Set/Rarity: Conversation None
Several years ago I started using Timmy/Tammy and Jenny/Johnny, not just the male versions. I didn't remember seeing them before that, but I may have subconsciously taken the names from somewhere else.
But I've been seeing them more widely and I only just noticed a few months ago, Mark Rosewater endorsed exactly the same conclusion, with exactly the same names.
Well, I suppose it was inevitable. Though, he could have used 'Jeannie' instead. It may be the feminized version of 'Jon', but it isn't as ubiquitous as Jen. I swear, half the women I know are named Jen...
I think I only know one person named Jenny.
Evidently, Jennifer is the 6th most common female name in the U.S.. Jean comes in at 58:
Number one is Mary. Makes sense. Bit surprised to see that Patricia is number two, however.
The bottom of that list makes for strange oddities, too. Evidently, there are over 12,000 women in the U.S. named 'Robert'.
lets be even more inclusive. why only english/ western names? moreover why are these human sounding names? what about my dogs and cats that play magic? my plants like to debate magic as well. should they be included?
I know our visitor here is making a joke, but the female Muslim name 'Jani' works well here, too...
Good point, that could be a good start.
I don't like it. It still reinforces the gender binary. There should be a single, gender-neutral name for each of them.
I often worry there's a tension between the first steps toward inclusiveness and further steps. Having gender neutral names would be better than having male and female names, you're right, and I'm sad I didn't think of that :( But female names at least make people aware that "male is not the default": gender neutral ones most players would simply read as male :( So I feel like some sort of compromise is necessary (especially to be more culturally diverse), but I'm not sure what.
I also think having two names is too many. It's wordy and not conducive to verbal discussion. Mel was changed to gender neutral rather than male.
Why are there names the psychographics? I had to look up what a Spike was when I first heard it. Is "competitive tournament player" that much of a hassle? Two silver-bordered cards aside the names mean nothing in actuality any more than ana, necra, ceta, etc. did.
Spike doesn't refer to competitive tournament players; they're only a sub-group of Spikes. The psychographics give names to the three types of player, which gives Wizards a specific thing to design cards for; it gives them a goal. It makes card designing a lot easier and a lot better for the consumer. As a card maker, you're screwing yourself over if you don't familiarize with them. They also predate the cards in the Un-sets.
To clarify: Spikes care about proving themselves. Tournaments are an easy way to do this, but it isn't the only way. You can have a Spike that only plays multiplayer Commander, but plays to win. You can even have a Spike Vorthos, who tries to be better at flavor than other people.
My point is that the psychographics are known and definable and not actually in need of human names. You could call Johnny/Jenny something like "papaya" and the name would be equally as meaningless. The psychographic names are constructs that suffer the problem of carrying the baggage of having already existed outside of the Magic world (save Vorthos). If the names of the psychographics had all been original conceptions unique to Magic (or at least predominantly absorbed by them) then there would be a reason to keep them. Instead we accept preexisting human names (that are exclusive to only some cultures) to describe player types based on the whims/intuitions of naming conventions.
Humans relate better to other humans. Yeah, the names are arbitrary, but guess what? All words are arbitrary! Language is supposed to facilitate communication and the psychographics are supposed to help game designers design games. I admit that their being western names isn't very inclusive, but Wizards is a western game company.
being forced to be gender aware is patronizing and is a form of thought control.
moreover having the female names sound like the original male names misses the mark of the origins of the male names. just because you have similar sounding names doesnt mean they evoke the same emotions or mental visuals and connotations. timmy likes big creatures. but why would tammy also like big creatures? maybe gertha or heidi likes big creatures more than tammy. jenny doesnt sound combo lover to me. how about Marie (Curie) or Ada (Lovelace)?
The only reason Timmy sounds like someone who likes big creatures is because that's the arbitrary name MaRo picked years ago. That's a false argument. Also, the fact that you think being cognizant of the female Magic players is thought control makes me pretty confident you're not the kind of person we went in the Magic community or influencing this decision. Considering that you're posting on a visitor account, you know that already.
"Being forced to be gender aware is patronizing and is a form of thought control."
So is shushing people to be quiet while an orchestra is playing or being upset at someone who uses racial epithets to describe your friends. In fact, you're attempting to be patronizing right now.
Treating women as if they aren't contributing members of the community is, at the very least, anti-social behavior. I'm very comfortable applying peer pressure to those who refuse to make other people feel welcome because it doesn't suit their ego.
"Treating women as if they aren't contributing members of the community is, at the very least, anti-social behavior."
such a strawman. like I asked, why stop at female names? why not Asian names? Asia is a huge market. because Wizards is Western company? why the lame excuse? I thought we were all-inclusive.
"I'm very comfortable applying peer pressure to those who refuse to make other people feel welcome because it doesn't suit their ego."
yep people like you are the first person who would proactively violate another person for not agreeing with your ideology. and i'm the anti-social one. your fanaticism is showing.
Treating women right doesn't mean putting them on a pedestal and glorifying them without disregard for others' feelings and considerations.
Why your ideology fails: read this article "Why Trying Not to Be Prejudiced Backfires"
"Being told to "stop" prejudice and racism led to more prejudiced and racist responses; "
"If they were asked to suppress stereotypes while they wrote, they ended up writing more stereotypical stories."
"Trying to push away any type of unwanted seems to only more strongly activate it. So the person who tries to eliminate prejudice by suppressing stereotypes is more likely to act on them."
Does assigning a name to online post make your points more valid? Do you need a name so you can "peer pressure" them with shame and guilt until they submit and kowtow to your ideology?
Two types of people fear anonymity: authoritarians and ideology fanatics. They don't like people questioning their power and/or ideology.
So trying to find better females names, such as admirable historic women like Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace is "not being cognizant of females". No, it is patronizing when you're assigning female names due to convenience and not putting much thought into them.
I don't suggest putting women on a pedestal, and I never suggested that female names should be used in exclusion to male names. Nor do I think it's such a terrible idea to use popular Asian names (For example, I suggested 'Jani' earlier.) My point is that Timmy/Johnny/Spike are names obviously biased toward Western males. It suggests that the only people who play the game are white boys/men. That's not only unwelcoming to other players, but it's untrue.
I have no problem with whatever names could be used, but I would personally suggest a set of male and a set of female names because many men can't identify with being female, much like many females can't identify with being male. Personally speaking, if you called me a José, I'd be cool with it. But I would have a hard time associating with the name 'Janice'.
And you're welcome to think that I'm a fanatic if you want. I can be very fanatical when I feel anyone is being bullied. I don't stand for it. I prefer an environment where people are treated with equal dignity. Claiming that a person's gender can be ignored in favor of traditional male gender bias is demeaning to the person being excluded.
Claiming that speaking your mind on the subject will only result in a push in the opposite direction is easily proven false, considering the history of the United States within the past 50 years. Some people will push back. Others will listen, assuming you are willing to communicate fairly.
Add your comments: