D&D Kids: Girls at the Table
We’ve removed the article. The opinions of the author don’t reflect the views of Wizards of the Coast.
Teaching Young Gamers
To start again with the briefest of introductions. My name is Uri, and I go from school to school, and from community center to community center, to play Dungeons & Dragons with kids. On top of the usual challenges that arise from working with kids—one also constantly gets burned by bumping into rules and concepts that can be too complex or boring for young children. And oh boy, did I get burned in my first year! I’ve learned from my mistakes and developed techniques to make the transition from playing with bearded dudes to mischievous students as smooth as possible. And I’m here to share these techniques with you—along with actual anecdotes and drawings from some of the kids I’ve taught. Note: As a framework for this article, consider that my kids fall into two age groups: 8-9 (beginners) and 10-11 (advanced). Occasionally, there will be younger or older children. The youngest player I have is 7 and is doing surprisingly well.
I would like to say a few words in my defense even before I might give cause for offence. I believe this is called a disclaimer, though I’m loath to use this term since I don’t plan to dis any of my claims.
(un)Disclaimer
I am a man. Despite living a rich and fulfilling life, one thing I never got to be is a woman. Therefore, some readers are likely to ask, “What gives you the right, as a man, to talk about women?” First of all, this article is not about women, but about children of the female persuasion. Children rarely write pedagogic articles (and thank goodness for that!) and so this ungrateful task falls upon my hairy adult shoulders. So while I may not be female, you, my hypothetical accuser, are not a child, hence we’re both in equal violation of authenticity. Secondly, an observer from the outside may notice some truths that a member from within won’t. This is why people, at least smart ones, listen to other people. This is why we have psychologists, rabbis, priests, strangers on a train, and Uris: to get a different angle on our lives. Thirdly, while I’m neither a girl nor often DM for young girls (they make hardly 10% of the demographic in my gaming groups), while writing this article I have consulted with female DMs, female players, and a guy who had the rare experience of running an all-girl group for a year. Much of the article is a summary of their experiences. Lastly, and this is my main point, it’s all about fun and games. So please, for the aforementioned goodness’ sake, don’t take anything I write too seriously. My aim as I embarked on this monumental project was to help DMs avoid some of the pitfalls into which I had stumbled in the beginning of my career and to tell some amusing anecdotes while at it, not to expose all the intricacies of the human spirit. Now, let’s get to business, shall we?
What Are We Rolling For?
The first and most apparent difference between male and female players is what they enjoy in the game. From what I observed, boys or girls enjoy more or less the same things in D&D, but for different reasons; boys usually prefer “crunch” (often literally) while girls usually prefer “fluff” (almost always literally.)
Boys
Male players seem to have two main motivations: winning and goofing around. These two are practically contradictory and often lead to friction and conflict.
D&D is Sport
Best Example: Oi! Stop talking about football, we have a dragon to kill! Buy provisions and let’s do it! Worst Example: Our mission is to kill the dragon? Okay, I kill the dragon. What do I get?
Those who live by this code feel that D&D—unlike what the rules say—has winners and losers: The one with the most XP is a winner. The one who successfully completed the most quests is a winner. The one who has the most money and the best items is a winner. The one who wastes times doing things that don’t grant XP or treasure is a loser. An interesting side effect of viewing D&D as sport is how alignments are perceived; most players upon meeting a new NPC ask whether he’s good or evil. The more competitive players, on the other hand, ask whether the NPC is with them or against them—abstract concepts of good and evil are of little interest to a soldier on a mission. Who’s a foe and who’s an ally, however, are matters of top importance. Turning D&D into a contest may make DMing easier and the general atmosphere at the table more serious and businesslike, but instead of telling an interactive story with your group, you’re now taking on the role of a military commander who sends the heroes on missions which they either accomplish or die trying. In these game, the players’ odds of surprising you can be much smaller… unless you actively put them in situations in which they have to make decisions based on morality and not gain. Even then, however, they are likely to simply ask you what would you prefer they did (sporty players are nothing if not helpful).
D&D is Playground
Best Example: I wonder who lives inside this city with walls of night and towers of unfulfilled dreams… let’s go there and find out! Worst Example: Wow! A new sword? Awesome! I stab Ron in the head to see what it does.
Should you ever spot me fervently banging my head against the whiteboard, you’ll know someone just kicked the anthill that is my adventure. This sort of player views D&D as a playground where they are the heroes and everyone else is like ants or toys, to be played with or destroyed, according to the player’s disposition.
DM: Six people dead. Thousands of gold pieces worth of damage. Riots all over the state… how do you plan to finish your mission now? Kid: We have a mission?!
In the best case, such players use the game as a journey into their own subconscious, a therapy of sorts. This is fascinating to observe and makes for excellent sandbox games. Some of their actions might be irresponsible and throw the campaign into disarray, forcing you to improvise and make adjustments to your plans—but at least you know you’re building a good thing there. At worst, such players use it to break stuff (and your spirit) to either compensate for powerlessness in real life or for sheer sadistic glee. Even thought the latter is just screaming for PC-killing, with young children this may not end well. Instead, see some of the suggestions in the text box below.
Repercussions of Violence
What happens when you shoot everything that moves in real life or a CRPG? You die. No matter how tough you are, the cops, the National Guard, the USAF, The Justice League of America… someone will eventually stop your rampage. The problem with young players is that killing their characters can be traumatic and cause them to leave gaming for good. Nevertheless, you don’t want to encourage this sort of gaming, so here are a few tricks that can be used to counter it without resorting to PC-killing. Imprisonment: the players attacked a night watch patrol and got TPK’ed? No problem. They wake up bound and disarmed (erase all equipment from their character sheets). The enormity of their actions is made clear to them by an authoritative and stern judge. Although he could easily have them executed, the judge says he nevertheless believes there is goodness in the heroes and sentences them to a long prison term instead. Some XP is lost because the heroes don’t get to practice in prison, their contacts and patrons disavow them, and the players walk away with a valuable lesson: you’re part of the world, not its center. Conversely, you can give them a chance to breakout and learn what it feels like to live on the lam; no more shopping in the market and no more quests from the king—you’re outlaws now and every visit to a town or a castle can be your last. If the players messed with criminal elements instead of the authorities, you can have them shipped to a faraway slave camp from which they have to escape or die of overwork or starvation—which is more exciting for the players if more torturous for their characters. Atonement: If you feel that prison is a little too harsh for your sensitive group, you can replace it with a fun adventure they have to complete to make up for their crimes. Feel free to use magic to compel the heroes to complete this quest… and then donate all recovered treasure to charity. Manhunt: Having a powerful enemy is less fun than it sounds. A short while after the heroes kill an NPC for no good reason, they discover that he or she had some absurdly powerful friends… friends that the heroes have no chance of defeating. Soon they encounter those people and barely escape with their lives. Now the campaign has a new focus: somehow calling off the hit, possibly by making amends and changing their evil ways. Common Sense: Ask the attacking player why he does what he does. If he says “because,” or “I feel like it,” tell him there is no such thing as “because” in your group. You don’t allow players to play evil characters and so every act of violence must be explained in-play. If they fail to provide an adequate explanation, don’t allow the action. After all, you don’t stab the teachers in the hallway for fun, why would your lawful good paladin do it? Feel free to confront them with the harsh realities of violence. Yes, you will be seen as patronizing, preachy, and a killjoy—but maybe, if you roll your Diplomacy high enough, you’ll get your message across. Of course, I don’t have to do any of these with my groups. I take the time to instruct players about what roleplaying is and how it’s different from a FPS in advance; we’re telling a story, not pointlessly rolling dice.
Girls
Kid 1: I don’t want to storm this castle. I don’t want to die again. Kid 2: Death shouldn’t concern you. Kid 1: You mean this is safe? Kid 2: No. I mean death shouldn’t concern you.
Girls mostly play to express themselves in artistic ways and to see others doing it. They are not nearly as confrontational as boys and give their positions much more easily. Those who are confrontational tend to be extreme individualists who frequently provide a dissenting opinion. More often than not, they are a voice of reason in a cacophony of silliness.
D&D is Drama
Best Example: I’m so sorry we weren’t here to protect your home, little bird, join us and we’ll be your new family. Worst Example: Wait! You didn’t let me finish describing how my character is dressed this morning.
A 9-year old girl who came to see what D&D is all about once asked me if her character can be a vegetarian, to which I replied “of course” and rewarded her 200 XP because she was the only one who bothered with non-combat aspects of her character. As I reviewed the character sheets that evening I noticed that she wrote in her character class as “vegetarian ranger.” Practically every decision she made during this campaign was affected by her character’s vegetarianism and love for nature. This included not only her selection of friends and enemies, but also character appearance, choice of items, and making a point of petting an animal or planting a tree at least once per session. Dramatic players care about how their characters look like and how they are perceived by seemingly inconsequential NPCs more than about “winning the game” or destroying stuff. In a way, they are much more immersed in the game than the sportsmen, who view it as, well… a game; or the hooligans, who view it as GTA: Nentir Vale. Crunch is of secondary importance to them; if you want to capture a dramatic player’s heart, it’s much more important to portray the witch as stooped and cackling, to describe the dragon’s magnificence with epic prose and grandiose tones, and to generally pay attention to body language and aesthetics. A dramatic player cares less about the powers and bonuses granted by the treasure and more about its luster and beauty. The negative aspect of the dramatic player is an exaggerated attention to detail which sometimes borders on narcissism and is likely to bore other players, who view a five-minute long description of how the group’s wizard is dressed or an equally long chat with a random eladrin traveler as a waste of time. Worse, if you go along with it, some players will feel the dramatic player is enjoying special treatment as he or she’s getting much more air time than anyone else. This sort of narcissism is more often seen in male players than female players, which is not surprising, given that the original Narcissus was a guy….
Kid 1 (to Galeb Duhr): Join our grand adventure! Galeb Duhr: No way I’m going anywhere with you! Kid 2: You’ve just been rejected by a stone… it doesn’t get any more humiliating than this, does it?
D&D is Spectacle
Best Example: Could you please describe how the eladrin priestess looks again? I want my drawing to be accurate. Worst Example: …
Another example of something girl players will occasionally do and which some boys find annoying is taking the role of the observer. Boys also sometimes behave like this, but from my experience it’s mostly because they are busy making detailed travel journals or comics of the game, not because they don’t feel like acting. A girl, on the other hand, may often sit back during the game and just observe the occurrences without taking any actions except during combat or when directly addressed by an NPC. She’s not being distracted like the astronaut; she’s perfectly focused on the game, probably more than her very active fellow who just castflames of phlegethos on the troll who was killed five rounds ago because he didn’t hear you saying the troll is toast. She doesn’t feel the need to intervene in the story just yet. My advice is this: Don’t force observers to act. There’s nothing wrong with observing, and being quiet is certainly better than constantly talking over everyone else. Trust me—when the time comes, she will act, sometimes surprising everyone with the decisiveness and cleverness of that one action. A girl whose actions could be summed as “I follow the group” for half a session just happened to be the one to discover that the gigantic garbage pile the group was climbing could be used to empower the robotic heroes, a discovery that saved the day. She also drew a nice picture of her character.
Bows and Fairies
We talked about why boys and girls play; now let’s talk a little about what they play. My personal experience shows that girls are not less violent than boys, they are less wantonly violent. They don’t mind using force to achieve their goals or defend their honor, but they don’t relish in slaughter and destruction, and they certainly don’t like taking reckless risks solely for the sake of awesome. I recollect a session in which a group came upon an infernal anaconda. A minotaur hero threw down his great axe, stripped to his breeches, and declared that he was going to wrestle the anaconda one-on-one and to strangle it to death with his bare hands. Why? Because that’s totally badass! This is not something I imagine a female player doing. In fact, nearly all females playing for the first time, both young and old, created characters that specialized in ranged attacks, most often rangers and druids. Those who didn’t start the game as ranged strikers did so because of peer pressure from boys who really needed a leader in the group. Now, have you noticed how leaders in D&D never really lead, but only serve the group? A girl forced to play a so-called “leader” is much less likely to stay in the game than a girl given a character with which she can express herself and act as an individual, and not part of a well-oiled monster-killing, XP-making war-machine. Therefore, if you’re running an introductory game and want to appeal to girls, make sure to have a suitable character handy. An esteemed colleague of mine, a man with much more experience with girl players, says that the girls he DMs prefer fey and sylvan races and their characters to be tall and slander. They like nature-based, ranged and quick classes, and value Dexterity more than any other ability. Although less popular than rangers and rogues, wizards are also fairly common. My personal (though much more limited experience) is different. Girls I played with preferred short and stocky characters to lithe and elegant ones. Given free reign, most started the game as dwarves, mulls, halflings or simply short humans. Class-wise, my experience corresponded with my colleague’s. Taking all this into account, I think the character statistically most likely to be attractive to girls is a female eladrin ranger. Describe her as a friend of nature and a protector of the forest, not as a hunter or avenger. The character least likely to appeal to girls would be a four-hundred-pound mentally-deficient half-orc warlord armed with a dinosaur femur and no backstory whatsoever. If you have a group with one girl and half a dozen boys, as if often the case, expect a fair (or not very fair…) amount of badgering and attempts to coerce the young lady into playing male style—either a team player who never asks questions or a jolly psychopath who goes around wrecking the campaign world. Some intervention is advised, at least at first. While I usually support absolute impartiality in DMs and consider railroading a crime worse than murder (or misspelling the word rogue), in this case if you don’t intervene you’ll lose an almost certainly good player. I say “almost certainly good,” because girls who bother coming to introductory sessions are usually independent thinkers and keen enthusiasts of the genre, and often grow into very imaginative and dedicated players. Besides, we have a stereotype to kill, right? Last but not least is a minor difference that should nevertheless be taken into account; contrary to the prevalent stereotype, girls are much less concerned with shopping for shopping’s sake than boys. An all-male group will never leave the marketplace of their own accord. They will spend the whole session buying trash they don’t need, animals that won’t help, and stealing shiny nonsense that could easily get them hanged. Girls, in my experience, don’t do that. They only buy items that they actually need or that are necessary to advance their quest. For example, a girl with a masterwork sword will upgrade to an enchanted sword; she won’t buy seven other mundane melee weapons, a trained but sarcastic parrot, and a souvenir glass bubble with a miniature Waterdeep inside.
Owlbear Con
All the pictures in this article were taken in our yearly Owlbear convention, which takes place in the city of Modi’in every Purim holiday. Purim is a masquerade, like Halloween but without the gothic atmosphere or the trick-or-treating. It’s also the only day in the year when no one finds it odd to see knights and witches walking down the street. While including all the classic convention activities such as miniature tournaments, demonstration of unusual RPGs, melee arenas, merchandise, and overpriced hotdogs, Owlbear also functions as a LARP following the highs and lows of the imperial court of Owlbear. All the above activities—be they a miniature skirmish or the acquisition of shiny new dice—are tied to the ongoing plot. The Owlbear attract some 250 kids each year and, while it leave us instructors incapacitated for the reminder of the day, is very fun!
I am pretty offended by this. Not by it being posted at all necessarily, but that it is posted without context. You can say you’re not taking sides, but if you give a platform to one side and don’t even provide a pointer to the other side, you’ve in practice taken a side.
I suspect this wasn’t intended. Probably given your interests (kids gaming), all this is pretty common knowledge, but I don’t think that’s true for everyone.
Anyway, here’s some context: http://kynn.livejournal.com/1346778.html
Darla, the reason that I did not link to that LJ was specifically because I don’t think that the (what I read as) personal attacks are the way to go. As soon as someone begins name-calling, I think the credibility goes out the window.
Had it been a counter-point… “I feel that the article was bad because…” I would have been far more likely to provide said link.
You are correct – I could have easily done so and perhaps I should have in retrospect.
With that in mind – we’ll let your link be the context that some people may wish to look at.
I’m sorry, I don’t see personal attack there at all (in the post itself). The closest I see to attack is “openly misogynist apologist for domestic violence,” and to me that seems like an accurate and calm description of someone who wrote in a public forum that women are to blame for being beaten.
And we’re not talking about gardening or something where his views on women are easily argued completely irrelevant. We’re talking about his advice about girls, so his rather extreme sexist views are relevant.
But that feed snippet was, as I understand it, taken completely out of context and used only in the “Twitter outrage”.
Uri himself may wish to comment on his behalf when he is available.
What do you understand was the context that made those posts remotely okay?
Maybe Uri should post more of his feed instead of making it private, if the issue was genuinely that things were taken out of context.
This is a good suggestion.
I’m having difficulties with your definition of personal attacks.
Personal attacks would be anything negative said about a person. It can be true, it can be justified, it can be relevant. But still, it’s an attack on that person.
And in this particular case, I don’t believe it’s a relevant context for the article. Surely an opinion on an article needn’t be based on an opinion on the author? Surely if the author’s opinions were relevant they would be presented in the article itself? Surely, if they are not, then they must be irrelevant to THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE?
I really can’t see how it’s a good idea to judge an article according to our opinion of the author, disregarding the article itself. It just screams WRONG to me.
You don’t see personal attacks, we do.
We don’t see genuine misogyny, you do.
Hmm… maybe there’s something going on here eh?
It’s called “misogynists stick together.”
I think you see what you want to see and choose to be offended by the thin air.
I agree with Shoonit. Save I’d call it ‘confirmation bias’ and in your case what appears to be a genuine desire to be offended by anything/everything.
Except that a little while ago I praised Uri for another article he’d written. I’m not on a vendetta to be offended (and boy, do you guys sound like something out of Derailing For Dummies — http://derailingfordummies.com/ — with that charge).
I think if you’re looking for someone looking to be offended, the first place to start is with James Desborough, who jumped into the fray from the very start because he seems to dislike every opinion that ol’ “him/her/it” Kynn might have.
Or, just possibly, that you’re a bullshit artist determined to be negative and your criticisms have no merit, not that there was any real critique, just your usual mudslinging.
As to the whole ‘derailing’ thing, it’s a laughable set of excuses for dismissing rational argumentation and discussion. There’s some more irony for you.
“because I do not feel that a few individuals in the fan community should have the power to decide what does or does not reflect the million-strong D&D community as a whole”
What do you mean by “a few individials in the fan community”? The article itself has been removed by WotC, so it was their dicision and they’re not part of the fans. And the people arguing about the article and it’s statements (me too) don’t seem to prevent access to it. Tower of the Archmage at least linked a screenshot of the aritcle yesterday.
Just asking for clarification. I get your point, though it’s not mine. I don’t think it’s personal insults in the original article, though it’s surely not far form the border and kinda grey.
I meant that after the Wizards web staff received, edited and posted the article, a relatively small amount of people complained… based on what I saw on Twitter and one LJ page.
It seems obvious that they knew full well what they posted when they did it, and only after a handful took issue to complain about it was it removed.
Obviously none of us can know because we weren’t there, but I suspect WotC had no idea about the Google Buzz posts before people complained. I doubt they screen freelancers all that thoroughly. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to choose not to publish authors because of their outside public image. Even if only one person complained, but the complaint contained new information, it makes sense that they might change their minds.
That being said, I saw mention of this outside of the standard geek community. It’s certainly more than just a livejournal post, anyway (though I’m surprised honestly that it didn’t blow up a lot more than it did). Maybe WotC shouldn’t care what non-gamers think, but it’s really not far-fetched to imagine why they do, from a business perspective. I assume they don’t want this to be the ONLY thing some people have ever heard of them.
Oh – now I see. I think we crossed wires, Darla. Wizards removed the article because of complaints about the article itself.
The Google Buzz thing was completely different, and as I understand it – completely out of context.
How is the google buzz out of context? You — and James Desborough — are accusing me of deceptive practices in what I reported. However, I don’t think I’m being deceptive at all — I questioned WotC’s judgment in selecting someone who is clearly misogynistic to write an article about gaming with young children.
At no time did I ever suggest that WotC should make the post go away, and in fact, I mirrored the post on my own site, just as you did here, by uploading a screenshot.
If you’re concerned about the full context of the google buzz feed, I’ve uploaded my entire screenshot at this location:
http://boldpueblo.com/users/kynn/private/uri-google-buzz.png
I’m not sure that, like some, I’d typify that as just a silly page for trolling and making domestic violence jokes — Uri writes about several issues which clearly he feels strongly about and isn’t just goofing off.
You dredge up a set of jokes from months ago that have nothing to do with the article and present them as being both a) Relevant and b) Genuinely representative. This is misrepresentation, this is lying, this is quoting out of context.
What does that have to do with the article?
Nada.
Especially since it was taken out of context.
If your complaint is about that then there’s no leg to stand on for the removal of the article itself.
Many people were offended by the article without even seeing my LJ post, James.
Your obsessive hatred of me is making you see this only as “Kynn did this thing to Uri!” when really I have no control over the many people who saw and responded the article without even reading my LiveJournal — and certainly no control over the way that WotC responds to complaints.
You’re looking for a scapegoat here, but the truth is that the people responsible for all the decisions regarding this article were Uri (who wrote it), the editor who approved it, and the editor(s) who pulled the post.
Glass houses, stones. You do have control over what you do and whipping up hatred for someone/something over your inaccurate nonsense while throwing around words like ‘misogyny’ and ‘transphobia’ are attempts to bypass people’s brains and engage them emotionally, skipping over the whole thinking and analysis part. You campaign, you spread, you misinform. This is another pattern of yours, dodging personal responsibility albeit usually by self-identifying as part of a persecuted GROUP when you as an INDIVIDUAL have done something repugnant. This time you’re passing the buck to people who bowed to a pressure you created through your artificial hysteria. Yes they carry some blame, so do you for lies and misrepresentations.
Dude, the whole reason that we’re talking about transphobia has nothing to do with me identifying as part of a group, but with you explicitly in your early comments referring to me in transphobic terminology.
There’s nothing transphobic in Uri’s writings under discussion, either on the buzz feed or in the article. The only reason we’re talking about transphobia at all — and your views on my gender — are because your response to my LJ post was to dive into transphobic slurs:
http://kynn.livejournal.com/1347038.html
You want to talk about taking responsibility for one’s actions, then how about you owning up to the fact that you’ve acted transphobically? Even people who dislike me — as you do — have tried to call you out and say that it’s not good to call me a “him/her/it” (something you continue to defend lower down in comments here) just because you dislike my post.
Fact =/= Prejudice.
You’re about the most bigoted person I’ve ever run across as it happens.
Hrm, a little but too much of guessing for my taste and for trying not to support one side or the other. But it’s your hornet’s nest to sit in now (some people commenting here have really stepped over the line). I found the original post from Kynn quite neutral, but surely there are others that are not. All in all no time for witchburning Uri, but surely something to notice and ask yourself what’s up again at WotC. Strange things happening over there _again_.
Thank you for reposting this so the community can see it. It takes bravery to post it, unedited, and let people draw their own conclusions.
You’re welcome. But I don’t know how brave I was, to be honest.
But yeah – part of the “plan” was to give people the chance to draw their own conclusions… and that everyone get a chance to express their opinions (without using that opportunity to resort to base name-calling).
After reading the article, I don’t see what’s offensive about it at all. While it does generalize girl gamers, I don’t think it’s done in an offensive way. In my experience (I reiterate: in MY experience), girls *DO* play elf rangers a lot of the time, tend to take the “square peg in a round hole” approach much less frequently than male gamers, and are often less focused on “roll-playing” and more into the ROLE playing aspect than guys are.
Buuuuut…..after reading through the link that Darla posted, I can see where the uproar came from. It’s not the article itself, but the other opinions of the man writing it are very offensive. I agree that it would be much better for a woman to write the WotC article about girl gamers, though a (non-sexist, normal) male’s view shouldn’t be unwelcome, especially if that male has a lot of experience DMing with girl gamers in his groups.
the guy deleted his buzz long before the article was published. kynn kept it in stock for a long time before the article got published (newest buzz there is from march). none of these opinion are expressed in the articles, the guy is just telling anecdotes from his and friends’ work with girls.
not to mention that anyone rants for personal reasons now and then. i don’t think a person can be judged based on a few one-liners, esp. one-liners deleted long ago.
Also the Buzz was in part a ‘game’ of making outrageous statements for comedic effect. Much like Franky Boyle come to think of it.
From my experience with teaching both sexes, I Laughed a lot from the article because he was very loyal to the reality as I know it and I couldn’t help myself with nodding my head while reading.
I never played D&D nor instruct others how to play but I did command others in my army service, both sexes, and girls DO pay more attentions to the “how should I disguise myself in the field (what should I wear) and how should I save that bunny next to my target (petting the wild-lings while in a combat)”
while boys are more “how do I use this weapon better (paying attention to how the magical spear WORKS and not how sexy you look holding it) and of course- how am killing the dragon… err.. terrorist
so yes, the article is a bit general, but it is funny and it is to the point. the most important thing about it, ITS BASED ON THE AUTHOR’S PERSONAL EXPERIENCE who used it as a tool for sharing his feelings and style and thoughts. not as a tool for women-hatred.
Yep, that’s what clinches it for me. He’s talking from his experience with real girls. Not talking about some hypothetical, idealised situation with fully-actualised, individual, empowered girls.
If I had a feminist axe to grind here it would take his experiences as an example that this is still an issue, not blame him for playing the hand he’s dealt.
If anything gaming helps counter this by protaganising the girls and their characters in much the same way as it has been empowering for nerds and geeks of all genders since it began.
“I didn’t play D&D all those years without learning a little something about bravery.”
Context would be the other articles in the series. Not Kynn’s diatribe of lies. I mean, seriously, go back through that person’s feed and journals and you’ll find a constant level of outrage at anything and everyone that we can only hope will lead to an aneurism. Opinion is one thing, flat out misrepresentation and lies are another.
Even if that feed etc represented Uri’s genuine opinions – which they don’t, they’re troll bait and a joke which clearly some people fell for – it reflects not one jot on the article which is talking about how things are, not how people think that they should be.
The article is one of a series about child gamers, something Uri has experience with. Is his experience invalid because it doesn’t jibe with shouty minority?
HBDC
James, which “lies” are you talking about? You keep repeating loudly, in any arena you can, that you believe I’m a liar — but so far, all I’ve seen you do is go on transphobic rants against me and my gender identity.
How about you identify those “lies” instead of just running around saying “KYNN LIES KYNN LIES” every time you see my name?
I mean, it’s not like I say “James Desborough creates rape card games” every time I see your name.
Kynn, glad you’re here to chime in as well, as I suspect you have a great deal to do with this.
More importantly… what lies? What did Kynn lie about with respect to this topic? Are you claiming those google buzz posts were fabricated?
I’ve criticized Desborough in the past, and his rebuttals have been to attack me as a dishonest liar — or, in fairness, to call me a “him/her/it” because I’m transgender.
Misrepresentation is a form of lying, no?
You are dishonest Kynn.
Again, you’re not being attacked because you’re transgender. You’re being attacked because you’re dishonest, you misrepresent and you’ve shown in the past that you’re incapable of reasoned debate resorting instead to wild accusations, smears etc. Your continued and groundless accusations of misogyny and transphobia being ongoing examples.
Once again, you’re just saying I’m dishonest instead of showing when I’ve actually lied.
As for the accusations of transphobia, they’re not wild. You deliberately refer to me as either a man or a “him/her/it,” because you disagree with my opinions and you resort to transphobia to express that.
Take last night while I was asleep. Repeating your lies and misrepresentations over Twitter. Perhaps you genuinely can’t see where you’re doing it.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which may be used against unintelligible propositions.”
In our previous engagements you showed yourself to be incapable of reasoned debate and you continue to make wild and unfounded accusations, lie and to misrepresent. In such an atmosphere what is left but to insult and ridicule you as the figure of ‘fun’ that you are? A ridiculous, living stereotype and bundle of knotted hypocrisy.
Like it or not you were born, are now, and will ever be biologically and genetically male. This is not phobic, it is not suggesting that you should be discriminated against, it is not denying you anything. It is a biological fact.
He.
You choose to represent yourself as female and a feminist. Though from my reading many feminists would disagree and would prefer you describe yourself as pro-feminist. There’s a hell of a lot of clashing ideology, terminology and so on here and it’s a real mess but in any case, that covers…
She.
You’re a troll. I’m not entirely sure trolls have gender in every mythos that involves them, not to mention that you’re referred to as both genders depending where you’re found online. When unsure ‘it’ or ‘they’ is the normal way to go.
It.
Plus it’s clearly something you’re sensitive about and insulted by and so it is used to insult you. This is not transphobic, bigoted, whatever. It’s an insult. To you. Personally. Yet predictably you hide behind ‘the cause’ rather than deal with your own responsibility, again.
Now, why might I not like you very much? ProTip: It has nothing to do with your feminism or status as trans.
Thank you for defending Free Speech.
Yeah, I am one of those that really doesn’t like this article, but mainly because from my own experience running with children, and my own personal exploration of gender studies, that this is just completely amateur writing without serious research. This, in addition to the previous article about handling kids I feel just is horribly wrong in it’s approach.
However, I fully support any article or writing, even those that I feel are bad, to be published and shown to the general public, for judgement by the masses. I feel that censoring or withdrawing articles is not really the appropriate way of dealing with a controversial article, and would rather have had a formal apology and stance editorial written instead.
Ok, so, I actually hate to argue with you, because you are pretty much agreeing with me. But, I can’t help it. Sorry.
… this has nothing to do with free speech. There were no legal sanctions as punishment for saying this stuff. The original author would have been allowed to say this in whatever public forum he liked. (For example, he could have started a Blogger account. Not exactly public, but public enough for this conversation. He also could have gone out on the street and said it. Or emailed it to all his friends. Or stood in front of a government building and said it.)
There are serious free speech issues in the world right now, even in the US. Protesters get arrested. Arrested! For saying unpopular things in the wrong [public] place! That is not what is going on here, what is going on is that a completely private company got rid of something that they apparently decided wasn’t in line with how they wanted to present themselves.
Social censure and witch-hunting is still censorship. It’s also a way of getting around FoS issues for people who want to silence critics or prosecute a vendetta, which is what this is really about.
Okay, so by your standards, you’re witch-hunting me to silence me as a critic and prosecute a vendetta. I can see that; certainly your threats to sue me in a U.K. court stray much closer to censorship than anything I’ve done. Which was just make blog posts and tweets.
But surely you see how the “freedom of speech” issue here is a distraction, as it’s certainly up to Wizards of the Coast to decide what they publish, right? And if they want to take something down, or keep it up, it’s their choice. It’s not censorship.
I’m not silencing you. Indeed those concerns are why I agonised and talked to a lot of people about the potential suing. I have/had no intention of silencing you as as critic but then you don’t actually spend that much time critiquing. You just throw false accusations around.
You have been engaged in defamation towards me by presenting me as something 180 degrees from what I am. That’s harmful. Try to stick to factual critique rather than mudslinging and we won’t have an issue.
Except, James, none of my accusations have been false.
I haven’t defamed you at all — you simply dislike being exposed for who you are.
Sorry but no, your accusations are entirely false. You’ve merely exposed yourself for a liar so desperate that you’re willing to bullshit about others. It’s really rather sad. Sadder that anyone pays you any heed.
I get it, I’m such a prolific liar that you can’t actually name anything I’ve lied about.
Carry on, James!
Anecdote:
I was in a museum in London some years ago, dawdling along, much of the time with a group of American tourists.
Practically every art exhibit we came to this elderly couple had some issues with. Nudity, content, whatever. They couldn’t appreciate what was right in front of them because they were fixated on being offended. The woman even suggested that the nude parts of the statues should be covered by draped cloth.
This is the attitude that saw the genitals chiselled off the works of Greek masters. That sees books burned or banned.
Censure doesn’t have to be political or legal to be damaging.
Think of the damage to science education being done in the US due to the groundless objections to the teaching of evolution. That’s social censure and it’s crippling the education of millions.
If you think social censure isn’t censure, then I’m afraid you’re wrong and if you think X isn’t bad because Y is worse, you’re also wrong.
I’m sorry, but you are really, really confused.
The US education system is public. As in, run by the government. And “free speech” for teachers in a classroom is not nearly as simple an issue as you make out. For example, I don’t want my kid’s teachers to talk about how being gay is a sin (or how transsexual women are actually men, for that matter). (Fortunately, we live in a much saner country than the US, so when she is school-aged, I don’t think I’ll have to worry about that particular issue.)
That old couple’s attitude was indeed stupid, and may or may not have been legitimately calling for censorship. (I’m sure we all have some stupid attitudes on some matter or another.) Not sure how it’s relevant here, though. What happened is: A freelancer had an article published in a private venue. The publisher reconsidered and decided they didn’t want to publish that piece after all, and pulled it. They did not (to my knowledge) try to prevent him from saying what he was saying. They didn’t pull some copyright magic bullshit and claim that they owned it and he couldn’t publish it elsewhere even though they had pulled it (for example). They didn’t threaten him with some kind of retribution if he published elsewhere. All they did was not publish it.
As it turns out, people choose not to publish me all the time! For example, just last month I got a rejection notice from a conference that’s going on right now. Sad? Yeah, very sad! It was good research! ….violation of my free speech rights? I don’t think so.
They did, however, bow to manufactured outrage. In many ways I consider that to be worse than state censorship as it’s people bypassing these hard-won rights by playing the offended card. There was no retraction until an astroturfed squawk of artificial outrage was stirred up.
“an astroturfed squawk of artificial outrage”
Except that isn’t what happened here, James.
http://challengerating25.blogspot.com/2011/06/funny-thing-happened-on-way-to-non.html
this guy had some valid points about Uri’s censorship (below is part of his post):
This is why his article was pulled? Because of a few joke posts about domestic violence being the woman’s fault and wanting to murder people and rape their daughters reposted by some fuckwombats copy-pasting only the juicy bits?
Come on, Wizards. You published Book of Vile Darkness and Hero Builder’s Handbook, and this is where you draw the line? Please.
Luckily, Uri is capable of defending himself, explaining clearly that it is a joke while accusing his detractors of robbing him of his freedom of speech, aka the right to express his personal opinions. If the internet trolls out there aren’t curb-stomped by this two-pronge attack, his back can be considered had by James Desborough, author of The Quintessential Temptress, Slayer’s Guide to Female Gamers, Encyclopedia Arcane: Nymphology and Hentacle, who has dealt with women’s issues and touchy subjects in tabletop gaming before.
As well as pointing out the Poe’s Law trap wizards has fallen into, he compares Uri’s posts to comedy sketches like this one, where over-the-top bigotry is clearly the joke.
And that’s what this is – over-the-top bigotry.
The problem is, on the internet, it is hard to tell when someone’s being serious, because you can’t add a laugh track or a disclaimer to say you’re joking. So really, all of those people up in Uri’s grill for jokingly pretending to be an anti-feminist who wants to rape women need to realise that it’s a joke, and you can’t be offended at jokes.
Guessing that the article was pulled for any specific reason is speculation at this point. WotC hasn’t said why the article was pulled.
As for calling me a “fuckwombat,” I’ve posted the full screenshot already (scroll up). Plus, I’m not really sure that Brian wants namecalling here.
these are the blogger’s words not mine. I don’t even know what a wombat is, let alone a fuckwombat…
but you did write on your page you officially hate white men, right? I’m sure you didn’t men this officially, but still you did write it. some of us are OK, no?
also, what’s cis? I don’t know this term either..
The comment about cis straight white men was a hyperlink. You probably should read it for context. If you’re not presenting yourself as a lesbian blogger, I probably don’t have a problem with you.
By the way, the “fuckwombats” blogger who you’re quoting was writing satire.
As for cis, Google for “cisgender” and you might get it.
well, if you know this is a satire and if say your’s sholdn’t be taken literally, how do you know uri’s isn’t a joke? that he wasn’t just raving because some feminist ran over his wombat or something?
or trolling to get reactions from people just for the kicks?
I think you’re applying double standard here.
YO just a heads up, the blogger in question is calling himself the fuckwombat. It’s a link that goes right back to his own blog.
Also please for the love of god don’t take it seriously. It is indeed intended to be satirically aimed at people who say horrible things that they most likely legit believe then go “Whoh there, it was just comedy!” to cover it up.
Ben, I’m not applying double standards here.
Are you really saying that Uri is a supporter of militant Islam?
islam? how did we get to this? if anything, his tweeter feed looks conservative, the opposite of militant islam…
Ben, Uri has a number of posts on the full feed that condemn violent, radical Islam. Are you saying those are jokes too, meant to troll?
(As for being conservative being the opposite of radical Islam, uh, you’re kind of naive about religion and politics, aren’t you?)
HAHAAHHAHAAHHAAH RADICAL ISLAM!!!!
Are you kidding me?
Uri fights radical islam wherever he sees it.
He’s an Israeli. and jewish. and an ex IDF soldier. Believe me, if there is something Uri is NOT- is a radical islam fan. And don’t let the real life bother you with facts, ea?
Oh man I laughed my ass off
Shoonit, that’s my point — his other buzz posts are completely in line with his beliefs. Why would these few ones not represent how he actually feels?
Because, My dear Kynn, like every other human beings, Uri has both serious moods and gloomy moods and LOL moods.
If you don’t understand a joke for it is- you’re gon’na have very sad and joyless life.
If you don’t understand a serious warning as it is- Well, Have fun with the rest of your life.
You understand things very selectively and with no connection to the context not so ever and you know it and I know it and with the choice of of your words that speaks for themselves- everybody else knows it.
It’s also worth noting that my post about WotC’s choice of author (in short, don’t hire a misogynist to write about girls in gaming) was not the first nor only reaction to the article in question. Take for example this forum post:
http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=102974
… in which multiple people criticize the article before any link to my LJ was ever given.
I know that certain people are trying to paint this as a case of “Kynn said something and now EVERYONE IS UPSET” but the truth is that I was just one of many people who were upset by this article.
And clearly, the issue of “who wrote this article and what authority is he speaking from?” is one which is a valid topic for for discussion — because it was anticipated right there in the original post. You know, when Uri said that he knows as much about being a girl, being an adult man, as any adult woman would know.
If that’s not a fair topic of discussion, then why’d Uri bring it up? I suspect that the article was pulled because of the disclaimer itself, coupled with the way that WotC realized they were peddling unexamined, ancient gender stereotypes in Uri’s article.
some girl writes in that forum:
“if your main goal is to encourage kids to play RPGs, regardless of gender, then it’s silly to ignore that the current systems/social setup tend to encourage boys and discourage girls. Part of this is probably the way girls are indoctrinated to behave in society, of course, but if you want to make them feel at home while playing, then it makes sense to recognize some of the ways they have been indoctrinated, and make it easier to then to join in despite these, so they can branch out to more options later. ”
couldn’t it be that the guy isn’t a misogynist but simply a realist who wants to get girls playing despite way things are?
No, the dude is pretty obviously a misogynist
And the writers of this sketch are pretty obviously racist. Right?
Your position seems to be that any misogynistic statement is automatically an anti-sexism argument. Correct? Because that’s what you’ve continually argued in favor of.
By that standard, do you believe that Uri is a supporter of DC Comics’ “Nightrunner” character, the Muslim “Batman of Paris”? I mean, he condemned DC Comics for the character, which he called part of a global jihad, and yet that was on his blog which you insist must be taken at the exact opposite of face value.
Are you willing to argue that Uri is in fact a supporter of global jihad himself?
Not any, but many. Poe’s law applies. You – and your little gang in particular – do seem to have trouble differentiating satirical humour that actually supports your position, from genuine attacks upon you.
People can both joke and make serious points. They’re not limited to one or the other. Me and Uri would disagree vehemently about politics and the Arab/Israeli situation if we got into it.
Use some bloody discernment and don’t try to muddy the waters.
I’ve got a little gang now? You’re really stretching things here, James.
You’re willing to see anything a man does as being “a joke” and that person as totally supportive of feminism and on “my side.” I don’t see that at all. I see both you and Uri as different kinds of arrogant, privileged, and misogynistic dudes.
I’m willing to see anything anyone does as being a joke, if it is. You are determined to see everything as an insult regardless what it actually is.
Which is more likely hmm?
There’s that prejudice of yours showing again, privilege nonsense and more groundless accusations of misogyny because heaven forfend you make a cogent argument rather than an accusation.
So literally there isn’t anything that anyone could say that would make you convinced they’re misogynistic?
I think you need to reconsider your stance on this and the burden of “proof” you require.
This.
People seem to be confusing what is with what (they think) should be.
As to authority, the authority of experience. Might be anecdotal but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.
Like it or not, probably not, these ‘ancient gender stereotypes’ still have relevance as regards how things are.
Plus there’s a bit of a irony going on here…
What is ironic regarding ancient gender stereotypes, James? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this topic.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on these topics lately – something I should actually thank you and a few others for. The feminism/trans interface is a fascinating culture clash between those who are rebelling against biological determinism and the idea of gender roles and those who are, in many ways, confirming them by adopting a supposedly ‘female’ mode of dress, behaviour etc, even going so far as to alter the shapes of their bodies and take hormonal treatments – thereby confirming stereotypes and to a degree biological/morphological determinisn.
A number of feminists, and not just the women-born-women ones, seem to feel that Trans can be harmful to feminism and, itself, supports/confirms ‘ancient gender stereotypes’. I haven’t yet done enough reading to make up my own mind (precious little fact in all this opinion) but I can certainly see their point.
Yeah, shockingly, there are some stupid [on this topic], transphobic feminists who reduce individual people’s gender presentations to “bad” or “good”. However, in my experience and practice of feminism, your characterization is pretty wrong. Most feminists I read at least try to be inclusive. (Sometimes they suck at it of course.) I would characterize the anti-trans feminism as a small subgroup rather than the main way feminists think about the issue.
Also, my god, is this so off topic. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that you may be trying to discredit Kynn by introducing some completely unrelated information which could appeal to some prejudices readers might have. (Not with this in particular, but by introducing the fact that she’s trans. Which led to this obviously.)
The threading on these comments is terrible so I’m going to have to C&P Darla’s comments I’m replying to. I HOPE I’ll have deleted it all, but if there’s stray segments mea culpa.
1. It’s not transphobic to point out that trans people do not have an authentic female experience, biology or genetics. It’s merely a fact. I can see why people trying to create an exclusively female space might consider this an issue. If you consider that transphobic then its also misandrist to ask for a female space. This is further muddied by the comfort of some people who may have been subjected to abuse by men and unfairly, but understandably, are nervous of anyone male.
2. Kynn asked where the irony was. The irony is in someone with an inauthentic female childhood experience getting a stonking rage-on over someone else’s ‘inauthentic’ experience and lack of authority to speak on the topic. At least Uri has gamed with children of both genders, a lot, to all appearances quite successfully. Besides, with Kynn continually spreading transphobia and misogynist slurs in my direction at every opportunity rather than actually debating, I reserve the right to defend myself.
Next Comment
————
1. It’s pretty obvious that people are confusing what is with what they feel should be, you yourself are doing it by saying the article is perpetuating. This is as ridiculous as offering health advice on the grounds of what it WILL be like when malaria is eradicated, rather than where it is now. Again, as this point seems to be being lost, he’s talking from direct experience.
2. I don’t agree that people as a whole conform to expectations. People as individuals are full of surprises. On your other point about seeing their own expectations, I’d suggest some heavy self-examination on that point.
3. You might not care that he was joking, but it remains utterly irrelevant to the point. Indeed that these statements are shocking – and therefore funny – is because they’re unacceptable. Most humour is based on shock. Not sharing a person’s sense of humour or bothering to research any deeper than Kynn’s witch-hunting accusations is no excuse to back censure.
To me someone who mocks unacceptable positions, often by reducing them to the absurd, is an ally. Not an enemy.
Oh, how nice, the misogynist transphobic cis dude is citing the transphobic cis feminists.
So glad of you to explain this all. As Darla says, this is yet more of your attempt to smear.
You’ll notice, by the way, that I have never offered myself as an alternative person to write the “Girls at the Table” article. Thus a comparison of “is Kynn as qualified as Uri?” is pointless, but I know you love lecturing on how dishonest you think I am.
Unlike your accusations there’s evidence in just about every single post you’ve made here of your dishonesty. Starting with the link someone else made to your misrepresentative journal post.
Again, fact =/= phobia or prejudice.
Also again you demonstrate your inability to read. Understanding a POV =/= agreeing with someone. Though hopefully you’re not too far gone to admit that there are differences.
If there’s that much proof of my dishonesty, James, then name a lie I’ve said.
All you’ve done is say that I called you misogynistic and transphobic, claims you deny. But your denial doesn’t make my opinion wrong (or right), just a difference of opinion.
Your problem is that you seem unable to distinguish a lie (“James Desborough shot a woman in the face”) from an opinion (“James Desborough is transphobic”) from an opinion backed with facts (“James Desborough is transphobic because he resorts to transphobic slurs like ‘him/her/it’ for no reason, here’s a link”).
You’re saying I’m dishonest. Okay, now prove it, James.
I haven’t addressed the article itself yet, but I don’t see any evidence that people are confusing what is with what should be. It seems more like they are disputing the characterization of “what is.” As it happens, I also have the authority of experience. Particularly, as a woman gamer (and previously, a girl gamer!). Also, GMing and playing with other girls and women.
There are two important things here. One, people tend to behave how you expect them to behave. Especially women and girls, who are socialized to avoid causing trouble and meet everyone’s expectations. So it’s probably the case that the author’s girl players behave a lot closer to the stereotype than my women players. Two, people are very good at remembering the things that fit their worldview, and forgetting the things that don’t, or viewing them as “exceptions”.
…which brings us to one of the reasons that the author’s worldview is relevant. And, I am sorry, I don’t care if he was “joking” when he said that victims of domestic violence deserve it. At BEST, his worldview somehow makes it ok to say that sort of thing, as a joke. To me, someone who thinks it’s ok to make a “joke” like those isn’t a person who should be giving advice about girls.
You haven’t addressed the article yet, yes, but you already wrote so many comments against it. Seriously, does this seem reasonable to anyone? Is the article in question some minor detail that may be addressed secondarily, or just as well not at all?
There are two conflicts here.
There is a dispute of “what is”, as you say. This is a legitimate question.
HOWEVER, this is not your main claim. You use it at best as a side note, since it actually relates to the contents of the article, which you’ve been ignoring for a while.
Your MAIN focus is whether the author promotes violence, or the beating of women, or whatever it was. You uphold the relevancy of this to the point of claiming, at the beginning of the comment thread, that this article CANNOT be weighed and evaluated WITHOUT having read a bit of oh so important posts from the author’s buzz feed.
This is not legitimate criticism, this is ridiculous.
Everyone keeps saying that having such a world view as Uri allegedly does (and truthfully doesn’t) prevents him from being any authority on giving advice to girls. Is the advice itself bad? Great, please criticize the advice. All fine here.
But you know what I’ve noticed? I’ve noticed quite a lot of people saying the article wasn’t all that bad, HOWEVER, with the recent relevant evidence of the author being allegedly a complete jerk…
THIS is as wrong as it could get. And THIS happens because of three reasons:
People like Kynn making private statements public with no right to do so, and creating a false image of people; people like you demanding to have such info on display as relevant context; and last but not least – people being stupid and believing whatever they read online.
Think for a second. Suppose a serial murderer writes a brilliant medical article. Do we disregard the article since a murderer has no business giving advice on how to keep people alive? Come on.
And here it’s even worse, since Uri DOES NOT hold any of the views presented as his. And the fact that means nothing to you is just beyond words.
So now people can be disqualified from writing on certain subjects because of their SENSE OF HUMOUR?
I’m not sure if it’s more absurd or tragic. Probably both.
T, you are BRILLIANT. You said everything I wanted to say and couldn’t
Lots of people have criticized the advice.
For some reason, James Desborough has turned this into a debate on whether or not I’m woman enough for him.
The article is really poorly written by a guy with no credentials, little experience, and a bunch of gender stereotypes to throw around. And those are the most simplistic types of gender stereotypes possible. (Girls should play eladrin rangers!!)
You asked where the irony was and you’re STILL throwing around accusations of transphobia and misogyny as though there were any basis. So little wonder it becomes part of the topic when you use it as a club to hit people with.
None of your criticisms in that post just now hold any particular water. The whole point is that it’s speaking from experience. If your experience differs that’s just extra data, it doesn’t invalidate his.
James, the only person using transphobia as a club has been you using your transphobic insults to attack me from the very start of this debate.
http://kynn.livejournal.com/1347038.html
If you wanted to back down from those statements, hey, it would help the conversation a lot. Instead though, you make comments like the one above that justify your use of “him/her/it” and then call me incapable of rational debate, and state your desire to ridicule me.
You seem to be genuinely puzzled about why people are singling you out in this sorry affair.
I will do my best to enlighten you.
Take that thread for example. Let’s summarize it a bit, the whole people-being-offended-before-your-LJ-link-was-even-posted.
First poster thought the article was terrible and was happy it was removed, didn’t elaborate on the why. Next poster suggests ways in which the article could have been better. The next one complains that Uri lacks knowledge in child psychology, implying his views are probably wrong or at least are not to be trusted. The next states the article isn’t helpful, and is thus a waste of time/space. The next one also suggests how the article could be improved. Then comes your LJ link, more or less.
The above, with the possible exclusion of the child psyche remark, constitutes reasonable criticism of the article. Even including that remark, I see nothing wrong there. Also note how there’s no sign of anyone getting OFFENDED, at least nothing that’s clearly stated, except for the tag in the title of the thread (can’t say who put it there, or when, or whether it was before or after your link was posted).
Now let’s look at your LJ post.
You make your dislike for the article clear, without stating any reasons (assuming it’s obvious why the article is bad and offensive?), and move on to… posting screenshots of a now private buzz feed. Regardless of the content and context, this is already not the politest thing to do, since the polite thing to do would be respecting Uri’s choice to make this feed PRIVATE.
But this is fine, since you have a greater purpose in mind: showing the world who the author of the article really IS. In between screenshots you have comments further implying these are clearly the opinions of Uri on the various topics it touches. Lastly, you make a very brief remark that might reveal why you dislike the article – it promotes stereotypes. This is the only proper criticism of the article in your entire post.
Basically, your discredit the article based on the views of the author, as presented in that feed.
So why is this wrong?
First and foremost, it’s wrong to judge an article by the author. I can’t believe this even has to be said, but usually, the sensible person would be judging an article by the, well, the freakin’ article, yes? Surely a very bad person can write a very good article, and if an article is bad, it doesn’t necessarily reflect anything about the author’s person.
And then there’s the bit because of which people are really upset with you. It IS misrepresentation, and it IS taken out of context. And I don’t mean picking just the juicy bits off the feed, I’ve seen you posted the entire thing. The truth is that you can post each and every word a person ever uttered online, and it would still be out of context. Perhaps you represent yourself online exactly as you are, and mean every word you say. This is not necessarily true of everyone else on the internet. There’s no guarantee that what we post in our buzz feeds truly mirrors our opinions.
You’ve said it’s unreasonable to just assume it’s a joke. You’re right there, it is unreasonable, but just as unreasonable is to assume it isn’t, and to present it as fact. That’s the point – you couldn’t possibly know. You’re discrediting a person based on what may or may not be his views.
You’re not to blame for any person who read your post and decided for himself that he believes it to be truth and not jest on Uri’s part. People have their own brains, whether they choose to use them or not. But posting it was still wrong and of malignant intent, since I believe you expected and wanted people to react just the way they did, that it was exactly your aim.
And if it’s so unwise to take it as Uri’s opinions, why did everyone do just that, you may ask? The reason is very sad. It is because some people actually hold those views, which I know were meant in jest by Uri. I doubt many people would take it seriously if it said something like “I would like to personally kill every human being on this planet”. Why’s that? Because this is something a lot of people say without meaning it, and few do mean it. “Women deserve to be beaten”, though? Sadly, tragically, that’s something LOTS of people actually mean.
Uri realized, albeit a tad too late, that his buzz feed might be taken literally by people who don’t know him enough to know better, such as you and subsequently half the internet population. This is precisely the reason he made it private.
And you had no right to make it public against his explicit wishes.
Truly, a world where people can’t joke publicly without it having consequences is a sad world indeed, but a world where they can’t even do it privately? That, ma’am, is bordering on tragedy.
And yes, I do believe it was your post that eventually caused the article to be pulled down. I admit, that’s speculation, but it seems the most reasonable thing to assume. Since honestly, there was really nothing that objectionable in the article itself, and they did publish it to begin with.
I’d love to hear an official reason from Wizards, I’ve mailed them asking for it, but some things don’t need to be stated clearly to be seen by anyone who has eyes.
The reason I didn’t post anything in this discussion (yes, I’m *that* Uri) is because T had laid out my case so eloquently for me that there is nothing left for me to say.
However, I would like to add one small fact. I DID NOT make this buzz private. I had deleted it altogether. Had it been private I would have opened it now and showed you threats to blow up university during exam season (it was a tough exam, god damn it!), calls to unleash an army of raging cassowaries on a nearby school (because an army of angry exotic birds is awesome) and my desire to marry a big cat someday (not excuse for that..)
Ironically, because I realized it could hurt (not offend mind you, but HURT) outsider viewers, because I realized that these things looked bad to people who didn’t know me in real life, I had deleted it and now can’t use it as a shield against mudslinging. Funny how that internet thing works.
Oh well, live and learn; die and become an undead horror.
That’s it. My statement. Hopefully to your satisfaction.
XP and treasure to all,
Keep on rolling 20 in the free world,
And have a blessed weekend.
Uri K, founder of the city of Urik
Yep, what you said Mr T. Unfortunately I think that, for someone who is so turned on to other people’s transgressions, Kynn has little awareness of their own, genuine flaws and problems.
Thanks, grim.
Not that I want to add any more gender confusion to these comments, but I usually prefer Lady T
Oh, I know why they’re singling me out. It’s because when attacked for misogyny, certain sexist men like nothing better to do than close ranks and find a scapegoat, preferably someone female.
There’s no confusion in my mind.
No, it’s because you’re attacking people and hurling around false accusations with zero basis. Oddly, that doesn’t make you particularly popular. Especially when you hide behind your minority status when called on it. Cheap.
No James, I’m not “hiding behind my minority status.”
Once again, the only reason we’re talking about me being trans is that you decided the best way to attack me was with transphobic slurs.
If it weren’t for your transphobia, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Is that so? I wonder why the women are attacking you, then.
Just might have something to do with your apparent decision not to engage in any meaningful discussion on this thread (granted, you’re not the only one).
Since ma’am did not bother to respond to any of my arguments, I consider my case won.
I’m with T.
transophobic accusation are non relevant.
as simple as that.
Uri speaks from his personal experience- again, very simple.
There is nothing to be offended of.
as a woman, I find that 95% of women are humorless idiots. a specially the feminazis. Feminism for equality in work places and army ranks and voting and all is great.
feminism as a tool to bash everyone who doesn’t see eye to eye with you, or rejected you in high school coz you were fat or just doesn’t think you’re attractive- is wrong.
aswel as bashing someone for just being a male as a revenge for all the guys who broke your little black pathetic heart.
Uri’s games and articles may or may not have room for females as players. and it’s fine coz it’s HE”S FREAKING CHOICE.
Uri is a very funny writer and I love reading his jokes and articles and stories and he can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone or himself in purpose. If someone CHOOSES to be offended by him- it’s his/hers bloody problem.
Nobody’s arguing that Uri’s not entitled to his opinions, as wrong as they may be, about women. Instead the discussion is about whether or not it’s a good idea for Wizards of the Coast to consider him an authoritative figure on this topic and publish his tutorial.
It’s always good to hear from misogynistic women, though.
calling shoonit misogynist is abusrd. shoonit said she’s all for “equality in work places and army ranks and voting” what she is against is misandrism, a form of sexism.
the 95% line is obviously a humorous hyperbole which you’re simply unable to recognize for some reason despite using them yourself on your page.
Thank you Ben.
Just for the record, I served the IDF as a combat medic and a staff- Sergeant and I was in charge of over 100 men and women.
For me, Kynn’s answer represents everything I hate in both sexes. manly power/fame hunger and feminine paranoia, attention hunger and selectively lack of anything close to humor.
I’m not saying she is, but her respond surly is.
If men/ women/ troll/ what f**** ever don’t WANT to see the humor in things and ignoring the tone of the article/ respond/ ect- We have nothing to talk about.
If you want to feel hurt and hunted and emotionally scared for life from my respond, you may feel what ever you want. I will not be the one to tell you how you should feel but I sure will point and laugh if you’ll cry from the simple answer “I will make as many female characters I want because it’s My game to play”
So thank you Kynn for being a perfect example for what I call “a dumb ass feminazi by choice” and have a great day.
So as Far as I can say, Uri Kurlianchik is more then welcome to keep his spot in “Wizards” for his articles are funny and sweet and to the point. I love reading about his work with kids and I find his jokes funny, not insulting.
Like I said, it’s your choice if to be offended or not. I choose to read his stuff as they are and think and laugh.
Why bother with a decent reply when you can just use a powerful label like misogynist that precludes the need to actually debate any of the points?
And yet you’ve called me a liar without still yet providing any proof of that. That’s a powerful label right there, and you won’t debate it, only try to argue semantics.
Meanwhile, I can point exactly to your transphobic behavior, James:
http://kynn.livejournal.com/1347038.html
Kynn,
Calling me names is not very mature.
Attack my ideas, my words, my bellybutton- what f*** ever. but DO NOT call me names just because I don’t agree with you.
I hate men and women as individuals. not as a gender.
and before you’ll accuse ME in homophobia/ transophobia/ geekophobia or whatever you choose to say to people who doesn’t agree 100% with you, it won’t work in my case.
there’s a saying in Hebrew- הפוסל במומו פוסל (haposel bemumo posel)
which means “the one who disqualifies, disqualifies based on his own fault”.
Now I’m not saying this is the case we have here. but your false accusation as a way to “win” an argument or to bash someone who doesn’t agree with you- talks for themselves
I’m just going to ask everyone very nicely to not resort to name calling. Please.
We’re all adults here, and I think we are all capable of acting appropriately.
I’m sorry.
You are right. I’m an outsider so I’m not used to how things are done here.
I shouldn’t let random people to get on my nerves.
Kynn, I guess if you weren’t dishonest- nobody would call you a liar.
But when I see with my very own eyes how you act and how you twist the reality around Uri’s article-
I have no choice but to agree with Grim.
All the “he she it” thing you were so offended from, is not relevant for Uri’s article non so ever.
If you still want to claim that you were offended by the article because it’s sexist and/or an open for stereotypes that will lead to women hate or women beating, you’re credibility in my eyes will be reduces to nothing.
[...] all started with an article about playing D&D with girls (not women) created by freelance writer Uri Kurlianchik and published by the game company Wizards [...]
[...] post: D&D Kids: Girls at the Table – Geekcentricity: Life from a … Categories: Books, Twitter, Uncategorized Tags: author, books, enjoy-more, kurlianchik, [...]
Anyone with half a brain and any sense of justice or truth should have enough info – if they go looking – to work things out for themselves by now.
Guess I’ll let Kynn have the last word and throw around some more empty accusations rather than face up to their own obnoxious behaviour.
For my part I’ve made a reference page for these false accusations against me (at least the misogyny ones) and I’ll leave that to speak for me, though it will be updated over time as necessary.
http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/362643.html
Brian,
I sincerely hope you still screen emails that tell you when someone comments in this article. I don’t think i would be though. i’d sincerely be considering turning that option off. The comments in here are cr@zy. And from someone whom is on that particular train, that’s saying something.
His article being pulled was probably in the best interest for everyone involved. A private company can’t afford to get stigmatized with something like this, especially given the services/products they deliver.
But that should never have been forced to happen. He is a good writer. He is funny. And in my experience in 13 years dming, he’s pretty spot on with how female gamers play.
And he’s right about how girls in that age group play/pretend. My daughter (she’s almost ten) is a little girl gamer. My son (he’s seven) is a little boy gamer. We’re talking computer games for the most part, but it carries over. The gaming style they like is very different. He likes games where he can “win.” he plays more violent games. She likes puzzle type games and rpgs (storyline driven games). She likes kinectimals.
She recently watched me run a session for my group. (nine people is seriously a little much
) She wants to play the faerie dragon named Jynx (adult 18″ female glitterwing i think).
My current group has four women in it. Two are monks, one is drow, one is dragonmarked. One is eladrin from thelanis hybrid druid/ranger. The last is dragonborn paladin. (they needed a leader/healer
) It holds water. It was a good article IMO. Perhaps a girl gamer would have made more sense from the get-go, but that’s not what WotC did. But they didn’t make a bad mistake. It was a well written article from every experience i’ve had with girl gamers (i’ve run a lot of games. I almost always had at least one, if not two girls. Military wives/girlfriends lol. we made them play but nonetheless they count).
He wrote it well. it was funny. it was spot on. it was attacked because it was from the male’s perspective and that line about knowing as much as an adult woman, doesn’t ring quite true in my ears, but still, give the man a break.
What might have been serious comments, (rings more like stress relief dark humor to me) made from him earlier were used against him to ultimately get it taken down.
WotC did nothing wrong in either sense. they published it because it was good. they took it down to lessen potential stigma.
Leading readers to the blog about WotC’s failings with the article because of problems with the Author, in areas not article related, wasn’t very nice and seems a bit unnecessary to me, connecting lines that weren’t really in the same map together. (but yes, the lines “could” be there)
But it is well within her right to do so I’ve served our country for those rights and she d@mn well gets them too
. that’s FoS for you. I do believe misinformation/misdirection/omission was used to get WotC to pull something, but like i said. You can’t fault her for doing it.
Sh*t happens. Great writing gets pulled/unpublished every day. Everyone needs to get over it and move along. She needs to stop trying so hard. He needs to move on and leave her alone or at the very least, stop being insulting because that’s taking what things and making them personal. Ideas and debate should NEVER go personal.
Fault everywhere, even with the Great and Powerful Wizards. I’m not sure i buy the whole Uri’s a raging woman hater from a few comments. But i’ve been wrong in assumptions before. Personally, i think if all the words that were written about this, for or against the pulling of it and the character of said Uri and Kynn and James, were put to use in better manners or manipulations, we might have a best seller on our hands. Instead we are left with headaches and hurting eyes from monitor glare at 130 in the am.
When its all said and done, i liked the article and found it mostly correct in my experiences with the girl gamer. (and with little girl gamers of different types)
i think the posts Uri put up in the blog were indeed jokingly intended or stress relievers, i think he erred in putting them up publicly. Statements like those should never be public to keep this very thing from happening. Had he stayed private, he’d still have that article out there.
James or grim, or whatever needs to not be offensive. it is not proper to be such any time. Do unto others. Saying hurtful things, hurts.
Kynn. I know nothing about you and this will be only from the tiny bit i’ve gleamed in this whole experience. You’ve got it tough. No matter how you cut it, it is going to be hard because society has problems accepting people as they are, versus who they think the people should be. We would be so much further evolved if we did this. Accept everyone because we’re all f*cked up in our own ways, outside, inside, somewhere in each of us there is a crack. BUT you can’t take everything negatively because that will never allow you to be happy. I don’t think all things connected in this, should have been. I think you are intelligent. i think you hear the truth in those words. (or is it see
)
Enough from this rambling gypsy. Let there be gaming.
~N
necu – I actually do not get email notifications. And considering how many there are now just for this article, I am quite glad!
[...] the controversy sparked by Uri Kurlianchik’s article on D&D Kids: Girls at the Table, to Lugh’s discussion of Shared Fantasy’s study on Women Gamers, to Ravyn’s [...]
[...] of you are aware of the time that Uri broke the internet. I’ll not go into that [...]
[...] looks at things, evaluates them. If I was willing to believe that Uri Kurlianchik’s article on “D&D Kids: Girls at the Table” should be discounted because there were allegations that he was a misogynist prick, then a case of [...]
So this is the infamous article. I have to admit to being surprised. It could use editing, but overall it’s interesting, thoughtfully presented, and has some ideas that I’d use to play a game with my own kids. In my opinion, it’s exactly what it advertised itself to be: an article about one DM’s experiences running games for kids. There’s really nothing to get worked up about, here. It’s a good article, and it doesn’t cause the reader to burst into flames of indignation.
I’ve read some of the author’s posts on other sites, and I don’t enjoy them all. Many of them are racist, sexist, or otherwise provocative, and most of them are incendiary. I can’t guess the extent to which this represents his own beliefs and the extent to which it represents an attempt to generate controversy, but that’s his business. Those were clearly personal statements. They were, however, made in public forums, which shows a lack of foresight in a person who hopes to make money with a public persona (which is what writers do) that doesn’t incorporate those views. If you write, particularly if you write for web sites, you can’t be naive about the fact that people will find everything you’ve said publicly and read it, and add that to the sum of their opinions about you.
There’s no controversy here, and I’m glad this was published somewhere less concerned about its corporate image, because it’s an interesting article. It’s too bad that the author’s sense of what kind of personal opinions are appropriate to air in a public (instead of a private) forum got him blacklisted from an outlet that could reach a wider audience. I’ll be reading more of his articles about kids and gaming.
I understand I’m a little bit late to this debate, but do you know the main problem I see with this article? The idea that boys and girls are fundamentally different. The fact that gender somehow has something to do with and is a large factor in the way we play games.
Think for a moment about the men and women in your lives. Would you say they are all the same? Some people (I included) believe that there is a much greater variance of personality types WITHIN genders rather than between them. Ultimately people are personalities – gender affects us far more in terms of societal expectations and discrimination, and I would really hope that gaming would be an area where we could get past that – eg. in creating gaming worlds where there is no sexism, or sexist expectations, because both players and DMs know better.
So this is what D&D has become? A quagmire of politically correct, 7 year old playing, twilight watching crap? Gygax would be sickened by the whole affair.
I’m glad I played real D&D back when an A was put on the front of it and it was played by mature people. Back when you used pixie wings and chimera hearts to make potions, and succubi were depicted in the Monster Manual as buxom nude women.