Apparently, I'm exercising the power and privilege of my gender by criticising the idea that we should actually de-clichÃ© a clichÃ© in order to make everyone feel secure about themselves. (Question: if a clichÃ© is de-fanged, doesn't it become meaningless?)
The author goes on to criticise my statistics because the sample size is not representative and I wasn't scientific in my evidence gathering. Is the author actually going to refute the statistics or just the method of gathering? Is the author going to provide information that tabletop gaming is NOT dominated by the male gender? Because this post is to discredit mine and yet proves nothing of the sort. My statistics may be off, but not by an order of magnitude. Come on Andrea, rather than attacking the method, attack the result. I don't need to count people at my local club in order to obtain the result that tabletop roleplaying is dominated by male gamers. If you want to prove me wrong, get some proof.
The author admits they "canâ€™t speak for tabletop gaming" but then goes on to compare the situation to that of videogames.
Not the same thing. I'm not interested in the video game community so I'm not going to bother going to the links provided which will tell me how women are starting to become a larger percentage of the video game industry (which, by the way, is a way of admitting they don't dominate it without actually saying that). It's irrelevant anyway.
In a video game, a designer might fill the game with cheesecake art and then expect you to play through it. The gratuitous boob and crotch shots are something that are in your face all the time. You want to play the game, you vew the graphics. Part and parcel. This isn't the case with a tabletop roleplaying game. In many games, you read the book once, then put it down and reply on your imagination to pull you through. Does the reading of the book pollute your imagination with cheesecake art so that you're so pre-occupied with it that you cannot roll a dice, act your way through a scene or enjoy a social activity with some friends?
See, it's not the same situation as a video game, this is tabletop roleplaying; an area the author admits they "can't speak for". She criticises that I compare this game to literary works. The game we're talking about is a direct homage, a game set in the world of these literary works. That fact that the game is filled with clichÃ©s that are representative of the literary genre is relevant. If you change them, they stop being clichÃ©s.
Our author, Andrea Rubenstein goes on to say that I'm being non-inclusive. That I'm being a callous asshole. She furthers her ignorance of the subject by claiming that I'm a jerk telling a woman to basically shut up and realize that gaming is for the boys. She probably doesn't know that I've created gender-inclusive games (at least by the standards of the piece). she doesn't even know what being "inclusive" means in terms of tabletop roleplaying so quick is she to compare it to a competely different medium.
So why get involved in an argument when you don't know anything about the industry?
To grab a headline. Duh.
Andrea doesn't realise that tabletop roleplaying games are literary works. She doesn't realise that reading through many games is the same as reading a short novel. They tell a story and provide a framework designed to inspire the imagination. This is completely different to her straw man about video games which are a passive form of entertainment (yes, videogames are interactive but only in the sense that certain actions allow the story to be told. You're limited to what's presented to you on the screen. You're not required, or in many cases able to use your imagination. But ignorance of the medium of tabletop roleplaying is central to Andrea's assertion that I'm a jerk and an asshole. Central to her argument is the assertion that tabletop roleplaying must be the same as video gaming.
Andrea Rubenstein is not stupid, nor is she a jerk, nor an asshole. She's just ignorant.
If she and Mary are going to criticise roleplaying games for their content then they really should start criticising other literary works for their content. Let's start with the works of Shakespeare, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Ian Fleming and J. K. Rowling. Each of them has almost a monopoly on male protagonists with women having secondary, weaker or evil roles.
Shakespeare at least had Viola.