Do you really think males were even considered for the job?matthew_lane said:
Never mistake calculated and deliberate actions for mere happenstance.
On Dongles
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
This is one of the most bizarre arguments I have ever read. So, you think that for every position for a female, there is another one for a male? It's a zero-sum game?matthew_lane said:
This isn't about the agencies, anyway. It's about the sponsor companies who went to those agencies and specified "we want females for this event" - they are the ones being exclusionary and sexist. And it's not just toward the employees, it's toward the conference attendees, some of whom are women, and some of whom are gay. It's being exclusionary and sexist to pander to one particular demographic of the conference.
Of course, you understand all this. You're just being deliberately obtuse when others present arguments you can't respond meaningfully to. Like how you completely ignored the issue of your double-standard over "fake geek girls" and this situation, or the counter-arguments to your characterisation of raves, etc, etc.
P.S: How do you know they went through a third-party? Were you privy to the arrangements? The company claims that these were gamer girls who just happened to be models. That must be a pretty specific agency to hire from. Either that's a lie, or they hand-picked gamer girls who happened to be attractive exhibitionists.
After-parties for an industry is not for R&R, its for networking. In a highly competitive industry like Game Development, its about who you know and the best place you can meet those people with connections is at the after-party. IE: The purpose of an after-party is to allow the important people of a convention to have a meet and greet with the attendees. You wanna unwind and relax? Go to a club that isn't sponsored by your employer, who will still probably fire you if you get shit-faced and embarrass them at an after-party.Karadalis said:
Seriously people, you all need to understand this. This was a WORK sponsored event, it should be professional regardless of the setting and Go-go dancers are not professional.
You missed the part where company 2 was hired by company 1 and company 1 Co-sponsored the event, hence why their name is written on the walls in the background of the picture. Now tell me, if the IGDA had nothing to do with, why is there name involved in it?matthew_lane said:
Well for one, they aren't very professional models then are they? Whats their job? To socialize and interact with the crowd. What are they doing? Standing on stage dancing away from the crowd.matthew_lane said:
Not to mention, strippers or not, their attire is completely unacceptable for the event. One is literally wearing a mini-skirt and a crop-top and the other is wearing a strap-less dress with a miniskirt. Again, I go back to my previous argument where, and I'll state again, THAT SHIT IS COMPLETELY UNFIT FOR A PROFESSIONAL WORKPLACE!
There is no need to make shit up. Most conventions have stopped hiring booth babes now for this very reason and some people still haven't learned.matthew_lane said:
So, which agency was used to fill these particular positions?
And even if they are a "geeky" agency, then how do they guarantee the gamer bona-fides that the company claims? Couldn't they just be pretending?
Also, why do you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?
I just want to say that everyone on the 1reasonwhy panel is in the industry I have no idea why certain people would think they weren't
Also they said they were offended by it because it suggests that the IDGA didn't want them there or thought of women as their audience. At an event where there was discussion of the bad treatment of women in the industry that was a bit rude to say the least.
It's an issue of exclusion not of sexy dancers.
http://kotaku.com/5963528/heres-a-devastating-account-of-the-crap-women-in-the-games-business-have-to-deal-with-in-2012
All in the games industry... including Kim Swift probably the most prominent female dev, she designed that little game you maybe have heard of called Portal.
Also they said they were offended by it because it suggests that the IDGA didn't want them there or thought of women as their audience. At an event where there was discussion of the bad treatment of women in the industry that was a bit rude to say the least.
It's an issue of exclusion not of sexy dancers.
http://kotaku.com/5963528/heres-a-devastating-account-of-the-crap-women-in-the-games-business-have-to-deal-with-in-2012
All in the games industry... including Kim Swift probably the most prominent female dev, she designed that little game you maybe have heard of called Portal.
So if IGDA did not co-sponsor/co-present/co-whatever the event, why does the IGDA say they co-sponsored the event?matthew_lane said:
So, if you had no idea, why did you mention D20 and Suicide Girls? You have no idea whether they used one of those agencies, or any agency at all.matthew_lane said:
Aardvaarkman said:
Except that doesn't apply just to my comments, it applies to many (the majority?) of your comments. You see something you don't agree with, and start hurling insults. Don't like raves or electronic music? Then everybody who disagrees must be into bad dubstep and picking up random drunk "chicks".matthew_lane said:
It's actually quite funny how you pronounce your own statements as "scathing" - oohhhh, no, I've been burned by the almighty matthew_lane and his scathingly accurate commentary! Back in reality, you are just somebody commenting on a message board, who knows nothing about his targets. With hilarious results.
But the IGDA say they had involvement in the event, they gave the green light to the outfits they just didn't realise how they would be used, and wouldn't have approved them if they knew.matthew_lane said:
Besides, WotC sponsoring Gencon isn't just an in-name thing, it means they are providing at the very least funding. Not surprising since at one point they owned the damned thing. Nevermind the fact Wizards is just one sponsor of several, for the event we are talking about there seems to have been only two entities involved.
The degree to which those two situations are comparable is small, and the degree to which that comparison is in your favor, it is not.
If you people think that what these women were wearing was all that risque, you must go to some pretty tame nightclubs. I've been to clubs where they have women running around in nothing but tape and candlewax and they aren't even paid. And the private after parties typically feature nudity. It's not really my thing to be honest, i prefer women with a little more class myself but that is rare where i live.
The issue isn't so much the clothing (for most people), but that they were hired dancers. It's the perceived message/intention behind it that is making people unhappy. I'd hope nobody would be so childish to take issue if the women were just guests like everybody else.Aramis Night said:
On a side-note, I think I may be in love with this person. She has summed up beautifully what I often try and say, but ten times better than I could ever have put it.
To be honest, I was expecting it like this the moment I saw the comic. It was inevitable, as we are yet to have a discussion on sexism without it devolving into both "sides" flinging insults at each other.Chemical Alia said:
Which is another reason I love the article I linked above.