Again, thanks a lot for the insight, I really appreciate it. Especially, as we have just 2 female judges within the Czech and Slovak community.

BTW, I encourage everyone to read a brilliant article by Eliana Rabinowitz on the topic, in case you have missed it (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/multiverse/interview-l2-eliana-rabinowitz-on-microaggressions/).

I'm glad this topic was raised. Over the years I've been shadowed many times. It wasn't till recently that I had the experience where the “other judge” (yes, a guy) declined to insert himself into the call when players glanced his way. It was such a shock - suddenly my eyes were opened to how frequently my calls had been pre-empted (and more shockingly, that I hadn't been noticing at the time when it happened).

Originally posted by Hannah Lissaman:

I'm a little disappointed by the number of experienced male judges derailed this thread about sexism to say ‘it’s not really about sexism, let's make this about all judges'.

Hannah (all!), I'm sorry that my message may have been misunderstood in that manner.

What I was trying to say is that this (not respecting the initial judge) is a problem, regardless of the reasons. In no way did I intend to imply that it's not about sexism - I simply meant to say that this is a problem no matter what. When players fail to respect any judge, we have a problem.

Actually, we may have two problems: not only the players showing lack of respect, but it's possible the initial judge will then defer to the shadow. Again, if I'm the shadow, I would encourage the first judge to proceed with their ruling, unless they have anything specific they want to discuss with me? As we've seen in this thread alone, it's very easy for intentions to get lost in the web of (mis)communication - but I would hope to convey “you got this!” while also being ready to help if they ask. (Like, discussing HCE, or a backup, or finding an L3 for that, or even getting the Head Judge because we know we'll need that, etc.)

I really hope that I get the opportunity to be the shadow in exactly this scenario, and perhaps remind the players that they need to let the judge give her ruling before they appeal … and then, when they ask for the Head Judge, one of us can say “sure, I'll go get HER”. :)

As for the original post (with its “sexism” topic title): first, were the players disrespecting a judge? (I can't tell, from this description and this distance.) Let's assume that it's clear they were. Next, why? If it's not immediately apparent (e.g., one or both players say something like “what does SHE know?!” or “we want a REAL judge”), just ask. The answer will guide your next steps. Regardless of their motivation, however, the infraction is likely the same category (USC); if it's sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory, you may also consider discussing their continued attendance with the TO.

d:^D

Hello everyone,

This, while being a problem that all judges at one time in their career experience, is something that happens to female judges significantly more so. This still happens to me. The arguments of the player wanting to speak to a higher level, more experienced or well known judge hold even less water. To give context this happened to me as I was taking an Appeal at SCG Baltimore. I was introduced to the entire event as a Head Judge, the player knew i was a Level 3, and I was in a Red shirt. The player still looked to the L2 who brought the situation to me (mind you he was not the floor judge that took the call. He came to get me while the initial judge was still talking to the player. He was a complete 3rd party Who had stuck around to hear the outcome) to try and get him to answer, and/or to confirm I was correct. I had to constantly redirect his attention to me. I even went so far as to ask the other judge after the call if that player was local to him, in an attempt to try and explain the players behavior as anything other than sexist in nature. He was not.

I have have had players ask me to “go get a real judge” And “female judges are a joke. Appeal”. Obviously these players were massively out of line and were handled accordingly. I mention this because I would in fact prefer that acts of disrespect that were of a sexist nature were this easy to identify. The subtler ones are infinitely harder to see in the first place, and honeslty to convince fellow judges are real issues, as this thread (I am sorry to say) shows well. Even here
Milan you thanked Eskil, but didnt beleive Hannah, who pointed out the same thing. She wrote a long and well reasoned response that was also very respectful and polite. You still didn't believe her. Yet when Eskil says one sentence then it is believed. That is exactly what we are talking about and what is so frustrating. *and it happens to us all the time*

The hypothetical situation here, which is only hypothetical in that people's names are not mentioned, is literally about how to handle when a player is being sexist, but not necessarily to the point of infraction in the form of confirming or deffering to a male judge in yhe vacinity. The immediate response by many judges here was to completely change the focus to “well this happens many times to judges when they are being shadowed. It's not a gender thing” and that is severely disappointing to me.

Many of you are correct that this is not a phenomenon that is unique to female judges, for all of the reasons you stated. However by shifting the focus in this manner you infer that it's never a problem that female judges face *because* they are female. That is simply not true. Even if that were not the intention it is absolutely how it was received by many.

The era and place I was brought up as a judge trained on specifically this. What to do when a player defers to the shadowing judge. Techniques we always discussed to negate this were many of the ones posed above. The shadow judge directing the attention of the player back to the judge taking the call, even going so far as to outright saying “(name) is your judge, they are taking this call I am merely an observer.”. Another good way to do this is to not make eye contact, and with your body language ignore the player and keep your focus on the judge taking the call, just as the player should be doing.

To answer your actual questions Isaac,
1. At what point should something be said to the players about this behavior?
Lots can be done before something needs be said. I view situations like this as very similar to a player appealing before a ruling is complete. I'm my opinion something should be said as soon as the problem is noticed. I wouldn't outright say “you're being sexist stop” or anything like that. Just a reinforcement that I am your judge and your ruling will be coming from me and me alone (unless they appeal of course)

2. If/when it is brought up to the players, should it simply be a mention of why this behavior might be offensive? Or should it be a Warning for USC - Minor?
A chat after the match pointing out how it was received or could be received is important. To me I'm only issuing a penalty here if it's so bad I cannot get my ruling out of my mouth, or if the player is nasty about it after being told what the problem is.

3. Which judge should be the one to bring it up?
The judge who took the call and was disrespected. To me the only time the shadow judge should speak up is if, as I noted above, it is only to redirect players focus to the judge taking the call. The other exceptionI could understand is if the female judge is uncomfortable doing so, and has asked someone else to do it. I will never have this problem, I'm very comfortable doing so, but I also understand not everyone is me.

Originally posted by Meghan Baum:

Even here
Milan you thanked Eskil, but didnt beleive Hannah, who pointed out the same thing. She wrote a long and well reasoned response that was also very respectful and polite. You still didn't believe her. Yet when Eskil says one sentence then it is believed. That is exactly what we are talking about and what is so frustrating. *and it happens to us all the time*

? Honestly, l felt strange when reading this. I am all for women (or anyone else) being treated equally. I completely agree that there is such problem (yes, problem, that unwanted word!) in the community. I even try to bring such topics to our local community (where the problem is not that apparent at first sight as we unfortunately have so few nonmale judges). For example by sharing the articles on the topic in our local FB group (again, that one from Eliana was great).

What makes you to view my posts as a disrespectful microagression towards Hannah? The very first sentence of my post was “Thanks Hannah for your invaluable insights.” As I am not a native speaker, am I missing something? I am struggling with this all the time: not being sure whether my choice of words is meaningful and provides the same meaning in English as in my mother tongue.

As the expressed feelings in the discussion show, I must have made some unintended communication error in this thread. In the term of an RPG: a critical fail during a skill check. I am sorry that I was not able to properly express my thoughts so it could comprehended the way I meant them. I am terribly sorry that this caused harm to Hannah and everyone reading it.

I guess, I made too many posts in Judge Apps today. Everyone, who reads the e-mail notifications must be getting an allergic reaction when seeing my name in their inbox. Time to disengage and reinspect. If anyone wants to help me and pinpoint the moment where the communication mistake happened, feel free to shoot me a message. Thanks.

Looks like this topic is generating the exact sort of discussion I had hoped for :). I too noticed the trend of male judges saying “maybe it's not sexism”, and I think that's something that should be discussed.

I don't believe Milan's thanks of Eskil was in any way inappropriate. Eskil pointed out a fact (that the title of the thread mentioned sexism). Hannah had not mentioned that fact. Claiming that Milan was treating Hannah and Eskil differently is not fair to him- their posts were in fact different.

Alright, back to the discussion!

I'm glad to see how much discussion this topic brings, and how respectful and involved people are for this important topic. I still stand behind my original message of “maybe it's not sexism”, but I believe I should explain a bit more. Whenever I take a call at Competitive REL, in the back of my mind is a little voice that tells me “maybe it's not just a GRV, maybe it's cheating”. I try to find a reasonable explanation, that satisfies my curiosity and suspicion, and then I fix the issue… sometimes by issuing a DQ, but most of the times I find a reason to believe the player is innocent.
The same goes for every scenario where a judge is bypassed by a player; sexism is definitely a possible explanation, but I first want to try and find a different, less malevolent and less far-reaching explanation. When there is none, it's time to delve deeper, as sexism is a serious problem that needs addressing and awareness. But attributing everything to sexism is not going to help our cause.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

I still stand behind my original message of “maybe it's not sexism”, but I believe I should explain a bit more. Whenever I take a call at Competitive REL, in the back of my mind is a little voice that tells me “maybe it's not just a GRV, maybe it's cheating”. I try to find a reasonable explanation, that satisfies my curiosity and suspicion, and then I fix the issue… sometimes by issuing a DQ, but most of the times I find a reason to believe the player is innocent.

Unfortunately I think that while it's nice to give people the benefit of the doubt, it is doing a disservice to our female colleagues to always jump to assuming that it might not be sexism. Even today it is probably more likely to be sexism than not. If you assume it isn't you may inadvertantly reinforce the sexist behaviour if it turns out that it is. I know there will be things I will not notice because I'm male and if I assume something isn't sexist and look for reasons why it might be, I may well miss it and make things worse for the judge taking the call.

So, I have never really put much stock in things like “microagressions” but if ever there was a time where I thought the phrase or concept applied it's things like this. It's very very hard as a female judge to *constantly* be told that it isn't sexism when there are times it truly is, and even more so when the conversation starts off as “this issue of sexism discuss” turns into “this is a everyone problem. This isn't sexism”. Makes female judges feel like we are going crazy, like we are just causing drama and troubles if we speak out or try and discuss. One instance of this, not really a problem. But every single time is a huge problem. I like to compare microagressuons to bug bites. One or two doesn't hurt anyone. But some people are more sensitive to bites and some get way more bites than others. It's hard to empathise or understand when you don't get bit as often or have an allergic reaction to them.

Milan, I don't want you thinking I am angry or hate you or anything like that. I just wanted to point out that this is the problem that women have often. The “this topic is about sexism specifically.” Response “no it's not” male says “this topic is about sexism” response “oh yes of course.” Even if the change in attitude was because of new information given it can still very much appear to be because of the person giving the information. Honestly as much as I wish it weren't it's what we are used to because it happens so often. Your English is fantastic. You presented yourself well. Just this bit was very easily perceived badly, and the statement was as much for everyone reading as you. Theres a saying that we hear often in my region “perception is reality” even if it wasnt meant that way (and im positive it was not. It rarely is, especially from judge to judge) its how it came across. This is something we as women run into often and I want judges to at the very least be aware of it when discussing these kind if topics. If you would like to speak about it more, please feel free to private message me. My inbox is always open, in fact the invitation is open to any judge who would like to discuss.

Dustin, I'm definitely not saying it's always sexism. Not in any way. But it's, to use your example, like a judge presenting a scenario as “this player was cheating how do you handle it/ what do you do to the player?” And the judges responding with “yea but it's most likely a GRV, it's not always cheating.” Then the not necessarily said but can illicit feelings of “why do you always say its cheating? You jump to conclusions so easily” You're completely right that not everything is sexism. When everything is sexism, nothing is. However we have to be very careful not to let it *always* be not-sexism. Or in the name of moderation and consideration constantly make our collgues feel dismissed when they bring it up.

I don't believe anyone here meant to imply that sexism is not an issue nor that this doenst ever happen. I find it is very very rarely intentional. But that's what makes the impact so much harder. The judge program is overall one where we are inclusive and diverse, and making sure we stay that way is a very high priority to many. We often talk about equal and equitable treatment of women, making a welcoming and safe environment for players and staff, and that diversity is important. When it isn't true, or when a judge (female, minority or any other lesser represented judge) is the victim of sexism, racism or any other “ism” by a fellow judge the hit we feel is much harder.

The most helpful thing a judge can ever do is listen to another judge. In a call, in an hj instruction, or when a judge brings us a problem the first thing (and arguably the most important) thing need to do is listen to what our college has to say and making sure we understand to the best of our ability. We all want to respect each other and treat each other the way we wish to be treated. Like I said earlier on, my inbox is always open if anyone wants to discuss.

Thanks for reading
Meg

Originally posted by Hannah Lissaman:

As others have said, the specific situation above is a little tricky since the presence of a second judge is often distracting regardless of the underlying reason.

This differs a lot from when I either shadow or, am shadowed by another judge. In my experience, the presence of another judge is hardly ever a distracting factor. Then again, the other judge is almost always also a male judge. If Hannah's comment is true for other female judges (which I have no reason not to believe), we still have a lot of non-explicit sexism among players.

I've often shadowed lesser experienced judges, and especially when I am a known person to both players, and the judge taking the call is not, the players look to me to see what's going on. If that happens, I always reinforce the authority of the judge taking the call: “For this judge call, he will make a ruling, I am here only to learn” or something to that effect. For the most part, inexperienced judges are happy that I shift the focus back to them (or they are not, when it seems like a complicated call ;))
For more experienced judges, (who still might not be known to the players), it's better if they intervene and call the attention to themselves by stating their authority, but in my experience, if the judge taking the call is confident enough, this issue doesn't arise.

If we want players to change this (subconscious!) behavior, it has to be called out. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a judge who is making a judge call to tell the players to make sure they focus their attention on her (or him) self. For some players (most?) the only way to get them to start thinking about this as sexism is to call it that. It would not be out of line for a judge to call this out: “I'm the judge taking this call. Looking at him won't alter that. Please work with me to get you your ruling.” While it's not opportune to accuse the players of sexism during the call, it's perfectly OK to confront a player after their match is over. It's not out of line to call it sexism then. Especially if you have seen the player at events before, they have seen you there as well. They cannot write it off as ‘I though the other judge has more experience’. Female judges stand out, if you recognize a player from previous events, they remember you as well.

Thank you to everyone for sharing some very helpful practical pointers for dealing with these kinds of situations. I will certainly be thinking back to some of these next time I have a difficult player to deal with.

When I called out the tendency to dismiss the sexism element of the scenario, I was well aware that I was doing something that would be challenging to accept. Nobody likes to be told they have missed the point, and nobody likes to accept a more negative worldview than the one they currently hold. I am pleased that we have mostly had a productive discussion as a result.

I wanted to share one of my favourite webcomics with you all, as I think it has a relevant theme for the discussion: some facts are hard to accept, and in the same way, other people's experiences can be hard to accept when they contradict our own.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

Hi,

I spent last day going through the dynamics of this thread and pondering on it (big thanks go especially to Meghan Baum, Mark Brown and Petr Hudeček for their willingness to spend their time helping me with it). I now see the details I have missed and should have thought out / written differently.

I honestly believe that, if not everyone in the Judge Programs, then at least everyone actively participating in this thread is an open-minded person willing to listen to and accept thoughts of others. We have to admit that in general women are not treated equally to men. The force of this discrimination varies, but it a common topic in societies. In Magic community (including Judge community) it is emphasized by the fact that the community is historically rather male-oriented. It will take a long time until at least the demographics of the community change, not speaking of the time it will take for the community how it thinks about themselves internally and how it is thought about / perceived from outside.

I have one advice for those who see the need for themselves to adjust the view. As Hannah has pointed out, it not easy to accept a fact which is presented by another person if I have no personal experience with it and I do not know how to categorize it and comprehend it. A little technique could help at least in the topic of microaggressions (it usually helps me, it might help you). It requires just a bit of empathy and social intelligence. Go to your memory and recall those old moments when you felt treated unequally, being treated unjustly under some stupid prejudice without a proper reason. Then apply that emotion and try to understand that this is a similar one to what women you know and admire have to go through. But not once - they get that shit every single day. Do you remember what you felt when that “idiot” from the other class bullied you and called you a damn nerd just because you liked to read Tolkien and play Magic? What was that feeling of helplessness when you, as a concealed homosexual had to listen to all those silly comments and jokes of “(removed)” at your social group? I believe that anyone could find such moments in their life.

Edited John Brian McCarthy (Jan. 11, 2018 05:02:59 PM)

Hannah, thank you, and esp. for sharing that link (I'm gonna use it!).

I'm very happy how this topic has progressed; it's an excellent discussion, and a lot of opportunities for learning, which has always been near & dear, for me.

Readers who have seen a lot of my posts may know this, but I need to clarify something. In the forums, I provide Answers for Questions; when we have a discussion topic, I try to only jump in to clarify policy, while (hopefully) allowing the discussion to continue. My attempt to do that, in this thread, was probably misunderstood (mea culpa), and I apologize for sounding at all dismissive - definitely not something I intended!

I simply wanted to reinforce that not respecting the initial judge is a problem, perhaps even USC - no matter the reasons for it. I should have added my own thoughts about dealing with implicit sexism - but I can assure you, there's far more value in the insights we've been blessed with, from others, than anything I could have added - or perhaps I could have simply said something like “now, back to our original topic”.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank y'all for starting my day much better than most of this past month! :D

d:^D

When discussing unacceptable language, please avoid using said language. I think we all have vivid enough imaginations to fill in if you say “Used a slur directed at that group.”

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Actually the topic IS about all judges.

First off, I appreciate the calm, care, and respect with which this sensitive topic has taken place. It's easy for a topic like this to get heated.

I'm quoting Milan here. My intent in doing so is not to call him out, but simply to discuss the nuances of something he said. In fact, I've always found Milan to be introspective and honest about exploring his words, and my hope is that by pointing this out, he and others can continue that kind of intellectual exploration.

(Okay, that sounded pretentious.)

When I first saw the way this topic unfolded, my reaction was similar to Hannah's, and I appreciate her being the first to point it out, and others for sharing their perspectives. My reaction was to make a mental comparison to “All Lives Matter.” For those who don't know, there is a protest movement in the United States called “Black Lives Matter” whose goal is to bring light to systemic racism against people of color, particularly in their brutal treatment and outright murder at the hands of police officers in incidents that should not result in the use of lethal force.

All Lives Matter is a counter to BLM which attempts to shift the discussion away from that focus. “Why are you saying that only black lives matter? Shouldn't all lives matter?” The problem is that in our country black lives currently matter less. Saying “All lives matter” is an attempt at erasure of that specific problem.

This comes back to the classic dichotomy of equity versus equality. “All lives matter” is about as pure a statement of equality as you can get. But by erasing the statement “black lives matter” it denies the path to equity (and ultimately to equality) that this historically disenfranchised group is trying to achieve.

I hope that you can see how statements like “all judges get disrespected” feels like an erasure of the problems that women deal with in interactions like this. Wanting equality isn't a bad thing, but please be aware of the potential ramifications of erasing equity.

With that, I'll add my thoughts to Isaac's original questions:

Originally posted by Isaac King:

1. At what point should something be said to the players about this behavior?

Difficult to say without being there. There's an argument for dealing with it immediately. For example, if you've already told them once to talk to the active judge, and they again turn to you with a “Is that how it works?” I'm going to respond to it more directly with a “Why do you keep asking me? Is there some reason you don't believe her? You can either present your reasoning to her or appeal, but this is the last time you should be addressing me on this call.”

I like questions that present the player with what they are doing and force them to think themselves about their motives rather than direct accusations. I doubt that anyone would answer the question “You're asking me because she's a woman, aren't you?” with any honesty. It's a dead end.

Immediacy is effective in that everyone has the memory of what happened fresh and it's much harder to deny. That said, if you never have a moment where you can make this kind of snap response, after the ruling or after the match is still a good time to talk about things. If you do, it's important to catalog the specifics of the behavior because you've lost some of that momentum of memory.

I'm going to keep beating the drum that Hannah's post is really excellent for techniques on how to approach this conversation. Go read that.

2. If/when it is brought up to the players, should it simply be a mention of why this behavior might be offensive? Or should it be a Warning for USC - Minor?

Like others, I would hesitate to issue USC - Minor here. Again, highly context dependent. Hannah put it best: “Players have to do something actively bad to wind up with a USC Minor!” Disrespect, especially with unknown motives shouldn't reach this. Keep it in mind as a potential outcome, but probably not a first or second result.

3. Which judge should be the one to bring it up?

This is a conversation that the two judges should have to decide. Broken record, but Hannah correctly points out that the disrespected judge might not feel comfortable doing this. There's arguments for one, the other, and even both. Discuss the situation.