Lauren Lee, ex-ManaNation writer, recently started a column over at StarCityGames. She also wrote about an issue (one of three) that I think is well worth discussing – why aren't there more women in Magic? (For those of you who care, the other two items are Mythics and the Hall of Fame, which perhaps I will write about in the future) Her new column seemed like an excellent opportunity for me to jump in with my opinions on the subject.

For quite a while I have had an interest in gender studies, for reasons I never quite conclusively identified. Perhaps it is the feminine streak in my personality; or perhaps it is my curiosity. Perhaps it is my desire to always seek explanations for fundamental questions; or perhaps it is some motivating drive that I have yet to identify. Regardless, this area has always been of special interest to me.

It is important to remember that what you read here is strictly my opinion, and just an opinion, one that I have gathered from a combination of reading and observation. There are many things about our idea of gender that I don't understand and some that I do, and I don't expect to be 100% correct here or anywhere else. I just hope that what I have to say will spark you to think about it, and if it does that, I have done my job.

So, to the question at hand – why don't more women play Magic and what can we do about it? Let's answer this two-part question one part at a time. First, why don't more women play Magic?

We have to start with the fact that men and women are psychologically different. There is quite a bit of scientific and sociological evidence that supports this beyond the trite "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" ideas. Fundamentally men and women have different generic thought patterns, probably stemming biologically from the time when we all wore animal skins and hunted/foraged for food.

The "competitive" sphere is one of the places where this difference becomes most marked. Of course, there are different types of competition, but the type that I am going to discuss and refer to in this article is the type where there is a distinctive event, typically called a competition, that results in a winner. I am referring to the "there can be only one" mentality.

Look at our competitive sports. To a very large extent they are male-dominated, and when female leagues exist they are generally less successful. The NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLB are examples of this, but even in competitions involving things like Chess and yo-yos men dominate. The one area where this definitely breaks down is music, but I believe there are reasons for that as well (for another time though). I believe that this difference stems in part from the differences in general thought patterns that exist between men and women. There are almost certainly other factors at work as well, but the raw amount of circumstantial correlation must mean something. I mean, there are even fewer wealthy, powerful female executives than male ones.

For each of these cases you can probably construct an explanation where differences in generic thought patterns is not the primary factor, however, when taken as a whole, I believe that while this psychological difference is by no means determinative, it certainly contributes to the problem.

I believe that one of the biological factors that is magnified in the competitive sphere is aggression. Men are the more aggressive sex (testosterone, folks). This means that they are also far more confrontational than women. Sports, at the competitive level, are emotional engagements and the primary emotion is aggression.

Think about the last time you were in a tight, exciting game of Magic. Didn't your blood run a little faster; didn't you seem more alert and awake; didn't you feel the rush? Don't you find it interesting that this kind of response could be triggered by a game? This happens as a result of aggression channeled into the game. Instead of fighting with your fists you fight with cards, pieces, or some other instrument.

Tackle football is a good illustration of this principle in action. How many women do you think would be willing to put on a set of pads and play tackle football competitively, even if given an equal opportunity to do so (their own professional league, etc.). For example, I'm not aware of a women's NCAA football league; if one exists, its popularity is clearly dwarfed by the male one.

There are also sociological factors that contribute to Magic being a "boy's game." Of these, the primary is the perception that Magic is a "geek game." Despite changes in our society, it's still not cool to be a geek, although we are improving (Glee would have never made it near network TV fifteen years ago). There is a social stigma that exists with geeks and geek games. While this technically affects men and women equally, women are more conscious of these types of things than men, and typically care about them more as well.

I don't really have any reason as to why this is true but it seems to be the case. Men seem to care less about being associated with social outcasts than women. Criminals and other such unsavory characters are a different story, but there seems to be a line drawn for certain societal groups. Perhaps it is related to the way women deal with each other, where being a social pariah is a big deal (if Hollywood is to be believed). Everything in this paragraph is speculative, but it is worth thinking about. I'm not sure why this phenomenon exists, but it is what it is.

Of course, the bigger aspect of this is the type of men that play Magic – geeks. While it is improving, Magic is still rife with geeks who are particularly socially awkward. As others have pointed out, while there are no guarantees, it is very easy for interactions between geeks and any woman to move into the "uncomfortable" area.

Geeks to this day are still social outcasts. Perhaps less so now than thirty years ago, but it is still true. Sure, there are many Magic players that are reasonably well-adjusted and well-spoken, but there is a far higher concentration of socially awkward geeks (myself included) in the Magic community than elsewhere. This makes it tough for any new player, but I believe it is a bit harder on women, given that they are more conscious or, and typically care more about, the social aspects of things.

The next is a matter of hygiene. While this has also improved over the years, the "smelly Magic player" has survived as a stereotype (one only has to look in the forum responses to Lauren's article to see this). This is no longer as true of course, but once again, perception is just as important, if not more important, than reality. It should also be noted that women have, in general, far higher standards of cleanliness than men. Just as an illustration, which of your parents tells you to clean your room more? It's very easy for a Magic venue to become physically uncomfortable. Men are, in general, far more tolerant of hot, sticky, smelly, unkempt rooms than women are. If so many men find most Magic venues to be lacking in the "cleanliness" department, why would women not?

But I think perhaps the biggest social factor is the fact that so many Magic players (myself included) carry a chip on their shoulder, mostly because Magic is a community rooted in geek culture, populated by social outcasts. There is a desire among many in this type of social situation to prove themselves. To them, the game is more than just a game; it is an opportunity to showcase their skills and intelligence; it's an opportunity to shine. I think this is true for all competitive sports, but I believe the Magic community underestimates the effect that this has on high level tournament play.

This is where your "Spikes" come from. This is where your Mike Longs come from. This is why you get Patrick Chapin targeting "all legal targets" with his Profane Command and Cedric Phillips saying "Esper Charm targeting yourself?" This is where your disciples of Steve Sirlin come from. In a sense, I believe that a lot of players see the game as an outlet for a variety of frustrations accumulated from being a social outcast and while they may not realize it, it comes out at the table. This kind of cutthroat competitive atmosphere drives ALL people away, and most definitely contributes to the lack of women at the top tiers of the game.

I have observed women to be more social than men, and to care more about social aspects of various situations than men. I don't really know why, but I believe this to be true. Magic is not a very compelling social environment (compared to many other activities). If you believe otherwise, you are delusional. I believe this affects women more than men.

So, in a lot of respects, Magic is the "perfect storm" of factors which repel women. The social environment surrounding Magic in particular is not conducive to attracting women. This is on top of the fact that innately a competitive atmosphere in general is something that men are generally more comfortable in than women.

So what do we do about it?

We, as a community, change the environment, one step at a time.

We start by pushing casual, kitchen table play. Wizards is already doing a good job of doing this. We, as tournament players, need to follow. Tournament magic is a terrible way of introducing anyone to the game, let alone a woman who probably (at the beginning at least), cares more about hanging out with her friends than playing the game. I know I've learned how to play far more games out of a desire to simply socialize than out of interest. This type of interaction is a tremendous opportunity to recruit any new player, and women in particular. It needs to be exploited.

There is a problem though. Magic has a REDICULOUS learning curve. It is the single most complicated game on the planet; it leaves even Go in the dust on that front. This is a huge problem.

Just take a look at the comprehensive rules! It's hundreds of pages long, and that's just the RULEBOOK. Now, think of the rulebooks for other games you play. How long are they? One page, five pages, ten pages, twenty, thirty? I would say ten would be a relatively long rulebook. Magic's rulebook is thirty or forty TIMES that length. Think about that for a minute.

Most games have some sort of handicap that allows more advanced players to teach younger players how to play. Magic has no such equivalent. I believe something in this area would be interesting to develop. Wizards tried this with Portal but it obviously failed. Even things like turn order are confusing to introductory players. Game props (like a turn bar listing all the steps in a turn or a set of cards that detail each card type and special rules associated with them) would be very useful introductory materials. Intro decks are a good start, but they are still relatively complex compared to most introductory material for other games. The fact of the matter is the complexity of even the rules of Magic itself is a barrier to teaching anybody how to play quickly. I don't really know how to overcome this.

Maybe Wizards needs to take a second look at this, or maybe we as a community need to do this ourselves. Perhaps we should start with "all creatures" then move on to "all permanents except planeswalkers" then add planeswalkers, and finally add sorceries and instants. I don't know what the best way is, but I am sure that having some sort of handicapped system would be helpful. Every other game has it, and every other game uses it effectively to ease newer players into the game.

After that we simply need to change the social atmosphere. Be friendlier and less "Spike-y" to new players. Don't rules-lawyer them. If they make a mistake, let them take it back. Teach them the game. This is one of our fundamental weaknesses as a community. We don't do enough nurturing. Perhaps we need to set up game demos at Grand Prix tournaments or Pro Tours. Perhaps our game stores need to be better staffed so people on-hand can demo the game. Whatever we do, we need to nurture our new players better. We need to bring them along at their own pace. For those of them that are interested in making the competitive leap (and they will come, if you recruit), we need to have things ready to take them to the next level.

What does that mean at a tournament level? We need to play test with them, and we need to include them in our networks (even if they aren't so good right now). We need to explain to them why their ideas won't work, and we need to be less dismissive and more open-minded. But there is also a practical change we need to make.

There is a vast amount of information out there on Magic, and we need to have better access to it. This is why I am endlessly thankful to Patrick Chapin for writing Next Level Magic. We need to do more. We need better compilations of articles from people like Zvi, Flores, Sullivan, Tan, and Paskins. We need to better respect the history of the game, as limited as it is. We need to have easy access to this font of knowledge so we can pass it on. It has made us all better players and will still be useful to the future generations that will come after us.

We as a group of players have to do a better job of building our communities, particularly at the lower levels. We need better teaching products, we need more patience. We need to be more friendly to new players. We need to better nurture the next generation, instead of just feeding them to the sharks.

This is particularly important for recruiting female players, since so many of these factors which drive players away are magnified for women. The social factors and the differences in generic thought process all contribute to push women away from the game more than men. This means that we as a community must work even harder to recruit them. We don't work hard enough to recruit players in general, so clearly we need to work MUCH harder to recruit women.

I look forward to your flames.

Chingsung Chang

Conelead most everywhere and on MTGO

Khan32k5@gmail.com

Next week – Building a better manabase.