Hey Peaseblossom,

I'm glad you said something, because I really want this to be a friendly and welcoming place. I want to have conversations with people who see things differently and not scare them away by being a Very Special Jackass.

Were you offended by the name, the sentiment, or both? For what it's worth I'm sure Tony will reassure you, in his best Lorenzo Lamas voice, that you don't need cojones to be Muy Macho, but that's certainly beside the point. I think it's cool that you brought this up, so let's address it as best we can.

Thanks, Jason.

What bothers me is the name; as far as I'm concerned, Tony can play however he likes within, you know, legal parameters; but, by naming the style 'Macho' it's implying that it's a style that only guys can participate in.

Now, I'm generally charitable about these things, so I assume that that's not really what was meant, but you can't use an exclusionary term like that and expect everyone to ignore the subtext.

If I wrote up pretty much the exact same list of traits, and instead called that style the Girly Gamer, I imagine that a lot of the men who frequent this forum would have a hard time coming forward and acknowledging that they also enjoy playing that style of game.

But, there have been games on the girly side: Macho Women with Guns.

I want to tell a short story. I'm not sure how relevant it is, but bear with me.

A few months ago a couple of friends and I were setting up Kickass Space Adventures, a game which in setting and tone takes the Muy Macho approach and drives it to the wall - all the characters were super-cool and took everything the world had to throw at them because it only proved how much more macho they were when they won. Hell, they looked for trouble just because it's what they do (this wasn't a terribly serious game. You might have caught on to that).

Anyway, this was a few months ago, when we all had girlfriends, and one of them was totally psyched - she thought the game was totally awesome and she wanted in... but it was impossible. Even after the trouble with finding a suitable character (this was a blatant media-plagiarism game, Angelina Jolie was already cast as the Queen of England, and she didn't have any other ideas for suitable characters because there aren't that many that fit the bill), it was like the game itself rejected her. It screamed "this is a game for men. MANLY MEN".

(We didn't end up excluding her, but that's not the point.)

I'm not sure what the connection is, if there are any, between what Jess is saying and this story, but I just wanted to pipe in and say:

She is not imagining it. These phenomena exist.

I'm sure Tony only meant the best, and I found said thread and spinoffs both hilarious and completely non-offensive. And what's more, even after reading Jess' post and saying "okay", I still wouldn't know how to "be more sensitive", or whatever. But... something. I don't know what.

Jess,

Ah, I understand what you are trying to say.

I guess I just don't understand why it bothers you so much. Are there other things in the gaming world that bother you so?

Lisa P

You know, the more I think about it, the _Muy Macho_ creed seems to be skew to it's name.

I mean, the whole idea is "hurt me, cause taking the pain makes me cool" isn't necessarily Macho - Macho is "Good God, I thank you for my **Gigantic member!** Now, to demonstrate the size of my swinging third leg, I will shoot many people with my well oiled heavy machine gun and orbital howitzers for no other reason than the glory of my manhood!" And I can see how one might object to that sentiment.

But isn't "hurt me, I'm cool" more like the Punk Rock credo? And as much as there's a little misogyny associated with Punk Rock (Nancy's man done her wrong...) it's not inbuilt into the creed.

Beside, I'd rather be __**Punk Rawk!**__ than muy macho anyday.

Yes! It is far too late! Muy Macho is MUY MACHO!

I just had a thought. Is it because the word Macho -is- a masculine word? I just remembered that. (I'm taking Spanish for the Workplace here at work). See, in some other languages, words actually have a sex. I know that French and Spanish have sexed their words. Of course in English, we have absorbed a lot of words from other languages and use them all the time without 'sexing' them per se.

Maybe that is part of the root of the problem?

Like for example, people hear the word feminine and instantly think of softness, kindness, and loving. It's because it's a 'female' word in other languages.

*wonders if I have something here... or maybe I'm jsut grasping at thin air*

Lisa P

*edited because me no type well some days*

Lisa,
Machismo is a specific ideology. To quote the wikipedia link I posted above:

"As an attitude, machismo ranges from a personal sense of virility to a more extreme masculism. Most machistas believe in conservative gender role ideas. Generally speaking, machistas oppose a woman's right to work, participate in sports, or pursue other traditionally male roles in society. Many machistas also believe it is their right as men to seek extramarital adventures, although women are to remain faithful. Machistas believe that women were created to stay home and be mothers and wives. Thus, most machistas believe firmly in the superiority of men over women."

To be 'macho' is to follow that ideology.

Crossposted with the last four messages

Thanks for the link, Jess. To me, "macho" was just an "I am tough" attitude that men and women could have — though mostly men acted that way — and it was worthy of parody . The term had been scrubbed of its earlier, more serious meaning by decades of (better) use. I had no idea that it represented anything as disgusting as domestic violence.

I am pretty sure Tony meant no ill will by using the term. It's like when I discovered the original "Eenie, meenie, miney, mo, catch a tiger by the toe" wasn't really about a tiger. I'd been using the phrase since I was a kid and, like the Southwest Airlines flight attendant, had never heard the original, racist version.

I wonder though if the word "macho," like the eenie-meenie rhyme, has been scrubbed clean of its original Spanish-culture meaning in 21st Century English.

What do you, Jess, hope Tony and the other ¡Muy Macho! gamers will do in response to your post?

Jess,

I disagree. I don't think you -have- to follow that ideology to be macho. Just like those that are -girly- have to worship all things Hello Kitty. I think in all honesty that -that- is a bad generalization.

See, you missed something though in that wikipedia. It also says:

"Machismo is a noun of Spanish origin, and refers to a prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity. The word machismo—and its derivatives machista and macho, "he who espouses machismo"—comes from the Spanish word macho, meaning "male" or "manly". (The word macho literally translates as "male", but is applied primarily to animals in this sense.) In Spanish macho can sometimes mean "courageous" or "valorous", although machista rarely has such positive connotations."

What you're quoting is the machista (which is below the section I just posted).

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. What I'm saying is, there are different meanings for words and I believe you misunderstood what Tony LB was trying to say.

If anything, I thought he was more explaining a masochist than anything macho. (But that's my opinion.)

But I do digress. Yes as Adam said, what do you hope Tony and the Muy Macho gamers will do/say?

Lisa P

Words are such funny things.

Jess is not wrong when she points to the Wiki article and says that "macho" has some very negative connotations. She's also not wrong that using such a word in the context of a culture that has some very gender-biased history is problematic.

However, others are not wrong when they say that "macho" is not always used in the sense that the article suggests. (In fact the article is tagged as being problematic.) I do know women who describe themselves as being macho, and many males who describe themselves as "macho" without meaning anything that would ever approve of domestic abuse*.

Most of all, JD is right when he talks about a big iceburg whose tiny tip is what we're seeing now. Really, this is a little movement in a big war of semnatic realignment, and is talking much less about the specific word being used and much more about the way those silly words form identity and meaning in cultural situations.

Taking it away from the Wiki completly, all we have to do to see an issue is stay with the much less controversial OED, which tells us that "macho" means "A man; spec. a notably or ostentatiously masculine, tough, or vigorous man; one who is aggressively proud of his masculinity." Any cultural ugliness aside, that does say "Are you a MAN when you play?"

Which brings us right into the heart of the English language and its gender non-neutrality -- such a fun subject, that I've seen one PhD in English punch another PhD in English right in the face over it -- as well as and RPing history and its gender non-neutrality -- such a fun subject I've seen almost every RPG forum go up in flames over it at least once. And one, as Lisa has shown us, that is going to have members of both genders on every possible side.

So, besides the fact that it's complicated, where do I stand on this? Like this:

Jess, if you want me to not say "Macho" because it makes you feel excluded, I won't say it. I do not agree with your assesment of the cultural value of the word, but I do respect your position as a voice in this community, and because of that respect I will change my terminology until we can come to a synthesis about the word's use.

Acceptable?


*I also found the implicit cultural imperalism in the Wikipedia article to be a little unsettling, but lets not explode that one here.

I do not agree with your assesment of the cultural value of the word, but I do respect your position as a voice in this community, and because of that respect I will change my terminology until we can come to a synthesis about the words use.

Very well spoken!


Lisa P

I want to encourage everybody to read charitably. We're all friends, or could be, or should be. I'm really glad that this conversation can be productive, because in many places, it really couldn't. So rock on, us.

Nancy, you said: The only time I played a male character, everyone got confused because it was me playing it and I am not male.
Do you mind if I spin this off into its own thread? I'd like to get some sense of how common it is in other groups to play across gender as PCs, and what the reaction of the group usually is.

I am going to double up on what telepresence said, this is not just linguistic, this is not just cultural, this is flesh and blood real, and that's one reason I am not even going to duck my head under the water to look at the iceberg.

I live in the Southwest, and I work in child abuse and neglect. When you say "macho", I immediately think "savagely, regularly beats children". If you think the cultural angst over masculine vs. feminine traits in general society is hard to handle, come down here and see how marginalized Latino families are trying to cope with it. It's not just "a controversy" to me, it's a full-scale horror show and the further the curtain gets pulled back, the more shame, pain, blood and intergenerational destruction is revealed.

But that's just me.

Hey, lots to respond to, here. First, I agree with telepresence and JDCorley in that I wasn't speaking to a historical term in a far-off land; this is an attitude that effects men and women here and now. And yes, this is just one thing out of many that I could probably take offense at if I felt like it; I don't have time to fight every battle, but Tony did specifically ask for feedback in his post (to respond a bit to Judd).

As to what I want to happen in response to this post? I think I covered that in my above, when I asked people to just consider a little more carefully about who they're including and excluding with their terminology. Especially since there are a lot of game designers hanging around this forum, I think everyone would benefit from writing more inclusively.

Oh, also, I really agree with Jason Morningstar, and I'm very glad that this thread is as civil as it is, for a lot of reasons.

You're right, I can't escape gendered language, but I can try and avoid the really loaded terms. Macho pushes my buttons, yanger and effete, not so much, but I could understand why they might push someone else's buttons.

As for the effete/macho thing, it's interesting, because usually it's the other way 'round. Male names can become female (see: Leslie), but once they do, parents avoid naming boys with those names, and female names rarely become male. Women can wear pants, but men can't wear skirts (this is changing in some circles, but it's not that prevalent, and kilts are a very specific exceptional case).

JD,

I used to work with gangs in South Central LA, and I still have a different take on macho. Which is why I said the word is a funny thing. Not ha-ha funny, but "a tricky and inexplicable beast" funny. The word I say and the word you hear are not the same word, despite the fact we say them the same way.

Though, for the record on the RPGing front rather than the other front, I think that the terminology is important (thus my offer to Jess to stop using Macho, as its too loaded a term for her comfort) -- but I think that just as important are a lot of the rhetorical, rather than lexical, manners in which online RPG forums tend to be boys clubs. For example, I've often said that one of my issues (problems) with discourse in the Blogsphere and on the Forge is that its too focused on rocking with your cock out -- something others have used as praise, but that I used with an eye roll and a wince.

If the word is offensive to some is important. But, for the purpouses of this community ONLY, even more important can be the kind of discourse and stance towards each other, inclusion, and communication that we engage in with each other.

To take Telepresence (and several other people) one step further, I think it's impossible to do all of this contemplation in advance, every time we write something. But we can (as is being done here) step back and rethink. Hopefully, after this discussion and others like it, we'll consider the words more carefully in the future.

I just realised that the new thread I started, taking the macho sentiment and trying to strip it of its explicitly male language, has very little in the title to hint at its content.
So I'll make a link here then. Do give me any thoughts on this - whether it seems a doomed enterprise or contains the seed of consensus (ay! I know Tony isn't going to like that approach...).

As a woman and a feminist, I have less concern about the word Macho, but I'm willing to accept that it's differently loaded in my cultural context than it is in Jess's. In my experience "Macho" has less to do with oppressive action than it has to do with bravado: "macho" is posturing, self-aggrandizing, dick-|as a hoped symbol of power|--waving, aggressive, obnoxious behavior (note: you may not accept this take on the word, and you don't have to, but it's the loaded context I bring when reading this discussion).

So, when Tony posted the iMuy Macho! Manifesto, I couldn't help but think there was a certain amount of Tony's tongue firmly planted in his cheek, and so could view it humorously. If my context of "macho" actually contained any power at all - if my history of the word had been used to described men who beat their women to keep them in line, for example - I could see how it would be offensive to have men who you like and respect and with whom you enjoy a hobby and a community suddenly start wearing it like a badge of honor. Words are loaded, and words bordering on discussions of gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity are more loaded than most guns - especially where they are closely followed by words like "manifesto".

So in the end, I don't find the word offensive. I do, however, have some frustration with the thread. Funny enough, I have more frustration with the Muy Macho thread as a result of this thread than I did of that thread alone… which I just found kind of funny when I read it yesterday. What's the friction? I don't think I'll put it here, I think I'll start my own thread. You'll know it when you see it.

Er... um... so I was going to avoid this thread, because 45 posts about gender issues in indie gaming (even on a forum as enlightened and civil as this one) sounds like a mess, but I got sucked into skimming it and now I feel like I have to respond. Especially being the girly dirty hippie commie pinko player that I am. Apparently I'm queer now too, thanks to John Kim (I hope it was good for you too, John).

Anyway, I thought most of the iMuy Macho! stuff was people poking fun at the balls-to-the-wall over-the-top emotionally-intense play style championed (at least, in my experience) by folks like Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and Vincent Baker, which has become kind of the bread-and-butter of Forge-style indie roleplaying. Obviously, a lot of good play and neat games (Dust Devils, Dogs, MLwM, etc.) came out of the desire for this kind of play, but it can seem really ridiculous to outsiders or if it's taken to extremes. Personally, I already find that style of play rather off-putting, sometimes even more off-putting than a lot of mainstream roleplaying, so having it characterized as "macho," a term I find to be totally ridiculous (as opposed to offensive or threatening) seemed fairly appropriate.

I don't think folks were planning to enshrine iMuy Macho! as a new jargon term to start throwing around all over the place. We've been making jokes about "Macho Nar Yangers" for months now on Indie-Netgaming (and that probably started on the Forge first). I figure, in a few weeks, we'll have moved onto other equally pointless and/or fruitful discussions. I certainly hope Story Games will avoid developing a lot of silly jargon and also avoid the danger of taking itself too seriously. I dread the day that I'll have to become a Story Games apologist as well as a Forge apologist.

Oh yeah, and girly dirty hippie commie pinko games forever!

Brand said:

Especially those that don't know me, and don't know how I can be doing both almost ALL THE TIME.

All. The. Time. Believe it.

TonyLB could clarify how tongue in cheek your iMuy Macho! Manifesto is meant to be. Your above post confused me. Are you serious about the manifesto?

I say what Brand said: I am completely serious about the credo. I think the concept is important. I also think it's totally fuckin' hilarious. This thing that I'm very serious about is something that makes me laugh until my ribs creak and I gasp for air. I strongly recommend that you laugh about it too, because man there's a lot of funny there.

Wait, Tony, now I need you to clarify something for me. Do you or don't you think that this is a style of gaming for men only, or predominately for men? Because your response leads me to believe that you think it is, else why insist on the use of the word macho?

I'd also like to point out that it's something that it's perhaps easier for a certain group of people, say young white middle class men, to laugh about.

No, I don't think it's for men only. Indeed, some of the most macho players I have encountered are women.

Yes, I agree that it's very easy for young, white middle class men to laugh about this.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't reading the credo wrong then. Because I thought it was pretty funny.

Peaseblossom:

You are awesome. Do you have a newsletter that I might subscribe to? You make me want to be a better feminist.

Thanks for continuing to post in this thread.

Lisa, I'm not Jess, but personally, I just want people to think a bit more about the implications of the words they use.

This hobby historically has asked itself (among other things) "How can we be more diverse/get more women/minorites interested/why aren't they more interested/etc".

It's apparent in some of the responses that some people aren't necessarily very well versed in some of the implications of macho/machismo. And that's kind of okay, since no one can know everything. But after once learns what some of the problematic implications are, do people stir themselves to care? That's the level where I'm most interested.

"Well, it's harmless because it's funny"/"Well, I meant it one way so the other meanings are irrelevant."/"Well I want it to have a different meaning, so ignore the ones that don't match my personal feelings."/"Well we don't want censorship."; none of those are reactions that hearten me. They feel dismissive of the concern, rather than engaging it on its merits.

Keep in mind, I have no problem with the concept underlying the sentiment and labeling. It's not my personal gaming style, but a lot of things aren't my personal gaming style, that's no biggie. I just think it would be great if we thought about the advantages of divorcing gender (or sexual orientation or race) from meaningful playstyle or character or moral differences. Audacious is fine. Brave is fine. Tough is fine. But they aren't male. "Macho" is, at least in at this point in human history, inescapably male. So that conflation is unfortunate, even when meant humorously. (As I indicated earlier, I do't think many folks would be too keen on playing games "Manly" vs "Faggy").

*shrug* Words mean things, and different people bring a lot of perspectives to the table that it would be great to factor into the way we communicate with each other.

Matt,

Thanks!

Jess,

I simply enjoy reading a lot of what goes on in this forum and would love to feel like I'm more at home here.

You don't feel at home here?

Lisa P

Third, this thread has steered a little too close to "blame the victim" for my comfort level.

Sorry. Not my intention at all. If it seems I steered it that way, then for that I do apologize.

Lisa P

Telepresence,

I'm not trying to say that bravery, audacity, etc, etc are linked solely with all things maleness. What I'm saying is that right now, yes, the word has a negative conotation to it. But can no one also see that it -does- have a positive one as well?

What I am saying is, I understand that people get offended. But can't those same people see that sometimes, they have to let something like that pass over them like water over a duck? There are so many more things in this world to be offended by. Why pick certain words? I do not happen to find the word nigger offensive (and yes, for the record, I'm mulatto) but you know what upsets me? What upsets me is all the people around who cringe when they hear it and wait for someone to get offended. What bothers me is the people that use the word but get offended when someone else they feel is 'not in their group' uses it or identifies with it.

Am I making any sense here? I'm sorry, but I've never been very good expressing myself online. I'm more of a face to face person.

I don't want anyone to think I am attacking peaceblossom here cuz I'm not! I just want them to see the other side.

Lisa P

I think that it's a good rule of thumb that if some group of people seems largely irked by some phrasing, it's a good sign that something is wrong, even if you don't see it immediately, and it's a good idea to at least dodge that phrase (even if you don't quite understand it yet) to err on the sake of moving on with the discussion.

This is definitely happening with Muy Macho, because despite that post being a good example of (1) a clear social contract and (2) a passionate credo about what they like from their roleplaying, the language is totally blocking us from talking about what we'd rather. (And not just here, but on that RPG.net thread as well: I feel that those responses to the credo were mostly about people (including women, I think?) talking about Huge Badass Warriors who killed everything - not the point of the original credo.)

So, I'm going to start a thread called "Gendered language to hack on", because I'd be interested in that - point out some language that's irked me a little bit, and I also look at alternate phrasings for the Muy credo. I'd feel better doing that.

To be clear, I don't think that's all to this discussion. though.

Word to what Mo said. She reinforces some feelings I've been having recently, but didn't really know how to articulate. This is something bigger than just the iMuy Macho! stuff.

The way people converse on Story Games is somewhat different from the way people converse on the Forge, but not all that different. And we already know that the way people communicate on the Forge was off-putting enough to people like Mo and Jess to the point that they didn't feel comfortable posting there (judging from what they've posted in their personal blogs) and didn't feel like a part of that community. My personal tastes and online practices have changed to the point where I don't feel like or becessarily want to be an active member of the Forge anymore, and I worry that Story Games may already be beginning to exhibit the same tendencies that made me increasingly dissatisfied with conversations on the Forge.

I don't know whether it's inevitable that a forum frequented mostly by roleplaying dorks like ourselves will necessarily become a cockfest of slapping each other on our metaphorical asses, but there's definitely that danger. Then again, maybe that's what Story Games, overall, wants to be. I mean, I think there definitely should be a place for people to have conversations about roleplaying that don't have that tendency (and, for a while I think, 20x20 was such a place), but there's a good possibility that Story Games just isn't that place. Andy's right that Story Games is basically just a year-round version of the Forge Birthday Forum, which means it's mostly like the Forge, but it has more room for joking and messing around.

However, despite what people say, humor and joking are one of the least universal things on the planet. People let down their guard for humor and that can explose some ugly things underneath (which may or may not be how they really feel and think). And a bunch of dorky gamer guys joking around (I'm including myself in all these charaterizations) is not always gonna be pretty or accessible or inclusive or especially enlightened and fair. But I don't think "more serious" is the solution. The Forge is "more serious" than Story Games and it can be even less accessible.

The only real suggestion I have is this: write for the audience you want to have. If you are expecting that only fellow dorky gamer guys are going to be reading what you write, your writing voice will show that and other kinds of people (who would give you a more diverse audience with other valuable opinions) will be turned off or not feel like they can really have conversations with you. And that's less cool, in my opinion.

Anyway, yeah. Sorry if this contributes to more topic drift.

Mo,

I didn't respond to that thread because I didn't feel I had much of anything useful to say. All I could think of was "me too!" but that's not really useful so I didn't post. But apparently I should have. Call it my throw back from the Forge. "Don't post if you don't have anything useful to say."

Lisa P

I underdstand and agree with her sentiment, but I don't get the ire. Now I am just a dude, but I have raised a pretty damned cool chick. When someone says the word "macho" to her, the first reaction is her laughter and derision. Frankly she can't believe people talk like that. So I think that maybe the meaning and stakes we give words don't last very long in the scheme of things. While I think this argument may have had a lot more cultural significance in the seventies or eighties. Now it means exactly bupkiss to the younger generation.