If You Are Going to Hate on a Game Company, Do It For the Right Reasons

[Madmonk12345]

This issue needs to stop being portrayed as a consequence of some biological inferiority. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's just a problem of representation in the industry, when such representation is often just used as a wedge to split up people who care about these issues, with the accomplishments of the women who've already proven themselves capable of working in the tech industry perpetually ignored. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's somehow primarily the fault of women that there are no women in a video game industry that neither wants nor cares for them, that is unwilling to provide an atmosphere where they feel comfortable. It's just not as simple as it's made out to be.

1. Nobody put it down to some kind of biological inferiority, that's something you've chosen to read into what is being said and then have a fit over, with the minor problem that it isn't there not dissuading you.

Apologies, poor phrasing on my part. I was referring to the previous point discussing biological tendencies/inferiority in my point 1, of which Yahtzee himself claims the former in the original quoted post. Inferiority was poor word to use and I should have grouped the two points together, I just tend to mentally group the two together because the arguments against them are the same. Edited it in.

2. The industry isn't a single monolithic being that has set out to ignore women (and for the record, I work in information technology, though not in games) but if the number of women choosing to get into the industry is around 15% of the total then what are companies meant to do, not hire people who can do the work they want done in the name of keeping an even ratio?

I never suggested affirmative action, though that might be a quicker solution. The problem I suggest has more to do with the culture at the workplace less than the ratios therein scaring off women after they enter. Though having more women may in and of itself solve that problem.

Women have many routes into the industry, but the tech industry itself isn't on average a very welcoming place for women courtesy of long-held, traditional, often ignored values. By creating rules against those value's perpetration (or providing better enforcement for the rules already in place) in the workplace, the workplace will become more welcoming to women and the women already there will be less likely to up and leave. No affirmative action needed.

As a demonstration of the toxicity involved here, 56% of women who enter tech jobs quit, of which 51% leave the industry.
(See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man-problem.html for more on that. It also describes some of these passive values)
This demonstrates that the problem is to some extent or another keeping the women it has attracted, which points toward a toxic culture that women literally quit their jobs over.

Also, If I ever stated or implied that the industry developed it's toxic attitude intentionally while twirling it's evil mustache, please do quote me on that. I've gone out and edited some of the lines that might have implied that, and if you can find any more I will happily edit it out. I have a bad habit of writing what feels better to say over what conveys the correct info sometimes and it crept into my writing there.

I prefer not discussing or bringing up intent at all, as most people, including those who may contribute to larger problems, have good intentions or at least cannot be proven to have bad intentions. I prefer to focus on the consequences of actions, beliefs, etc instead. Statements of intent are almost unfalsifiable because they depend on information that only the individual in question knows for sure.[footnote]OT: Ill intent is bizarrely assumed of those feminists stated to be harmful in these sorts of discussions on occasion for some reason. It's really strange; mistakes with sexist consequences are described as well intentioned while the people who point them out are described as acting to keep up with SJ standards with both statements being to some extent unfalsifiable.[/footnote]

Feminists surely intend well when they bring up issues and complain regardless of how informed they are, and yet if I defended them by stating that they intended well, surely you wouldn't just accept that on face value and let any consequences of their actions go.

3. Studies show the geek image of technology puts off women more than men, but (especially at entry level) it's geeky work and while not all in technology are geeks and nerds, the stereotype didn't come into existence because it's not partially true.

Do provide links. At least I pulled out links for my stuffs. I can't get down to the nitty gritty on those without a lookover.

Though I question the relevance of this point. If you're trying to demonstrate that it's genetic, then you work against your point by arguing that women naturally don't make games and thus would be going against their genetics to do so, which would imply that your request that women make more games is itself a request you don't expect to have met and therefore that men need to make games with women in them themselves (though that conclusion is itself pretty reprehensible). On the other hand, if we agree that it's socially created, then that leaves a million possibilities to account for, some of which women may be to blame for and able to fix themselves, others of which might not be and may be in the hands of the culture that tells them those geeky things are bad or whatever. I'm just kind of left confused what you're point is here.

4. There's nothing in the industry capable of preventing women from making games of their own accord if they so desire (especially indie games) if they want to and it's not as though women are totally unrepresented in the industry as things are (the first 3 Uncharted games, for instance, were directed by a woman).

Ah, but indie gaming only rarely gets into the eyes of the public to provide influence. Indie games influence the AAA industry only on rare occasions. Though it certainly has the better budget model, if one seeks to provide widespread availability and marketing, to change the views of the actual culture, then being indie isn't the way to go and the budget limitations creates a very uphill battle to be recognized.

Also, to some extent being indie limits what kind of game you can make. If one wants to make a sandbox game with a female playable character then you likely aren't going to be able to make it yourself, at least not in the typical GTA/ SR fashion; thank goodness Saint's Row already does that or we'd be out of luck. This is part of why I don't really grasp Yahtzee's argument on this; he strips away his rights to criticize certain genres that he could never hope to develop in due to being both not incredibly wealthy and/or not able to work effectively on a team when he makes those criticisms. He'll never make a sandbox game and he's certainly criticized a few, but he says that women should just make their own games instead of criticizing developers for reasonings with sexist consequences.

5. Maybe you need to stop looking at this as an exercise in casting blame, ultimately if women want women in the games industry its up to women to get into the games industry and support those who produce good products.

This isn't about "blaming" anyone. I seek not to make anyone guilty; I just seek change. if the guilt caused by blame is what people need to make changes, then I guess it could be done, but it's just ends to a means. This is about determining the cause of the problem so that it can be fixed at all, and I say the problem isn't just that women need to work harder on the issue and make more games, citing the general toxic nature of the tech industry in which the games industry resides and the nature of how minorities' actions and achievements are often forgotten about by the culture that they're achieved in unless they're loud and obnoxious to their current culture. I feel I kind of elaborated poorly on the last point so I'll add some more examples.

As an example of this with regards to video games and the tech industry in general, you have stated that women have something to prove with regard to the industry, but as you mention, there are already women in the industry. The only way women can be considered to have something to prove is if you ignore what's already been proven. Tomb Raider eventually made a profit, Gone Home was one of those rare indie games that made waves, etc. My favorite example is that in the beginning, games weren't even marketed towards boys at all, with women occasionally at the forefront of an industry that wasn't thought of as quite as important as it is today. For example, Sierra, headed by Roberta Williams, had no worries including female protagonists. Sierra writer Lori Cole stated that "[W]e had several games that had female leads. Nobody thought it was an issue." [footnote]see http://ontdgames.livejournal.com/266805.html for more on that[/footnote] These early facts demonstrate that the industry's poor handling of women is to some extent a modern problem, and that the audience and market for women made games with female protagonists always existed. Yet, one could easily go without ever learning about it because our culture has forgotten what it was like back then.

The problem is getting the industry in it's infinite slowness to actually acknowledge the accomplishments that have already been made which itself requires complaints because these achievements are so often forgotten.

Sorry for the behemoth of a post; it just turned into something way longer than I intended. Hopefully someone will read it at some point.

 

[Madmonk12345]

This issue needs to stop being portrayed as a consequence of some biological inferiority. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's just a problem of representation in the industry, when such representation is often just used as a wedge to split up people who care about these issues, with the accomplishments of the women who've already proven themselves capable of working in the tech industry perpetually ignored. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's somehow primarily the fault of women that there are no women in a video game industry that neither wants nor cares for them, that is unwilling to provide an atmosphere where they feel comfortable. It's just not as simple as it's made out to be.

1. Nobody put it down to some kind of biological inferiority, that's something you've chosen to read into what is being said and then have a fit over, with the minor problem that it isn't there not dissuading you.

2. The industry isn't a single monolithic being that has set out to ignore women (and for the record, I work in information technology, though not in games) but if the number of women choosing to get into the industry is around 15% of the total then what are companies meant to do, not hire people who can do the work they want done in the name of keeping an even ratio?

3. Studies show the geek image of technology puts off women more than men, but (especially at entry level) it's geeky work and while not all in technology are geeks and nerds, the stereotype didn't come into existence because it's not partially true.

4. There's nothing in the industry capable of preventing women from making games of their own accord if they so desire (especially indie games) if they want to and it's not as though women are totally unrepresented in the industry as things are (the first 3 Uncharted games, for instance, were directed by a woman).

5. Maybe you need to stop looking at this as an exercise in casting blame, ultimately if women want women in the games industry its up to women to get into the games industry and support those who produce good products.

^Someone who gets it. I mean really people, nobody can sexist you into not picking up a book and learning some freakin coding. If there's no women to hire what's a company to do? Run outside and grab random women off the street and beg em to work for them?

As I replied to the previous poster, there are women into coding; many just leave once they enter the industry because it has a culture to it that treats them poorly. Lots has been done to handle the inroads, but to some extent, once they land a job that support dries up.

Also, quieter accomplishments by minorities have a long history of being forgotten.[footnote]See Grace Hopper and the invention of the compiler, Filipino invisibility, women within the early history of gaming like Roberta Williams, not to mention other historical figures for whom some major accomplishments go forgotten like Ida Tarbell, who is remembered for her expose of the oil industry but not the invention of investigative journalism. The list goes on and on.[/footnote] If indie development is anything, it is quiet and usually relies on word of mouth and a small budget to make a profit in a way that the industry often refuses to replicate or follow. That itself limits influence on the industry that produces the generic games which are the image of gaming to Joe and Jane Q Public in the first place by providing easy ways for our risk paranoid industry to contend that the profits from those games aren't relevant due to small gross.

 

[ForumSafari]

Let me guess, you're a white cis-gendered heterosexual man with some reasonable (or even very good) education and no glaring financial problems, right? This is not an accusation, mind you, just a description. You're certainly not entirely responsible for most it, so no blaming here.

So yeah, let's check our privileges, hm?

It's worth at this stage pointing out that that also describes you pretty well.

 

[jmarquiso]

I think the main reason Unity was singled out is that it was - really - one of the two CO-op titles this year without a female option. The other one? Far Cry 4. The answer / apology they gave wwas downright lazy as well.

And honestly, I undersstand there reasons. But their answer screamed laziness (for the most highly staffed and funded game that year), in an arena where every OTHER title was far more inclusive.

 

[jmarquiso]

Also, quieter accomplishments by minorities have a long history of being forgotten.[footnote]See Grace Hopper and the invention of the compiler, Filipino invisibility, women within the early history of gaming like Roberta Williams, not to mention other historical figures for whom some major accomplishments go forgotten like Ida Tarbell, who is remembered for her expose of the oil industry but not the invention of investigative journalism. The list goes on and on.[/footnote] If indie development is anything, it is quiet and usually relies on word of mouth and a small budget to make a profit in a way that the industry often refuses to replicate or follow. That itself limits influence on the industry that produces the generic games which are the image of gaming to Joe and Jane Q Public in the first place by providing easy ways for our risk paranoid industry to contend that the profits from those games aren't relevant due to small gross.

Indeed, it's the risk averse industry that's the problem here more than anything else. BECAUSE so much money was invested in the title, the less likely they are to take a risk with the narrative. Even when AC had included female models in previous multiplayer options. Oddly enough, all the controversy means is that they just didn't think about it.

You forgot to mention that the producer in charge of the Assassin's Creed franchise is female even (and no, that doesn't make it better), as is the current producer of the Halo franchise. But if you heard them talk, it's a harder, more uphill battle for them and being a woman in their position actually makes it harder for them to take these kinds of risks.

Among the women who we don't know in gaming/tech's history - the first programmer ever, Ada Lovelace. Danni Berry (MULE), Dona Bailey (Centipede), Roberta Williams of course, Janet Murray (wrote one of the founding books of game studies), Brenda Laurel (also wrote a founding book in game studies, and part of the 80's VR movement), Brenda Braithwaite-Romero (game designer and wrote several books on game studies), and currently Kellee Santiago (thatgamecompany/OUYA), Kim Swift (Portal), Kiki Wolfkill(343 Studios/Halo Franchise), and Jade Raymond (Assassin's Creed franchise).

But you know who names we DO know? Sid Meier, Cliffy B, Peter Molyneaux, John Carmack, John Romero (yes, married to Brenda), etc. Sid Meier is on record as being envious of Danni Barry's MULE. Molyneaux and Cliffy B played well for Microsoft PR, though they now have a woman in charge of the XBox division. Sony had the opition to use Kellee Santiago (who has a great stage presence, as seen in her TED talk) several times in their presentations, but never has.

 

[wulf3n]

A sane and rational official content post on the Escapist :| I must be dreaming.

If only more people were like Yahtzee.

 

[Vegosiux]

So when I say this I get 12 messages in my inbox about how I'm an apologist bigot. When Yahtzee says it pretty much everyone agrees.

Sounds reasonable.

Baffling, ainnit. That's why I hardly come around these days. Not enough gaming related stuff, too much...whatever this is.

 

[srpilha]

Let me guess, you're a white cis-gendered heterosexual man with some reasonable (or even very good) education and no glaring financial problems, right? This is not an accusation, mind you, just a description. You're certainly not entirely responsible for most it, so no blaming here.

So yeah, let's check our privileges, hm?

It's worth at this stage pointing out that that also describes you pretty well.

Absolutely, which is why I recognized the pattern of not seeing one's own privileges and had no qualms in calling it out. Everything I said applies to me, at the very least as calls to caution.
It's also why this was in no point an accusation, just a reminder that we can indeed be blind to very obvious things, and we are a fundamental part of the problem if we think we're not concerned by it (or that it's not even a "real" problem).

 

[Nergui]

Ultimately, if you don't like the way a game is designed (ergo no gender and/or sexuality option), don't buy the game no matter how great it's appeal. I'm not going to use the 'B' word, but as a customer you have the right not to buy a product if it does not fulfill your requirements.

 

[Nieroshai]

snip.

I'm not sure I understand your point. That it's okay to misrepresent the way that people are criticising two games because the issues that they're criticising have become such a point of focus? Regardless, I'm also not sure why you quoted me, because others have expressed the same sentiment in this thread and your response feels rather like you're talking past me rather than engaging with my concerns.

Also if what you mean by "but that's what everyone's being saying they're about" is that people have actively been saying that Tomodachi Life is a game about homophobia or that AC: Unity is a game about misogyny, then I entirely disagree, as evidenced by my original statement. Certainly there are other ways to interpret the tagline in the article (Yahtzee could be stating it to remind us that this is not what the games are about even in the midst of all of the controversy which...okay? Again that is literally not what anyone has been saying) and perhaps that wasn't the intention, but it struck me as the most direct one at the time and is merely one extremely semantic point in a list of more straightforward problems that I was addressing. Which are, broadly, that this article is confronting invented arguments rather than the actual ones and feels kind of dated and as if it was written by someone who doesn't have much perspective on the conversation that happened and just knows that there was some controversy over some games and some -isms were involved. It also feels very out of step with Yahtzee's maintained criticisms of the triple A industry and invokes some biologically dubious notions, but I digress.

Pondering whether I should dig through 4 pages to see what you or I said, but people are for all intents and purposes chalking up all discussion about the two games to sex and sexuality. Truth? Objectivity? We're talking about internet criticism and that's what I'm sure I commented on.

 

[Gladys Knight]

This issue needs to stop being portrayed as a consequence of some biological inferiority. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's just a problem of representation in the industry, when such representation is often just used as a wedge to split up people who care about these issues, with the accomplishments of the women who've already proven themselves capable of working in the tech industry perpetually ignored. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's somehow primarily the fault of women that there are no women in a video game industry that neither wants nor cares for them, that is unwilling to provide an atmosphere where they feel comfortable. It's just not as simple as it's made out to be.

1. Nobody put it down to some kind of biological inferiority, that's something you've chosen to read into what is being said and then have a fit over, with the minor problem that it isn't there not dissuading you.

Apologies, poor phrasing on my part. I was referring to the previous point discussing biological tendencies/inferiority in my point 1, of which Yahtzee himself claims the former in the original quoted post. Inferiority was poor word to use and I should have grouped the two points together, I just tend to mentally group the two together because the arguments against them are the same. Edited it in.

2. The industry isn't a single monolithic being that has set out to ignore women (and for the record, I work in information technology, though not in games) but if the number of women choosing to get into the industry is around 15% of the total then what are companies meant to do, not hire people who can do the work they want done in the name of keeping an even ratio?

I never suggested affirmative action, though that might be a quicker solution. The problem I suggest has more to do with the culture at the workplace less than the ratios therein scaring off women after they enter. Though having more women may in and of itself solve that problem.

Women have many routes into the industry, but the tech industry itself isn't on average a very welcoming place for women courtesy of long-held, traditional, often ignored values. By creating rules against those value's perpetration (or providing better enforcement for the rules already in place) in the workplace, the workplace will become more welcoming to women and the women already there will be less likely to up and leave. No affirmative action needed.

As a demonstration of the toxicity involved here, 56% of women who enter tech jobs quit, of which 51% leave the industry.
(See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man-problem.html for more on that. It also describes some of these passive values)
This demonstrates that the problem is to some extent or another keeping the women it has attracted, which points toward a toxic culture that women literally quit their jobs over.

Also, If I ever stated or implied that the industry developed it's toxic attitude intentionally while twirling it's evil mustache, please do quote me on that. I've gone out and edited some of the lines that might have implied that, and if you can find any more I will happily edit it out. I have a bad habit of writing what feels better to say over what conveys the correct info sometimes and it crept into my writing there.

I prefer not discussing or bringing up intent at all, as most people, including those who may contribute to larger problems, have good intentions or at least cannot be proven to have bad intentions. I prefer to focus on the consequences of actions, beliefs, etc instead. Statements of intent are almost unfalsifiable because they depend on information that only the individual in question knows for sure.[footnote]OT: Ill intent is bizarrely assumed of those feminists stated to be harmful in these sorts of discussions on occasion for some reason. It's really strange; mistakes with sexist consequences are described as well intentioned while the people who point them out are described as acting to keep up with SJ standards with both statements being to some extent unfalsifiable.[/footnote]

Feminists surely intend well when they bring up issues and complain regardless of how informed they are, and yet if I defended them by stating that they intended well, surely you wouldn't just accept that on face value and let any consequences of their actions go.

3. Studies show the geek image of technology puts off women more than men, but (especially at entry level) it's geeky work and while not all in technology are geeks and nerds, the stereotype didn't come into existence because it's not partially true.

Do provide links. At least I pulled out links for my stuffs. I can't get down to the nitty gritty on those without a lookover.

Though I question the relevance of this point. If you're trying to demonstrate that it's genetic, then you work against your point by arguing that women naturally don't make games and thus would be going against their genetics to do so, which would imply that your request that women make more games is itself a request you don't expect to have met and therefore that men need to make games with women in them themselves (though that conclusion is itself pretty reprehensible). On the other hand, if we agree that it's socially created, then that leaves a million possibilities to account for, some of which women may be to blame for and able to fix themselves, others of which might not be and may be in the hands of the culture that tells them those geeky things are bad or whatever. I'm just kind of left confused what you're point is here.

4. There's nothing in the industry capable of preventing women from making games of their own accord if they so desire (especially indie games) if they want to and it's not as though women are totally unrepresented in the industry as things are (the first 3 Uncharted games, for instance, were directed by a woman).

Ah, but indie gaming only rarely gets into the eyes of the public to provide influence. Indie games influence the AAA industry only on rare occasions. Though it certainly has the better budget model, if one seeks to provide widespread availability and marketing, to change the views of the actual culture, then being indie isn't the way to go and the budget limitations creates a very uphill battle to be recognized.

Also, to some extent being indie limits what kind of game you can make. If one wants to make a sandbox game with a female playable character then you likely aren't going to be able to make it yourself, at least not in the typical GTA/ SR fashion; thank goodness Saint's Row already does that or we'd be out of luck. This is part of why I don't really grasp Yahtzee's argument on this; he strips away his rights to criticize certain genres that he could never hope to develop in due to being both not incredibly wealthy and/or not able to work effectively on a team when he makes those criticisms. He'll never make a sandbox game and he's certainly criticized a few, but he says that women should just make their own games instead of criticizing developers for reasonings with sexist consequences.

5. Maybe you need to stop looking at this as an exercise in casting blame, ultimately if women want women in the games industry its up to women to get into the games industry and support those who produce good products.

This isn't about "blaming" anyone. I seek not to make anyone guilty; I just seek change. if the guilt caused by blame is what people need to make changes, then I guess it could be done, but it's just ends to a means. This is about determining the cause of the problem so that it can be fixed at all, and I say the problem isn't just that women need to work harder on the issue and make more games, citing the general toxic nature of the tech industry in which the games industry resides and the nature of how minorities' actions and achievements are often forgotten about by the culture that they're achieved in unless they're loud and obnoxious to their current culture. I feel I kind of elaborated poorly on the last point so I'll add some more examples.

As an example of this with regards to video games and the tech industry in general, you have stated that women have something to prove with regard to the industry, but as you mention, there are already women in the industry. The only way women can be considered to have something to prove is if you ignore what's already been proven. Tomb Raider eventually made a profit, Gone Home was one of those rare indie games that made waves, etc. My favorite example is that in the beginning, games weren't even marketed towards boys at all, with women occasionally at the forefront of an industry that wasn't thought of as quite as important as it is today. For example, Sierra, headed by Roberta Williams, had no worries including female protagonists. Sierra writer Lori Cole stated that "[W]e had several games that had female leads. Nobody thought it was an issue." [footnote]see http://ontdgames.livejournal.com/266805.html for more on that[/footnote] These early facts demonstrate that the industry's poor handling of women is to some extent a modern problem, and that the audience and market for women made games with female protagonists always existed. Yet, one could easily go without ever learning about it because our culture has forgotten what it was like back then.

The problem is getting the industry in it's infinite slowness to actually acknowledge the accomplishments that have already been made which itself requires complaints because these achievements are so often forgotten.

Sorry for the behemoth of a post; it just turned into something way longer than I intended. Hopefully someone will read it at some point.

You know what, Madmonk? You are part of the problem. A big part.

Too many people aren't looking reasonably at how best to provide the OPPORTUNITY for women to play a bigger role in the gaming industry.

Some would argue that such an opportunity has existed now more than ever with the indie gaming scene and the accessibility of game engines and the affordability of the hardware needed to use them.

But even still there are those that choose to push the narrative on how women are too weak and why they shouldn't be doing this or that. The focus is all on taking issues and finding issues and having issues but not on fixing issues.

This article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man-problem.html?_r=0

... is part of the problem.

What women needed was reinforcement of their value and strength. Not a pity party and a focus on weak will. Someone you don't know from a company you don't work for presents a product about looking at breasts on your screen via stream. Now you "don't belong?" Because you saw something about looking at breasts. In general. And dudes laughed. And your partner said he didn't consider it sexism or misogyny. So because he wasn't ready to label the presenters with extreme psychological conditions based on the app they made it is reasonable to feel like you "don't belong" to an entire industry?

I tend to look at how black culture handled a lot of things pre civil rights and the attitudes were much different and seemed far more effective. Somehow, despite everything, a number of black-centric industries were able to take root and when things got better those industries were able to grow and expand off of those footholds.

But we are too busy telling women that a lot of them leave the tech industry and thus it means they will be exposed to a toxic environment guaranteed. Because that's the only reason people leave industries. There are certainly no industries that become inhabited by certain groups more than others. Rap is 50% white and Country Music is 50% black. The NBA has proportional representation of Blacks, Whites and Asians as does hockey.

But our plan to help women is to show them a statistic and then apply a sinister reality to it because that's better than saying something "terrible" like maybe women simply don't like the tech industry.

And maybe they don't! Maybe it is because it is so male focused. But why dress that as potential for something new when we can say instead that it's something bad so we don't have to consider the terrible fact that women have the agency to change it.

So much focus is on replacing and changing instead of adding. Someone says "What about indie games?" and we say "but those don't get much attention." Despite having gone off two minutes earlier on the bloated AAA industry and the ridiculous marketing campaigns and budgets that come with it. Someone says "surely there are plenty of companies that try to have female friendly environments" we say "but some other company might say or do something bad and they'll hear it." We say "what about women forming their own development companies that they can govern?" and we say "That's not fair! That's blaming the victims of the toxic environments!"

And this all sounds good on paper but what does it really accomplish? How can one really move things forward if they are so averse to assigning ANY responsibility to those perceived to have less? And why do people choose to do this with women?

Children are given the "Sticks and Stones" story. Children are told "never give up." Children are told about bullies and adversity. But women shouldn't be expected to handle these things?

I try to imagine a pre-civil rights black culture where people were told to stand still and wait until white people created room in their nightclubs. Where they were told to quit their jobs and industries if people said mean things to them. Where they were dissuaded from starting their own establishments, companies and industries because it's not fair that they should have to do that.

Yes a lot of that sucks but there is a lot of good that comes from it. They establish trends. They get to know themselves in the industries and they are better prepared when it comes time to cross the line because they have numbers, statistics, brands, trends and the like to capitalize on. What good will it do to take a company and make it 50% women overnight when no one there has any information on how to leverage... anything. Both sides, male and female, only know one kind of market and it didn't change overnight with them.

Women should be looked at as an opportunity. Not as a solution to a "problem." More women involved in the industry should mean more industry. Not a reshaping of the current industry. I don't want a "girl version" assassins creed. I want what women bring from scratch.

As long people continue to ignore the fact that women should be ADDING to the industry and not changing it there will be continued resistance from both sides.

As long as people continue to avoid assigning women the responsibility and TRUST that comes with doing their own work things will not change. Minecraft. Many of these companies didn't start as industry giants. Buckling down and making "your" game has never been easier. If you continue to steer women away from doing that, telling them that they instead should be focused solely on taking a shortcut to the top, people will continue to believe that women simply aren't interested as much in these kinds of games. Which people have somehow convinced themselves is an inherently bad thing for some reason.

And yes, it's a shortcut. Despite what people think about the industry it still grew from humble beginnings. It still went through a growing process in which trends were determined, features were tested, markets and genres were created, hits were hailed and flops were railed. We can't cherry pick and say the industry is so male dominated but then say it's in a perfect position for an massive injection of female influence. That's not embracing the belief as a whole.

Despite what people choose not to remember, there was a time when Japanese men controlled the industry. Their tastes and trends governed while western games had a negative stigma on consoles. But people sat in their garages and in their dorm rooms and made things that people responded to and things grew.

Why in the world do we think women are incapable of this? To accomplish anything of any significance you are going to run into people who offend you, people who are abrasive, people who HATE you. Bad jobs, bad positions, unfair treatment, all sorts of things. Black culture was still able to create industries despite the hurdles. Quit telling women they can't and that men need to make a nest for them first.

 

[Madmonk12345]

SNIP SNIP SNIPETY SNIP SNIP SNIP

You know what, Madmonk? You are part of the problem. A big part.

You know what, Gladys? I aim to target a person's argument instead of the person, because that is a critical distinction to make; assuming that they themselves and not their statements or actions are part of the problem creates a degree of permanence to their behaviors that lowers the odds of any sort of change. Not doing so is a behavior ascribed to SJWs, whose arguments are depicted as jumping to attacks of the person, and that's exactly what your statement does here. It's a stupid thing to do if you honestly seek change.

Too many people aren't looking reasonably at how best to provide the OPPORTUNITY for women to play a bigger role in the gaming industry.

Some would argue that such an opportunity has existed now more than ever with the indie gaming scene and the accessibility of game engines and the affordability of the hardware needed to use them.

Didn't I already address this? While indie games are nice, seeking social change through them is a seriously uphill battle due to low gross. The indie games that actually influence the industry are one in a million. I'm not about to say you shouldn't do it, or that having games made by women isn't a good thing, just that actually entering the industry will likely have more effect, which demonstrates how the problems within the industry are an issue.

But even still there are those that choose to push the narrative on how women are too weak and why they shouldn't be doing this or that. The focus is all on taking issues and finding issues and having issues but not on fixing issues.

Who said women left because they were weak? I said some behaviors disproportionately affect women, and you assumed they did so because those women who complain about them are weak willed.

And not fixing issues? I offered a potential solution because I was asked to. Surely the solution I offered is better than affirmative action, no?

Besides, the shit that women deal with is unprofessional anyways. Boob jokes are kinda juvenile, and naming variables based on stupid jokes with unintended sexist consequences also makes the code harder to follow, which is a bad idea in an increasingly maintenance-driven programming industry.

This article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man-problem.html?_r=0

... is part of the problem.

What women needed was reinforcement of their value and strength. Not a pity party and a focus on weak will. Someone you don't know from a company you don't work for presents a product about looking at breasts on your screen via stream. Now you "don't belong?" Because you saw something about looking at breasts. In general. And dudes laughed. And your partner said he didn't consider it sexism or misogyny. So because he wasn't ready to label the presenters with extreme psychological conditions based on the app they made it is reasonable to feel like you "don't belong" to an entire industry?

It's never just one thing that makes women quit. It's never that just one person stared at your boobs once. It's a boob joke here, a sexist statement there, a groping there. Eventually, there is a "last straw" though.

Also, in saying that I'm focusing on weak will, you ironically assume women are so weak willed that they cannot ascertain the truth. The only way these arguments and statistics could be so influential and false AND have women believe them is if we assume that women cannot think and come to the same conclusion that you have and thus listen to the arguments of others on gender issues so much so that they base their life decisions around it.

I tend to look at how black culture handled a lot of things pre civil rights and the attitudes were much different and seemed far more effective. Somehow, despite everything, a number of black-centric industries were able to take root and when things got better those industries were able to grow and expand off of those footholds.

But we are too busy telling women that a lot of them leave the tech industry and thus it means they will be exposed to a toxic environment guaranteed. Because that's the only reason people leave industries. There are certainly no industries that become inhabited by certain groups more than others. Rap is 50% white and Country Music is 50% black. The NBA has proportional representation of Blacks, Whites and Asians as does hockey.

When someone gets a degree at an institution so they can work somewhere, them leaving the industry is a pretty big deal. A group of people spent four years of their life studying something, and half of them quit their jobs once they made it into that something. That's a big deal, no?

Also you should really follow the discussion better; I've already established why it cannot solely be a property of their gender in the first post I made in this thread. If it were just that "women don't like technology", then the statistics of employment and diplomas should be relatively constant, but they're not. See:

1. The number of women in technology has been steadily declining since the 1980s, where the number of women into tech industries and the number of women who graduated from such positions peaked at around 37%(see http://www.cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/taulbee/CS_Degree_and_Enrollment_Trends_2010-11.pdf , http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/aroundTheWeb/hostedPapers/Syllabus-Camp.pdf ). This decline coincides with the personal computer and the simplification of programming. These numbers were higher back when things were much harder, much more complicated. If women were somehow on average inferior to men WRT computing or desire to be in the tech industry, why, when computer sciences was much more difficult to enter, when it was several orders of magnitude more cumbersome, would there be more women in the tech industry then than now?

Finally, you assume that women cannot think for themselves yourself here once again, to the point that you state that the mere fact that us feminists make people aware of a statistic of women's behavior in the industry somehow scares them away, as if they need the facts hidden from them in order for them to take the right position.

But our plan to help women is to show them a statistic and then apply a sinister reality to it because that's better than saying something "terrible" like maybe women simply don't like the tech industry.

And maybe they don't! Maybe it is because it is so male focused. But why dress that as potential for something new when we can say instead that it's something bad so we don't have to consider the terrible fact that women have the agency to change it.

Of course women have the agency to change it. I admitted so myself when I stated that affirmative action might work and change the mindset of the industry.

The thing is, the actions of individual women that were present in the game industry's past are almost entirely forgotten. People keep stating how women can change things within the industry, though it may take a decade or two. The thing is, over that long a period of time the quiet actions like that are forgotten.[footnote]Thanks for the response jmarquiso! I have to do more research on these women that the world forgot.[/footnote]

Among the women who we don't know in gaming/tech's history - the first programmer ever, Ada Lovelace. Danni Berry (MULE), Dona Bailey (Centipede), Roberta Williams of course, Janet Murray (wrote one of the founding books of game studies), Brenda Laurel (also wrote a founding book in game studies, and part of the 80's VR movement), Brenda Braithwaite-Romero (game designer and wrote several books on game studies), and currently Kellee Santiago (thatgamecompany/OUYA), Kim Swift (Portal), Kiki Wolfkill(343 Studios/Halo Franchise), and Jade Raymond (Assassin's Creed franchise).

If we forget these women who are already there, how can we hope for our culture to remember these new women quietly coming in?

I mean, say what you'd like about Anita Sarkeesian, but at least she will BE remembered. She's changed the conversation on gender in games to the point that Call of Duty put women into multiplayer, and DICE invited her to oversee Mirror's Edge 2 IIRC. She IS influencing the industry to some extent and our culture will likely never forget her, for better or worse, while quieter non-activist actions go forgotten.

So much focus is on replacing and changing instead of adding. Someone says "What about indie games?" and we say "but those don't get much attention." Despite having gone off two minutes earlier on the bloated AAA industry and the ridiculous marketing campaigns and budgets that come with it.

I never said it was a GOOD thing, mind you. I hate the bloated industry that ignores them, but that doesn't stop it from being a thing. The way the industry's risk paranoia plays into the issue is very important because it's a big part of what makes these issues so slow to fix, with even entire genres like horror disappearing for years out of fear of risk.[footnote]As a side note, horror is always fascinating from a feminist perspective. On one hand, there are some negative attitudes about sex and gender involved, with women being frightened sometimes used to affect the audience more and sex demonized especially within American horror. On the other, even though those actions may have sexist motivations, they still put women in the spotlight and give them agency within the story, with horror games even being an early source of female protagonists. It's an interesting discussion with no simple answer.[/footnote]

Someone says "surely there are plenty of companies that try to have female friendly environments" we say "but some other company might say or do something bad and they'll hear it."

Who is "we"? Is "we" you here? "We" is not me here.

Of course there are some companies with women-friendly environments. As I was saying,part of the problem is the companies with toxic attitudes that don't regulate themselves, and quitting statistics show women who see how women-friendly some companies aren't and LEAVE, not women who are scared off in the first place by some statement that I and other feminists may have given. They have to have experienced it first hand by the rules of the statistics provided.

We say "what about women forming their own development companies that they can govern?" and we say "That's not fair! That's blaming the victims of the toxic environments!"

Please do not let any impressions of how SJWs are supposed to act speak for your impressions of what feminist rebuttals sound like, as "victim blaming" really isn't a great rebuttal to that argument on it's own.
It's dumb because it falls into the indie development trap which itself limits the potential audience of those games made by women. It's dumb because you yourself just say that women naturally don't like to make games just like black people rap so it's a high demand you don't expect to see met, seeming intended as a gotcha in actual discussion. It's dumb because it's an unstable job subject to the whims of the market in a way that industry jobs aren't, which isn't for everyone. It's dumb because it keeps the industry and those female devs out of close contact with one another making influence between them more difficult. It's NOT dumb just because the onus is placed on women to act.

And this all sounds good on paper but what does it really accomplish? How can one really move things forward if they are so averse to assigning ANY responsibility to those perceived to have less? And why do people choose to do this with women?

What do you even expect?

Do women have a responsibility to shut up and make games if they want to achieve their goals? We don't argue this way with other things. We didn't tell people to just make their own ME3 ending. We didn't tell people to just make their own console in response to XBone. We instead complained as we have every right and reason to do, and it works.

Do women have a responsibility to take action if they want to achieve their goals? I suppose, but who is to define which actions count and which don't? Who is to say that complaining on twitter at devs with reasoning of sexist consequence accomplishes nothing and making games on its own accomplishes everything, when what things we have seen show that both can work and don't necessarily need the other?

Children are given the "Sticks and Stones" story. Children are told "never give up." Children are told about bullies and adversity. But women shouldn't be expected to handle these things?

1. "Sticks and stones" is a stupid adage that ignores how minorities are treated. It's not even true; when stereotypes are reinforced in women about mathematics it's known to lower test scores for example.

Also, if words are so harmless, why do you care that I'm stating them, and how are they influencing these women?

2. Who ever said women should give up?

3. Have you ever been bullied?
The responses we teach children to that are shit, to be frank. Bullies don't need your reaction for example; they can get pats on the back from their peers.

I try to imagine a pre-civil rights black culture where people were told to stand still and wait until white people created room in their nightclubs. Where they were told to quit their jobs and industries if people said mean things to them. Where they were dissuaded from starting their own establishments, companies and industries because it's not fair that they should have to do that.

You're bringing memories of the era of lynching as a reason that women don't do enough?

There was a time where people of color and white people made their own separate businesses and ate at their own separate restaurants. It was called segregation. It isn't remembered fondly and for good reason.

Yes a lot of that sucks but there is a lot of good that comes from it. They establish trends. They get to know themselves in the industries and they are better prepared when it comes time to cross the line because they have numbers, statistics, brands, trends and the like to capitalize on.

I never stated that it doesn't provide any benefit. uphill battle != impossible battle. However, these benefits aren't just being cited for their own merit. These benefits are cited to state that the activism currently going on is somehow valueless, but the whining of a thousand people seems to actually do more, in contrary to any and all whining about slactivism. Remember, the Mass Effect ending had so much whining about it, and they actually changed it. Everyone raised a hullabaloo about the XBone, and the features were eventually removed.

What good will it do to take a company and make it 50% women overnight when no one there has any information on how to leverage... anything.

Are you even replying to me anymore? I gave a specific solution that WASN'T affirmative action in response to that exact strawman of my positions.

Both sides, male and female, only know one kind of market and it didn't change overnight with them.

Women should be looked at as an opportunity. Not as a solution to a "problem."

Once again I just said that the problem in some areas was external to women and that there were solutions other than just adding more women.

More women involved in the industry should mean more industry. Not a reshaping of the current industry. I don't want a "girl version" assassins creed. I want what women bring from scratch.

I'm curious how you think a "girl" version would be any different given it's already headed by (le GASP) a woman. That doesn't stop it from being limited by the ideals of the publishers demonstrated in that shit PR statement and the ideals of the devs below her.

As long people continue to ignore the fact that women should be ADDING to the industry and not changing it there will be continued resistance from both sides.

Why shouldn't women change the industry? Because some people might be uncomfortable? Gonna wait for a response on that one.

As long as people continue to avoid assigning women the responsibility and TRUST that comes with doing their own work things will not change. Minecraft. Many of these companies didn't start as industry giants. Buckling down and making "your" game has never been easier. If you continue to steer women away from doing that, telling them that they instead should be focused solely on taking a shortcut to the top, people will continue to believe that women simply aren't interested as much in these kinds of games.

I know everyone likes to think that their game will be the next MineCraft, but don't you think that's a little naive? Most people will not make the next million dollar indie game.

I'm not telling them that they should SOLELY be focused on a shortcut to the top. Hell, I even discounted affirmative action as an option and made a solid case for an alternative. You may not like the particular examples of reasons from the article, but surely there is something amiss even if we cannot agree on it. Unless you think women cannot reason for themselves and therefore need to listen to some feminist source to react to things even when they are experiencing them firsthand.

Which people have somehow convinced themselves is an inherently bad thing for some reason.

Except that I never argued it was.

And yes, it's a shortcut. Despite what people think about the industry it still grew from humble beginnings. It still went through a growing process in which trends were determined, features were tested, markets and genres were created, hits were hailed and flops were railed. We can't cherry pick and say the industry is so male dominated but then say it's in a perfect position for an massive injection of female influence. That's not embracing the belief as a whole.

Despite what people choose not to remember, there was a time when Japanese men controlled the industry. Their tastes and trends governed while western games had a negative stigma on consoles. But people sat in their garages and in their dorm rooms and made things that people responded to and things grew.

My solution to the problems was to create better enforcement on rules about sexual harassment, focus testing, etc. because there is a history of women entering the industry and then leaving that isn't present among men. Unless you are assuming that women's quitting here is biological in nature, which would mean that women couldn't change anything about their behavior making your entire argument moot, there must be some source of that reaction attributed to the company in question as if it were just a disinterest, feminism-induced or otherwise then the women in question wouldn't have worked for a degree in it in the first place. While it might not improve the number of women hired, it would make them less likely to leave which would increase the number of them in the industry over time. In other words, You can't hope to fill a sack with a hole in the bottom unless you patch the hole first; doesn't matter how many more women there are on the entrance end. How does any of what you just said about humble beginnings and industry history cherrypicking make fixing that source a "shortcut"? It's a long term plan that relies on the women already flowing in, who, in surprise to few, aren't going to stop entering the industry just because I posted about it negatively on the fourth page of a comments section.

Why in the world do we think women are incapable of this? To accomplish anything of any significance you are going to run into people who offend you, people who are abrasive, people who HATE you.

And if that treatment you get under that is unequal among genders, you aren't up for changing it, because you don't want to see change to the industry, only "additions". Correct?

Serious question here. You really never elaborate on that line at all. Is it some attempt to mock my previously poor summary or something?

Bad jobs, bad positions, unfair treatment, all sorts of things. Black culture was still able to create industries despite the hurdles. Quit telling women they can't and that men need to make a nest for them first.

I'm not telling women not to make games. I'm saying that minorities cannot accomplish everything alone and at some point the majority will need to change it's mind, a mind changeable with both those games AND the whining that is so often referred to derisively and performed on these forums, and people shouldn't use one method as a way to deny value of the other, which is how it's being used right now because this whole discussion is in response to people doing the latter by telling them to do the former instead.

Ah. A behemoth of a post in response to a behemoth of a post. We were clearly made for each other, you and I.

 

[Gladys Knight]

I'm typing... I've been typing... For too long. You know, despite a few snips here and there that were slightly grating to me I have found your post to be an easy read. It's provoking because I don't agree with tons of it but it's an easy read in that there is a reasonable brain behind it as well as a person who doesn't suck. Even though I vehemently disagree with a lot. I will continue my response and post it later perhaps but it's so long... Maybe you'd be open to having this discussion through some other channel? I've been looking for a good dissenting opinion that is decently presented. I read every word you wrote, by the way.