Brenda Romero Resigns IGDA Post Over GDC Party - UPDATED

[Baresark]

Do a little research.

1. The resignation was symbolic. She had *three days* left in her voluntary position. This wasn't her throwing a shitfit and tossing her career away. She's far from the only one, as well. A number of people have stated that they've canceled future association with the company in question.

2. Yetizen was the co-sponsor of the event with the GDC. And at a conference where major panels were held about women in game development, they decided that topless dancers were the way to go. On the arm of the CEO no less. And yes, body-paint from the waist up is topless.

She wasn't the one who had 3 days left. If you read the article Darius Kazemi had 3 days left and quit early. Also, I couldn't find any reference to actual topless girls anywhere, so I would be interested in your source on that.

 

[Baresark]

I definitely support Ms. Romero and everyone who protested against that stint, but I dread the inevitable backlash this will evoke. I can practically smell the anti-feminism already rising in this thread in a huge uproar of pure, undiluted rage.

I also love how people can't do a thing to protest what they fight against. They can't even quit their jobs in protest, something that harms nobody but themselves (and is their prerogative), without people jumping at their throats.

Feminism can never, ever do anything right. Ever.

I think all movements that favor one gender, race, sexuality, etc., should all be scrutinized. Feminism in popular culture can only ever be regarded as exclusively good and cannot have shortcomings? Feminism has had negative effects on the world as we know it too. For instance, it completely stifled any meaningful scientific discussion about the differences of men and women, differences which are substantial (such as immense psychological differences), and I'm not just talking about reproductive organs. All under some misguided belief that men and women must be equal by all measures. It has certainly accomplished positive things, but we can't just ignore potential damage that can be caused by it, though by and large, popular culture does just that.

 

[cookyy2k]

snip...
I'm not trying to discuss whether being professional 100% of the time is good or bad. Personally I'm not professional and would hate any job that requires me to be.

For the record I'm in a professional job and went to my first conference with work last October. On the penultimate evening we had the party/social event. We all required our name badges to get in/access the bar which had our names and company on them. I was with the 100% professional all the time mind set, after all I was representing my company. I get nicely dressed up for it and decided to just have the one followed by soft drinks. When I arrived I got talking to a couple of guys from a company we work with that I'd met the day before, good networking, that night descended into the craziest party I have ever seen, and that includes anything university could throw at me. I couldn't believe how fast that escalated. So I suppose from my limited experience I'd say those who have to be professional all day every day are the ones who party the hardest given the chance. You'd think a bar with ~250 physicists in it would be relatively quiet and well behaved, but nope, it was insane.

OT: clearly those women shouldn't be allowed to work as entertainers, that job doesn't meet the feminist stamp of approval, shame on everyone who thinks a woman is capable of deciding for herself what she want to do. Don't you people know all women outside of the house should wear burqas otherwise they're setting women back a million billion years and they'll never get equality that way[/sarchasm]

 

[Darken12]

I think all movements that favor one gender, race, sexuality, etc., should all be scrutinized. Feminism in popular culture can only ever be regarded as exclusively good and cannot have shortcomings? Feminism has had negative effects on the world as we know it too. For instance, it completely stifled any meaningful scientific discussion about the differences of men and women, differences which are substantial (such as immense psychological differences), and I'm not just talking about reproductive organs. All under some misguided belief that men and women must be equal by all measures. It has certainly accomplished positive things, but we can't just ignore potential damage that can be caused by it, though by and large, popular culture does just that.

This is not scrutiny. This is constant knee-jerk anger. Scrutiny is perfectly fine. Spewing a fountain of vitriol any time a feminist (or a woman) protests something in the industry she disagrees with, is not scrutiny.

Also, there is a difference between "impermanent" or "changeable" biological differences and "intrinsic" or "unchangeable" biological differences, as anyone with a knowledge of biology can attest to. Feminism, in general, has never tried to stifle discussion on the former, whereas the latter have been time and again used to support gender-based oppression. On the contrary, many a feminist has supported and conducted scientific studies that prove that many, if not most, of the biological differences between the sexes that used to be considered unchangeable are, in fact, changeable, should we modify gender constructs and how we raise children.

Of course, I don't need to explain how all aspects of psychology fall under the "changeable" tag.

 

[Baresark]

I think all movements that favor one gender, race, sexuality, etc., should all be scrutinized. Feminism in popular culture can only ever be regarded as exclusively good and cannot have shortcomings? Feminism has had negative effects on the world as we know it too. For instance, it completely stifled any meaningful scientific discussion about the differences of men and women, differences which are substantial (such as immense psychological differences), and I'm not just talking about reproductive organs. All under some misguided belief that men and women must be equal by all measures. It has certainly accomplished positive things, but we can't just ignore potential damage that can be caused by it, though by and large, popular culture does just that.

This is not scrutiny. This is constant knee-jerk anger. Scrutiny is perfectly fine. Spewing a fountain of vitriol any time a feminist (or a woman) protests something in the industry she disagrees with, is not scrutiny.

Also, there is a difference between "impermanent" or "changeable" biological differences and "intrinsic" or "unchangeable" biological differences, as anyone with a knowledge of biology can attest to. Feminism, in general, has never tried to stifle discussion on the former, whereas the latter have been time and again used to support gender-based oppression. On the contrary, many a feminist has supported and conducted scientific studies that prove that many, if not most, of the biological differences between the sexes that used to be considered unchangeable are, in fact, changeable, should we modify gender constructs and how we raise children.

Of course, I don't need to explain how all aspects of psychology fall under the "changeable" tag.

I can't find any references anywhere to what you are speaking. What journal did you read these things in? Or website, or biology text book? I can't find any reference to traits that were once considered unchangeable that are now changeable. I would like to hear some examples if it's possible.

In my experience, the discussion between the absolute differences is not informed by modern science at all. The only leveraged strictly male trait that has been leveled against women that I can think of, is that men tend to be overwhelmingly stronger than women, which is not changeable. This data is of course statistical. But beyond that, the other traits such as leadership, general intelligence, professional drive, etc., were never actually unchangeable. That is literally just common sense, even if they were in complete denial of it a few generations ago.

As far as the social construct argument goes, it's my opinion that it's basically a non starter for the topic. It's an interesting topic no doubt, but now we are talking about the one thing that cannot be changed. People assert that if we make sweeping changes to the way the different genders are raised we can change seeming male and female traits. But we have only ever witnessed this on singular scale, never on large scale.

For fun and to lighten the conversation, it's feeling a bit heavy:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QI7S7mKYHhY

This would be awesome but it's been a while since I embedded a video and I can't remember how to do it.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

It is sad to see the industry lose a female voice while perpetuating the idea that women have no place in the industry because of delicate sensibilities and should run the minute they feel threatened.

Ladies, sex sells. It goes two ways, too. Look at Magic Mike, 50 Shades of Grey.

But instead of looking at stuff like this (which honestly, wasn't very offensive) and laughing, it's "you've made me feel threatened. I'm going to run away." Had she remained, she could have spoken out and used her position to vocalize on the issue.

Women will not be taken seriously as long as we continue to run away anytime we think our "fragile" egos are being threatened. How can we expect to be treated equally when we are constantly announcing "Excuse me, I'm a woman. As long as I am around you must ensure that nothing is done or shown that I could possibly find offensive. If you do, I will have to leave and complain loudly that you are all sexist."? It won't happen.

I have by and large been treated with respect while gaming. Why? Because i didn't expect special treatment. Because I am comfortable enough to enjoy the female form, and my self esteem isn't tied to pixels, or dancing girls at a party.

 

[Darken12]

I can't find any references anywhere to what you are speaking. What journal did you read these things in? Or website, or biology text book? I can't find any reference to traits that were once considered unchangeable that are now changeable. I would like to hear some examples if it's possible.

I already did that in the Anita Sarkeesian thread. I spent hours looking for and citing studies and books showing GH levels in children raising dramatically when children exercised, showing the effects of oestrogen in GH levels, showing different explanations why women end up with lower physical strength than men by the time they reach adulthood, and so on. You can find the effects of the growth hormone in any biology or endocrinology book. The more avant-garde studies that deal specific with gender are on the internet, I have found many. You will forgive me if I don't feel like wasting my time on people who will likely not be convinced and are only asking me to cite sources just because they feel confident I cannot find them. Nothing personal, I'm just very familiar with the way these discussions go and I don't feel like wasting my time again.

I recommend the book called "The Frailty Myth" as a good compilation of science-based theories and speculation on what women could achieve if we raised girls differently.

In my experience, the discussion between the absolute differences is not informed by modern science at all. The only leveraged strictly male trait that has been leveled against women that I can think of, is that men tend to be overwhelmingly stronger than women, which is not changeable. This data is of course statistical. But beyond that, the other traits such as leadership, general intelligence, professional drive, etc., were never actually unchangeable. That is literally just common sense, even if they were in complete denial of it a few generations ago.

Yes, physical strength is changeable. See above as to why I am not going to bother citing sources again. The short of it is that growth hormone affects muscle mass and development, and since it is greatly stimulated by oestrogen, it could give women a competitive edge against the effects testosterone has in muscle mass, especially if women are encouraged to engage in intense, frequent and vigorous exercise during childhood, puberty and adulthood.

The reason why some discussion is not considered productive or acceptable by feminism is because it tends to slide very easily into the justification of gender oppression. It starts with "men are unchangeably stronger than women" and ends up in "...and that's why women need to stay in the kitchen and let men rule the world."

As far as the social construct argument goes, it's my opinion that it's basically a non starter for the topic. It's an interesting topic no doubt, but now we are talking about the one thing that cannot be changed. People assert that if we make sweeping changes to the way the different genders are raised we can change seeming male and female traits. But we have only ever witnessed this on singular scale, never on large scale.

Technically, we see it constantly in different cultures and comparing our present to our past. As the way we raised children changed due to geography and time, so have the conceptions of masculinity and femininity.

The problem is, of course, getting society to change on purpose and not as a reaction.

For fun and to lighten the conversation, it's feeling a bit heavy:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QI7S7mKYHhY

This would be awesome but it's been a while since I embedded a video and I can't remember how to do it.

As someone who delights in seeing the destruction or deconstruction of gender roles, I cannot thank you enough for that video. It instantly brightened my day.

 

[dthree]

Darius Kazemi should have spoken out before the party; he already had reservations about YetiZen since they did the same thing [http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/NoahFalstein/20120313/165635/The_Yetizen_Party.php] the year before!


I get why Romero resigned the chair. If you are the leading expert in the field of women in gaming, you HAVE to make a statement when there is a visible backlash to something your organization did. For her, the statement was to no longer support that organization. I think the burden is on the IDGA to woo her back, they need her more than she needs them.

Asked about reconciling with Romero and the other people who have resigned or distanced themselves from the IGDA, Edwards (IDGA Executive Director) said, "We are open to it. We do need them now more than ever." (source) [http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/28/4158096/igda-apologizes-gdc-party]

One more thing: Romero didn't quit her day job, chair of a professional association SIG is a VOLUNTEER position.

 

[GAunderrated]

It is sad to see the industry lose a female voice while perpetuating the idea that women have no place in the industry because of delicate sensibilities and should run the minute they feel threatened.

Ladies, sex sells. It goes two ways, too. Look at Magic Mike, 50 Shades of Grey.

But instead of looking at stuff like this (which honestly, wasn't very offensive) and laughing, it's "you've made me feel threatened. I'm going to run away." Had she remained, she could have spoken out and used her position to vocalize on the issue.

Women will not be taken seriously as long as we continue to run away anytime we think our "fragile" egos are being threatened. How can we expect to be treated equally when we are constantly announcing "Excuse me, I'm a woman. As long as I am around you must ensure that nothing is done or shown that I could possibly find offensive. If you do, I will have to leave and complain loudly that you are all sexist."? It won't happen.

I have by and large been treated with respect while gaming. Why? Because i didn't expect special treatment. Because I am comfortable enough to enjoy the female form, and my self esteem isn't tied to pixels, or dancing girls at a party.

Dear god that was a beautiful post. If I ever saw you at a party I'd buy you a drink just for that awesome post. I wish more women shared your view.

 

[Baresark]

I can't find any references anywhere to what you are speaking. What journal did you read these things in? Or website, or biology text book? I can't find any reference to traits that were once considered unchangeable that are now changeable. I would like to hear some examples if it's possible.

I already did that in the Anita Sarkeesian thread. I spent hours looking for and citing studies and books showing GH levels in children raising dramatically when children exercised, showing the effects of oestrogen in GH levels, showing different explanations why women end up with lower physical strength than men by the time they reach adulthood, and so on. You can find the effects of the growth hormone in any biology or endocrinology book. The more avant-garde studies that deal specific with gender are on the internet, I have found many. You will forgive me if I don't feel like wasting my time on people who will likely not be convinced and are only asking me to cite sources just because they feel confident I cannot find them. Nothing personal, I'm just very familiar with the way these discussions go and I don't feel like wasting my time again.

I recommend the book called "The Frailty Myth" as a good compilation of science-based theories and speculation on what women could achieve if we raised girls differently.

In my experience, the discussion between the absolute differences is not informed by modern science at all. The only leveraged strictly male trait that has been leveled against women that I can think of, is that men tend to be overwhelmingly stronger than women, which is not changeable. This data is of course statistical. But beyond that, the other traits such as leadership, general intelligence, professional drive, etc., were never actually unchangeable. That is literally just common sense, even if they were in complete denial of it a few generations ago.

Yes, physical strength is changeable. See above as to why I am not going to bother citing sources again. The short of it is that growth hormone affects muscle mass and development, and since it is greatly stimulated by oestrogen, it could give women a competitive edge against the effects testosterone has in muscle mass, especially if women are encouraged to engage in intense, frequent and vigorous exercise during childhood, puberty and adulthood.

The reason why some discussion is not considered productive or acceptable by feminism is because it tends to slide very easily into the justification of gender oppression. It starts with "men are unchangeably stronger than women" and ends up in "...and that's why women need to stay in the kitchen and let men rule the world."

As far as the social construct argument goes, it's my opinion that it's basically a non starter for the topic. It's an interesting topic no doubt, but now we are talking about the one thing that cannot be changed. People assert that if we make sweeping changes to the way the different genders are raised we can change seeming male and female traits. But we have only ever witnessed this on singular scale, never on large scale.

Technically, we see it constantly in different cultures and comparing our present to our past. As the way we raised children changed due to geography and time, so have the conceptions of masculinity and femininity.

The problem is, of course, getting society to change on purpose and not as a reaction.

For fun and to lighten the conversation, it's feeling a bit heavy:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QI7S7mKYHhY

This would be awesome but it's been a while since I embedded a video and I can't remember how to do it.

As someone who delights in seeing the destruction or deconstruction of gender roles, I cannot thank you enough for that video. It instantly brightened my day.

That is fine if you don't want to cite a bunch of stuff. I'm not interested in denying any actual scientific work that has been done which defends your point of view. It's easy to sit there and say something isn't scientific enough or the study is conducted with large enough test groups, I see that on here all the time. And while it should always be scrutinized, I doubt anyone around here is qualified enough to deny the results of any scientific studies.

I think your confusing physical strength growth capabilities with that physical trait being changeable. There is no absolute strength level built into men and women that is different. That is true, but the inhibiting factor is the very limited level of testosterone that women have. The average 20 year old males body produces 6-8 mg daily, while their female counterpart only get .5 mg of production daily. Estrogen factors can increase the anabolic effects of testosterone, that is why people who insist on using steroids have stopped using anti-estrogen inhibitors (some have anyway), because they get better growth out of the cycle with it being present. Physical activity in young girls such as playing an intense sport can of course increase lean muscle mass in their developing body, but I have never seen any anecdotal evidence of them being as strong as their male counterparts. Estrogen is an essential part of the process for the bodies creation of GH and IGF-1, which is no doubt the thinking that is pursued here. But it's the way GH/IGF-1 and
and testosterone interact that makes protein synthesis greatly in increased in men as they work synergistically. That brings us back to the low levels of testosterone that women naturally have, which is the inhibiting factor in muscle density and growth. Another inhibiting factor is skeletal in nature. Men naturally have larger, thicker, denser bone (statistically again, just to be clear, nothing is absolute) and a larger frame. This lends itself to actually being physically stronger. That is why some of the strongest men in the world are all really really large and not small, so far as frame is concerned.

I wouldn't mind women and men being more even on the strength plain at all, to be honest. I have been training my girlfriend at the gym in strength training and would love to see her get more strength gains just so she is a bit happier with herself (she shouldn't be unhappy with herself ever IMO, but her gains are nowhere near as fast as my own and she really beats herself up). But having been around a lot of athletic women in my life, I have never seen them as strong as a their male counterparts, even when being athletic from an early age, and even when compared the average non athletic guy.

I feel like this needs to be said though, being physically stronger does not make men better. That is one thing I always hated about these debates is that they seem to take on that tone and it honestly makes me uncomfortable. I trained in Jeet Kun Do for 12 years and our schools main teacher was a woman. She was awesome, super intense, she had grown up playing soccer harder than any guy I have ever known. But even when she was fighting and weight training, she was never as strong as me, even when I walked off the street as an incredibly low self esteemed fat kid who had a natural aversion to sweating. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of her aggression though, that would be terrible. Even with less dense muscle than myself, she could still hit like a dump truck, but that isn't a factor of strength but body mechanics. I also trained with some female boxers that hit like that.

I'm definitely gonna check out that book you mentioned. It seems interesting after looking it over on Amazon. I haven't read it, but I feel like the title is a bit misleading. I don't think women are frail as a general rule. They can be, but so can men. I wouldn't even call women frail as compared to men, but I have never seen any compelling evidence that women can be as physically strong as men. I wouldn't call them frail just because, statistically, even athletic women are not stronger than men.

I have really enjoyed this discussion, if anything all of this talk lends itself to Epigenetics. Which probably my favorite field in modern biology. A lot of the tenets of that coincide with the levels of changeability in a human being. It has lead to some intense debates with some athlete trainers I know. Specifically the discussion at one point where he argued that a certain football player was genetically gifted in such a way that guys like us couldn't compare. I still stick by my calling bullshit on that as it totally denies the massive amounts of hard work they put into getting where they are at, and it also totally ignores factors such as their upbringing and athletic careers leading up to the time they are drafted. So little is known about their pre-college athletic days usually that it cannot be stated that they were "born to play the game". Likewise, it cannot be stated truthfully that one gender is completely better than the other in all ways, based simply on the presence of a different chromosome.

Bah, I'm rambling, off to bed for me.

 

[Darken12]

That is fine if you don't want to cite a bunch of stuff. I'm not interested in denying any actual scientific work that has been done which defends your point of view. It's easy to sit there and say something isn't scientific enough or the study is conducted with large enough test groups, I see that on here all the time. And while it should always be scrutinized, I doubt anyone around here is qualified enough to deny the results of any scientific studies.

Tried to find the post I made in the Anita thread, but apparently it's no longer on my profile. Maybe the thread got deleted.

I think your confusing physical strength growth capabilities with that physical trait being changeable. There is no absolute strength level built into men and women that is different. That is true, but the inhibiting factor is the very limited level of testosterone that women have. The average 20 year old males body produces 6-8 mg daily, while their female counterpart only get .5 mg of production daily. Estrogen factors can increase the anabolic effects of testosterone, that is why people who insist on using steroids have stopped using anti-estrogen inhibitors (some have anyway), because they get better growth out of the cycle with it being present. Physical activity in young girls such as playing an intense sport can of course increase lean muscle mass in their developing body, but I have never seen any anecdotal evidence of them being as strong as their male counterparts. Estrogen is an essential part of the process for the bodies creation of GH and IGF-1, which is no doubt the thinking that is pursued here. But it's the way GH/IGF-1 and
and testosterone interact that makes protein synthesis greatly in increased in men as they work synergistically. That brings us back to the low levels of testosterone that women naturally have, which is the inhibiting factor in muscle density and growth. Another inhibiting factor is skeletal in nature. Men naturally have larger, thicker, denser bone (statistically again, just to be clear, nothing is absolute) and a larger frame. This lends itself to actually being physically stronger. That is why some of the strongest men in the world are all really really large and not small, so far as frame is concerned.

Actually, what you're saying about the GH effects is exactly my point. GH levels are greatly affected by exercise during childhood, and children who have short statures and small frames are almost always found to have abnormally low GH levels. This could easily be happening to women on a cultural basis (as I don't need to explain to you how boys are encouraged to exercise more frequently and intensely than girls, and to engage in certain kinds of exercise that girls are discouraged from engaging in), and therefore it is changeable. There is also the beauty standard, where men are encouraged to develop muscle mass while women are encouraged to be thin or curvaceous (which means having fat in specific parts of the body) but never muscled. It's a systemic thing. It's affected by everything from the way we dress girls (skirts and dresses are not conducive to vigorous or strenuous exercise), to the way we socialise them (encouraging girls to be demure and delicate while encouraging boys to be competitive and aggressive), to the type and frequency of exercise we allow them, to the nutrition we encourage in them (we stereotype female nutrition as vegetables and fruits, and male nutrition as meat). It's a really deep and complex issue with a lot of ramifications and room for speculation.

I wouldn't mind women and men being more even on the strength plain at all, to be honest. I have been training my girlfriend at the gym in strength training and would love to see her get more strength gains just so she is a bit happier with herself (she shouldn't be unhappy with herself ever IMO, but her gains are nowhere near as fast as my own and she really beats herself up). But having been around a lot of athletic women in my life, I have never seen them as strong as a their male counterparts, even when being athletic from an early age, and even when compared the average non athletic guy.

I feel like this needs to be said though, being physically stronger does not make men better. That is one thing I always hated about these debates is that they seem to take on that tone and it honestly makes me uncomfortable. I trained in Jeet Kun Do for 12 years and our schools main teacher was a woman. She was awesome, super intense, she had grown up playing soccer harder than any guy I have ever known. But even when she was fighting and weight training, she was never as strong as me, even when I walked off the street as an incredibly low self esteemed fat kid who had a natural aversion to sweating. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of her aggression though, that would be terrible. Even with less dense muscle than myself, she could still hit like a dump truck, but that isn't a factor of strength but body mechanics. I also trained with some female boxers that hit like that.

That's not really the issue. The issue is that perpetuating the whole "different but equal" mindset will continue the perpetuation of gender oppression. It doesn't matter if women are exactly as capable of gunning down an aggressor as a man, the idea that men are inescapably and unchangeably stronger than women is in itself oppressive, regardless of whether that has any actual effect on our daily lives or not. It fuels age-old sexism that will flat-out not die until men and women are equal in everything but sexual organs.

I'm definitely gonna check out that book you mentioned. It seems interesting after looking it over on Amazon. I haven't read it, but I feel like the title is a bit misleading. I don't think women are frail as a general rule. They can be, but so can men. I wouldn't even call women frail as compared to men, but I have never seen any compelling evidence that women can be as physically strong as men. I wouldn't call them frail just because, statistically, even athletic women are not stronger than men.

There's a reason Anita Sarkeesian tackled the damsel in distress trope: it's exceedingly common in human history, and it is perpetuated on the sexist notion that women are inherently weaker and frailer than men. And that's just one example of the danger that the notion of female weakness poses to equality.

The reason you have not seen any evidence is because we are still raising girls in ways that predispose them to reach adulthood with a strong disadvantage in terms of physical strength. Saying "that's how it is now and how it has been before" does not mean "and that's how it will always be."

I have really enjoyed this discussion, if anything all of this talk lends itself to Epigenetics. Which probably my favorite field in modern biology. A lot of the tenets of that coincide with the levels of changeability in a human being. It has lead to some intense debates with some athlete trainers I know. Specifically the discussion at one point where he argued that a certain football player was genetically gifted in such a way that guys like us couldn't compare. I still stick by my calling bullshit on that as it totally denies the massive amounts of hard work they put into getting where they are at, and it also totally ignores factors such as their upbringing and athletic careers leading up to the time they are drafted. So little is known about their pre-college athletic days usually that it cannot be stated that they were "born to play the game". Likewise, it cannot be stated truthfully that one gender is completely better than the other in all ways, based simply on the presence of a different chromosome.

Bah, I'm rambling, off to bed for me.

Epigenetics is an interesting field and something many feminists promote research in, for the potential of changeability you're mentioning. And yes, that is exactly what the feminist angle is: that by changing the environment and cultural behaviours, you can not only change the epigenetic potential of the individual, but also change the actual genome of their descendents, as it has happened many times in history with different cultures developing different genetic polymorphisms and specific genetic mutations as a consequence of a change in their environment or cultural behaviours.

 

[Smeatza]

Did the parents of these people never teach them that throwing a tantrum is not a good way to get what you want?
I also wonder if they realise just how extreme their political views are.
They're a couple of steps away from being puritans.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

I think the most convenient solution to this problem is to simply ban women from these events, they seem to be the common denominator in all these scandals.
All this fake feminism is hurting the movement and encourages censorship, it all reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the stone-cutters, we're just going to have to make a "no Homers" event that keeps these killjoys out.

 

[Legion]

*snip*

Is it definitely confirmed that they were hired dancers? The articles seem to imply it, but I haven't seen any outright say it.

Considering that nobody has written it as a fact, a lot of people are assuming they were simply normal party goers who happened to be wearing revealing outfits.

...who would go to an industry party in an outfit like that? Yes, they were hired dancers. The IGDA would not have apologized if they were just ordinary party goers.

*shrugs* I have never been to an industry party, I wouldn't know how they differ from a regular party. It looks (from the picture) to be held in some kind of nightclub, so that kind of attire doesn't really stand out from that kind of place.

As for the apology, I replied before seeing that. In the apology it mentions they were performers, so that should clear it up for most people (and means I can remove my edit).

 

[ASnogarD]

I think the most convenient solution to this problem is to simply ban women from these events, they seem to be the common denominator in all these scandals.
All this fake feminism is hurting the movement and encourages censorship, it all reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the stone-cutters, we're just going to have to make a "no Homers" event that keeps these killjoys out.

That is so dumb I'm surprised you managed to type it without your fingers breaking in protest.
Seriously.

The industry isn't a frat house. It will not be a boys club forever.

You guys are going to wear your knees out with all this knee-jerking.

EDIT: I thought `someone typing something like that must be just a kid` and then I saw your birthdate on your profile. Woooooow.

Lol, relax that was obviously sarcasm on the part of the poster you quoted.

Like d-uh lets avoid being sexists by banning da gurls boss ... level of sarcasm.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

I think the most convenient solution to this problem is to simply ban women from these events, they seem to be the common denominator in all these scandals.
All this fake feminism is hurting the movement and encourages censorship, it all reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the stone-cutters, we're just going to have to make a "no Homers" event that keeps these killjoys out.

That is so dumb I'm surprised you managed to type it without your fingers breaking in protest.
Seriously.

The industry isn't a frat house. It will not be a boys club forever.

You guys are going to wear your knees out with all this knee-jerking.

EDIT: I thought `someone typing something like that must be just a kid` and then I saw your birthdate on your profile. Woooooow.

Game development has NEVER been and won't ever be a "boys club" you do a great disservice by ignoring the women who have been a part of the industry since its inception.
This party wasn't "the industry" and plenty of women present had no problem with the dancers, the lady who objected could have just left, if Brenda Romero wasn't required to be present neither was she.
Female sexuality is nothing to be afraid of, why is a scantily clad woman so offensive ?
Beside that, why should those female dancers not be allowed to be at a party ?
Do you feel women shouldn't be allowed to pursue the career of their choice ?
Should we deny them work because it might offend ONE PERSON ?

 

[Phasmal]

I think the most convenient solution to this problem is to simply ban women from these events, they seem to be the common denominator in all these scandals.
All this fake feminism is hurting the movement and encourages censorship, it all reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the stone-cutters, we're just going to have to make a "no Homers" event that keeps these killjoys out.

That is so dumb I'm surprised you managed to type it without your fingers breaking in protest.
Seriously.

The industry isn't a frat house. It will not be a boys club forever.

You guys are going to wear your knees out with all this knee-jerking.

EDIT: I thought `someone typing something like that must be just a kid` and then I saw your birthdate on your profile. Woooooow.

Lol, relax that was obviously sarcasm on the part of the poster you quoted.

Like d-uh lets avoid being sexists by banning da gurls boss ... level of sarcasm.

It's getting to the point where the stupid people and the people mocking the stupid by trying to sound extremely stupid sound too similar.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

I get that treating women as objects are a bad thing, but it seems silly to get angry at the presence of sexy women. It sounds like they were dancers or stilt walkers. Last time I checked entertainers usually like to make themselves attractive.

If the people at the party were being crude and doing inappropriate things then I'd understand but if we're just angry at the appearance of attractive entertainers we're fostering the seeds of an anger that leads to the burning of books.

Is the Venus de Milo art or just some topless skank? The difference lies not in the statue, but in how we view her.

 

[Phasmal]

Game development has NEVER been and won't ever be a "boys club" you do a great disservice by ignoring the women who have been a part of the industry since its inception.
This party wasn't "the industry" and plenty of women present had no problem with the dancers, the lady who objected could have just left, if Brenda Romero wasn't required to be present neither was she.
Female sexuality is nothing to be afraid of, why is a scantily clad woman so offensive ?
Beside that, why should those female dancers not be allowed to be at a party ?
Do you feel women shouldn't be allowed to pursue the career of their choice ?
Should we deny them work because it might offend ONE PERSON ?

I think you misunderstood my use of the words `boys club`. I should have put it in sarcastic airquotes.
Also not sure where you got me saying women shouldnt pursue careers. That came out of nowhere.
An industry party is not the place for that kind of thing, especially in an industry that struggles to break away from the shitty `boys club` mentality.
Either way, you and I are clearly not going to agree here. So I shall agree to disagree.

 

[Little Gray]

TL;DR: I'm all for her fighting against things she doesn't agree with, but martyrdom in this situation and throwing away her position of power is just childish.

It's called having principles.

Its called stupidity. She was in a position where she had the power to actually change things and she threw it away. Its fairly clear that she would rather complain about something then actually make the effort to try and change it.