Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 443
  1. #401
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    What more could I possibly add to that to make its meaning any clearer?
    Straight answers to straight questions. Here's some that you need to address from earlier on...


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    If you want to help people then one major step is accepting what they are so that you can help meet their needs. Positing that we brush over issues of gender, race or sexuality is not a good thing. The problem with posing this as an egalitarian issue is that people are not of the same social status, they are not of the same gender, race or sexuality. They are not equal, they do not have equal support, they do not have equal rights, they do not have equal status in society.
    What does any of that have to do with assessment of factual information? Does the colour of a jurors skin or their mobility impact how they should view evidence extraneous to their being?


    So it's building on bullshit from the off. You can believe it's not but as I said earlier in the thread, it's equivalent to arguing that the world is flat or evolution doesn't exist or something like that. That's not going to be much use when we're discussing inequality, right? Assuming everyone is equal already is completely ignoring reality (and yes, this is a fact! We're not equal! Surprise!). So no, let's not do that. it stops us from being able to find where issues lie.
    You don't understand the process of logical assessment do you?

    Calling for an objective look at facts is bullshit also. This is an emotional issue because it deals with people, not stats. It is the wants, the needs and the rights of human beings. It is right to be appalled when people are treated badly, it is right to want to change that and have people treated better. It is not right to dehumanise a very human issue.
    I'm fairly sure our entire legal and education systems are built on the assessment of facts devoid of emotion, but do feel to continue to say otherwise.

    Well, actually, it just sort of means "go and talk about it elsewhere if you want, you can't do it here". But really, again, ask yourself what you want to debate here for reals. Do you really want to debate whether we should be making the world a better place for minority groups or do you want to debate how we do that? Because if it's the former, then well, you're a dick. Do you want to be that dick? If you're genuine in your concerns then as I responded to Unaco earlier, the first step there is to listen to what these people are telling you not shouting them down. We can move on from there.
    Why would people want to talk elsewhere? If John is so absolutely convinced he's in the right where's the loss in allowing people to comment? In truth 'comments off' doesn't seem like the action of a person confident in their position at all.

    No-one has ever asked you to just blindly agree. I'm not sure where you get that from. By the way, I'm not convinced there's anything to be proud of about pushing against people trying to make the world a better place, trying to find ways of undermining their arguments. No, really. That's probably a bit silly.
    Simply demanding the freedom to speak shouldn't necessarily be taken as a given that an argument is intended.

    Actually, it most definitely objectively is. That you might not agree with it is, well, that's subjective, right?
    Hold up. earlier on you were saying there's no such thing as objectivity. Now you're saying that there is?

    Again, what would you like to debate? What is it that you really want to debate here?
    Why does it bother you so much that people would simply like the option to discuss the article in the comments section exactly?

    This is rather confusing.
    All day being the resident RPS apologist has clearly tired you out RobF.
    Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil

    Tradition is the tyranny of dead men

    Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi

    Probable Replicant

    *blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me

    Quote Originally Posted by Finicky View Post
    Kadayi will remain the worst poster on the interwebs.
    Gifmaster 4000 2014 Year of the Gif

    He who controls the Doge controls the universe

  2. #402
    Lesser Hivemind Node RobF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    845
    No Kad, I still really don't and continually cutting and pasting the same thing over again and posting abuse on my profile page just makes you look a mental.
    My actions are in no way born out of some sort of Darwinist offensive
    I just get a bit fidgety times
    Steam

  3. #403
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesR View Post
    I think the points you listed are, by and large, grossly misrepresentative of the philosophy of men's rights activists.

    I'm not sure if your understanding of MRAs is derived from the more extreme (read insincere) sources or if you're just trolling...
    "MRA" is a term synonymous with the kind of asshole who consistently shits up discussion all across the internet before retreating to their angry boys-only enclave to talk some more about those fucking bitches and how they've all got it so good. I'm not saying there aren't issues facing men in today's society, and that there aren't people campaigning reasonably to change them, but they're not what I'd call MRAs, and the men who do fall into that category need to find a new name for themselves to avoid being tainted by association.

    In other words, if my summary of his blogpost doesn't reflect your views then I'm not talking about you :)

  4. #404
    Obscure Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1
    Now that the RPS official position on sexism has been posted, what would they have to say about The Void if they were to review it now? This game is one of my all-time favourites which I originally discovered through RPS's amazing Wot I Think.

    This game features gratuitous nudity and has exaggerated forms of the stereotypes of both men and women in the game as the "brothers" and "sisters" characters. Personally I'm somewhat scared that these games will pass by RPS and other games websites as the sexism debate goes on. I can't help but feel the nudity in the game would be a big bullseye to many people, even though it's not what the game is about. If you've never played it before, it's a very artsy game.

  5. #405

  6. #406
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    - snip -
    How hard is it to answer some simple straight questions with some simple straight answers?


    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    If you want to help people then one major step is accepting what they are so that you can help meet their needs. Positing that we brush over issues of gender, race or sexuality is not a good thing. The problem with posing this as an egalitarian issue is that people are not of the same social status, they are not of the same gender, race or sexuality. They are not equal, they do not have equal support, they do not have equal rights, they do not have equal status in society.
    What does any of that have to do with assessment of factual information? Does the colour of a jurors skin or their mobility impact how they should view evidence extraneous to their being?


    So it's building on bullshit from the off. You can believe it's not but as I said earlier in the thread, it's equivalent to arguing that the world is flat or evolution doesn't exist or something like that. That's not going to be much use when we're discussing inequality, right? Assuming everyone is equal already is completely ignoring reality (and yes, this is a fact! We're not equal! Surprise!). So no, let's not do that. it stops us from being able to find where issues lie.
    You don't understand the process of logical assessment do you?

    Calling for an objective look at facts is bullshit also. This is an emotional issue because it deals with people, not stats. It is the wants, the needs and the rights of human beings. It is right to be appalled when people are treated badly, it is right to want to change that and have people treated better. It is not right to dehumanise a very human issue.
    I'm fairly sure our entire legal and education systems are built on the assessment of facts devoid of emotion, but do feel to continue to say otherwise.

    Well, actually, it just sort of means "go and talk about it elsewhere if you want, you can't do it here". But really, again, ask yourself what you want to debate here for reals. Do you really want to debate whether we should be making the world a better place for minority groups or do you want to debate how we do that? Because if it's the former, then well, you're a dick. Do you want to be that dick? If you're genuine in your concerns then as I responded to Unaco earlier, the first step there is to listen to what these people are telling you not shouting them down. We can move on from there.
    Why would people want to talk elsewhere? If John is so absolutely convinced he's in the right where's the loss in allowing people to comment? In truth 'comments off' doesn't seem like the action of a person confident in their position at all.

    No-one has ever asked you to just blindly agree. I'm not sure where you get that from. By the way, I'm not convinced there's anything to be proud of about pushing against people trying to make the world a better place, trying to find ways of undermining their arguments. No, really. That's probably a bit silly.
    Simply demanding the freedom to speak shouldn't necessarily be taken as a given that an argument is intended.

    Actually, it most definitely objectively is. That you might not agree with it is, well, that's subjective, right?
    Hold up. earlier on you were saying there's no such thing as objectivity. Now you're saying that there is?

    Again, what would you like to debate? What is it that you really want to debate here?
    Why does it bother you so much that people would simply like the option to discuss the article in the comments section exactly?

    This is rather confusing.
    All day being the resident RPS apologist has clearly tired you out RobF.
    Last edited by Kadayi; 08-04-2013 at 09:52 AM.
    Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil

    Tradition is the tyranny of dead men

    Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi

    Probable Replicant

    *blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me

    Quote Originally Posted by Finicky View Post
    Kadayi will remain the worst poster on the interwebs.
    Gifmaster 4000 2014 Year of the Gif

    He who controls the Doge controls the universe

  7. #407
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by disconnect View Post
    My friend, I would like to thank you for pointing me to this article. This game, despite my frustrations with it (it took 3 restarts before I knew what the hell I should have been doing, and at least 6 before I could finally beat it) was probably among the most important in my life and as an artist, helped me out of a creative rut and kick a bout of depression. And for all this it goes criminally unrecognised and there is depressingly little discussion or literature surrounding it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neilo View Post
    Now that the RPS official position on sexism has been posted, what would they have to say about The Void if they were to review it now? This game is one of my all-time favourites which I originally discovered through RPS's amazing Wot I Think.

    This game features gratuitous nudity and has exaggerated forms of the stereotypes of both men and women in the game as the "brothers" and "sisters" characters. Personally I'm somewhat scared that these games will pass by RPS and other games websites as the sexism debate goes on. I can't help but feel the nudity in the game would be a big bullseye to many people, even though it's not what the game is about. If you've never played it before, it's a very artsy game.
    John of all people has in fact reviewed it for Eurogamer. The impression I've gotten was that he found it a bit too impenetrable (dare I say, pretentious), but he never did beat it (which is understandable, much as I liked it, I resorted to having a FAQ open on my laptop as I played it), which does get in the way of making an interpretation of the game's messages.
    Last edited by Kevin; 08-04-2013 at 09:48 AM.

  8. #408
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Neilo View Post
    Now that the RPS official position on sexism has been posted, what would they have to say about The Void if they were to review it now? This game is one of my all-time favourites which I originally discovered through RPS's amazing Wot I Think.

    This game features gratuitous nudity and has exaggerated forms of the stereotypes of both men and women in the game as the "brothers" and "sisters" characters. Personally I'm somewhat scared that these games will pass by RPS and other games websites as the sexism debate goes on. I can't help but feel the nudity in the game would be a big bullseye to many people, even though it's not what the game is about. If you've never played it before, it's a very artsy game.
    It's apparently hate speech, or that's what they seem to believe and want to propagate. Donkey Kong is hate speech against women, because you have to save one, and accordingly this "fosters a stereotype of gender and damages real women". Games like Lollipop Chainsaw or Duke Nukem Forever are also especially hate speech, since they sexualize women. They can't just exist as games or entertainment, they all only exist in context with larger society.

    Regarding The Void: http://www.adventuregamers.com/artic...ew/18360/page2
    I’m also compelled to mention one thing that deeply offended me about The Void: its sexist stereotypes. At first I found it intriguing that the way to “talk” to the Sisters was by lavishing Colors on their faces, but as soon as I saw how the Sisters communicate in return, I felt a sudden rush of anger. When you feed Color to a Sister, first she undresses and only then speaks with the player. For instance, one of the Sisters is dressed in a long, white robe, and she is gently rolling on a hammock. As soon as the player feeds her, she is suddenly nude with only tiny lights to cover her genitalia, and while she speaks she caresses her thighs, strokes her breasts, crosses her legs like an albino version of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, wriggling her hips seductively. Now, I have nothing against nudity, as long as the artistic choice feels coherent and non-gratuitous. I do resent this kind of objectifying representation that reduces women to mere sexual toys (the naked body of the male protagonist, on the other hand, is depicted in a nearly asexual way, like a Ken doll). Even the women of Leisure Suit Larry felt more real and less like inflatable dolls whose sole purpose is to entice with their artsy but seductive nudity. Many titles today are full of strong female protagonists, so it’s disappointing that games like The Void still feel the need to use a woman’s body – and, generally speaking, human sexuality – not as a theme but as a cheap visual tactic.
    There's also people who view Bioshock: Infinite (and anyone who criticizes it for being "violent") as hate speech. In their world, in their mind there is no black and white, and people couldn't just enjoy a game with naked ladies or with a plot handling complex themes like racism or sexism without presenting the issues as black and white or "right" and "wrong": http://designislaw.tumblr.com/post/4...or-banning-all

    Here's a few more games you shouldn't support and should stay away from:
    Banjo-Kazooie is "sexist" and a boys game: http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6039
    Ico is "sexist": http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6037
    Persona 4 is too "sexualized" and involves "gender stereotyping": http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=5970
    Heavy Rain is "sexist" and "undermines gender equality": http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6005
    Plants vs. Zombies is "sexist" and a boys game: http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6030

  9. #409
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Neilo View Post
    Now that the RPS official position on sexism has been posted, what would they have to say about The Void if they were to review it now? This game is one of my all-time favourites which I originally discovered through RPS's amazing Wot I Think.

    This game features gratuitous nudity and has exaggerated forms of the stereotypes of both men and women in the game as the "brothers" and "sisters" characters. Personally I'm somewhat scared that these games will pass by RPS and other games websites as the sexism debate goes on. I can't help but feel the nudity in the game would be a big bullseye to many people, even though it's not what the game is about. If you've never played it before, it's a very artsy game.
    It's apparently hate speech, or that's what they seem to believe and want to propagate. Donkey Kong is hate speech against women, because you have to save one, and accordingly this "fosters a stereotype of gender and damages real women". Games like Lollipop Chainsaw or Duke Nukem Forever are also especially hate speech, since they sexualize women. They can't exist just as games or entertainment, but only within a bigger social context in which they are hateful to women (irregardless if that was the intention or not).

    Regarding The Void: http://www.adventuregamers.com/artic...ew/18360/page2
    I’m also compelled to mention one thing that deeply offended me about The Void: its sexist stereotypes. At first I found it intriguing that the way to “talk” to the Sisters was by lavishing Colors on their faces, but as soon as I saw how the Sisters communicate in return, I felt a sudden rush of anger. When you feed Color to a Sister, first she undresses and only then speaks with the player. For instance, one of the Sisters is dressed in a long, white robe, and she is gently rolling on a hammock. As soon as the player feeds her, she is suddenly nude with only tiny lights to cover her genitalia, and while she speaks she caresses her thighs, strokes her breasts, crosses her legs like an albino version of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, wriggling her hips seductively. Now, I have nothing against nudity, as long as the artistic choice feels coherent and non-gratuitous. I do resent this kind of objectifying representation that reduces women to mere sexual toys (the naked body of the male protagonist, on the other hand, is depicted in a nearly asexual way, like a Ken doll). Even the women of Leisure Suit Larry felt more real and less like inflatable dolls whose sole purpose is to entice with their artsy but seductive nudity. Many titles today are full of strong female protagonists, so it’s disappointing that games like The Void still feel the need to use a woman’s body – and, generally speaking, human sexuality – not as a theme but as a cheap visual tactic.
    There's also people who view Bioshock: Infinite (and anyone who criticizes it for being "violent") as hate speech. In their world, in their mind there is no black and white, and people couldn't just enjoy a game with naked ladies or with a plot handling complex themes like racism or sexism without presenting the issues as black and white or "right" and "wrong": http://designislaw.tumblr.com/post/4...or-banning-all
    Last edited by harbinger; 08-04-2013 at 10:01 AM.

  10. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by NDen View Post
    I have to say, having read some of the responses since a while back, frankly I’ve seen the posts that sum up this debate nicely:

    “If we want to be inclusive and equal we should avoid gender specific terms for our positions, feminism's platform can be achieved through egalitarianism while also pursuing literally every single other thing you mentioned (LGBT, mens issues, etc.). Egalitarians support all of that, we support equality for all, we do not support breaking equality down to the perspective of one gender or race.”



    This is by far the most important one.

    Because that’s the problem I have with this kind of gendered debate in video games. Where is the egalitarian viewpoint? Where is the journalist or blogger willing to separate himself emotionally from the issue and dissect it with cold hard logic, with facts, with ideas that some people are inevitably going to dislike?

    When are we going to get the article that looks at things like the supposed Wage Gap, Online Harassment, Women and Men in the Industry, Male and Female Representation and say without bias “here is what is apparent, take from this what you will”.
    “Take from this what you will”. That’s important. And we aren’t getting that, we’re getting stuff from people so convinced they couldn’t possibly be wrong that they don’t even try to hide the fact they’re biased in the favour of one side of the argument. And not just an academic bias, these posts seethe with emotion.

    With comments removed, it makes it clear – debate is forbidden. “Agree with me or shut up.”

    Here’s the thing, John Walker and company.

    I am incapable of just blindly agreeing.

    Calling me a misogynist because I dare to not tow what resembles a feminist line will just make me less convinced you’re talking any sort of common sense. And dare I say, it will make me push back harder, even more determined to find the things that undermine your arguments. I try not to, because that’s ultimately not going to lead to a fair appraisal of the situation, but you don’t actually seem to care. Why don’t you care? You think I’m just going to ignore everything you say? Is it because you do that to your opponent? It doesn’t mean I will. I give you the chances to convince me your argument is the result of hard analysis, and you let me down every single time; it’s easy, just look at the debate with the intent to form an EQUAL analysis. And I don’t mean your personal definition of equality being favouring one side perceived as lesser, I mean actual, hard, dictionary defined equality. If you’re convinced your stance is correct, you wouldn’t have any worry about someone trying to poke a few holes in it, because you’d still win out in the end…right?

    Your strategy apparently is not to convince people, but to just shout them down and accuse them of being bad people. It’s childishness wrapped up in a veil of “social justice”, but all I see is denial.

    As long as you talk Feminist talking points, and pretend it’s a force for equality when it’s objectively not, I don’t care what you have to say. I’d like a debate, really, but you’re the last people making it viable. And it’s not just me, it’s tons of people who’d like the subject reviewed properly if it’s not going to be dropped altogether – do you SERIOUSLY think that the growing amount of people getting annoyed by these kinds of articles are some conspirational chauvinistic lobby? That they’re all just nasty trolls? Hell, that they’re all men? (It’s certainly not). Get real. Why not take it as a message that something’s not infallible with your rhetoric?

    I would like this to happen, if anything because we could move on to more interesting debates. How do we make industry events more professional? Where’s the power in the market? Who makes up the demographics? What’s fair for all? Too often I see these debates hijacked for a debate about gender and it’s getting frustrating.

    And really, we could see some good come out of this. Rather than getting just better female characters, we can get good characters of all kinds. We can get a diverse range of people in the industry itself, confident they’re competing on the same level as everyone else and not being patronised or scrutinised. Videogames can become a hobby that appeals to all demographic, interested in creativity foremost without worrying about offending somebody somewhere. Rather than artificially altering the video games industry to fit a pre-supposed ideal, we can let it organically represent the interests of everyone willing to get involved.

    You want that too, right? If that’s your goal, supporting rants that boil down to emotionally charged abuse hurled at patriarchal bogeymen is going to do absolutely nothing to get everyone onboard.
    Excellent post. Agree entirely.

  11. #411
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by NDen View Post
    I have to say, having read some of the responses since a while back, frankly I’ve seen the posts that sum up this debate nicely:

    “If we want to be inclusive and equal we should avoid gender specific terms for our positions, feminism's platform can be achieved through egalitarianism while also pursuing literally every single other thing you mentioned (LGBT, mens issues, etc.). Egalitarians support all of that, we support equality for all, we do not support breaking equality down to the perspective of one gender or race.”



    This is by far the most important one.

    Because that’s the problem I have with this kind of gendered debate in video games. Where is the egalitarian viewpoint? Where is the journalist or blogger willing to separate himself emotionally from the issue and dissect it with cold hard logic, with facts, with ideas that some people are inevitably going to dislike?

    When are we going to get the article that looks at things like the supposed Wage Gap, Online Harassment, Women and Men in the Industry, Male and Female Representation and say without bias “here is what is apparent, take from this what you will”.
    “Take from this what you will”. That’s important. And we aren’t getting that, we’re getting stuff from people so convinced they couldn’t possibly be wrong that they don’t even try to hide the fact they’re biased in the favour of one side of the argument. And not just an academic bias, these posts seethe with emotion.

    With comments removed, it makes it clear – debate is forbidden. “Agree with me or shut up.”

    Here’s the thing, John Walker and company.

    I am incapable of just blindly agreeing.

    Calling me a misogynist because I dare to not tow what resembles a feminist line will just make me less convinced you’re talking any sort of common sense. And dare I say, it will make me push back harder, even more determined to find the things that undermine your arguments. I try not to, because that’s ultimately not going to lead to a fair appraisal of the situation, but you don’t actually seem to care. Why don’t you care? You think I’m just going to ignore everything you say? Is it because you do that to your opponent? It doesn’t mean I will. I give you the chances to convince me your argument is the result of hard analysis, and you let me down every single time; it’s easy, just look at the debate with the intent to form an EQUAL analysis. And I don’t mean your personal definition of equality being favouring one side perceived as lesser, I mean actual, hard, dictionary defined equality. If you’re convinced your stance is correct, you wouldn’t have any worry about someone trying to poke a few holes in it, because you’d still win out in the end…right?

    Your strategy apparently is not to convince people, but to just shout them down and accuse them of being bad people. It’s childishness wrapped up in a veil of “social justice”, but all I see is denial.

    As long as you talk Feminist talking points, and pretend it’s a force for equality when it’s objectively not, I don’t care what you have to say. I’d like a debate, really, but you’re the last people making it viable. And it’s not just me, it’s tons of people who’d like the subject reviewed properly if it’s not going to be dropped altogether – do you SERIOUSLY think that the growing amount of people getting annoyed by these kinds of articles are some conspirational chauvinistic lobby? That they’re all just nasty trolls? Hell, that they’re all men? (It’s certainly not). Get real. Why not take it as a message that something’s not infallible with your rhetoric?

    I would like this to happen, if anything because we could move on to more interesting debates. How do we make industry events more professional? Where’s the power in the market? Who makes up the demographics? What’s fair for all? Too often I see these debates hijacked for a debate about gender and it’s getting frustrating.

    And really, we could see some good come out of this. Rather than getting just better female characters, we can get good characters of all kinds. We can get a diverse range of people in the industry itself, confident they’re competing on the same level as everyone else and not being patronised or scrutinised. Videogames can become a hobby that appeals to all demographic, interested in creativity foremost without worrying about offending somebody somewhere. Rather than artificially altering the video games industry to fit a pre-supposed ideal, we can let it organically represent the interests of everyone willing to get involved.

    You want that too, right? If that’s your goal, supporting rants that boil down to emotionally charged abuse hurled at patriarchal bogeymen is going to do absolutely nothing to get everyone onboard.
    Hear hear for the Socratic Method.

  12. #412
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    296
    "Rather than artificially altering the video games industry to fit a pre-supposed ideal, we can let it organically represent the interests of everyone willing to get involved."

    This. Exactly this. Gaming is still very young and the industry will evolve/diversify organically with the market. All these muppets are just preaching at shadows and getting uselessly angry at a few internet trolls.

  13. #413
    Obscure Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5
    I'd add a couple of points to this debate. I think it's worth teasing out some of the issues here.

    Firstly, I don't think anyone can deny that there's a certain type of chump out there that sees it as fair game to denigrate, threaten and single out any kind of minority group that achieves prominence in any community they see themselves as part of. Let's call this the "Jade Raymond Phenomenon". It fucking sickens me. If I could, I would round up every one of these reprobates and sentence them to an eternity of listening to each others' foul rantings in a segregated internet (we could call it, I dunno, "Xbox Live"). Lots of types of people are the targets of this kind of adolescent bigotry, but women definitely feature prominently. In this, I am with RPS entirely. Whatever can be done to raise standards of conduct in any kind of public or community sphere, I'm all for. Zero tolerance for anything that crosses that boundary where your aim is to hurt others.

    Then, there's the issue of sexism *within* the games industry itself. Here's my perspective. I worked in the games industry as a programmer for a few years. I no longer work in it. The games industry is a software-driven entertainment field, and as such, it shares certain characteristics with other tech fields. There's an enormous gender imbalance, driven by the low numbers of women who pick the subjects and do the degrees required to enter the industry. The gender imbalance within the industry may or may not be causing the industry problems, but it's largely the result of wider social attitudes. It's not that women want to join the industry and are put off by current attitudes; they just don't want to join. Now, how we change *that* fact (skipping past the assumption that it *is* worth changing) is the interesting question, and it entails a lot more than curtailing sexual imagery at GDC (though it's a good start).

    People who work in the industry are, by an large, a politically very liberal bunch.

    I have first hand experience of the burning desire for HR departments to hire women. I have witnessed instances where female candidates were chosen ahead of male candidates because of their gender, when there was nothing to separate them in skill terms. In other words, when the candidates are the same, pick the woman, to try to address some of the imbalance. What bothers me about this practice is that it is a sticking plaster; both ineffectual in dealing with the core issue, and counter productive in that the suspicion of a very slight favouritism now hangs over the process, that causes (understandable, if misplaced) resentment towards the very group we are trying to help.

    Salaries. I don't doubt there's a salary gap. The only way, I think, you can attribute this to sexism is if you define sexism to include the kinds of emergent properties of the intersection of biology, culture and society that means that women are more likely to work part time, more likely to take career breaks to look after children, more likely to be more family-focused (than men), less likely to negotiate on salary etc. Perhaps the word 'sexism' is best avoided; it implies deliberate agency by some malefactor. What we're really talking about here is the result, I think, of cultural inertia. We have a society which expects all women and all men to work, more or less, but our cultural values still lean heavily towards women taking a disproportionate amount of the childcare and housework burden, such that their ability to focus solely on their careers is impaired. It's even baked into the legal system in most countries (contrast maternity and paternity rights). And remember, women themselves contribute to this imperfect status quo as well - most women *want* to be the ones who take parental leave.

    Lastly, to John's specific post. It leans towards being strident, and that tone is challenging to readers who don't quite feel as John does. Hence, I suppose, why we're on page 20-something of this forum thread! He's clearly evoking Krugman-the-polemicist here; aiming both barrels not just at the opposition, but at the self-proclaimed centrists in the 'cult of balance'. I think that position sometimes has merit. Sometimes something is wrong, and the 'two sides to every story' crowd are simply giving validation to some seriously wacky bullshit. But you've got to be careful where you draw the line between ideas that are beyond the pale (see Jade Raymond Phenomena), and ideas that you disagree with.

  14. #414
    Quote Originally Posted by Crea View Post
    I have first hand experience of the burning desire for HR departments to hire women. I have witnessed instances where female candidates were chosen ahead of male candidates because of their gender, when there was nothing to separate them in skill terms. In other words, when the candidates are the same, pick the woman, to try to address some of the imbalance. What bothers me about this practice is that it is a sticking plaster; both ineffectual in dealing with the core issue, and counter productive in that the suspicion of a very slight favouritism now hangs over the process, that causes (understandable, if misplaced) resentment towards the very group we are trying to help.
    Agreed. So-called "positive discrimination" is not productive in addressing inequality. In fact, when I think about it, it gets me sort-of mad. It's cheating. It's cooking the books to cover up the facts. I'm not saying the facts necessarily betray some sort of latent sexism, just that you can't even have that debate if someone is covering up the evidence of gender imbalance because they've already decided it IS evidence of latent sexism.

    Positive discrimination has always struck me as deeply prejudiced. It's more about assuaging the guilt certain people feel about social inequality than it is about fixing it. It's about pretending the problem has been solved (assuming there is a problem to solve) so we can all feel better about it. There isn't sexism in the gaming industry because, look, we've employed the same number of women as men! Worse though, is the value-judgement this betrays on behalf of those resorting to it. The implication is, they don't believe these social groups can get there on their own. They don't believe women really deserve, or are capable of getting, half the jobs in, to use this example, the games industry.

    Equality is about opportunity. Everyone, irrespective of their gender, race or sexual preference, should have the opportunity to pursue whatever career they like. We can't necessarily judge the success of that endeavour by simply looking at the choices people ultimately make.

    EDIT: and more generally, that was an excellent post!
    Last edited by RandomTangent; 08-04-2013 at 12:09 PM.

  15. #415
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Crea View Post
    Salaries. I don't doubt there's a salary gap. The only way, I think, you can attribute this to sexism is if you define sexism to include the kinds of emergent properties of the intersection of biology, culture and society that means that women are more likely to work part time, more likely to take career breaks to look after children, more likely to be more family-focused (than men), less likely to negotiate on salary etc. Perhaps the word 'sexism' is best avoided; it implies deliberate agency by some malefactor. What we're really talking about here is the result, I think, of cultural inertia. We have a society which expects all women and all men to work, more or less, but our cultural values still lean heavily towards women taking a disproportionate amount of the childcare and housework burden, such that their ability to focus solely on their careers is impaired. It's even baked into the legal system in most countries (contrast maternity and paternity rights). And remember, women themselves contribute to this imperfect status quo as well - most women *want* to be the ones who take parental leave.
    A fantastic observation.
    Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil

    Tradition is the tyranny of dead men

    Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi

    Probable Replicant

    *blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me

    Quote Originally Posted by Finicky View Post
    Kadayi will remain the worst poster on the interwebs.
    Gifmaster 4000 2014 Year of the Gif

    He who controls the Doge controls the universe

  16. #416
    Administrator Rossignol's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    232
    Kad, go do something else for a few days or I will ban you.

    Everyone else: civility or I ban.

  17. #417
    That cultural inertia point you make, Crea, touches on a very interesting subject. All things being equal, do we expect men and women to be indistinguishable from one another in terms of their life-choices? No doubt, women are socialised, to some degree, to tend towards the sort of nurturing social roles you talk about. Indeed, men are still socialised, again to some extent, to be providers and protectors. How much of this is about our evolved cultural sensibilities and how much is basic biology? The classic nature vs nurture debate. There are, ultimately, physiological and neurological differences between men and women: men have better visual acuity in the central region, which means they can focus on and track objects more effectively; women have better peripheral vision. This is just an example. The question is, do these biological differences extend to our attitudes, or are these simply cultural, the consequence, perhaps, of our physiological differences played out in the evolution of society over thousands of years?

  18. #418
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    244
    Jim, it's a bit unfair to single out Kad, there are three people continuously shitting up this thread and there's nothing to set Kadayi out as being worse in some way than the others - other than that he's on one side of the debate and the other two are on the RPS/JW side(for lack of a better description).

  19. #419
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by harbinger View Post
    Here's a few more games you shouldn't support and should stay away from:
    Banjo-Kazooie is "sexist" and a boys game: http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6039
    Ico is "sexist": http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6037
    Persona 4 is too "sexualized" and involves "gender stereotyping": http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=5970
    Heavy Rain is "sexist" and "undermines gender equality": http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6005
    Plants vs. Zombies is "sexist" and a boys game: http://lmc.gatech.edu/~cpearce3/lcc4725/blog/?p=6030
    When does it just start being about making everything asexual.

  20. #420
    Obscure Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5
    What we should strive to achieve (whether or not it is possible is another matter), I think, is that as far as is reasonably practical, whatever systems and institutions we have in place in society should allow one to make choices which are potentially *unusual* for your gender (or race, or orientation etc), and for this not to matter. It's not about seeking to wipe away norms, or shift medians; rather, society needs to be as tolerant as it can be of shifts away from the median.

    There will always be counter examples to this; I have a friend who is a male midwife. Most women do not want a male midwife. Many women will quietly put up with having one. A significant minority will refuse and demand another. He accepts this as a consequence of being a statistical outlier, though it frustrates and impedes his training. How can you solve one discrimination (rejecting a midwife based on gender) by imposing another (rejecting the right to see a medical professional of your own gender when dealing with sensitive areas?)? Ultimately, you can't. So people muddle through.

    Counter examples aside, there are some solid, practical things we can do to help. Childcare provision helps women cultivate successful careers, for example. Pool parental leave. Let husbands take some of the strain. Many women will still choose to remain with their children, some husbands will never acquiesce to such a career-impeding move, but many couples would jump at the chance.

    And for all the sound and fury in this debate, there has been almost nothing said about those things which make the games industry a really hostile place for women (and men); its hostility to family life! This debate is framed almost entirely from the viewpoints of right-on young 20-somethings, yet the industry's chronic instability is a huge reason why the it is populated with a kind of itinerant caste of singletons and young men!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •