our cultures standards) than misogynistic.

[Gotthammer]

There are plenty of lines out there that have non anglo sculpts - Hasslefree, Reaper, Infinity, Bushido and others - without cries of minstrelry, so I have no idea why people seem to think it's impossible to sculpt them. I mean if they can sculpt anglo features accurately, why not African or Asian? Are white people 'easier' to sculpt?



But it's not as if the game or background is itself exclusive of anyone.

But it kind of is. Yes, anyone can like any faction or play any army, but the initial draw is exclusionary. Imagine if you were a non-white / non-male and walked into a game store for the first time and heard this conversation being spoken - a bunch of white guys saying how it was totally unnecessary to depict non-white men in the game, because that's what you are all arguing for really, and imagine how welcome you would feel. Lack of depiction in the rulebooks and so on is the subtle version of that.

[eldargal]

But isn't the argument that it is reflecting 2013, where very few women actually see combat.
Nope, because very little about the setting reflects 2013. Boys can't jump around smashing evil aliens/machines/traitors into a pulp in power armour, it's an empowerment fantasy. So let women have empowerment fantasies through the game too, falling back on 'realism' is silly enough for a scifi setting but institutional sexism when it is uses to prevent women from having what met get by default.


Already enshrined in the background. Geneseed doesn't work on women.
See above re: institutional sexism. The reasons given for geneseed not working on women are complete nonsense, it is just used to keep Marines as a boys club only. I don't particularly care but just because a reason is given doesn't change what it is. I actually find the pseudo-scientific bollocks more irritating than if they just said 'The Emperor only had male Marines so the IoM 'today' only has male Marines' and dressed it up in in-universe bigotry. As for the


Do you seriously, honestly, genuinely believe anyone ever has looked at getting into the hobby, and been put off entirely by the general lack of melanin and oestregen displayed in the models? I doubt it. I really do doubt that.
You doubt it because you are a white male. You see a setting almost entirely designed to appeal to you and resonate with you. As female all I had to go on was Howling Banshees, a few hints at female IG, hints at eldar gender equality and a few years later SoB. I know a dozen or so female RPGers who love the FFG stuff but don't bother with the tabletop game because nearly everything about it tells them it isn't for them. They see a game for boys/men made by boys/men by a company that markets exclusively and deliberately to men. As a male you don't notice it because you are used to it, you are wargame privileged.:) The same, I would imagine, applies to other ethnicities who see the vast majority of the artwork depicting white men.


You go on about how being privlieged, I just don't see discrimination. I disagree entirely. I can see discrimination. It's easy to spot. However, you seem to be actively looking for it, or at least evidence for it, and then leaping to a conclusion.

Not always it isn't, the fact we are having this discussion shows it. Most white men are so blind to institutional sexism especially in things like hobbies that when it is pointed out they react incredulously, much as you are doing now.:p As a white man you've never experienced being told you can't do things in innumerable, small ways so you have trouble believing it exists. Take chick flicks. You know they aren't for you, everything about the way they are marketed tells you so. The fact you may enjoy some of them is irrelevant. Now imagine that almost EVERYTHING was marketed in that same way, as not being for you. That's what this is about, and that is real.

I do appreciate the irony of YorkNecromancer neatly summoning up why people shouldn't be defensive when people call out problems like this only to be met right away with daboarder getting defensive.

[Wolfshade]

Nope, because very little about the setting reflects 2013. Boys can't jump around smashing evil aliens/machines/traitors into a pulp in power armour, it's an empowerment fantasy. So let women have empowerment fantasies through the game too, falling back on 'realism' is silly enough for a scifi setting but institutional sexism when it is uses to prevent women from having what met get by default.

That was in relation to the comment #27 that said that the game was reflective of last year when 6th was released...

I don't disagree with you here but if someone says that it reflects 2013, then in which case the gender bias in humans certainly seems to reflect that.

[Psychosplodge]

As a white man you've never experienced being told you can't do things in innumerable, small ways so you have trouble believing it exists.
.

Try getting a council house as one... ;)

[Wolfshade]

Try getting a council house as one... ;)

Or a job as a policeman as they have already filled their quota of white males :p

[eldargal]

Or a job as a policeman as they have already filled their quota of white males :p
The quota in question being the vast majority of police...

[Psychosplodge]

The police went down hill when they got rid of the height requirement and became huggy...

[Wolfshade]

The quota in question being the vast majority of police...

We've been over this before and if you are happy with this form of discrimination so be it.

[eldargal]

We've been over this before and if you are happy with this form of discrimination so be it.
Yes, we have, and you are still completely wrong to think of it as discrimination, because it isn't. Forcing institutions to combat institutional discrimination is not discrimination.

[Wolfshade]

Sorry I thought discrimination was when an individual was given a specific treatment based on their membership of a group.

Now while you may say that the white male is overly represented and the group does not suffer discrimination as a whole, which I would agree with, the individual still does and that individual suffers discrimination. Whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing in the bigger picture that individual has still had treatment based on their sex, colour, whatever.

[eldargal]

None of that changes the fact that forcing institutions to employ people other than white males is not discrimination. What it amounts to is people who have unrivaled opportunities at a societal level losing a small number of those opportunities to give them to people who have far fewer opportunities at a societal level.

[Psychosplodge]

Surely you should employ the person most suited?

[Gotthammer]

Well you should, but often women or non-whites are excluded despite being the most suited so...

[eldargal]

Surely you should employ the person most suited?
Yes, and when you have dozens or hundreds of people equally qualified for the job, which is the reality, how do you chose who is really the best suited? People usually choose people who are like them, so if everyone making the decision is a white male they will almost certainly employ a white male unless a conscious effort is made to break the cycle.

As Gotthammer says, the reality isn't that 'the best person' gets the job, the reality is usually that the best 'white male' gets the job with women being excluded.

[Nabterayl]

None of that changes the fact that forcing institutions to employ people other than white males is not discrimination. What it amounts to is people who have unrivaled opportunities at a societal level losing a small number of those opportunities to give them to people who have far fewer opportunities at a societal level.
Uh ... it doesn't? Do you agree that giving an individual specific treatment based on their membership in a group is discrimination? "None of that" implies that you do, and if you do ... then yes, forcing institutions to employ people other than white males is discrimination.

Not that there's anything wrong with discrimination, in my opinion. Rule of law is premised on discrimination.

[eldargal]

Rectifying discrimination can not be discrimination. When white men are getting those positions due to an unfair, unwarranted advantage putting an end to that advantage is not discrimination however much it may inconvenience the individual.

Let's use a simple example shall we:

Foppindales Golf Course has a Male Only policy and membership is restricted to 1500 people. The only criterion for membership is a handicap below whatever.
The member decide to end the male only policy and ensure than 50% of all future members are female
Are males being discriminated against by this new policy? No.

The only difference between this example and the real institutional discrimination in Western societies is that in our societies the Male Only rule was unwritten.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Okay, this is a canard. What people mean when they say they're against discrimination is UNJUST discrimination, that is, excluding people from things based on nonsensical criteria like gender, ethnicity, etc. Yes, "discrimination" between things based on their relative merits is something everyone does. But there's a problem, which is what people are actually arguing against, which is UNJUST discrimination. "Everyone discriminates!" isn't an argument, in this light.

Further than that, Eldargal is right. Extending rights to more people != discriminating unfairly against others.

[Wolfshade]

None of that changes the fact that forcing institutions to employ people other than white males is not discrimination. What it amounts to is people who have unrivaled opportunities at a societal level losing a small number of those opportunities to give them to people who have far fewer opportunities at a societal level.

Any time any individual is treated differently to other people because of any membership to any group percieved or real is discrimination, in fact it is the deffinition of the very word.
While making companies/instiutions to have equal opportunity by having this quotas to combat insitutional discrimination must be a good thing, the resultant is that by doing so on the individual level you introduce a new discrimnation which is labelled as being good for society.

I completely understand your point of view that for society to combat insitutional discrimination such measures are required and if you truely believe in equality these must be used until those silos of thought a broken down and applicants are judged solely on their suitability for the job. I can see why you passionately argue that this is not discrimination, but for the individual it must be. This is why the quota system has people rallying against it, not because it is unfair for society, or because people do not agree with equality, but it is unfair for the individual.

If you went for a job and the only reason you didn't get it was because you were a white female you would be discriminated against. If society says that in the job you applied for there are too many white females then as far as society is concerned it is givening opportunity to those who aren't, but it doesn't change the fact that you were given distinguished treatment based on your sex and race.

[Gotthammer]

And nerddom is rife with unwritten rules about what is and isn't acceptable, and many of those are to do with gender, sexuality and race.
See Donald Glover on the reaction to his desire to play Spider Man (http://youtu.be/Lgko-xReFSs?t=40s).

[eldargal]

Any time any individual is treated differently to other people because of any membership to any group percieved or real is discrimination, in fact it is the deffinition of the very word.
And stopping people from not employing people who are not white males is not discrimination against white males, it is ending discrimination against others.

[Wolfshade]

And stopping people from not employing people who are not white males is not discrimination against white males, it is ending discrimination against others.

Surely that is what anti-discrimination laws are for?
If you have a situation whereby the only deciding factor of whether or not you get a job comes down to your race, religion, sex, orientation then you are being discriminatory. Whether you do so in the name of equality or to be a biggot it is what it is, an individual being given distinguished treatment based on what they are not who they are.

A quota system must be a form of discrimination, whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing I am not passing any judgement on. All I am saying is that it must be seen as discriminating against the individual.

It is ok, EG, the UN here agrees with me:


"the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."
from: United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment 18 on Non-discrimination, Paragraph 10

The language is clear:
"preferential treatment" is what is often rallied against the "preferential treatment of white males" for instance, or rather the discrimination of non-white males.
"legitimate differentiation" or rather legitimate discrimination.

It is sometimes necessary to affect affirmitve action to over come discrimination, but even if it is "good" it is still a form of discrimination..

Both Sweeden and the USA have legislated that quotas are illegal as they introduce a form of discrimination. I am unsure how they will be able to overcome structural discrimination.

[eldargal]

It doesn't really agree, it says that sometimes preferential treatment is needed to end discrimination, which doesn't make it discrimination. It isn't discrimination because it is redressing discrimination. This is getting tedious though and we've been over it before so going to let it drop now.

[Nabterayl]

Okay, this is a canard. What people mean when they say they're against discrimination is UNJUST discrimination, that is, excluding people from things based on nonsensical criteria like gender, ethnicity, etc. Yes, "discrimination" between things based on their relative merits is something everyone does.
Agreed here. The idea that discrimination is bad in itself is ridiculous, unless you are using discrimination as a term of art. So is the idea that you cannot end discrimination against one group by discriminating against another. Of course you can. Is the trade-off worth it? Very well might be.


Extending rights to more people != discriminating unfairly against others.
That's true, but there are not very many ways to combat discrimination that involve extending rights to more people. For instance, employment quotas do not extend rights to prospective employees, they impose duties upon employers.

[AirHorse]

Personally I think that people are looking into this in way too much depth.

Yes, of course there is discrimination present in 40k, yes it is massively male orientated and biased, yes the representation of humans(and human like races/characters) in the majority is very representative of "white males", but do I think that some kind of in depth analysis is required? Nope.

Games Workshop are a company who are selling to a target market, just like every other company in the world. Their ideas and products were aimed at British men with an interest in sci-fi war gaming primarily and so catered to what British male war gamers tend to enjoy.

Are they discriminating? Yes, technically they are, just like every other company in the world who designs their products for a target market. Is any of it unjust? I don't think so.

I don't think that because some guys who happened to be white men made something that they enjoyed and decided to sell it to other people similar to themselves(and therefore white men) there is some kind of "societal injustice" going on. It just means that it is a game made by white men from a place with other white men.

I totally understand if you wish they made a different product that was more representative of you and your personal interests, in fact that's what I would call normal(look at the army of whiners that surround literally every product ever made, of course it cant suit everyone!). It doesn't mean that the company that makes the product you wish was different should be forced to address this. The same way a company that makes something aimed at kids isn't forced to also accommodate adults, that's not their target market.

It would be unjust if they decided to refuse to sell their product to people who aren't white men, but they don't. Anyone can choose to buy from games workshop, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or any other differentiator there is(okay, technically they discriminate against people who cant afford to buy the products, but you get my point!).

EDIT: Just wanted to add that when I used the army of whiners example, I am not actually calling people who disagree whiners! I was just using hyperbole in my example!

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Generally as I see it, the decision seems to be either to do something, which might be clumsy and upset some people; or pretend like the problem doesn't exist, or some nebulous/non-existent force like "the market" will take care of it and do nothing, which legitimately hurts lots of people and their life chances.

Obviously the ideal point is to get to the point where racism, sexism, transphobia and so on have been eradicated so none of this is necessary; in the real world that we actually currently live in, these are problems, and action is necessary.

We can disagree about what steps should be taken, but I don't think it's possible to seriously claim that there's not a problem and that nothing needs to be done.

AirHorse; I don't think it's really being claimed that GW and their game is "discriminatory"; it's just that they could be doing a better job of including figures and paint schemes more representative of broader swathes of humanity. And alienality. ;)

[Wolfshade]

The question is, if GW did have a more inclusive model range/art work would that fundamentally change the group of people who play it. It is this which I think that the flaw is in Yorks thinking. It doesn't matter what is portrayed in game, it is the people who play it that need to be shown as being diverse and all inclusive.

[Necron2.0]

This:
http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2012/9/17/412555_md-Bandit%2C%20Commission%2C%20Converstion%2C%20Custo m%2C%20Games%20Workshop%2C%20Mexican%2C%20Orks.JPG

I am DEEPLY offended by this!! What are they trying to say here? Hispanics are moldy? Hispanics spread like a fungus? Hispanics can't shoot?

And then there's "Desperado." The only Spanish word in the rules, and it's associated with criminals. No doubt all the "Desperados" were locked up for stealing hubcaps, trafficking drugs and impregnating all the local Sororitas ... along with most of the captured Banshees, a few Fire Warrior prisoners and at least one or two Tyranid research specimens (because when it comes to the power of impregnation, The Emperor's got NOTHING over us).

Come on! The Imperium is one huge slap-happy space-papacy, rife with inquisitorial fervor, fighting to repel hordes of Xenos infidels. We have Tutonic Crusaders officially represented (who, by the way, historically speaking, FAILED MOST EPICALLY). Where the @#$! are the CONQUISTADORS? That is why the Imperium is failing - no @#$! Conquistadors!

So yeah, I'm upset. I'm going right out this very day, writing my Congressman, calling Geraldo Rivera, and rioting in the streets!! But first, a siesta.

[Nabterayl]

The question is, if GW did have a more inclusive model range/art work would that fundamentally change the group of people who play it. It is this which I think that the flaw is in Yorks thinking. It doesn't matter what is portrayed in game, it is the people who play it that need to be shown as being diverse and all inclusive.
I ... mostly agree with this.

[Gotthammer]

Ok, Necron - step 1. Read the article I linked to on page one, please.


Step 2 - that was written by me. If you (or almost every other person posting here) thinks this whole representation thing is all some big blow up, I'll elaborate. I almost quit the hobby after last years games day, I am only now just painting again after almost a year. You know why? Because for ****ing years, I've gone into games stores and heard people make homophobic slurs and worse and when I ask them to stop get told "it's just a joke" and that I should lighten up. Because in this world of gaming the majority of people only see themselves, so they don't have to think about others. One time I literally got told, many years ago, after asking someone to stop calling people gay or f@ggots that "there were no f@gs here, so who cares?" Because they looked around and saw people just like them and me (the kill-joy, so whatever). And nobody else spoke up. So I stopped gaming.

Then, last year, I went to games day and had the chance to meet Jes Goodwin, someone who's work i've idolised almost my entire life.

And I got to sit in that ****ing seminar and listen as he made jokes about me, and sit there surrounded by people who were laughing riotously at me. Yeah, not me literally, but to hear a joke like that come from someone you hold in such high regard cuts deep. I wanted to speak up, but to do so would have been outing myself and everyone in that room had just shown they thought of my existence as a punchline, so there was no way I'd feel safe saying that there.
And here I've got pages of people telling me that 40k was created by white cis-men for white cis-men, so too ****ing bad if it makes you feel unwelcome (lol, ur a reverse sexist!), these are our toys so get out if you don't like it. And if anyone's thinking "I didn't say that" - you may as well have because when someone says "I don't like this" and you say "it's not a problem, quit complaining" you're just as much a part of the problem.

On the first page I said I was disappointed in BoLS for the attitudes shown. I still am disappointed... but I'm not surprised. And learning to expect this sort of thing from people, well, that's the worst part of it all.

[Nabterayl]

+1.

Gotthammer, I'm curious - I've mostly stayed out of this thread so far because too many of the posts are by people on my "not worth talking to" list. I'm checking in from time to time to see if things improve. Does this strike you as tolerance of the insensitivity on my part?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I have to say, Gotthammer, that I'm really very sorry to hear about your experience there. I hope if there's something you can take from the thread, it's that there are people who understand that what you had to go through is not okay, and that we're trying to make sure that those experiences become a thing of the past.

[Bigred]

Gotthammer, that story is just revolting. I'm so sorry you had to endure that.

It reminded me of something though. Here is a document that I was told is part of set given to new authors and writers who are unfamiliar with the Warhammer 40,000 universe. It's interesting to get a glimpse "behind the curtain" and see what it is Nottingham is selling.


VIOLENCE

Games Workshop games are tabletop wargames based upon battles. Battles are, by nature, violent affairs. Over the years we have gone to a great deal of trouble to create game backgrounds in which conflict is endemic.

So, when it comes to portraying violence, what is and isn't acceptable?. In general it's pretty much the case that there are few absolute limits on what can be described or portrayed. However, whether that is appropriate or not depends on how violence is portrayed. The context is more important than the actual deeds or events.

I've always worked within what I assumed to be mutually understood boundaries. Which are:-

1. Heroic combat.

Generally speaking we portray heroic combat - warriors fighting other warriors or monsters. In this context a fight can be very violent indeed. If violence is being portrayed as part of an exciting or entertaining image (picture of two fighting warriors/fight scene in a book) the proper context is combat between adversaries.

2. There are no helpless victims.

We don't encourage casual reference to, or facetious portrayal of violence against victims who are helpless or unable to fight back. That is not to say that gruesome torture, execution, and such like cannot be portrayed but that they have to be treated in context - i.e. as genuinely horrific, appalling, evil, etc. As this is hard to do with art (ie it is hard to put such representations into context or they are too easily taken out of context) we rarely deal with these subjects as pictures. Or as models for that matter. When we deal with these matters in print we prefer to do so in text by referrence where appropriate rather than by describing the actual events.

As an example of how we interpret the above guideline - a war machine that threw gagged and bound victims to their death would not be an acceptable model (because in the context of a game the detail would be treated lightly). An isolated incident in a book in which this happened would be OK if the context was one of evil, horror and revulsion.

3. Sex and Violence

We never picture or describe sexual violence or specific violence against women as such. In fact we generally avoid the matter of sex completely (we much prefer violence after all). Women in our world backgrounds tend to be at least as combatative as the men (often they are elite warriors and powerful characters).

[Kirsten]

I've gone into games stores and heard people make homophobic slurs and worse and when I ask them to stop get told "it's just a joke" and that I should lighten up.

I agree, had the same thing here. went into a GW store for example when I was in my mid teens and a dark angels collector, my first 40k army. the guy in the store went on and on for a good five minutes about how the dark angels were all gay and that was why they wore robes etc. seriously? is that the level of 'humour'? and a similar response when I complained, oh it is just a joke, they are just models/fiction and so not real so you can't offend things that don't exist. Some of my friends do occasionally refer to things as 'gay' in a negative way and I call them out on it. mostly it is old habit from school, they don't really mean it, but plenty of people do.

[Mr Mystery]

Gott, you've kind of backs up my point there.

The issue is not one of the game, but the community. And with behaviour like that, it's a community I don't wish to be part of.

So I'm not. When I was a staffer, I regularly called people out on inappropriate language. And repeated infractions resulted in bannings.

From calling something 'gay' to arguing whether or not Bloodknights 'rape' Chaos Knights, it was stamped out.

For the most part, it was just teenage boys being their typical insensitive selves, but whilst a reason, it wasn't an excuse.

But the game itself doesn't engender such behaviour at all.

[Kirsten]

I would agree with basically everything Gott says personally. The only point I would make regarding ethnicity is that there is not quite as much opportunity to include it as people might think. Look at 40k, marines and guard could both have racial variations certainly, alien races of course are not really in the same league for establishing human racial variation of course. as far as marines go, the vast majority of models are fully armoured and really could be any race you like. the transformation process for a marine is stated to remove a lot of differentiation, faces change and become a bit more generic, so differences before implantation might not exist afterwards. as such skin tone could be anything you like. guard are where variation could really be brought in, but then there just aren't that many models so far. if you consider the 25 odd years of 40k models, there are not actually that many models/heads (where the variation could be seen easiest) made. I am not saying people are wrong to want it, I would love to see more variation in gaming, but I do not personally believe it is quite so bad as people might think. There is a fair amount of diversity in the various books and background. As far as fantasy goes, the human races are from a specific region of 'warhammer europe' shall we say, and the other races are not human and so have their own fictional racial identity. I would love to see a cathay army though, that would rock.

[Necron2.0]

Wow, GH.

Ok, Step 1: No.
Likewise Step 2: No.

Why? Say it with me now, "I don't care."

However, more importantly, you should not care. You either cultivate an attitude of "I don't care," like I have, or else you let all that vitriol stick to you and sink in, and end up becoming bitter, hateful, useless and pretty much a downer for everyone, much like one of my brothers. I’m sorry you’ve had to suffer the unthinking insults of people who weren’t aware of your situation. It is, however, far better than having to endure the greater degree of insults hurled directly at you from people who DO know who and what you are.

Tell me, have you been spat on because of who you are? I have. Have you been beaten because of who you are? I have. Have you been subject to public humiliation at the hands of an authority figure (other than family – which I’ll give to you) because of who you are? I have. Even yesterday, I was chased out of a forum (had to cancel my membership) because I let it slip that I am Hispanic, and some there wouldn’t tolerate “my kind.” Am I upset? No. Why? Because I don’t care. Crap happens. People are stupid. Deal. I have people in my life whom I love and who love me back. I am comfortable in my living, because I am excellent at what I do. I am excellent at what I do, because I always strive to better myself and I do not listen to morons who try and run me down, whether they know that’s what they’re doing or not.

In the end, what you choose to be offended by is really up to you. Only you can fix you. And in truth, only you can offend you as well – offence being the product of the inner conflicts we all face. Do not expect people to walk around on eggshells trying not to offend you, because that most assuredly is NOT going to happen. It is up to you to decide how you will face “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” - you and nobody else. For myself, I remember someone saying that an equal would never stoop to unanswered insults, whereas the less man (seeing as he is the lesser man) does not have the capacity to offer offence, and this encourages me to laugh. I laugh because those seeking to offend me have only proven themselves the lesser man.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I agree with that Kirsten.

Also, I want a Nippon army. :p

[Mr Mystery]

As Bigred's quote illustrates, sex isn't part of the background, at all.

Indeed, the Eldar are noted for their lack of gender bias, and presented as enlightened for it. The Imperium of course, who are never presented as the 'good guys' (because in 40k, there aren't any!) consider it a mark of heathen decadence. And given the Imperiums clearly high rating on the 'bunch of *******s-o-meter' this is a criticism of sexist views, presented as they are as a result of ignorance.

Race? Again, why does this need to be covered at all? The IG heads are pretty racially generic, and can take a variety of flesh paint schemes without looking odd. Even the crew cut Catachan heads can be painted to reflect many ethnicities.

As for homosexuality/bisexuality/asexuality/heterosexuality/transgender etc? Impossible to represent in models with out being extremely offensive. And again, it's rightly not covered in the background. Unless York wants to see 'The Emperor's VIth Great Big Simpering Woofters' as a regiment, dressed in there revealing PVC uniforms, declaring themselves 'the only Gays in the galaxy'. (Yes hyperbolic, deliberately so. Done to illustrate how silly his standpoint is)

[Kirsten]

In the end, what you choose to be offended by is really up to you. Only you can fix you. And in truth, only you can offend you as well – offence being the product of the inner conflicts we all face. Do not expect people to walk around on eggshells trying not to offend you, because that most assuredly is NOT going to happen.

that is a nonsense argument however, saying 'it is always going to happen, why bother' means it will always happen. the only way to see any change is to help make it. we would have had no social evolution whatsoever if everybody just said 'oh well I don't care'

[Necron2.0]

Unfortunately you live under the incorrect assumption that there has been social evolution. We've had social change. We will have social change in the future. We have been here before. We will be here again.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

that is a nonsense argument however, saying 'it is always going to happen, why bother' means it will always happen. the only way to see any change is to help make it. we would have had no social evolution whatsoever if everybody just said 'oh well I don't care'


I also agree here.

Necron, that is an idiot argument to try and make. Discrimination shouldn't be just accepted, it should be stopped.
You're speaking a load of horsesh*t.

[Kirsten]

Unfortunately you live under the incorrect assumption that there has been social evolution. We've had social change. We will have social change in the future. We have been here before. We will be here again.

that doesn't make any sense either. what point are you actually trying to make? what is your definition of social change and evolution? what difference does it make in this setting? it doesn't alter my point that giving up helps nobody.

[Necron2.0]

I should also add there is a notion of picking your battles. If someone were saying, "Gays can't vote!!" then I'd be telling them in no uncertain terms to shut the @#!$ up. However, idle comments in an LGS aren't really federal case worthy. They're annoying, sure. There is no rational solution to people being annoying, however.

EDIT:
What we are talking about here is the question of "offense." The social changes you work toward are a matter of choice. What offends you is, likewise, a matter of choice. You can choose not to concern yourself over insults, real or implied. That says nothing about what social changes you work toward.

[Mr Mystery]

Social evolution requires a stable society. That's something we're heading towards rapidly.

It also requires freedom of communication. Got that in spades.

Seriously. Take a look at where we're living now, and attitudes/prejudices even 50 years ago in your respective countries.

[Necron2.0]

I also agree here.

Necron, that is an idiot argument to try and make. Discrimination shouldn't be just accepted, it should be stopped.
You're speaking a load of horsesh*t.

Lesser man. ;)

[Deadlift]

I get it Necron, I like to think I'm pretty easy going and don't really place any importance on someone's race, sexual orientation, clothing preference etc etc. I don't actively fight against discrimination because generally I don't see it. I do step in if I think someone is being victimised or bullied or what ever but realistically where I'm from it just isn't an issue. I suppose it gives me a rather ignorant view of what is being talked about here. But I don't see the point in worrying too much about issues that don't effect me or mine. I do believe in equality for all but it's not something that weighs heavily on my mind.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Well people are CLEARLY feeling victimised, otherwise no one would stand up against anyone.

I listen to a lot of music that puts out very clear messages against discrimination, while I may not be the most vocal of defenders, I do my part.
Seriously, Rise Against are amazing for these kinds of things.

And you think hiding makes you the bigger man Necron? You keep believing that.

[Deadlift]

Well people are CLEARLY feeling victimised, otherwise no one would stand up against anyone.

I think the thing is I don't really know anyone who feels victimised socially on a daily basis, not on any grand scale anyway. Sure you could argue all woman are victimised because of gender etc and I sure know plenty of women. But it's never been brought up or talked about. I have a few gay friends. I don't really know if they feel victimised much. They are just another part of my social circle and being gay isn't really talked about. They are just my friends. Sure if they came to me and said, look we're having a problem with x y or z because we're gay what do you suggest ? I would help, as they are my friends. But I'm more likely to be asked to lend a hand with shifting furniture etc, my life's really that boring.
I like to think anyone on here knows I'm not intentionally discriminating and those who have shared some pretty horrific stories because of their differences knows that I have nothing but support for them. I have put my foot in my mouth a few times, but have never meant to be mean intentionally.

[YorkNecromancer]

that was written by me. If you (or almost every other person posting here) thinks this whole representation thing is all some big blow up, I'll elaborate. I almost quit the hobby after last years games day, I am only now just painting again after almost a year. You know why? Because for ****ing years, I've gone into games stores and heard people make homophobic slurs and worse and when I ask them to stop get told "it's just a joke" and that I should lighten up. Because in this world of gaming the majority of people only see themselves, so they don't have to think about others. One time I literally got told, many years ago, after asking someone to stop calling people gay or f@ggots that "there were no f@gs here, so who cares?" Because they looked around and saw people just like them and me (the kill-joy, so whatever). And nobody else spoke up. So I stopped gaming.

Then, last year, I went to games day and had the chance to meet Jes Goodwin, someone who's work i've idolised almost my entire life.

And I got to sit in that ****ing seminar and listen as he made jokes about me, and sit there surrounded by people who were laughing riotously at me. Yeah, not me literally, but to hear a joke like that come from someone you hold in such high regard cuts deep. I wanted to speak up, but to do so would have been outing myself and everyone in that room had just shown they thought of my existence as a punchline, so there was no way I'd feel safe saying that there.
And here I've got pages of people telling me that 40k was created by white cis-men for white cis-men, so too ****ing bad if it makes you feel unwelcome (lol, ur a reverse sexist!), these are our toys so get out if you don't like it. And if anyone's thinking "I didn't say that" - you may as well have because when someone says "I don't like this" and you say "it's not a problem, quit complaining" you're just as much a part of the problem.

On the first page I said I was disappointed in BoLS for the attitudes shown. I still am disappointed... but I'm not surprised. And learning to expect this sort of thing from people, well, that's the worst part of it all.

Gotthammer, that is some awful, awful stuff you've had to go through. You have nothing but my support - that shouldn't have happened to you, or anyone.

You're bloody brave for sharing it too. I'm trying to think of a way to properly express my reaction, but basically I can't think of much beyond my original post. We've just got to keep challenging this nonsense until it goes away, because I think this thread has made it clear - it's not going away on its own.

I will say I found your article excellent, though :)


But it's never been brought up or talked about. I have a few gay friends. I don't really know if they feel victimised much.

Well, that's kind of what this thread is about: people bringing it up and talking about it. I think it's fair to say several people on this thread have felt victimised by people "in the hobby", and that those people doing the victimising had no idea, because that's how privilege works. If you're not aware you have it, you just assume everyone feels the way you do, especially if they're all laughing along with you.

Of course, laughter and silence can camoflage fear. The people too afraid to speak out often laugh the hardest because they have most to lose by speaking up. As a teacher, I see that every day in school. Makes me sad, because their mates think everything's okay, and you just watch as the quiet one just gets torn up inside by their words.

Awful.

Awful, awful, awful.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I think the thing is I don't really know anyone who feels victimised socially on a daily basis, not on any grand scale anyway. Sure you could argue all woman are victimised because of gender etc and I sure know plenty of women. But it's never been brought up or talked about. I have a few gay friends. I don't really know if they feel victimised much. They are just another part of my social circle and being gay isn't really talked about. They are just my friends. Sure if they came to me and said, look we're having a problem with x y or z because we're gay what do you suggest ? I would help, as they are my friends. But I'm more likely to be asked to lend a hand with shifting furniture etc, my life's really that boring.

Well that's how it should always be.


Gotthammer, that is some awful, awful stuff you've had to go through. You have nothing but my support - that shouldn't have happened to you, or anyone.

You're bloody brave for sharing it too. I'm trying to think of a way to properly express my reaction, but basically I can't think of much beyond my original post. We've just got to keep challenging this nonsense until it goes away, because I think this thread has made it clear - it's not going away on its own.

I will say I found your article excellent, though :)

^ This

[Kirsten]

I get it Necron, I like to think I'm pretty easy going and don't really place any importance on someone's race, sexual orientation, clothing preference etc etc. I don't actively fight against discrimination because generally I don't see it. I do step in if I think someone is being victimised or bullied or what ever but realistically where I'm from it just isn't an issue. I suppose it gives me a rather ignorant view of what is being talked about here. But I don't see the point in worrying too much about issues that don't effect me or mine. I do believe in equality for all but it's not something that weighs heavily on my mind.

that is understandable. I can easily see not thinking about it when it doesn't affect you, the issue is when it does affect you but you do nothing. One of the things I try and do with people I meet is introduce them to these issues, hence the lgbt thread. it is the difference between seeing something on the news, and having a more personal connection to something that makes it matter. the isle of man has something of a reputation for prejudice but it isn't actually deserved, it is simply that in a small community a lot of issues don't arise. once people do meet someone it affects, they form a more personalised opinion than they do from seeing something on the news. for example they realise gay people are normal people like themselves and they have nothing against them at all. I always use the example of the japanese tsunami. we all know it was terrible, we can sympathise, but ultimately I have never been near one, never been to japan, and don't know anyone affected. as such my ability to care/empathise is limited. once something is no longer a news story you can forget about, you form a deeper understanding and opinion. as such I hope to make people think about these matters and how they affect someone they know, even if just online. every little helps, as they say...

[Denzark]

Christ here we go again. This could have been the moment the oubliette jumped the shark. Regarding:

1. Male only space marines. None of the technology makes sense, it is science FICTION and therefore male only makes sense within the context. It is not real, it can be anything and I am glad it is how it is.

2. If females are equal to males, then in return males are equal to females. So 100% male groupings are equally 'valid' to 100% groupings of females. This argument equally substitutes to colours/sexualities. So a 100% white male army is as valid by any metric as a 100% black, female army, or one with any mix.

3. GW as a business has no social responsibility beyond that owed its shareholders, in accordance with UK law. So it has no need to try and represent society, either as it is now, or as it is in the future in how it paints its minis.(incidentally I have read several places that inter-racial breeding may leave the entire human race with a mixed race appearance in the not too distant future -should GW painters try and represent society now or in the future? FFS.)

4. Yorkymancer you did not complain about Hispanics, or Japanese/Chinese Asians being under-represented. Neither did you complain about disabled or blind minis not being represented. You are clearly a prejudiced racialist. IC3s are not the only non-whites you know.

5. I thought we had debunked the whole 'privilege' tosh in the first female thread. A lower working class white chav on an inner city sink hole estate is not more privileged than a middle class Asian whose family send him to private school then university. End of.

6. I can't find the figures here and now, but recently, the most complaints of racism received by the Commission for Racial Equality (now re-named) was from English people complaining about their treatment at the hand of Scottish people. I wonder how many of those were exercising white privilege.

7. York Necro it is school holidays so lighten up you prune. You don't complain about geno/xenocidal wars of extermination by humans against Aliens just cos they're nasty xenos, so don't monk because not enough shades of Steel legion drab are being used on exposed flesh as opposed to cadian fleshtone.

[Kirsten]

Christ here we go again. This could have been the moment the oubliette jumped the shark. Regarding:

1. Male only space marines. None of the technology makes sense, it is science FICTION and therefore male only makes sense within the context. It is not real, it can be anything and I am glad it is how it is.

2. If females are equal to males, then in return males are equal to females. So 100% male groupings are equally 'valid' to 100% groupings of females. This argument equally substitutes to colours/sexualities. So a 100% white male army is as valid by any metric as a 100% black, female army, or one with any mix.

3. GW as a business has no social responsibility beyond that owed its shareholders, in accordance with UK law. So it has no need to try and represent society, either as it is now, or as it is in the future in how it paints its minis.(incidentally I have read several places that inter-racial breeding may leave the entire human race with a mixed race appearance in the not too distant future -should GW painters try and represent society now or in the future? FFS.)

4. Yorkymancer you did not complain about Hispanics, or Japanese/Chinese Asians being under-represented. Neither did you complain about disabled or blind minis not being represented. You are clearly a prejudiced racialist. IC3s are not the only non-whites you know.

5. I thought we had debunked the whole 'privilege' tosh in the first female thread. A lower working class white chav on an inner city sink hole estate is not more privileged than a middle class Asian whose family send him to private school then university. End of.

6. I can't find the figures here and now, but recently, the most complaints of racism received by the Commission for Racial Equality (now re-named) was from English people complaining about their treatment at the hand of Scottish people. I wonder how many of those were exercising white privilege.

7. York Necro it is school holidays so lighten up you prune. You don't complain about geno/xenocidal wars of extermination by humans against Aliens just cos they're nasty xenos, so don't monk because not enough shades of Steel legion drab are being used on exposed flesh as opposed to cadian fleshtone.

what a total load of rubbish Denzark, you are showing a real lack of understanding. you cannot 'debunk' privilege, it is a fact. the fact that it is relative does not mean it is untrue. point number 6 of yours is irrelevant, so what if people making complaints are english? that has nothing to do with racism as a general issue. UK law equally has nothing at all to do with wanting more alternative models.

[Denzark]

Why is that irrelevant? In UK law, in terms of hate crimes etc, racism is usually defined as if the victim felt they were treated in a racist way, then it is racism - irrelevant of the intent of the perpetrator. And on at least 1 year long period in recent times, the people who felt they were being treated in a sufficiently racist fashion for them to raise a complaint that was logged as a stat, was English people. Who incidentally probably pulled under your 'privileged banner'.

So you accept the 'privilege' definition (myth) but don't accept the commission for racial equality's metrics for racism? Hmm. If it ain't my minority interest group I am not interested in the feelings of others. Very Tolerant Kirsten.

[Nabterayl]

Regarding privilege ... I don't think any of the privilege folks is saying that having white privilege makes you privileged. Am I wrong about that? White privilege, male privilege, cis privilege, hetero privilege, and so forth are describing one line item on one side of the ledger. They aren't describing the bottom line.

Having one or more privileges on the credit side of the ledger doesn't make you privileged in totality. Discussions about privilege aren't (or shouldn't be) dick-measuring contests about who's got it worse or who's got it better. They're about increasing our compassion as human beings. The point is not that any given cis-gendered heterosexual white male is better off than anybody else. He could have all sorts of disadvantages on the other side of his ledger that make him far less advantaged than a trans-gendered homosexual colored woman. The point is that, although he probably understands many kinds of evil, he probably doesn't understand the sorts of evil that being a cis-gendered, heterosexual, white, and/or male (etc. etc.) tends to make one blind to. That does not make him better, or worse, than the TGHCW. He may understand far more evil overall than she does, which also does not make him better or worse. The point is simply that understanding evil that we don't understand is a good thing.

[daboarder]

I guess what we have established here is that violating the human rights of fish people is ok. Because there are too many fish people in positions of authority in our society, furthermore fish people, by dint of being fish people, are inherently racist and misogynistic....

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning, smells like victory.

Could someone please point out to me where the caveat on white males is?

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop

for those stating that refusing to hire someone because they are white is not racism. Please point how, given these definitions of discrimination and racism, this is not discrimination?


dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.


rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I bolded the parts I think you'll find interesting.

[Denzark]

Except most of the people who sign up to and forward the 'privilege' idea, seem to portray that having white skin is autowin.

Oh sorry do I make a sweeping generalisation?

Something like stating all white males have 'privilege'?

Just wait, the boot is on the other foot and I will be harangued from now until the next non gender/sexuality/religious/ethnicity specific day of celebration (sorry if that is prejudiced against those who only come out at night).

[Nabterayl]

Except most of the people who sign up to and forward the 'privilege' idea, seem to portray that having white skin is autowin.
Are you referring to our friends, colleagues or fellow Loungers specifically? Or just airing your own grievance?

[Denzark]

Are you referring to our friends, colleagues or fellow Loungers specifically? Or just airing your own grievance?

I'm not sure really - because I genuinely, have only heard this term 'privilege' as meaning the automatic advantage a baby has by being born white, aired here in the lounge. So I guess it is supporters of the term everywhere, and specifically on here. I am not aggrieved by it per se, I just think it is pseudo scientific tosh - so probably sociology or psychology. I give it no more credence than the idea of a 2000 year dead jewish fella walking on water whilst bopping around the Holy Land - I fully support people's rights to hold such an idea, and even to discuss it. But it is the act of ramming it down the rest of our throats that gets a bit tedious for me.

[YorkNecromancer]

genuinely, have only heard this term 'privilege' as meaning the automatic advantage a baby has by being born white, aired here in the lounge.

So you admit to knowing nothing about the topic, and because you know nothing, this means it's fairy tale made-up nonsense. And you've based this conclusion on nothing but your own life experiences and your own, self-admitted total lack of reading around the subject?

Well, allow me to provide you with information, so that you can see that this is a real issue.

Here's some suggested reading:
The main concept defined - http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
The main concept explored more simply - http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Actually, this is pretty much all you need to know - from the above link:


Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.

As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.

Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.

Further reading:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/a-definitive-guide-to-white-privilege/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-wiley/white-privilege_b_3636281.html
http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/white_privilege.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness05.htm

Additional academic reading materials:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Privilege-Paula-S-Rothenberg/dp/1429233443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374800426&sr=8-1&keywords=white+privilege
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-White-Privilege-Authentic-Relationships/dp/0415874270/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1374800426&sr=8-2&keywords=white+privilege
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Heart-Whiteness-Confronting-Privilege/dp/0872864499/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1374800426&sr=8-3&keywords=white+privilege
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seeing-White-Introduction-Privilege-Race/dp/1442203080/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1374800426&sr=8-4&keywords=white+privilege
http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~empower/ThePromisesAndPitfallsOfPrivilegePolitics.pdf
http://www.xavier.edu/diversity/documents/black-studies/Christian_African_Centered_Perspective.pdf
http://facweb.northseattle.edu/jreis/White%20Privilege/WhitenessBibliography%5B1%5D.pdf

Less academic reading materials:
http://www.microaggressions.com/
http://thisiswhiteprivilege.tumblr.com/

Obligatory Wikipedia links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression


But it is the act of ramming it down the rest of our throats that gets a bit tedious for me.

People ramming their denial of the existence of the problems down the rest of our throats gets a bit tedious for me.

[Nabterayl]

York ... I'm on your side of the ... call it the policy debate here, but I think you should take a breather. You're starting to sound mad, and it doesn't help people to understand - it doesn't help people to be more compassionate - when you're mad at them. If you just want the satisfaction of yelling at somebody, I guess you can do that, but my personal opinion is there are much worthier targets of your ire on the Lounge than Denzark.


I'm not sure really - because I genuinely, have only heard this term 'privilege' as meaning the automatic advantage a baby has by being born white, aired here in the lounge. So I guess it is supporters of the term everywhere, and specifically on here. I am not aggrieved by it per se, I just think it is pseudo scientific tosh - so probably sociology or psychology. I give it no more credence than the idea of a 2000 year dead jewish fella walking on water whilst bopping around the Holy Land - I fully support people's rights to hold such an idea, and even to discuss it. But it is the act of ramming it down the rest of our throats that gets a bit tedious for me.

That's why I said what I said. There's a big difference between being automatically privileged and having an automatic privilege. People don't always remember that. To use a somewhat American-specific example, a white baby born in the back woods of Alabama to barely literate parents is not as privileged as me, born a non-white baby born in the suburbs of Los Angeles to college-educated parents. I think that's obvious to everybody. When people say that the back woods baby has "white privilege," what they mean is that he's better off than, say, a black baby born in the back woods of Alabama to barely literate parents. Obviously that's not true in all parts of the world (being white isn't a plus everywhere, even if it is in America), but hopefully you get the idea. People who talk about "privilege" in this way sometimes forget either (i) that not everybody is used to studying this sort of thing in the way it is traditionally studied, and thus accidentally overstate their case, or (ii) deliberately overstate their case, because they're idiots and/or get off on identifying with victims.

The main thing that I think "privilege" dialogue is useful for is increasing compassion. For instance, let's say that I'm gay and the aforesaid white baby is straight. It is quite possible - maybe even likely - that I will experience less prejudice in my life than he will. But even though he will experience many prejudices and injustices in his life, it's highly unlikely that he will experience what it is like to be a gay man in America. Now, this does not mean that his life is easier than mine - he can have a much harder life than me even though he has the advantage of being straight. All it means is what it says on the tin - he probably is never going to experience what it's like to be a gay man in America. I, conversely, being a recipient of wealth privilege, am highly unlikely to experience what it is like to come from poverty in America.

What is the point of this? Sometimes people say the point is to remind us not to presume we understand what we don't. And that is certainly true, as far as it goes. The "privilege" concept stands for (among other things) the notion that I shouldn't assume my struggles as a gay man teach me what it's like to be poor. If I make a crack about illiterate white trash and the white baby says, "Dude, f*ck off, you have no idea what you're talking about," privilege tells me that I should acknowledge that I haven't been where he's coming from. It does not mean I should automatically f*ck off because I have no idea what I'm talking about - privilege does not mean that only poor people get to talk about being poor or have opinions about poverty (EDIT: It also doesn't mean I get to say, "Dude, you f*ck off; I'm gay, you have no idea what it's like to be discriminated against"). It does mean I should acknowledge that he has a perspective that I don't, and give that real respect. If I'm just making a joke about poor people, and an actual poor person says in one form or another, "Dude, that is actually really hurtful to me," privilege says I probably should say, "I'm sorry; I didn't know." Now, if we're talking about something more serious (say I'm a legislator who is debating a law about poor people), while I should certainly take into account the experiences and opinions of people who have actually been (or are) poor, privilege does not say I should just do whatever the poor people tell me to do.

To me, what this all boils down to is this: acknowledge what you don't know. As a fairly socially liberal person who went to an elite university in the San Francisco Bay Area, I know a hell of a lot more than a lot of people about gay people. But I'm not actually gay. To me, "privilege" stands for the concept that I should respect that, and have the humility and the compassion not to write off somebody who is gay when they say, "If you were gay, you would understand ______."

[daboarder]

EDIT: you know what, **** it, and **** you if you think that you can make a judgment on me merely because of skin colour, you racist!

[YorkNecromancer]

York ... I'm on your side of the ... call it the policy debate here, but I think you should take a breather. You're starting to sound mad

Yeah, you're right.

Too much sugar.

...

Way too much sugar.

[Bigred]

I'm gonna ask everyone to take a breath, go outside for 10 minutes, look at the beautiful sky then come back.

Please note that we have a painful personal experience as the beating heart of this thread. I just want everyone to please be mindful of that.

Proceed with dignity and grace and choose your words well - we are all friends here.

-Larry

[daboarder]

Can I just say, gotthammer, you should have called the ******* out on it!

[eldargal]

1. Male only space marines. None of the technology makes sense, it is science FICTION and therefore male only makes sense within the context. It is not real, it can be anything and I am glad it is how it is.

Actually some of the technology makes sense, we just do not know how it works. Male only makes no sense within the context as human are humans and their biology has not been stated as being radically different to real human biology. This is a nonsense argument, you might as well have all the 40k humans joints flexing both ways and say 'well it makes sense within the context because of reasons!'.

2. If females are equal to males, then in return males are equal to females. So 100% male groupings are equally 'valid' to 100% groupings of females. This argument equally substitutes to colours/sexualities. So a 100% white male army is as valid by any metric as a 100% black, female army, or one with any mix.
False equivalence. Women do not receive equal treatment in the real world nor in the 40k setting, so brushing aside the fact that 99% of sculpts in the game are male by saying 'well it doesn't matter because men and women are equal' is ridiculous. Again it falls back to privilege, you're a a (white) male so when everything around you is dominated by (white) males you can't see how offputting that is to the rest of us. The female half of the population for a start, not to mention the considerable % of the populace of Western countries who are not white.


3. GW as a business has no social responsibility beyond that owed its shareholders, in accordance with UK law. So it has no need to try and represent society, either as it is now, or as it is in the future in how it paints its minis.(incidentally I have read several places that inter-racial breeding may leave the entire human race with a mixed race appearance in the not too distant future -should GW painters try and represent society now or in the future? FFS.)
So, Games Workshop should continue to ignore half the population, known to love shopping, in favour of focusing solely on the static demographic of white males? That makes so much sense! :rolleyes: No one is going to ragequit GW if they release a plastic female IG kit and they certainly won't ragequit when SoB get an update. GW doesn't have to change much really, the building blocks are there, we know there are female IG, we know the SoB are there, we know Tau and Eldar have gender equality. All that needs to be done is make it more obvious to outsiders. GW are actually doing a lot better than most companies, the vat majority of their female sculpts, few as they are, are not particularly sexualised.


4. Yorkymancer you did not complain about Hispanics, or Japanese/Chinese Asians being under-represented. Neither did you complain about disabled or blind minis not being represented. You are clearly a prejudiced racialist. IC3s are not the only non-whites you know.
Nonsense point is nonsensical. He isn't obligated to detail every possible permutation of discrimination. I for one tend to focus on sexism because I'm female and I experience sexism. I don't consider myself qualified to talk about the experiences of ethnic minorities because I'm not one, I am aware of the discrimination they face and do my best to help where I can but I can't presume to talk about it in detail.


5. I thought we had debunked the whole 'privilege' tosh in the first female thread. A lower working class white chav on an inner city sink hole estate is not more privileged than a middle class Asian whose family send him to private school then university. End of.
You continue to illustrate you have no idea what privilege is. The fact is that Asian is middle class DESPITE the obstacles against minorities, not because they do not exist. Likewise the chav is impoverished not because privilege doesn't exist but because he is underprivileged in other ways. Clean him up, educate him and you can guarantee no one is going to turn him away from a job he is qualified for because of who he is. The Asian may not be so lucky. You can't 'debunk' privilege because it is real and measurable, people study it and it's effects in considerable detail. The very fact you think it could have been debunked in the previous feminism thread when nothing of the sort occurred is frankly disturbing.


6. I can't find the figures here and now, but recently, the most complaints of racism received by the Commission for Racial Equality (now re-named) was from English people complaining about their treatment at the hand of Scottish people. I wonder how many of those were exercising white privilege.
Again you just show you don't grasp the issues at all. An English person experiencing racism suffers nothing but hurt feelings, because they are isolated events. Even in Scotland English people do not suffer the kind of systemic, institutional racism that non-white people suffer.

You need to read some of the articles YorkN linked and at the start of the feminism thread about privilege. Privilege is about how society treats you, not about how well off you are. Benefiting from privilege isn't reprehensible, it doesn't make you a bad person nor is it something you should be ashamed of. It is how things are afterall. The only reprehensible thing about it is if you actively work against people seeking to level the playing field. Denying it exists is just obnoxious and not particularly helpful.

I am privileged in many ways and yet in most workplaces less competent men are valued more highly than me because society says that (white) men make better works, regardless of what the reality is. This fact is not negated because of my financial situation, it is just rendered less harsh. For some women it is the difference between an independent, prosperous life and barely keeping their head above water.

[daboarder]

Most of those articles york linked are no more valid than the same bull**** put forward by the idiots on the other side of the fence, hell one of them is from the "anarchist society" that's hardly a reputable source.

a lot of what has been put forward here is anecdotal evidence, yet when some of us have put forward our own experience we were ignored or deemed irrelevant, isn't justified bigotry so nice.

It comes down to this, people are *******s, and always will be regardless of race, grender, sexuality or politics.

[eldargal]

Well I didn't check all of them, suffice to say privilege is not bull****, it's just easy to miss when you have it. Chances are Daboarder if you are white/male your own experience, while upsetting, is nothing compared to what women/not whites get. I can point to a study an Australian friend sent me recently where it found that 40% of Australian employers stated ideal worker is male and single. How do you think that makes women feel? Now imagine you are being bombarded with those kinds of messaged constantly, that you are less valued than someone else even if you are better qualified/smarter/whatever. That is what non-privilege groups have to put up with all the time. Look at Gotthammer story, horrible right? That happens all the time. That is (at a basic level) Cisprivilege.

Again, this doesn't make men/straight people/white people reprehensible or anything like that, it isn't their fault, they aren't responsible for it, but it doesn't mean it isn't real.

Anyway, people do need to calm down, so:
http://calmingmanatee.com/img/manatee1.jpg

[daboarder]

First ten most cited articles I found using the same research databases I use at work. note I said his articles were bull****.

Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in southern California
White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus
Stereotype Lift
White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action
Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes
'A darker shade of pale?' whiteness, the middle classes and multi-ethnic inner city schooling
Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY
Why aren't teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators
Differing perceptions: How students of color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups
Awareness of white privilege among white counseling trainees

find em, read em, then come back


I can point to a study an Australian friend sent me recently where it found that 40% of Australian employers stated ideal worker is male and single. How do you think that makes women feel? Now imagine you are being bombarded with those kinds of messaged constantly, that you are less valued than someone else even if you are better qualified/smarter/whatever.

probably feels pretty bad, now put the shoe on the other foot, how do you think it feels being constantly told that all your works, achievements and opportunities are the result of you being born white and a male, not your own abilities or hard work or sacrafice.

here's a pair of interesting ones:

When the Past is Far from Dead: How Ongoing Consequences of Genocides Committed by the Ingroup Impact Collective Guilt
Culture and gender inequality: Psychological consequences of perceiving gender inequality

mostly the articles provide evidence that on average society believe's "white guilt" exists and impacts society to a greater extent than "white privilege"

what this means is that it is far more likely for "whites" to be far more self critical, than it is for "minorities" to perceive an inherent "privilege" granted to whites based solely on their race.

[eldargal]

probably feels pretty bad, now put the shoe on the other foot, how do you think it feels being constantly told that all your works, achievements and opportunities are the result of you being born white and a male, not your own abilities or hard work or sacrafice.
No one says that, or if they do, they are wrong. That isn't what privilege is, no one saying because of privilege anything you achieve is the result of being white and/or male. But it DOES make it easier to get in a position where you can achieve things and have those achievements recognised. Remember privilege does NOT invalidate anything the privileged achieves, it is in no way reprehensible it just makes it easier for you to fulfill your potential than it does others. Combatting privilege isn't about making it harder for the privileged to succeed but making it easier for the non-privileged.
Also, the shoe is already on the other foot, when women etc. DO succeed people are quick to ascribe their success not to talent but sex or affirmative action. Or blind luck.

Not sure I've heard anyone question the existence of white guilt either, it exists and there are reasons for it even if many aspects of it are silly.

I can only find abstracts for most of those articles and I don't really have the time nor interest to get into a citation fight on the subject, suffice to say from what I can gather none of them claim privilege isn't real, they just examine certain facets of it or how it intersects with other social phenomena. Also worth noting that privilege is an incredibly complex thing with many layers and feedbacks and the discussion going on here is considerably simplified. Male privilege, for example, is almost entirely negated if, in the US, you are poor and black. Doesn't mean male privilege doen't exist or that poor, black women are better off.


what this means is that it is far more likely for "whites" to be far more self critical, than it is for "minorities" to perceive an inherent "privilege" granted to whites based solely on their race.
Often because 'whites' have the time and education to think about it while many of the others are too busy struggling to make ends meet. It takes a certain intellectual framework (not level of intelligence) to be aware of privilege, both when you have it and when you don't. Many people, particularly women, are pressured not to complain either so as not to be a 'b!tch' or 'that guy/girl' etc.

Good article:
How to talk to someone about Privilege (http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-about-privilege/)

[daboarder]

Im sorry but this entire thread is about white males gettong jobs and privileges because they are wjite males.

Furthermore, if im thinking of the same article you mentioned employers prefered mem because we dont get pregnant and therefore dont get paid matermity leave. Which is ridiculous in a society where stay at home dads is becomong increasingly prevalent. Or is that not discrimination against men?

Oh and the articles choose educated and non educated demographics of multiple races. Its eliminating the variables you have mentioned. Being scientific they aim to eliminate all variables baring the ones being investigated

[eldargal]

No, this entire thread is white males comprehensively missing the ****ing point, actually.

There are many different types of privilege, they intersect and the net result is society is poorer. You are absolutely right in saying that men with children would be discriminated against too, and that is a problem.

Well as I can only access abstracts I can't tell, so it hardly helps matters.

Read the above article, really, it addresses most of the misconceptions about privilege. This is particularly relevant:

3. A System of Privilege and Oppression Hurts Us All

What we most need to stress in conversations about privilege is that this system doesn’t just hurt the people who cannot boast one form of identity privilege or another.
It hurts everyone. Until we understand that, we’re not getting anywhere because the only people of privilege who will ever act to end the system are the ones acting strictly from paternalistic guilt.
Take white privilege, for instance. White privilege is, essentially, a social construction whereby wealthy Europeans wanted to make sure that they could consolidate their wealth by pitting poor people from Europe against poor Africans and Indigenous people.
White folks were made to feel better about themselves and were given paltry privileges over people of color in order to divide the white proletariat.
All that meant, though, is that the white folks got to be the lords over people of color while the wealthy whites still had their boots on the necks of poor whites!
These privileges don’t help us as white people nearly as much as they hurt us!
Similarly, male privilege may benefit men tremendously in certain ways. But in others, it restricts us into a tiny box of masculinity. I don’t know about you, but I am sick of trying to fit into my gendered box, the “Act Like a Man” box.
I want my gender expression to be free and independent of those aspects of masculinity that hurt men and women – violence is acceptable for solving problems, boys don’t cry, men are the lords of their household, men must know everything even when they don’t, etc.
The privileges are marginal when we look at the system of justice that can be built on the other side of this struggle!

[Lukas The Trickster]

Sometimes I think everyone misses the point on here. I'm not dismissing the validity of these discussions, but a there seems to be a distinctly confrontational, nitpicking and generally unfriendly attitude exhibited by some of the membership on here at times. I think Gotthammer made a post earlier in the thread about indifference and people staying silent, as a relative newcomer I for one have been put off posting a number of times simply because it just seems like too much hassle too get drawn into a protracted argument, as opposed to a friendly debate. I think it is worth bearing in mind that we are all interested in the same thing, painting and gaming with 28mm figures, and (I anyway) just come on here to talk to like minded people in a friendly environment. My tuppence worth.

[Psychosplodge]

Come join in more.
It may seem heated at times, but it rarely dissolves into personal insults and irrationality like some of the alternative boards :D

[Deadlift]

I think Lukas has a point, I think the oubliette has seen far more deliberate confrontational threads / posts as of late. I for one have been engaging less down here over the last few weeks because whilst I don't mind a debate, I am finding the constant combatative nature of some predictable and tiresome.

[Psychosplodge]

Just looking at the current top ten threads, you have a point.
4/5 out the 10 are serious, with potential for arguments.
Is this a sign of a maturing forum, or are we letting the sillyness slide for arguments? :eek:

I demand more nonsense.

[eldargal]

I think on the whole the potentially argumentative topics have been handled well. This one not so much, ironically a lot of people immediately got defensive at the prospect that people who aren't quite males might be less happy with GW than they.:rolleyes: The jump to societal privilege was inevitable and became equally defensive.

Though I have to admit I've noticed an upswing in the number of unintentionally callous sexist and cissexist remarks in the Oubliette of late.

[Denzark]

So you admit to knowing nothing about the topic, and because you know nothing, this means it's fairy tale made-up nonsense. And you've based this conclusion on nothing but your own life experiences and your own, self-admitted total lack of reading around the subject?

Firstly yorky, that's not exactly what I said. When the subject came up on Feminism 1 I read into some of the links. What I actually said was I had never heard of it before it came up on here.




So, Games Workshop should continue to ignore half the population, known to love shopping, in favour of focusing solely on the static demographic of white males? That makes so much sense! :rolleyes: No one is going to ragequit GW if they release a plastic female IG kit and they certainly won't ragequit when SoB get an update. GW doesn't have to change much really, the building blocks are there, we know there are female IG, we know the SoB are there, we know Tau and Eldar have gender equality. All that needs to be done is make it more obvious to outsiders. GW are actually doing a lot better than most companies, the vat majority of their female sculpts, few as they are, are not particularly sexualised.

No, I am saying they are under no obligation to act morally, and no one has presented any hard evidence that making more ethnic or female sculpts would increase profit - the company's raison d'etre.


Nonsense point is nonsensical. He isn't obligated to detail every possible permutation of discrimination. I for one tend to focus on sexism because I'm female and I experience sexism. I don't consider myself qualified to talk about the experiences of ethnic minorities because I'm not one, I am aware of the discrimination they face and do my best to help where I can but I can't presume to talk about it in detail.

That's very humble of you. There are plenty of things in life that one can be qualified to talk about without being one. I am not a tennis player, but I would quite happily debate 'this house believes Andy Murray did somewhat well at Wimbledon 2013'



Again you just show you don't grasp the issues at all. An English person experiencing racism suffers nothing but hurt feelings, because they are isolated events. Even in Scotland English people do not suffer the kind of systemic, institutional racism that non-white people suffer.

This final comment goes to show doesn't it. In saying this scenario is different because this racism is merely 'hurt feelings', you are making comments you are not qualified to make - because you cannot tell what the extent of another's feelings are. In writing them off to a lesser level of hurt you are not demonstrating a level of empathy you would expect others to demonstrate for the issues discussed here, in the feminism and in the LGBT thread. The level of '2 legs bad, 4 legs good' is breath taking. Luckily the commission for racial equality (now renamed) and the UK courts, both here and in Scotland, treat English-Scottish racism equally with say white-Asian racism. This is the TRUE definition of non discriminatory equality.










Anyway, people do need to calm down, so:

Yes we do. Remember Yorky, that my taxpayer's pounds go to you to indoctrinate the little darlings (in English if I remember - hopefully more Chaucer and Shakespeare than 'Our Country's good' and that tosh). Your taxpayers money goes to me on the other hand, to defend your freedom to have these thoughts and make these comments.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I have, in all honesty, seen way worse threads and discussions than this one. Whether we agree with each other or not, we're discussing it. People are encountering other opinions. That's a good thing.

One of the pleasing things in various spheres of nerdery right at this moment is this massive conversation we're having about inclusivity and how we build safe, healthy, welcoming communities. Sometimes this gets argumentative, sometimes people argue and lose respect for each other. But it's a necessary conversation to have.

My wife's a writer. She's had several sci fi/horror short stories published. She's very involved in the online discussion scene in that community. They've been having some huge, horrific arguments about just these things. Imagine this thread, on a bigger scale. There are people out there who believe that their fellow writers are not fully human because of the colour of their skin, their religion (or lack of it) or their political and social mores. That isn't acceptable. But once where there was a kind of accepted Omerta about the members of the community who were, for instance, racists, or in some cases, rapists, that's gone now. People are calling them on that. Because if your community allows that to go on, then it isn't much of a community afterall.

And I know - cards on the table, I am a white, hetero, middle class cisgendered male with two expensive university degrees and a third in the making, living in a developed country - that being confronted with some of the language and concepts, like privilege, can hurt at first. When it's not clearly expressed it can sometimes feel like you're being held personally responsible for a bunch of **** you know you'd never do. You know you're not a bad person; you'd never racially abuse someone or make someone feel like they weren't wanted. You've interceded to stop these things when they've happened. And that's excellent! It's easy to just go with the flow. But the problems are real, even if it's not your personal fault. Talk to women gamers. Talk to people of colour. You're not a racist, but plenty of people out there are. And worse, it's not just people: it's groups, societies, institutions. If you don't acknowledge that problem, you're allowing that to go on. In the face of all that, it's not only easy to be offended by the charge that you're part of the problem, it can also be hard to see how one can actually change things. I mean, you can't personally overturn the disproportionate incarceration rate for young black men in the USA, can you?

This, really, is the point: what can I do? The answer really is "what you can". It's easy to be part of the solution: treat others as you wish to be treated. Make sure you build the communities you, and others, want to take part in. That's all it takes.

Happy gaming, y'all!

[Kirsten]

Why is that irrelevant? In UK law, in terms of hate crimes etc, racism is usually defined as if the victim felt they were treated in a racist way, then it is racism - irrelevant of the intent of the perpetrator. And on at least 1 year long period in recent times, the people who felt they were being treated in a sufficiently racist fashion for them to raise a complaint that was logged as a stat, was English people. Who incidentally probably pulled under your 'privileged banner'.

So you accept the 'privilege' definition (myth) but don't accept the commission for racial equality's metrics for racism? Hmm. If it ain't my minority interest group I am not interested in the feelings of others. Very Tolerant Kirsten.

The number of people who choose to report racism has no bearing at all on the levels of racism in a country. a hundred people reported beyonce's outfit on a tv program. Privilege is a very simple concept that is easily seen in day to day life. the fact that you call it a myth shows how badly you understand it.


Except most of the people who sign up to and forward the 'privilege' idea, seem to portray that having white skin is autowin.

Oh sorry do I make a sweeping generalisation?

Something like stating all white males have 'privilege'?

Just wait, the boot is on the other foot and I will be harangued from now until the next non gender/sexuality/religious/ethnicity specific day of celebration (sorry if that is prejudiced against those who only come out at night).

I don't know if you just don't get it, or are deliberately misunderstanding to try and make your point. nobody at any point is saying that being white is auto win, people are saying that being white gives you advantages over not being white. just as being male gives you more advantages than being female. that is not a myth, it is a fact.

[eldargal]

No, I am saying they are under no obligation to act morally, and no one has presented any hard evidence that making more ethnic or female sculpts would increase profit - the company's raison d'etre.
I never said they were, I said they were being foolish for ignoring large, undeveloped demographics because they don't see them. GW are not acting immorally, they are trapped in a position of privilege which prevents them from seeing that the status quo is doing nothing to encourage people beyond their traditional market from buying their product. In short, it is costing them money.


This final comment goes to show doesn't it. In saying this scenario is different because this racism is merely 'hurt feelings', you are making comments you are not qualified to make - because you cannot tell what the extent of another's feelings are. In writing them off to a lesser level of hurt you are not demonstrating a level of empathy you would expect others to demonstrate for the issues discussed here, in the feminism and in the LGBT thread. The level of '2 legs bad, 4 legs good' is breath taking. Luckily the commission for racial equality (now renamed) and the UK courts, both here and in Scotland, treat English-Scottish racism equally with say white-Asian racism. This is the TRUE definition of non discriminatory equality.
This one of the silliest things you've yet written on this Denzark. I am not downplaying the hurt racism can cause, I've experienced it myself. But a few people making racial slurs against a white person living in a white dominated country is obviously less hurtful than constant, systemic and institutional racism experienced by many non-white people in white countries. It isn't a matter of empathy, no one should have to suffer racism, it is a matter or degree. Non-white people experience it much more significantly and unlike for us it costs them jobs and opportunities.

[Lukas The Trickster]

Come join in more.
It may seem heated at times, but it rarely dissolves into personal insults and irrationality like some of the alternative boards :D

TBH Psychosplodge, this place isn't all that bad, you should see some of the ego's and attitude flying around on some of the powerlifting forums I have been on in the past! When I joined here it seemed a refreshing change from the trolling, heavy handed moderation and generally anal retentitive content of certain other 40K/wargaming forums, many of which I registered on but barely ever bother to post on because they are so cliqueish and unfriendly, and largely BOLS still is different to that. Like Joe though, I have just noticed the atmosphere has gone downhill somewhat of late. I always like to think that I treat people exactly the same on forums as I would if I met them face to face, I would urge other members to do the same, and also think how the content and wording of their posts makes them come across to other forum users. Anyway TTFN, I'm benching at 1.30! ;)

[Psychosplodge]

:D
We do try...


Though that sounds a lot like exercise...

[Deadlift]

:D

Though that sounds a lot like exercise...

Well it is a bit, but no running involved so its all good ;).

[Psychosplodge]

If it involves sweating, it's too much effort in this weather...

[eldargal]

BoLS is the only forum that I would even contemplate starting a topic on feminism let alone actually do it and see it be interesting and productive, that says a lot (of good) about BoLS.

[Psychosplodge]

That bad?

[eldargal]

Are you familiar with 'Lewis' Law'; The comments on any article on feminism justify feminism.:p It really is that bad.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm not, but without checking I can see how that would apply from some of the links posted before.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

No, this entire thread is white males comprehensively missing the ****ing point, actually.

I call bullsh*t on that statement. You are making a sweeping generalisation.

[eldargal]

I didn't say every white male here missed the point, you certainly haven't and YorkNecromancer is a white chap as well.

[Necron2.0]

I think Lukas has a point, I think the oubliette has seen far more deliberate confrontational threads / posts as of late. I for one have been engaging less down here over the last few weeks because whilst I don't mind a debate, I am finding the constant combatative nature of some predictable and tiresome.

THIS!! This, in spades.

Lately, I could swear I've walked into a Monty Python skit:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY

[eldargal]

I thought you didn't care?:rolleyes:

[Necron2.0]

I don't, not for certain things .. certain topics. I am, however, somewhat dismayed at the immaturity of some people. Mostly, though, like Elvis Costello, I'm merely amused. ;)

[eldargal]

Fair enough, hope you aren't including me in that though 'cos I think between the Feminism threads and whatnot I've been quite constructive.:p

[Necron2.0]

No, of course not. I may not agree with you, but your posts (with me at least) have been thoughtful, reasoned, with supporting literature.

[eldargal]

Just checking, these are often subjects I feel strongly about and I am a bit of a b!tch sometimes so not always sure how it is being received.:)

[Necron2.0]

No problem. Hey, I cannot speak for everybody, but I myself am not easily offended. Heck, maybe that's part of the problem.

Going back to Deadlift's comment, though, he nailed down something that has been in my mind for awhile. This is not directed at anyone specific, but probably over the last year I've noticed the tone of this place (I mean BoLS, not just the Oubliette) getting a bit more pissy. I hate to say this but in some cases it almost has a Warseer vibe going. I believe people need to take a step back and really think about what they're saying, because it is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to character assassinations. If you have to resort to name calling, you have lost the argument. More than that, you've lost all respect and credibility. It is just that simple.

[eldargal]

I wouldn't disagree with that, I've noticed a particular upswing in stupidity recently myself. Like the whole fuss about JJ confirming every army will get an update but people taking this as code for 'except SoB'. A few other things as well.

[Psychosplodge]

Obviously the fact they're asked about at every event shows their lack of popularity :rolleyes: