A Female Perspective On The "Viking" Dev Culture

Earnest Cavalli

New member
Jun 19, 2008
5,352
0
0
A Female Perspective On The "Viking" Dev Culture



Yesterday we brought you Clint Hocking's thoughts on the male-dominated gaming industry. Today we present a female perspective.

To recap: Clint Hocking is the creative director at LucasArts. In a slammed the lack of diversity in games development [http://www.next-gen.biz/opinion/viking-development]. In sum, Hocking believes that the dearth of ladies creating games ensures a field of products that fail to represent the values and opinions of humanity as a whole.

Continuing, Hocking offered steps which he believes will improve the industry's ability to tap into the feminine aspects of the cultural zeitgeist, as well as solid fiscal reasons for publishers to pursue a more gender-diverse workforce.

This morning I received an email response to Hocking's ideas from Quinn Dunki, programmer of One Girl, One Laptop Productions [http://www.appytrucksandskulls.com/], and noted female. In the interest of gender equality and generating page views via controversy, we present her counterpoint:

I like the sentiment, but framing the debate this way is an aspect of the problem. The only way women are going to be comfortable in the industry is knowing that people don't care about gender. Really the worst compliment you can hear in this business is when someone says, "She's just like one of the guys." That sets the male standard as the ideal. Making an issue of gender IS the issue. We need to get past that. Strive to be the pure meritocracy that most people agree we should have. If you're a man in a power position, that means keeping a critical eye on your own internal biases, and make extra effort to be fair.

This is bigger than an industry problem. The outreach needs to go down to the middle school levels. That's where the research shows girls stop studying math and science due to pressures from peers and other sources. The only difference between me and my math-inclined, game-loving friend who does advanced needlepoint instead of engineering is that she succumbed to the peer pressure. Fix this problem, and everything else will come out in the wash in a generation or two.

In the meantime, the best thing we can do is provide role models. If you're a female engineer or scientist, put yourself out there. Give young girls someone they can look at and say, "hey, I can do that too!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the habit of publishing opinions that I don't directly create myself, but I can't really fault Dunki's logic here. "Pure meritocracy" should be the key buzzword for every gaming industry human resources department until the heat death of the universe.

Though I agree with her, I don't know that Dunki is giving an appropriately vast scope to the root problem. Assigning "appropriate" roles to either gender is a widespread phenomenon in every aspect of society. Lessening this effect is a noble goal we should all strive for, but I'm not entirely sure that it can be eradicated without completely dismantling widely held cultural mores.

Of course, that's assuming it isn't some ingrained biological thing left over from the days when both genders lived in constant fear of disembowelment by cold, calculating velociraptors.

Permalink
 

new_age_reject

Lives in dactylic hexameter.
Dec 28, 2008
1,160
0
0
I like the sentiment, but framing the debate this way is an aspect of the problem. The only way women are going to be comfortable in the industry is knowing that people don't care about gender. Really the worst compliment you can hear in this business is when someone says, "She's just like one of the guys." That sets the male standard as the ideal. Making an issue of gender IS the issue. We need to get past that. Strive to be the pure meritocracy that most people agree we should have. If you're a man in a power position, that means keeping a critical eye on your own internal biases, and make extra effort to be fair.
This paragraph is exactly how I felt when I read this article.
 

DazBurger

New member
May 22, 2009
1,339
0
0
Soo... She is not like the other guys?

She is like... The other fellers? No... Buddies? Negative...

The other... Ummm... Ehhh... Things?

She is fully identical to my additional coworkers, in all terms and manners (except reproductive organs).
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
"Pure Meritocracy" should be the key buzzword for *every* HR department in *every* industry *everywhere*.
 

Veloxe

New member
Oct 5, 2010
491
0
0
DazBurger said:
Soo... She is not like the other guys?

She is like... The other fellers? No... Buddies? Negative...

The other... Ummm... Ehhh... Things?

She is fully identical to my additional coworkers, in all terms and manners (except reproductive organs).
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Veloxe said:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).
You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.
 

Simeon Ivanov

New member
Jun 2, 2011
824
0
0
I don't care. As long as the game is good it's developer can have anything in his/her/it's pants.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
I think the whole notion of trying to push women into industries because we decided that there aren't enough of them around is counterproductive. That goes for when ?we? is a bunch of guys who are tried of the sausage fest or if it?s a bunch of women butthurt that other women are doing what *they* want to do instead of what ?we? want them to do.

I mean, how often do women get together and say "There aren't enough straight men in the fashion indusrty! What do we need to do to drag more in?"
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Agayek said:
Veloxe said:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).
You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.
You're missing the point: The implication is that a woman being "one of us" is abnormal. It's kind of like saying "You did a good job for a woman!" or "You're a credit to your race!". You would only ever say that somebody is "like one of the guys" if there was the natural expectation that she *wasn't* like one of the guys.
 

Veloxe

New member
Oct 5, 2010
491
0
0
Agayek said:
Veloxe said:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).
You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.
Ya, I can understand where she is coming from in her interpretation of the language but it does seem a little overboard to look for insult in what is supposed to be acceptance. Unfortunately I think even if we went with a gender neutral term I don't think it would solve the issue. Like, if they instead said, "You're one of us now!" (or whatever) if it's said by a group of Men (or Women) to one of the opposite sex you could still gleam the same subtext from it if you were looking for it.

I think part of the issue comes from how one views themselves. Like the thought that "I don't want to be one of the guys, I am a women." then obviously an issue will arise because they are concerned with their own sex and how it sets them apart from others. That idea isn't necessarily wrong since the sexes are different (in more ways then just reproduction) but I think the ability to push passed ones own sex and just deal with it is important, regardless of which side of the gender fence you occupy. Obviously not if it's a major issue involving discrimination but for something like "Being one of the guys" it's a good skill to have.
 

Veloxe

New member
Oct 5, 2010
491
0
0
BloodSquirrel said:
Agayek said:
Veloxe said:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).
You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.
You're missing the point: The implication is that a woman being "one of us" is abnormal. It's kind of like saying "You did a good job for a woman!" or "You're a credit to your race!". You would only ever say that somebody is "like one of the guys" if there was the natural expectation that she *wasn't* like one of the guys.
I would disagree. I have used the "like one of the guys" saying when talking about guys before. I'm not saying that before we accepted them they weren't male. "Guys" in this sense isn't about the junk that's between your legs, it's about "the group". If you wanted to be perfectly fair you'd say "She's a part of the group!" or something to that effect. Yes, you can infer the "one of the guys" idea as saying all the things you mentioned, but that's not the intent. Intent is very important.

Is it a perfectly ideal saying for the current age? No. But it's also not used to try and put down people or somehow state that women are inferior until accepted. It's used to say someone is part of the group, that's the intent.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
BloodSquirrel said:
You're missing the point: The implication is that a woman being "one of us" is abnormal. It's kind of like saying "You did a good job for a woman!" or "You're a credit to your race!". You would only ever say that somebody is "like one of the guys" if there was the natural expectation that she *wasn't* like one of the guys.
Except there is a natural expectation. The thing you're not seeing is that such an expectation is applied to everyone, not just women. Groups form, especially in instances of collaboration. As such, there are people outside of those groups. If an outsider wants to join, they must be accepted, and thus become "one of the guys". No one starts off as part of the group, they must join it.

There's no inherent negative implications that someone is "one of the guys". All it says is that the person is part of the group. Gender is irrelevant in the matter.
 

Seventh Actuality

New member
Apr 23, 2010
551
0
0
I think when she made that remark about one of the guys, she was referring more to the attitude than the actual phrase being offensive. So you can all stop arguing about the least relevant part of the interview now. ;)

BloodSquirrel said:
I think the whole notion of trying to push women into industries because we decided that there aren't enough of them around is counterproductive. That goes for when "we" is a bunch of guys who are tried of the sausage fest or if it's a bunch of women butthurt that other women are doing what *they* want to do instead of what "we" want them to do.
Indeed, but it depends on how you see the problem. If it's just the gender ratio that pisses you off, trying to fix it by shoehorning men/women in is kind of pointless. The worry is more that the poor gender ratio is a result of men/women finding it hard to get into that area or being actively discouraged from pursuing an interest - so there just "not being enough women" is a symptom, not the disease.
 

Thamian

New member
Sep 3, 2008
143
0
0
Right, here's my two penneth:

Ok I've re-written and started from scratch multiple times now so I'm not going to try to gloriously articulate my full opinion.

However, I agree with both Cavalli and Dunki. The problem is society as a whole, and the assumption of certain traits and roles as being good for one gender while being not so good for the other.

Admitedly, I think that there maybe something to the concept of atleast some of it being left over from our instinctive imperatives. Gods alone know that when I for one am in a social situation, I treat the fairer sex completely differently from when I'm at work: socially, with my female friends, my instincts tell me to help them or protect them, or seduce the pants off them (or of course, all three). Then again, at work, with my female colleagues/subordinates (when I'm crew boss) (even when they are the same people incidentally), I'll treat them solely on the grounds of their abilities to do the job (that may admitedly be attributable to differences in discipline, mindset, or just alcohol levels).
 

MasterV

New member
Aug 9, 2010
301
0
0
Hot damn this is one of the best cases of "missing the point entirely" by this lady. Who-wee...
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
Not one day after Hocking says one of the dumbest, most condescending things I've ever heard and already there's another article slamming him for it. Justice!
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Veloxe said:
I would disagree. I have used the "like one of the guys" saying when talking about guys before.
Okay- why were they "like one of the guys" instead of "one of the guys"?

"She's part of the group" still has the same problem- the fact that it's being stated as a compliment means that it wasn't considered a given in the first place. Ever heard the phrase "Damning with faint praise"?
 

Musashi inc

New member
Mar 30, 2011
13
0
0
BloodSquirrel said:
I mean, how often do women get together and say "There aren't enough straight men in the fashion indusrty! What do we need to do to drag more in?"
To be fair, I'm not sure than most straight men would NEED to be "dragged" into the fashion industry. Unless of course actual drag activities would ensue. But on topic, it would probably be rather helpful for getting some healthy diversity in the gaming industry if more female human beings were actually encouraged to get into the fields covered by aforementioned industry. Coding, graphical design,writing, promotion as well as art. You get the idea.