Geeks love drama and the story du jour on the interwebs is an icon from GenCon.
If you’ve been spared by the commotion, the quickie review goes: GenCon has a track of activities for the non-gamer who is tagging along with a gaming partner, abbreviated SPA and titled “Activities for the Better Half.” As with all 20 of their track offerings, they have an icon to represent this track, so when you get your program book in August, you can easily scan through for the events you find interesting. The SPA icon is:
This isn’t new: it’s been the icon since the track was first offered 4 years ago. But as with most “news” items, something can go unnoticed until media gets a hold of it. In this case, it was a blog here on Critical-Hits: Save vs. Misogyny: An Open Letter To Gen Con’s Event Organizers by Vanir. In it he says track-goers are:
…being visually characterized using an old euphemism holding down their gamer-spouse and keeping him from having fun. It does not take a particularly high INT score to understand why women would find this offensive.
and repeats
…this kind of thing makes women angry…
Other blogs were quick to follow. The Game Whisperer concurs with this sentiment:
The icon is being found offensive because of its depiction of women…
The blog d7 says that the icon is a blatant insult and that with the icon, Gencon is:
…calling you or your partner a device of shame and incarceration.
I’m a geeky, professional, progressive girl. I’m a high level business executive and head of my household. I come from a long line of feminists. My hippie parents raised me with a gender neutral philosophy and I’ve fought for equality and my voice to be heard my whole life. And to this complaint that the icon will offend women, I say Bullcrap.
First of all, thanks guys for assuming you know what I’m offended by: I am a woman and find nothing offensive about the icon. If I were to be offended, I’d find your generalization that this icon somehow applies to all women offensive. This year will be my 8th GenCon and I go to enjoy the gaming, vendors, and panels, just like you, so don’t assume that GenCon is targeting all women with this. It’s targeting the partners of gamers (mostly female but not all) who go to GenCon who aren’t gamers themselves.
But I’m not offended by that generalization. And the fact that I’m a woman has little to do with my feelings on the larger subject (though I want to point out the irony that the 3 blogs above are all posted by men and the 2 female voices in this issue so far, mine and from GenCon, see it as humorous). I’m annoyed by the hyper-sensitivity and venom caused by a symbol used as a wedding cake topper, gag gift, and phrase on primetime television. Gone are the ‘80’s, an era of self esteem, political correctedness and the idea that we all have to make each other feel good about ourselves. At the risk of damaging your self-esteem bubble further, you know, if you go to a convention on a topic of which you have no interest and shadow your partner, unintentionally holding them back, well, then the icon sort of fits.
Come on fellow nerds. Is our collective skin really that thin? Aren’t there better things to take offense to and get our panties in a bunch about? Do you live such a sheltered, stress-free life that you have time to spend energy on this? Really?
Yeah, yeah, show me the apparent hypocrisy of me getting upset at people getting upset. But two things about this issue do offend me. First, the fact that this is a symptom of a larger, quiet, passive aggressive war on humor. “Careful, that joke might offend someone!” It’s diluting our comedy and making us focus more on bland and safe than on progressive and innovative. Second, I am offended at public outcry without offering to take action. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick said that he had one main rule of his staffers: “Feel free to come to me with a problem, but come with a solution too.” Whining and bitching without trying to fix a problem is lazy and has little value. Don’t like the options of the SPA track? Submit a panel and run your own. Panels at GenCon are almost entirely volunteer. I was sad to see a panel I loved years ago no longer offered, so this year, I am running it myself. Sure, blogging about it is “raising awareness” so is a form of action, but note that as with any public statement, you are opening yourself for commentary so be open to that too.
Finally, there is a lot of talk about this icon not being the way to get new people into the hobby and offending the non-gaming spouses when they show up to the con. The SPA track is for non-gamers, not people interested in the hobby. There are no panel offerings for “Introduction to Role-Playing” or “How to be a Gaming Geek”- that isn’t the purpose of this track. GenCon, a gaming convention, created an entire line of offerings to people not interested in gaming. How many cons do that? I go to a lot of education conferences. If I asked the organizers for different activities because “Well, I don’t really like kids,” and they did but represented me with an icon that is tongue-in-cheek, I’d chuckle and thank them for their effort.
Thank you GenCon for having the SPA track at all. Thanks for making an attempt to not having couples have to take completely separate vacations. I’m sorry that this small issue has muddled what a great event GenCon is as a whole.
Public voices speak louder but don’t’ always represent the greater opinion. Are you offended by the GenCon icon? Let’s see if one side or the other is a majority: data is objective and is the most reputable voice of all.
I’ll post the results regularly or when anyone wants them. The survey has nothing to do with me; it’s just a tool to help form an opinion.
Meg,
I respect your right to your own opinion, but I must take issue with a few of the points you bring up. I’m not sure I understand how your being a woman qualifies you to speak on behalf of your entire gender. For my part, I was not trying to speak for anyone. Rather, I was trying to gather attention to this issue, knowing full well there would be people with strong opinions about it. Incidentally, yours has not been the only other female voice on the topic. Far from it, actually. We have a widget that tells us who has linked to our articles, and a quick scan of the last 5 links yields four separate women who, as it happens, don’t like the icon very much and like Gen Con’s official response even less.
http://www.pixiepalace.com/2010/04/21/spa-should-not-mean-prisoners/
http://kynn.livejournal.com/1240439.html
http://valleyviolet.livejournal.com/1044.html
http://heron61.livejournal.com/671114.html
http://kynn.livejournal.com/1239441.html
Of course, I could have a thousand links in support of my opinion and it wouldn’t automatically make me right. While I’m curious to see what sort of data your survey yields, I think it’s important to remember that majority does not necessarily equal morality. I do, however, think there are sufficiently many people (of both genders) who aren’t crazy about this icon that Gen Con would be wise to re-examine their priorities. Best I can tell, they’re risking pissing off their customer base for no reason better than pure stubbornness. That seems bad for business.
Most importantly, I must outright reject the notion that a topic must not be addressed and that people who do so are oversensitive or silly simply because it is “not important enough”. I am neither sufficiently overdramatic or naive enough to think that this ball-and-chain icon is as dire or pervasive a problem as many others we face in today’s world. However, I write for a gaming blog. As such, I feel that it’s my responsibility to address the issues within this domain so that I can make the world around me easier for everyone to have fun in. I see Gen Con’s ball-and-chain icon as contrary to this goal.
There’s no war on humor here. I’m not trying to impose the iron fist of Political Correctness on the universe. (Seriously, have you read ANYTHING else I’ve ever written?) I was just trying to make my world a little bit brighter.
As an aside, I decided to take Jeanette up on her offer to teach a beginner’s karate class. She hasn’t responded yet, but I’m assuming she’s quite busy this time of year.
Agreed!
And my beautiful ball and chain feels the same way you do!
Kudos to you!
.-= newbiedm´s last blog ..Win all 3 sets of PHH: Divine Heroes D&D Minis =-.
I, too, wonder at the tendency to be so careful about offering offense, especially with humor.
Each of us needs to remember that he or she can’t be offended without giving permission. You choose to be offended, and give credence to the object of your offense with your emotional reaction. Offense is seldom, if ever, objective. And you don’t have some right to not be offended.
Some things are actually harmful to progress and discourse, and they deserve to be addressed on that level. But taking offense is not really addressing anything. It can be the motivation to start working. But sometimes it’s just better to dismiss the so-called offense lest you lend it a bit of power with your misdirected opposition.
FWIW, my wife thinks the icon is silly but far from offensive.
.-= Chris Sims´s last blog ..Mailbag 3 – The Pitch =-.
It’s not about being “offensive.” One lesson I have learned, is not to make fun of someone who is doing you a favor.
If I go to a gaming con — and my wife agrees to go with me even though it’s really not her favorite thing and we won’t be spending much time together — she is doing me a favor.
I think it’s great that GenCon has activities for partners, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to make fun of those partners in the process. This icon may be “good natured ribbing” but it is still poking fun, and if even one partner (wife or otherwise) feels hurt by it, I don’t think it’s worth it.
Disclaimer: I’m not going to GenCon so I really don’t care one way or another. Just trying to share my perspective.
— 77IM
Never been really offended by the icon. I first found it somewhat funny.
I still find it a bad/odd marketing move, as it doesn’t do much to attract its target audience or to properly communicate its intent.
Based on a quick 5-people survey (yes, small sample, but I’m not going to go to full market research here :P) with gamer-friendly better-halves, they would not be attracted by the icon (wouldn’t feel it spoke to them). When I told them what the icon was for, they all thought they’d prefer to plan their own activities at home than travel to do activities with something that describes them as “a hindrance”.
No one was actually hurt or offended. Some eyebrows were raised though. A full 5 minutes later, the discussion had been entirely forgotten.
Icons that require text to be understood are not useful (in UI design, we like to call this “mystery meat design”).
Might be useful, once learned, to make information easy to recognize faster… Not sure its useful in this case.
I’d replace it with 2-3 words that would actually mean something to the intended audience.
.-= Eric Maziade´s last blog ..Revenge of the dailies =-.
I can’t believe I spent time looking into this controversy. There is none. People need to lighten up and focus their energy elsewhere. “Gaming” and “Responsibility” should never be used in the same sentence unless speaking about having fun.
.-= Matt James´s last blog ..What is your favorite gaming energy drink? =-.
Natural 20 hit vs. Hypersensitivity! 10d6 damage! No save!
It seems to me, sadly, that some people exist only for the purpose of being offended, and seeking out things about which to be offended. My advice: get over yourself and laugh a little…try it…seriously…you might actually like laughing and not being so brittle and self-righteous.
Thank you, Meg.
Let’s see…being offended by the icon has so far made me “thin-skinned”, “sheltered”, “brittle”, and “self-righteous”. Along with implications of being a humorless drama-queen.
Nice.
Part of why the icon is so damned irritating is because it would be so easy for there never to have been a controversy in the first place; use a different icon that doesn’t carry the same connotation (a wedding ring, perhaps?). It’s like watching a movie where the writers get “infrared” and “ultraviolet” confused–the irritation isn’t just from the mistake, it’s from the fact that it could have been avoided with even a trivial amount of thought and effort.
Eric summed up my feeling on the core issue here quite nicely so I won’t repeat it. While I have the feeling it’s going to continue to be a battle between “people are too easily offended! It’s just a joke!” and “it’s more than a joke and has importance”, I really do feel ultimately like it is bad business for GenCon, and has certainly affected my feelings towards their representatives.
But for our regular readers, this will be the last full post on the subject, though the link to the survey results will be posted in some fashion. Back to gaming.
The irritating thing is that people make something out of nothing.
.-= Matt James´s last blog ..What is your favorite gaming energy drink? =-.
If the icon had been of a wedding ring, would homosexual couples have a right to be offended because they are unable to get married in most of the United States? If it were an icon of the American flag, would our Canadian neighbors have a right to be offended?
I’m not saying people don’t have a right to feel offense at things, but really, this was a light-hearted joke. As I’ve said from the beginning of this argument, those who don’t find the humor in it…haven’t been married long enough.
Yeah, um, so you’re not offended, so what? You don’t speak for all women. Also, I am very, very offended by this, and I’m male. It’s an offensive characterization. And I’ve been married quite long enough to not have my spouse derided as a ball and chain by strangers.
Regardless of the gender of the spouse in question, referring to a non-gaming spouse as “the ol’ ball and chain” is poor humor at best, pandering to a stereotype born in “The Honeymooners” era, where segregated water fountains and bus seats were also considered the acceptable social norm.
Some will be offended, some will not, but as was pointed out above, it’s just plain stupid marketing, and it’s not even that funny, precious, or cute. Invocations of “gee, lighten up!” or “GASP! You’re being PC!” do not address the simple fact that there are so many different ways this could have been marketed, so I’ve got to wonder why this one had the “GREAT IDEA!” light bulb click on above it.
But then again, we’re talking about GenCon LLC, whose management and administration over the past several years has left a LOT to question about whether or not it’s really a brains kind of operation at work. I’ve been tending towards “not” myself of late, and this isn’t helping me view it any more favorably. The SPA brouhaha is one more symptom of how GenCon continues to do things wrong, with no end in sight to getting it right.
The great thing, though, is that there are cons like PAX Prime/PAX East and Dragon*Con that are slowly but surely recognizing their synergies with tabletop RPG’ers and board gamers, and I think the future for significant RPG gaming elements there are solid … and I suspect they won’t be stupid enough to refer to non-gaming spouses and kids as “the ol’ ball and chain.”
This may not need saying, but a survey of self-selected participants doesn’t actually qualify as data. FWIW, I didn’t see “I’m a male, I’m not offended, but I think it’s offensive” choice so I didn’t bother filling it out.
If the icon had been of a wedding ring, would homosexual couples have a right to be offended because they are unable to get married in most of the United States?
Hmmm…bit of a stretch, but I’ll roll with it. And, of course, a significant other doesn’t necessarily have to be a spouse. A heart icon, then?
@77IM: YES. THAT.
@Matt James: I think responsibility and a positive gaming experience frequently go hand-in-hand. This can be something as small as a social contract you use with your own gaming group. For gaming bloggers, I think it means trying to make the world a better place for gaming – either through addressing stuff like this icon, or trying to dispel old stereotypes that we’re all a bunch of devil-worshipping freaks. In no way does this mean we’re not supposed to have fun. It’s simply asking everyone not to be a dick. 🙂
@Rob: Yeah, I think that’s what got me started on all this in the first place. I don’t like my wife getting called that.
For the record, I don’t have a strong opinion on the icon either way. Hold a gun to my head, and I’ll tell you its not a big deal.
What does strike me as a silly notion is that the only people that have the right to be annoyed/offended is the group slighted. The ol’ ball and chain can offend man or woman, and either has a valid opinion. Its only-me type mentality that makes important social issues completely impossible to discuss in an open forum because of “You’re not X, you wouldn’t understand” finger-pointing.
“If the icon had been of a wedding ring, would homosexual couples have a right to be offended because they are unable to get married in most of the United States?”
“Hmmm…bit of a stretch, but I’ll roll with it. And, of course, a significant other doesn’t necessarily have to be a spouse. A heart icon, then?”
Completely fair. For the record, I’m not saying that the icon was a “good” choice. All I’m saying is that it’s hard to get offended over something that was clearly meant as a light-hearted joke. Had the icon been something like a swastika (in an attempt to say that significant others are oppressors) I would be completely on the other side of the fence on this issue.
As it is, this just seems more like people wanting to be mad about something. It really is just a joke that doesn’t truly harm anyone. It’s not spreading hate. It’s simply poking fun at a very old joke. My wife and I throw jokes like this around all the time.
Humour isn’t a defense for anything. If someone says, “I met a kike in the bar yesterday,” it would be racist. If someone adds making fun of Jews on top of the racism, starting a joke with, “A kike walks into a bar…” that somehow makes it not racist? How does adding mockery on top of racism somehow cancel out the racism?
Humour doesn’t cancel out whatever it masks. It does two things: it provides an excuse that real bigots can hide behind, and it makes the bigotry seem normal to people who are neither bigots nor activist, thus helping the bigots hide in the crowd.
If you (or GenCon) want to help bigots hide, that’s your (their) prerogative. However, it is not worthy of respect, and it doesn’t mean you (they) deserve to be treated like delicate flowers who can’t handle being called on speaking like bigots do.
Perhaps enabling bigots is worth it to keep this and other jokes like it. I can’t tell you whether your own personal laugh is worth aiding and abetting bigots; only you can. I can point out that’s what you’re doing though, and I will.
(And for those who will inevitably cry, “Censorship!”: Free speech means being free to say what you like, but it doesn’t mean being free from criticism. Speak what you will, and take your lumps like a grown adult when you say something bigoted.)
.-= d7´s last blog ..GenCon “reaches out” in the spirit of “inclusiveness” =-.
All I’m saying is that it’s hard to get offended over something that was clearly meant as a light-hearted joke.
Humor is subjective, though. I see it as a joke as well, but it’s a tone-deaf one that didn’t really need to be told, and could be discarded without loss. Heck, it took us barely four comments to come up with a better idea for an icon.
The only real issue I have with this, and other situations like this is that at what point, and who, determines what is offensive or isn’t?
And how do you know that what you intend to remove and replace it with won’t be offensive to someone else? There really is no clear answer to my question, but that’s my issue with it.
No matter what it is, someone somewhere will find it offensive and bothersome. It happens in my line of business all the time (television).
Contemporary community standards are what define “offensive” in the tv world. Here’s the FCC’s word on offensive material:
“In making obscenity, indecency, and profanity determinations, context is key.”
Obviously TV and Gencon are apples and oranges, but I’d look at the context of the icon before determining whether or not it flies as “offensive to the community” and not “offensive to you”, the complainer.
As in tv, you have the option to “change the channel” if you will, by not supporting that which bothers you, without necessarily seeking to sanitize it for everyone else whom may not necessarily care or be bothered by it.
.-= newbiedm´s last blog ..Win all 3 sets of PHH: Divine Heroes D&D Minis =-.
@d7: Comparing this to bigotry is a bit overboard. Especially with such anger. This is nothing like calling a subgroup of people by an offensive term and laughing about it. This is more along the lines of calling your closest friend a goofball. If we want to talk about bigotry and offense, we can look at the burka situation in France. That subject probably deserves the vitriol being dedicated to the oldest joke since the introduction of the institution of marriage.
@Meanderthal: As I said, I’m not arguing whether this was a “good” choice. I’m only arguing that given that it was “the” choice, it really is harmless.
My real issue isn’t that it’s terribly offensive… it’s just juvenile, potentially offensive to some, and not worth the smirk it illicits in a few people. It’s a bad choice, for several reasons, and just because some female gamers don’t find it offensive, doesn’t make it any less of a bad choice. Poor judgement call by GenCon, but not the end of the world.
Count me among the people who aren’t “horribly offended” by this but think it’s a boneheaded move. Why are people so vehement about keeping something that isn’t even all that good a joke? What good is it doing anyone? It’s not very funny, and if it makes even a few people feel unwelcome, without some compensating positive, it’s just a bad choice.
What exactly is the Con gaining from keeping this icon? It’s not even a very funny joke!
Changing the icon would be a small and very easy way to make the convention a little bit more inclusive, without losing anything.
This is the most intelligent post I’ve seen on this topic. Well put.
I’m not sure that it actually has to offend to be bad in the long run.
Here’s the problem for me:
The Old Ball And Chain == Wife
This is derogatory not only to women (through the traditional sense of the expression) and to gamers in general (through the stereotype that gamers are man-children who participate in a hobby outside of the “norm”).
It’s not overtly hateful, but it is from the same breed of sexism that provides us with advertising that has women screaming over shoes and chocolate, while their husbands “just don’t get it”. It’s not as obvious as it used to be, but the sexism is still there.
@Alio: “This is nothing like calling a *subgroup of people by an **offensive term and ***laughing about it.”
Are you sure about that?
*Subgroup: non-gamer spouses and significant others.
**Offensive term: ball and chain.
***Presumed intent: humor.
@newbiedm – I get what you’re saying but I have to disagree in this case.
Are you arguing we should never try to improve things we like? Sure people can “change the channel” and just not go to the convention, and maybe some people will, or already have, but honestly that seems like a pretty blunt instrument for what is a relatively minor complaint, that wold be SO EASY to fix, without losing anything!
I just don’t see why trying to point out a (small, very easy to implement) way to improve something you like, and make it a little bit better for everyone, without losing anything, is so bad.
.-= DrOct´s last blog ..One More Try =-.
“First of all, thanks guys for assuming you know what I’m offended by: I am a woman and find nothing offensive about the icon.”
That drives me crazy, too. I’m a girl. While I don’t speak for all women, I speak for at least one more woman than any male does, so why do they sometimes accuse me of being /less/ representative of women than they are?
I think this is a stupid move, just because something as niche as this can’t afford to offend too many people without disappearing. But I get way more annoyed by White Knights than by actual offensive content.
@Skeolan: I figured someone would eventually say that, but I left it the way I wrote it anyway. Why? Because again, it’s not really all that offensive. It is humorous. If you don’t think so, I assume you don’t watch Modern Family, or The Office, or SNL, or Conan O’Brien, or pretty much any work of comedy in the modern era.
Comparing “ball and chain” to the word used by the person that post was a response to is just ridiculous. If someone is truthfully as offended by the term “ball and chain” as a Jewish person would legitimately be by the term that was used above, then I really don’t know what to say to that person. Well, I do, but it would probably be pretty offensive in itself.
@DrOct — the answer to why its “bad” is because you can’t really suggest a better alternative without still offending someone.
Does GenCon need this icon? Who knows? I would assume (for what that’s worth) that someone on their board decided to use this icon and it was never even discussed. If anyone wants to really make a difference, don’t blog it, write directly to the GenCon organizers and explain that until they change it, you aren’t coming to their con. And get your circle of supporters to do the same.
That’s how you’re going to convince them to change. Maybe it is a “blunt instrument” but arguments about one icon choice amid the sea of things they do well for the people that icon is used to point out programming to, well, you seem convinced that they are pretty thick up at GenCon, so maybe they need a big nudge.
But the worst part is, as someone who works with cultural editing, I can say, it wouldn’t have been my choice if I were on the committee, but looking at it from the outside… I’d judge by what the SPA activities were, not some tiny icon used to represent those activities on a schedule.
@Michael – “the answer to why its “bad” is because you can’t really suggest a better alternative without still offending someone.”
I’d go with the suggestion made above of a heart. I think that’s a pretty clearly better alternative.
“If anyone wants to really make a difference, don’t blog it, write directly to the GenCon organizers and explain that until they change it, you aren’t coming to their con. And get your circle of supporters to do the same.”
But wouldn’t blogging be a good way to bring the issue to peoples attention so they can decide whether or not they want to do that? To rally your “circle of supporters?”
I don’t understand the mentality that people need to keep thoughts about this sort of thing to themselves. It’s fine if you disagree, and don’t think the icon is a big deal, but why is it that so many people seem so upset that anyone would even share their thoughts on the issue publicly?
I also don’t understand the mentality I see so often that the only way anyone should ever express issues with something is to “not buy it” or “don’t watch it” or whatever. Yes, that’s one way to do that, and if it’s a really big problem to me that’s what I. and many others, do in fact do. But why should that be the only way to make suggestions for improvement or point out problems?
Many stores and businesses have a place for people to fill out comment or suggestion cards. Should they just ignore all of those except the ones that threaten to stop shopping there? Should something have to get to that point before it’s addressed?
That’s all this is. A suggestion for improvement. A discussion of something someone noticed and thought could be better.
.-= DrOct´s last blog ..One More Try =-.
Not offensive. Too much dork rage to rant about something that is much ado about nothing.
For the dudes who like to rant….yaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn…….
Many people have said that the icon is “just a joke”, and while I can agree with that, it just seems to be out of place when its next to the 19 icons for the other tracks at GenCon, none of which are jokes.
So, there are 19 tracks of content for gamers and/or generally geeky pursuits that all get a “serious” icon, which pretty well represents that content. Then we come to the one track of content for “the Better Half” and they make a joke out of that icon. It almost seems like the nerdy kid in the back of the classroom mocking the “mundanes”.
But since its such a good joke that GenCon just wouldn’t be the same if we changed it… I propose we do the opposite. Lets make all of the icons into jokes that mock the people who want to attend those events.
Some proposed new icons:
RPG – A fat-beard fighting with a rules lawyer
TCG/CCG – Pimple faced kid trying to collect them all
Anime – Anime girl with tentacle wrapped around her
RPGA – d20 with dollar signs printed on each side
LARP – Kid yelling “Lightning Bolt!”
That is all of the ideas I have off the top of my head, but I’m sure we can come up with icons for the other 14 tracks without too much trouble.
I warned you guys about the construction of superficially similar positions in the stead of the argument at hand, but you didn’t listen. Now you’re fallacious. Hope it stings. 🙂
Haven’t been following this drama at all… That said, I read your first quote, double checked that you used the male pronoun “he,” and then rolled my eyes.
Few things annoy me more than people being offended on behalf of other people.
.-= Asmor´s last blog ..Adventurer’s Vault 2 added to Quartermaster =-.
@ Chris Sims
“Each of us needs to remember that he or she can’t be offended without giving permission. You choose to be offended, and give credence to the object of your offense with your emotional reaction. Offense is seldom, if ever, objective. And you don’t have some right to not be offended.”
I just wanted to point out that this type of thinking really sounds like blaming the victim. Taking offense or being offended is certainly subjective, but saying that it’s the offended individual’s fault for being offended simply because you or the majority of people you know disagree with their perspective is pretty bad.
@R:
Well… it really depends on where you come from when interpreting this.
We’re getting into the realm of philosophy and psychology here, but most of the times, “being offended” – whatever that actually means lies entirely upon the recipient’s interpretation of reality.
While the reason of being offense might find its source within an individual’s upbringing, education, or traumas, the means to defeat such feelings are almost always within oneself.
.-= Eric Maziade´s last blog ..Revenge of the dailies =-.
@R: I didn’t blame anyone or say being offended is anyone’s fault. I also didn’t say I disagree with those who are offended. Nothing I said dismisses the validity of anyone’s feelings. And I have to question whether we’re really talking about “victims” here and, perhaps, in any other wherein offense is the only harm. (That’s an important point, to me. Events can easily cross a line into actual harm.)
I did say, or meant to, and still believe that we owe it to ourselves to check our emotions before crying out in offense. Sometimes it’s just better to dismiss something “offensive” than to pay attention or call attention to it. Further, each person’s emotions are his or her responsibility. It’s also true that a calm complaint about a subject is often more effective than an emotionally charged one. Maybe it’s the case here that people are making a mountain out of a molehill, emotionally. Maybe it isn’t. I can’t decide that for you. I don’t want to.
But I also believe that, in a country with free speech, you don’t have a *right* to shelter from mere offense. You have to protect yourself. Each of us does.
I try not to offend. I also choose not to be offended by things such as your characterization of my remarks. It’s possible I was unclear. Language is an imprecise medium, and this us of it is even less clear. I’d rather try to have a discourse on the subject than an emotional reaction that might, in the end, serve no one.
If you’d like my actual opinion on the subject at hand, it’s similar to Dave “The Game” Chalker’s. The icon doesn’t really bother me, but I fail to see how using it is the best business decision for GenCon. It does offend some of us (as ChattyDM says, “our geek tribe”). If I were a business person, that would probably be enough for me to make a change.
.-= Chris Sims´s last blog ..Mailbag 3 – The Pitch =-.
Well said Chris. Very well said.
@Chris Sims:
We seem to be philosophically compatible 🙂
@R:
I once had your exact same reaction when a friend of mine was reading a psychology book explaining to her that “one person cannot cause feelings in another person” I’m quoting it all wrong, but that’s the gist of it… basically, if someone is mad or hurt because of something you said or done, it was that person’s responsibility and not yours.
I was appalled by such an idea – the person reading it was a somewhat manipulative person and the only way I could interpret this was as a de-responsibilization from wrong doing. I saw it as allowing her to say hurtful things and completely shift the responsibility on her victim.
Many years after, I understood better the idea. The book was actually for people suffering from emotional trauma. I was unaware at the time, but my friend had been abused in previous relationships and was using this book to teach herself that she had the power not to feel like crap from what she went through and what other people thought about her. Her “somewhat manipulative ways” were actually protection mechanism from the hurt she felt in any interpersonal relationship.
Personally, I would much prefer people (generally speaking) to learn how to deal with their emotions – not to let external stimuli get in the way of their well being.
Much better that than to legislate everything that could potentially offend – anything can offend anyone.
.-= Eric Maziade´s last blog ..Revenge of the dailies =-.
@Chris: I don’t so much disagree with you about people being able to choose what offends them as I am perplexed and wishing I knew how to do that. I’ve always viewed emotions as involuntary and one’s outward reaction to them as the voluntary part.
I think you’re also right in that nobody should expect never to be offended. But I also think you should be able to ask someone doing something you don’t like to stop. Whether or not they do is between the two of you. 🙂
.-= Vanir´s last blog ..An Open Letter to All: A Rebuttal =-.
@Chris Sims – I very much appreciate your calm and measured response. That sort of reaction is something I aspire to!
I would take issue with one thing you said though (maybe “take issue” isn’t quite the right term, maybe just comment on).
You said:
“But I also believe that, in a country with free speech, you don’t have a *right* to shelter from mere offense.”
I absolutely and totally agree. But that’s not really the issue here.
No one is suggesting GenCon doesn’t have the *right* to use this icon, or any icon, they want. But they can, and should, expect people to say how they feel in response. In a society with free speech, you have the right to say whatever you would like, offensive or not, but others also have the right to decide how they feel about that, and respond.
This isn’t an issue of censorship. It’s an issue of some people not liking something and speaking up about it, which seems to me to be what free speech is all about!
.-= DrOct´s last blog ..One More Try =-.
I just want to start with a quick observation. No matter which side your on, the more we all speak about it the more of a deal it becomes. So if the idea of a small subject becoming overly large and blown out of proportion annoys you, feel free to jump on the wagon but just know that your voice, no matter what your intent will increase the size of the drama (I clearly want to state i do not, in anyway suggest that anyone should keep quiet, just if your annoyed at how a small issue is being blown out of proportion talking about it more isn’t going to help the issue get smaller).
Secondly, the primary groups seem to be falling into the overall feeling of, “You should be offended” and “You shouldn’t be offended”. If this symbol offends you then it offends you, if you find the tongue-in-cheek humour of the situation, then feel free to chuckle, but please understand that your opinion is yours.
I initially stated that while i can see the cheeky humour represented in the symbol, i wouldn’t have used it as a promotional symbol. It just doesn’t seem like good business sense.
At the end of the day if your interested in equality and freedom of speech, feel free to voice your opinion but please don’t believe that it is more relevant than anyone elses because of your gender, religion, race or beliefs. We all entitled to form our own opinions and say what we want, at the end of the day there really is no right or wrong in this situation, just a whole heap of opinions.
Thats my opinion 🙂
Scott
When you say, “it’s not offensive” you’re actually saying “your opinion doesn’t matter.” Hey, way to be a jerk.
The point is not whether or not it’s offensive, it’s that it’s gamers making fun of a smaller group “just because.” (You’d really think that gamers would know what that feels like and know better.)
There’s no reason anyone’s given for making this joke except apocalyptic freakouts about the end of free speech. What substantive reason is there to keep it?
All I and anyone else unhappy with the icon is saying is, “This is choosing to be a jerk. Stop it.”
Do you really think that if you personally choose to not be a jerk to non-gamer spouses that suddenly we’ll live in a fascist dictatorship? If your freedom is really so fragile, then you have bigger problems than defending a big company’s decision to act like a jerk.
.-= d7´s last blog ..GenCon “reaches out” in the spirit of “inclusiveness” =-.
@d7: I can’t say for certain if you’re speaking directly to me, but if you’re calling me a jerk, maybe you need to take a step back. I’ve made every effort to not be insulting thus far, and trust me, if I choose to be insulting you’ll call me much worse than a jerk.
I don’t worry about the whole “gamers should treat gamers better” thing. I was socially adjusted and athletic when I was younger. Today, I really don’t care if someone laughs about my gaming. I get ribbed by friends and even family, including my wife, for being a geek. Big deal. My skin isn’t that thin that I let it hurt me. it’s joking.
I just stumbled across this via my RSS suggested items. Which means: I didn’t know about this issue until enough bloggers made an issue of it that it crossed my radar unbidden.
This means that Scott is exactly right: the more blogging and polling and commentating, the more “drama” there is around the issue, regardless of the intent of the noise being made. More interesting to me was the amount of vitriol in some of the “you shouldn’t be offended” posts. I could care less about the primary issue, but I think it speaks volumes about a person when they feel the need to invalidate other’s opinion of something.
From a disinterested parties point of view, I think the joke is fine. I also think it is a stupid move to use such a joke in marketing material. Perhaps being a business owner makes me sensitive to such things, but I just can’t see alienating *any* potential customer because I think something is funny *personally*. If it had the potential to bring in some other demographic and increase traffic, sure, use it. But making the non-gaming spouse even more aware of “third wheel” status just seems like a marketing team failure, even if deters 1% of couples as the straw the broke the camels opinion of the con.
.-= John Lopez´s last blog ..R Statistical Software =-.
@Alio: No, I’m not calling you out. Though I am asserting that calling any women “ball and chain” is being a jerk, and GenCon doing it to their customers is a dick move.
.-= d7´s last blog ..GenCon “reaches out” in the spirit of “inclusiveness” =-.
@ Chris Sims – I’m getting confused by some of your remarks. One the one hand you say “Nothing I said dismisses the validity of anyone’s feelings.” Then in the very next sentence you say “And I have to question whether we’re really talking about “victims” here.” – which appears rather dismissive.
“I also choose not to be offended by things such as your characterization of my remarks.” – that’s great. I was trying to point out that something you said seemed dangerous and slippery-slope-like to me. I’m searching for clarification, really. I didn’t hate anything you said, I was just making an observation. Same deal here. You seemed to be saying two opposing things at once, at least to me.
@d7: Okay, it does appear you’re inferring that I’m a jerk, but I take people at their word. I’ve been known to call my wife my old ball ‘n’ chain. By the same token, she talks smack about me. Neither of us has a problem with it, nor would we have a problem with the GenCon thing.
For some clarification of my stance because perhaps I’m coming off a bit nastier than I mean to, I agree that it would have been better for GenCon to not have made the joke. As was said by John Lopez above, it’s better to not alienate *any* customer.
Now I don’t know what the official GenCon response was, since I was following this thing’s original development on Twitter only. I can say though, that had I seen the original post I would have been reluctant to change the icon as well.
There is a way to do things in order to enact change, and then there’s a way to simply make your point. Unfortunately, this situation was the latter. What should have been done was that whoever felt they were personally offended should have contacted the PTB of GenCon and calmly and rationally presented the case. I know from personal experience that when someone calmly presents their case to me directly I am far more apt to assist them. If, however, someone chooses to publicly “call me out,” or give me an attitude then I’m probably not going to take their argument seriously, and I’ll probably even be belligerent in return.
I’m sure the PTB has the same view as many of us where they view it as a harmless joke. More than likely they were stunned by the outcry. Had the issue been discussed directly and calmly, this whole thing would probably have been a non-issue at this point.
All that said, I still think people should take it as a joke and not let it get to them so much. As I mentioned earlier, are people having this sort of uproar in response to women in France being forced to remove a garment that is important to them, or women in other countries who are forced to wear the same garment against their will?
@Alio: The GenCon response is in the comments of the post linked to in the second paragraph of this post. It’s dismissive.
Apparently people who tried to file complaints in the past and were met with puzzlement and staffers who had no idea if there was even a procedure for doing so.
“I still think people should take it as a joke and not let it get to them so much.”
It doesn’t “get to me”. I think it’s wrong, which is not the same thing. It doesn’t get to me in the personal, emotional way that is implied by everyone who doesn’t understand why it’s being made an issue of. Any emotion betrayed is frustration with people refusing to budge on this issue… and for what? To preserve a lame joke? I really don’t get it.
Clearly you see that it’s somewhat related to bigger issues, so I’m not sure why you insist it’s not related to bigger issues:
“As I mentioned earlier, are people having this sort of uproar in response to women in France being forced to remove a garment that is important to them, or women in other countries who are forced to wear the same garment against their will?”
Yes, they are, and for both. You’re just not reading that part of the intertubes.
.-= d7´s last blog ..Satire explained =-.
As a person whose never had the chance to go to GenCon… I don’t have the history. My wife is a gamer, but a new one. We are both “progressive” compared to most on this type of topic.
Neither of us were offended… but it bothered her. It made her not feel welcome. It gave her the impression of “well, if you really have to be here… then here’s something you should be doing instead of getting in the way”.
Is that the first impression we should be giving a person that is new to the community? I think there are better icons that could be silly but not turn people away. I argue against this icon, not because some take offense, but because it is not the best approach to inviting people in. Who cares if you lose a few, what really matters if we gain the many!
Well, if people tried to pursue better avenues and were dismissed, then that’s unfortunate, and is on GenCon to address.
As for your feeling that it’s “wrong” we simply disagree. You are letting it become emotional though. There are people who don’t have a problem with it. There are people who don’t feel it’s “wrong.” We can all agree that murder or rape is wrong. We don’t all agree that an image of a ball ‘n’ chain is wrong. If the picture were of a baby chicken, implying that all those who weren’t interested in gaming are “chicks” then I’d be more apt to agree that it’s “wrong.” (I’m sure someone would love to take this opportunity to point out something along the lines of slavery once not being viewed as “wrong.” Please don’t bother. Slavery is about the suppression of another human being’s personal rights. No one is being forced into anything via a ball ‘n’ chain icon.)
As for seeing it “somewhat related” to bigger issues, I think you’re completely misunderstanding my point. That couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I think this particular situation is laughable in light of other things going on in the world.
I’m aware of other conversations going on around the web. My point was more sarcasm than serious, and more to make the point that the time and energy being wasted on this insignificant topic could better be used on so many other noble causes.
“My point was more sarcasm than serious, and more to make the point that the time and energy being wasted on this insignificant topic could better be used on so many other noble causes.”
Are you saying that no matter what happens in the roleplaying community, so long as there are worse things happening elsewhere, we should not discuss it and say that we can and should do better? Does rape in Afghanistan somehow cause the roleplaying community to exist in a state of perfect holiness? Does murder in New York make roleplayers the perfection of humanity?
That’s hyperbole, yes, but that’s the direct implication of what you’re saying. Perhaps we’re talking about this because we are gamers and maybe there’s something to talk about.
But let me try something else: if GenCon announced that it was changing this icon to something else, would you lobby them to keep the ball and chain?
If yes, why?
If no then you must not really care either way, so why are you obstructing the people who do care?
.-= d7´s last blog ..GenCon “reaches out” in the spirit of “inclusiveness” =-.
@d7: I’m not saying people don’t have a right to talk about this. I think that it’s silly that people are making a mountain out of this molehill, and I sarcastically asked if they spend the same level of energy on topics that actually have relevance to mankind.
If GenCon decided to change the icon I would say it was utterly ridiculous that they were submitting at this point to the furor, and I stress that purposefully. When the topic was originally brought up, I read the blog post and commented on Twitter a couple times that I thought the whole thing was silly. Now that it’s become such a ridiculous monstrosity, I’d laugh at GenCon if they submitted just to quiet the vocal group. (I’m all but certain no one would even notice the icon at GenCon if this thing hadn’t become such an issue here. Didn’t someone even mention that this icon isn’t even new?)
I’m not obstructing anyone from voicing an opinion. You’re really reaching there. It’s a conversation. On the internet. I have just as much right to an opinion as anyone else, and I’m expressing it in the same manner as anyone else is able. You’re simply upset because my opinion conflicts with yours, which is understandable, but don’t pretend that I’m somehow in the wrong here when I’m doing nothing more than presenting my side of the argument.
I even left the original post alone, but this is the rebuttal presenting the side I agree with. I think it’s completely fair that I express myself here. I also commend those responsible for allowing this post here. I said it on Twitter, but it bears repetition, it’s very classy to allow the opposing viewpoint to exist on your site when you really don’t agree with it.
@Alio: I’m not actually upset with your disagreement. I’m unhappy with your (and others’) tactics in this discussion.
There are ways to shut down a conversation and prevent it from ever actually discussing the issue at hand. Most of them amount to saying, “This isn’t important,” which is what you’re saying. People use them even unintentionally, but the end result is the same: interference with a real examination of the issue.
If it’s not important, then an open and uninterrupted exploration of the issue and of why people object shouldn’t be a problem for you.
Note that this conversation has mostly been about whether it should be discussed, which is not discussing the icon itself. An end isn’t in sight because the conversation keeps being derailed from “why this is a problem” into “why is this even being discussed”.
Nobody who has a problem with this icon will agree that it should not be discussed, and apparently the people who don’t see the problem will not agree that it should. That’s an unproductive point to contend then, and it would make more sense to just accept that it will be talked about and explore it honestly.
As it is, eventually the people who care about changing the icon will fatigue and give up trying (reserving what’s left of their energy, as you say, for more noble causes) and the discussion will peter out without the people who want to actually examine the “why is this a problem” question finishing their discussion.
That can be entirely unintentional on your and others’ parts, but it’s still effective silencing. (I can point you to the pages of people who geek out about discussion structures if you are interested in learning more about those kinds of dynamics. They’re as into dissecting systems as we are usually into dissecting RPG systems.)
.-= d7´s last blog ..GenCon “reaches out” in the spirit of “inclusiveness” =-.
@d7: I don’t really know how to respond to that. Yes, I think this is a fairly silly topic because I truly don’t believe anyone should be offended by it. At the same time, I do realize that there are people who are offended by it.
I’m not trying to silence anyone, I just don’t know what I can say that wouldn’t be seen as trying to do just that. The icon was never meant to be offensive. I don’t see why anyone would take offense to it. Obviously people do, and that’s their right. It’s also their right to express their feeling on the topic.
Honestly, as I mentioned earlier, I have more of an issue with the approach taken in response to the icon than I do with the fact that people are upset with it.
@Alio: That is a fair response.
One thing you might do is ask why people are unhappy with the icon, to try to understand where the objection is coming from. The answers might have merit or you might find they have none, but it would be a more interesting discussion.
I’ve tried to do that from my side, and I can try again. To everyone who defends the icon, what value does it have that is worth preserving?
(The aim being to find out why it’s worth keeping, why it’s worth ditching, and looking at the balance of the two.)
.-= d7´s last blog ..GenCon “reaches out” in the spirit of “inclusiveness” =-.
For the most part I’m thrilled with the responses here- I think that open, mature discussion is great. I won’t argue that the this shouldn’t be discussed at all, and I don’t think that should be the focus either. I obviously do want to discuss the fact that I personally feel that being offended by a fairly generic icon (or taking offense too, sorry for not being more clear on semantics) is plain silly.
And I’m not speaking on behalf of women. I give myself a lot of credit, but speaking for 3 billion people is beyond even me. I’m speaking for myself, and for more women than the original blogger and the two others I linked. I was calling out their collective comments of “Women will be offended”. Tada, proof otherwise!
Thank you Chris Sims for reminding me of the quote:
“Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.” ~Eleanor Roosevelt
.-= Meg´s last blog ..Set a Date to Play with the BG’s! =-.
My wife and I play “Puss in the Corner.” She smacks me in the puss and I land in the corner.
.-= mxyzplk´s last blog ..The Hammer Comes Down On West End Games =-.
@ “Meg”: I don’t really care about you or how cool you are, I am a selfish jerk. This icon offends ME because I have a wife. I HAD friends who didn’t want me bringing my wife to the gaming table because they didnt want “cheerleaders” those people are not my friend anymore.
This icon tells ME that I am less welcome at gencon because I have a “ball and chain”.
Screw that
I’m going to Origins, they provide childcare.
.-= Trevor´s last blog ..Fudge =-.
@Alio: Thanks.
@Eric: Cool! Thanks. =)
@Dr. Oct.: I agree with you. I was just attempting to shore up a philosophical point that’s tertiary to the main discussion. Maybe I should have avoided the discussion altogether, since I just realized I’m not adding much directly to it. =)
@Vanir: You have it right enough that we can chalk any seeming disagreement up to semantics. We’re also in agreement that everyone is within well within bounds to communicate dislike about something. I’d even go so far as to say that a measured response to and open communication about something you dislike helps everyone get along better.
@R: Maybe I am still being unclear or using less than ideal words. I fail to see a question about whether we’re talking about some thing or another as dismissive at all. (I see I didn’t use a question mark, which is a failing I have with my typing . . . habitual period user.) I suspect that if you and I were having a discussion in person no issue would exist. I’m glad you persist in trying t get me to be clearer. =)
Perhaps it suffices to say that I don’t feel victimized when I find something merely offensive (distasteful, displeasurable, annoying), especially when I happened across it or went seeking it, because I define victim as meaning the subject of harm that cannot be avoided or ignored. The harmer of a victim, in my perception, has intent to injure not merely to shock or agitate. It could be that this definition is too personal to have any broad value to the discourse. But that’s where I’m coming from if it helps.
I am offended, for example, by the images or verbiage protesters on some issues sometimes use. I don’t feel victimized by their attempts at communication. I feel disinclined to listen.
Offense is a loaded word, too, isn’t it? It comes in degrees and can certainly escalate to a place that is injurious. This issue isn’t such a case in my mind. My statements should be taken in that context where possible.
.-= Chris Sims´s last blog ..Mailbag 3 – The Pitch =-.
@Meg: Since I am one of the people you linked, I have to correct you: I never claimed I was offended (or took offense, or said women would take offense, or any combination of words and “offense” or “offended” that you care to construct).
I said it was insulting. Note, not “could be taken as an insult”. I state that it is inherently insulting; that it is entirely inappropriate before anyone has even had the chance to generate a response to it such as the much debated “offended” reaction.
So if that’s what your “I’m just one counter-example” is supposed to disprove, you haven’t disproven anything I wrote at the Seven-Sided Die.
I maintain that offensiveness is not the point. If you want to argue that offensiveness is the point—sure, fine, let’s hear it—but that would still be leaving my actual real argument unanswered.
.-= d7´s last blog ..Satire explained =-.
Since no one seems to know I will take a moment to discuss the purpose of an icon (in this case).
Icons represent the concept of the track. When you see the icon it reminds you of the track and when you think of the track you look for the icon. So the best icons are ones that people know and already associate. The gaming track is a polyhedral die for example. You can’t use words because that is a different part of the brain.
So you need an already existing symbol that means significant other. Or you need a symbol people will accept as it instinctively. And it has to be a simple picture.
@Meg,
I just wanted to say, that after all the negativity about the SPA program over the past week or so, I really appreciate you taking the time to stand up and say that it didn’t offend you, and to thank Gen Con for the SPA program.
I’m actually the SPA track Coordinator, not a Gen Con employee, but a contractor, and I’ve worked very hard for the past 4 years now to try and expand the program with a really diverse amount of programming, which any companion of a gamer, man or woman, would enjoy. I think the programming DOES tend to skew more towards events that women might traditionally enjoy, but I think that’s a function of the fact that the majority of nongaming companions that come to Gen Con are women. Nevertheless, I have a variety of classes that EVERYONE can enjoy, including photography workshops, haunted walking tours, karate, and the very popular beer tastings. Although a main intent of the program is to offer gamer companions programming that might interest them, so that they can enjoy Gen Con as much as their companion does, we also do have a number of women gamers, myself included, as well as male gamers, who participate in SPA activities.
SPA programming is somewhat dependent on people submitting events, but, it is also somewhat unique at Gen Con in that I do a large amount of work trying to actively solicit people to run events, since the program isn’t that well known. I try to solicit a variety of events, particularly from people in the local community that wouldn’t normally attend Gen Con. However, I’m really excited when regular Gen Con attendees submit events as well.
It’s been a bit disheartening to read all the blog posts over the past week condemning the SPA program, often it seems from people who haven’t attended Gen Con or participated in the SPA program, when I work very hard to provide a diverse body of programming at Gen Con that everyone can enjoy, and I know that the men and women who participate in the program enjoy it a great deal. Perhaps, if nothing else, all of this discussion has increased awareness of the SPA program, and will encourage even more people to submit diverse programming that all Gen Con attendees, gamers and nongamers, and men and women, can continue to enjoy participating in. If anyone would like more information about running SPA events at Gen Con, please don’t hesitate to email me, at my above username @gmail.com, and I’ll be happy to help. 🙂
No, no, no, no… You guys have it all wrong.
The term “ball and chain” does not reflect negatively on us women; it (traditionally) reflects a man’s view of his relationship with monogamy. It’s in a man’s (male’s) nature to sow his seed throughout the herd or pack. Settling down with a woman means he can’t do that anymore, and thus feels chained down.
As the superior half of the species, us women know that you men only coined the term “ball and chain” as a joke to be spoken amongst yourselves. It doesn’t insult me when said in my presence; it only diminishes the man who says it.
Uh, who am I kidding? Stop saying the stupid thing.
.-= Chraisma´s last blog ..I Love Twilight, But Please No RPG =-.
Oops! I spelled my name wrong. Sorry!
.-= Chraisma´s last blog ..I Love Twilight, But Please No RPG =-.
@marimacc — I think the SPA program is great, and I like the way it’s grown over the years. There’s reasonable diversity of events, for what my opinion is worth. I really haven’t seen a lot of bitching about the programming; 99% of the criticism I’ve seen has to do with the icon.
marimacc: I agree with Bryant. I’ve seen a lot of praise for GenCon having the program in the first place and plenty of good stories about the programming, there are just some of us who would feel better about the whole thing with one small change. I know it can seem like the criticism is directed at the people managing the event, but really, we just want to help it be even better!
I think that something that is being left out of this discussion, something quite important, is the notion of ‘intent’. I think this is also what Chris Sims is trying to get across, though I don’t claim any right to speak for him.
The difference between an issue like the SPA icon and slurs like those mentioned earlier is ‘intent.’ I don’t think the SPA icon has any malicious intent or genuine hatred or mysogyny behind it. It seems like an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor that fell a little flat. I think the best evidence for this is that the SPA track is designed around inclusion. Maybe it was a poor choice, but that opinion depends heavily on the person looking at it. The worst anyone could say is that it was an insensitive, maybe foolish move.
Like others here, I reserve taking offense for things that are truly worth my getting my hackles up over: things with a genuine hatred behind them. And this just doesn’t do it for me. Again, I can’t speak for anyone but myself.
“Aha,” some will say, “they were approached and asked to change it. The fact that they didn’t, despite being enlightened to the fact that some would find it degrading, speaks volumes about their intent. You can’t call it insensitive anymore” To that I say, “let us discuss the realities of the situation.” The reality is that I personally don’t know how much of an investment has already been made in using that icon. I don’t know how many signs and brochures have already been printed, how many t-shirts and other marketing devices, and so on. I don’t know how much of last year’s signage they reuse. In short, I don’t know how easy it actually would be to change it. So the decision to keep it or change was probably motivated by cost, plain and simple. The cost of changing the icon was probably not worth what the organizes of the convention saw as the potential fallout from the “controversy.”
Frankly, this “controversy” is what I call “a controversy of the suddenly offended,” and it is laughable. The icon has been in use for several years, as Meg is quick to point out. And there has been no outcry, no offense, until suddenly, this year, someone decides to raise a stink. And some of the people who have been raising a stink about it have done in such ridiculous fashion that I am forced to assume they are either a) using hyperbole as a form of parody or b) have no sense of proportion at all. I have seen this controversy compared to racial slurs, rape, and genocide. I have already unfollowed two people on twitter because they wouldn’t stop making such claims.
At that point, I just can’t sympathize. It is just wearying, tiresome, and patently absurd. And it weakens the position as a whole. And I am sure I am not alone in being wearied by it.
@marimacc: I’m with Dave here. I certainly hope you don’t feel my open letter (or anything I’ve said since) was critical of any part of the program aside from the ball-and-chain icon. It was my intention for my criticism to be very focused on the one part I didn’t like.
I think the SPA program is a very good thing, and I’m glad it offers some fun non-gaming alternatives at the ‘con. I hope you can channel the publicity from all this, good and bad, into increased awareness and attendance. I even emailed Jeanette offering to teach a karate class (and, it seems, I will be contacting you as well).
But I still wish you would change the logo. 🙂
.-= Vanir´s last blog ..An Open Letter to All: A Rebuttal =-.
@Meg: Eleanor Roosevelt put it well.
@marimacc: Has there been a lot of negativity directed at the program itself? (I’m trying to draw a distinction between the criticism of the icon and any criticism of the program.) If so, that’s a shame. Such extension of criticism is undeserved.
@TheAngryDM: Yes intent. Thanks. But also personal responsibility and a sense of proportion. As you say, and I agree, even in truly outrageous situations, vitriol and hyperbole rarely help.
I question any assumption that lack of change on GenCon’s part is due to costs only because the reply GenCon offered didn’t mention cost as a factor.The response instead seemed slightly snarky and defiant. It’s a good point, however.
.-= Chris Sims´s last blog ..Mailbag 3 – The Pitch =-.
Come on fellow nerds. Is our collective skin really that thin? Aren’t there better things to take offense to and get our panties in a bunch about? Do you live such a sheltered, stress-free life that you have time to spend energy on this? Really?
This post is the usual subcritical stereotyping self-congratulatory ‘C’mon lighten up and check out how oh-so-progressive I am!’ nonsense, and was played out years and years ago. A couple of subject-specific bits, though:
1) [Such a joke/bit of symbolism] doesn’t insult me when said in my presence; it only diminishes the man who says it.
By which ‘Chraisma’ sensibly/hopefully means it diminishes whatever fool thought this was a swell advertising tactic, i.e. the GenCon organizers. They can do better; the ball’n’chain isn’t funny enough to justify its contemptible laziness and childishness.
2) The RPG hobby remains powerfully (prolonged-)adolescent-male in its fixations, demographics, marketing strategies, and morality; this situation is bullshit. Changing this stupid logo is one way of rolling back the perception of RPers as unwashed asocial troglodytes indulging in childish power fantasies (what do you think the ball’n’chain represents, if not a ‘humorous’ bit of power fantasy?).
3) This is not a matter of ‘victimization’ in either the abstract or the particular instance, for heaven’s sake. it’s about whether this dimwitted publicity practice is good for the hobby or bad for it, and whether it fosters an ideal environment for con-goers. Offense is cheap’n’easy, obviously – but so is the ‘joke’ of gamers referring to their spouses in the language of TV construction workers.
No one would’ve said anything if ‘Our spouses are second-class killjoys’ rubbish wasn’t standard ‘joking’ discourse among (predominantly male) nerd gamers.
4) Please, please, please, Meg: next time you’re tempted to write ‘I’m a feminist’ and ‘don’t get your panties in a bunch’ in the same post, consider the possibility that you’re missing the point. Consider, too, that the non-gamer track programming at GenCon need not – and damned well shouldn’t – reinforce the ‘keep your claws off my boy time!’ message already reinforced by, ahem, half the mainstream RPG art ever published.
5) Finally: ‘Gone are the ‘80’s, an era of self esteem, political correctedness [sic] and the idea that we all have to make each other feel good about ourselves.‘
Do you know where the phrase ‘political correctness’ comes from? Here’s a hint: not feminism. Oy vey. Let’s not lapse into this kind of crap, OK?
.-= Wax Banks´s last blog ..Self-organization and natural selection. =-.
No Wax, that’s not what I meant. Thanks though. And what’s with all those big too-fancy words? I’m sorry, I couldn’t keep up.
.-= Charisma´s last blog ..Rescuing Racel – Steal this Adventure =-.
@marimacc: As one of the more vocal people objecting to the icon, yes, the program is great. I’m glad it exists. The icon mismatches the intent of the program, though I know that’s not under your authority.
.-= d7´s last blog ..Satire explained =-.