On Dongles

[wulf3n]

I wasn't there so if they were genuinely STRIPPERS stripping their clothes off down to thongs/breasts then we have a problem because would be completely inappropriate.

However if they were nothing more than dancing girls in sexy clothing then that is more than fine, they're just there to dance and put on a show. The word "stripper" seems to be getting tossed around rather lazily in this thread, it makes me think people know what an actual stripper is and what an actual stripper does :S

edit: Yup, digging up more info on this incident, here we go: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/27/really-igda-party-at-gdc-brings-on-the-female-dancers/
Strippers my ass, just TWO dancers. However it seems that enough people complained about that so the IGDA won't be doing it again. I can see that it was inappropriate, this wasn't just some typical gaming convention/party. Fair enough.

The fact that it made the female co-chair of IGDA's Women In Games Group step down [http://au.businessinsider.com/igdas-after-party-with-women-dancers-2013-3] is HILARIOUS though, so that's all it takes to make a feminist run away? Talk about over-emotional

Strippers, dancers, over-zealous attendees, whatever. It doesn't make any difference, as it's still something that shouldn't be at a conference.

I understand your position, the organisers were just trying to make it more "interesting" but If you need something like dancers to want to attend, then you shouldn't be in the industry.

I would be incensed by the presence of strippers of any gender "hired" to perform at a Video Game event.

... Are you suggesting these ladies were kidnapped and then told to dance on stage?

No, just not wanting to exclude professional strippers who may be attending for the games, rather than attending as a means of getting paid.

 

[Snooder]

To every privileged straight male defending the strippers:

....imagine you're a videogame developer at a videogame convention. Suddenly, a bunch of male strippers wearing only a tanga hop on the table and put their asses in front of your face, just like the girl is doing in this comic.

Now you can understand why there was a righteous outrage at this.

Ok, imagine this scenario. You are at a party with a bunch of people in the fashion industry. Let's say it's an after-party at Milan fashion week. It's a mix, but most of the people there are either female or gay males. It's a pretty casual environment, there's loud music and drinking; but some people are having serious conversations because hey, they all work in the same industry. There are a couple of fairly buff shirtless dudes dancing on stage while singing "it's raining men." Everyone is generally enjoying themselves.

Now imagine some guy in the corner yelling "Fuck all this gay shit. Shit's fucking gross. I can't believe the sponsors are bringing this into a professional event."

That guy would be, rightly, considered a homophobic, buzz-killing douche.

 

[wulf3n]

Ok, imagine this scenario. You are at a party with a bunch of people in the fashion industry. Let's say it's an after-party at Milan fashion week. It's a mix, but most of the people there are either female or gay males. It's a pretty casual environment, there's loud music and drinking; but some people are having serious conversations because hey, they all work in the same industry. There are a couple of fairly buff shirtless dudes dancing on stage while singing "it's raining men." Everyone is generally enjoying themselves.

Now imagine some guy in the corner yelling "Fuck all this gay shit. Shit's fucking gross. I can't believe the sponsors are bringing this into a professional event."

That guy would be, rightly, considered a homophobic, buzz-killing douche.

I like how you subtly alter the reversal of the situation from the one that actually occurred, turning the offended into someone the audience can hate.

It's a nice use of loaded language, and I'm sure someone will be fooled by it.

 

[Snooder]

Ok, imagine this scenario. You are at a party with a bunch of people in the fashion industry. Let's say it's an after-party at Milan fashion week. It's a mix, but most of the people there are either female or gay males. It's a pretty casual environment, there's loud music and drinking; but some people are having serious conversations because hey, they all work in the same industry. There are a couple of fairly buff shirtless dudes dancing on stage while singing "it's raining men." Everyone is generally enjoying themselves.

Now imagine some guy in the corner yelling "Fuck all this gay shit. Shit's fucking gross. I can't believe the sponsors are bringing this into a professional event."

That guy would be, rightly, considered a homophobic, buzz-killing douche.

I like how you subtly alter the reversal of the situation from the one that actually occurred, turning the offended into someone the audience can hate.

That was rather the point.

A lot of the furor over this depends on your point of view. To some, the guy in the corner is an irritating annoyance turning what should be a fun time into an straight-laced and overly serious event based solely on his own selfishness and lack of tolerance for the ability of others to enjoy things that make him personally uncomfortable. Guess what, that is EXACTLY what "privileged straight males" think about people complaining over booth-babes or dancers or whatever other "pandering to the straight male" people are complaining about today.

Ultimately the issue boils down to "this thing is enjoyed by other people but makes me uncomfortable."

 

[wulf3n]

That was rather the point.

A lot of the furor over this depends on your point of view. To some, the guy in the corner is an irritating annoyance turning what should be a fun time into an straight-laced and overly serious event based solely on his own selfishness and lack of tolerance for the ability of others to enjoy things that make him personally uncomfortable. Guess what, that is EXACTLY what "privileged straight males" think about people complaining over booth-babes or dancers or whatever other "pandering to the straight male" people are complaining about today.

Ultimately the issue boils down to "this thing is enjoyed by other people but makes me uncomfortable."

It's facetious, and if you need to exaggerate a point to persuade others, you might not have as strong of a position as you initially thought.

You believe it's a case of someone trying to ruin others fun, but it's not like she went into a strip club and started brow beating, it was a games conference that hired dancers. What does that have to do with games?

The real issue is the exclusionary behaviour that is continually demonstrated by the games industry. Why do we need dancers at a games conference. Who is really "hurt" by their exclusion. Whether you understand the position or not, enough people found this in bad taste to the point of resignation.

 

[Snooder]

It's facetious, and if you need to exaggerate a point to persuade others, you might not have as strong of a position as you initially thought.

I'm not exaggerating anything. I'm providing a direct analogue to the situation while replacing the actors to better illustrate how your personal bias affects your view.

You believe it's a case of someone trying to ruin others fun, but it's not like she went into a strip club and started brow beating, it was a games conference that hired dancers. What does that have to do with games?

What does fashion have to do with shirtless dudes?

The real issue is the exclusionary behaviour that is continually demonstrated by the games industry.

This sort of statement is what I'm trying to get people to think more logically about. Hiring dancers for a party has nothing to do with 'excluding' anyone from anything. It's there to entertain the demographic that makes up the majority of the attendees. It's as offensive to describe that as "exclusionary" or "sexist" as it is to complain that shirtless guys at a party where most people like seeing shirtless guys is a personal affront to your straight male sensibilities. Other people like that stuff, and you just had the bad luck to be in the minority on this specific occasion.

Why do we need dancers at a games conference. Who is really "hurt" by their exclusion. Whether you understand the position or not, enough people found this in bad taste to the point of resignation.

The point is not whether we "need" dancers or not. Clearly we don't. We also don't need alcohol or live music or DJs or any other 'fun' things that go on at informal events. But what's the point of having an informal event if you can't actually be informal and have fun? The fact that someone else's version of "fun" doesn't jibe with your own does not make their version of fun any less valid or important.

 

[xorinite]

Strippers, dancers, over-zealous attendees, whatever. It doesn't make any difference, as it's still something that shouldn't be at a conference.

For me that largely depends on the nature of the conference in question, and the type of dancer that is being employed does make a considerable difference.

If matthew lane is right however, this wasn't actually at the conference at all.

Therefore to be relevent; what are your opinions regarding female stage dancers (or over-zealous attendees?) at raves in nightclubs like the one organised by the IGDA?

EDIT correction: the IGDA didn't organise the rave. They organised a party in a nightclub, the rave was organised by Wargaming.net. (added 8/4/2013)


Do you see a problem with the IGDA organising two different style of events for its members, or with the hiring of female stage dancers for its nightclub events, or game developers associating for night club events?

Or do you have a different concern?

Personally I see there might be some conflict of branding if you organise two very distinctly different kind of events. I can also understand why someone who worked for them might be concerned with the direction the IGDA is going if they were wanting it to be about professional events like conferences and debates, rather than general entertainment events like dancing nights.

Additionally, I despise raves. So such events would exclude me regardless of any additional factors.

 

[Vivid Kazumi]

MMMMMMMMMM that one sexy ass all right-You should do more strips like this Desu

Spoiler

episode plox

 

[wulf3n]

I'm not exaggerating anything. I'm providing a direct analogue to the situation while replacing the actors to better illustrate how your personal bias affects your view.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where Brenda Romero said "Fuck all this lesbian shit. Shit's fucking gross." in those exact words. Hah direct analogue, you crack me up.

What does fashion have to do with shirtless dudes?

Absolutely nothing, but yours is an entirely fabricated scenario. There's no evidence to show that actually occurred. Other industries are probably smart enough not to pull stunts like this.

This sort of statement is what I'm trying to get people to think more logically about. Hiring dancers for a party has nothing to do with 'excluding' anyone from anything.

If a part of your audience are offended by said behaviour, whether you intend it or not you're excluding them.

It's there to entertain the demographic that makes up the majority of the attendees.

Chicken or the Egg. Maybe they're only the majority because of the exclusionary behaviour.

It's as offensive to describe that as "exclusionary" or "sexist" as it is to complain that shirtless guys at a party where most people like seeing shirtless guys is a personal affront to your straight male sensibilities.

Spoken like someone who's always been a part of the majority. No ones saying these types of parties can't exist, just that their prevalence in GAMES CONVENTIONS is ridiculous and unnecessary. It detracts nothing of note if removed, yet discourages others when included.

Other people like that stuff, and you just had the bad luck to be in the minority on this specific occasion.

And you wonder where "privileged straight males" comes from.

The point is not whether we "need" dancers or not. Clearly we don't. We also don't need alcohol or live music or DJs or any other 'fun' things that go on at informal events. But what's the point of having an informal event if you can't actually be informal and have fun? The fact that someone else's version of "fun" doesn't jibe with your own does not make their version of fun any less valid or important.

There are plenty of places you can go for "informal events" if a group want to go to something like that they can. When you organise you're own event you need to think of the messages being sent to those that don't share your view of "fun". The fact that you don't understand [or don't care] is why the "privileged straight males" line gets thrown around.

 

[wulf3n]

For me that largely depends on the nature of the conference in question, and the type of dancer that is being employed does make a considerable difference.

If matthew lane is right however, this wasn't actually at the conference at all.

Therefore to be relevent; what are your opinions regarding female stage dancers (or over-zealous attendees?) at raves in nightclubs like the one organised by the IGDA?

Why did the IGDA need to organise a rave at a nightclub? is basically my opinion. I'm sure there are clubs in the general area, if attendees were so inclined, but specifically organising said event sends the message [intentional or not] you're the ones we care about.

Do you see a problem with the IGDA organising two different style of events for its members, or with the hiring of female stage dancers for its nightclub events, or game developers associating for night club events?

Or do you have a different concern?

Why are the IGDA organising raves?

Personally I see there might be some conflict of branding if you organise two very distinctly different kind of events. I can also understand why someone who worked for them might be concerned with the direction the IGDA is going if they were wanting it to be about professional events like conferences and debates, rather than general entertainment events like dancing nights.

Additionally, I despise raves. So such events would exclude me regardless of any additional factors.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Let's take a look at another industry with similar gender makeup. Most engineering disciplines are heavily male dominated, just like the video game industry. Last time I went to an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) sectional, not once did I see any female performers, entertainers, strippers, or hired eye-candy. If you are having a professional get-together, why do you need female performers? It doesn't matter if all their clothes stay on. The simple fact you hired women for an event just because they are women is crass.

I already agreed that the dancers were inappropriate, but I really think you should look up what "afterparty" means. Afterparties can get pretty ridiculous no matter how "professional" the original event was. The dancers didn't come during the actual seminars/talks/presentations, they came when all that was over, the music was turned up, the drinks were handed out and people started having fun.

Can people please look up the actual incident and stop taking this comic literally??

 

[Snooder]

Absolutely nothing, but yours is an entirely fabricated scenario. There's no evidence to show that actually occurred. Other industries are probably smart enough not to pull stunts like this.

Quick google fu brings this up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=zFFGbi4CCvg&NR=1
Please note that it is, yes, a party organized by a company in the fashion industry that heavily features half-naked men mingling.

If a part of your audience are offended by said behaviour, whether you intend it or not you're excluding them.

Again, replace the principal actors in that statement and tell me it still makes sense. Is a party that offends a straight guy "exclusionary" just because he's uncomfortable around shirtless men? No. Ergo, a party that offends a straight female is not also "exclusionary" just because she's uncomfortable around women in skimpy dresses.

Spoken like someone who's always been a part of the majority. No ones saying these types of parties can't exist, just that their prevalence in GAMES CONVENTIONS is ridiculous and unnecessary. It detracts nothing of note if removed, yet discourages others when included.

First of all, it would be wildly incorrect to assume that I've always been part of a majority.

Second, it would be a different conversation if people were arguing for the addition of different types of parties or saying that it's cool if we have these events, but we ought to have other events as well. But they aren't. There's no call of, "hey, we've put up with your bro-zone for a while now, how about having a ladies night or family friendly events one night out of the week." Instead the statements made and the complaints are "this makes me uncomfortable and I should never have to see it." Which, by definition, means that it should never exist in the same space that you also exist.

Let's say that we concede that the proper place for informal parties like this are away from the GDC after-party. Cool, we can have an after-after-party. Guess what happens next? Everyone shows up to the after-after-party and suddenly that becomes the place where deals are made, connections happen, and the journalists have to come. Then we have news stories about dancers at the after-after-party.

And you wonder where "privileged straight males" comes from.

I don't wonder that at all. I simply think at some point people have to realize that they aren't always going to be the "face" of the particular group they happen to be included in. That the group as a whole tends to follow the tastes of the majority isn't "tyranny" or "privilege" it's just common sense.

There's nothing wrong with feeling dissatisfied as part of a minority. Or agitating for a little more focus on your personal needs. What's going on though isn't that. Or at least it's not being articulated that way.

There are plenty of places you can go for "informal events" if a group want to go to something like that they can. When you organise you're own event you need to think of the messages being sent to those that don't share your view of "fun". The fact that you don't understand [or don't care] is why the "privileged straight males" line gets thrown around.

Yes, and one of those places is an after-party at a conference.

 

[xorinite]

Why did the IGDA need to organise a rave at a nightclub? is basically my opinion. I'm sure there are clubs in the general area, if attendees were so inclined, but specifically organising said event sends the message [intentional or not] you're the ones we care about.

Why are the IGDA organising raves?

Well if your only concern why organise a rave; I would assume they arrange it for entertainment purposes. While I dislike raves, the last time I attended one the people there appeared to be enjoying themselves and might enjoy attending them with members of an association group if they belonged to one.

Is there some reason they shouldn't organise raves?

I don't see why a rave has less right to exist than a conference or any other kind of company outing. There are doubtlessly people who dislike conferences to the same degree I dislike raves.

I'd have a different opinion if they made the events mandatory (which they sometimes do for conferences)

 

[wulf3n]

Again, replace the principal actors in that statement and tell me it still makes sense. Is a party that offends a straight guy "exclusionary" just because he's uncomfortable around shirtless men? No. Ergo, a party that offends a straight female is not also "exclusionary" just because she's uncomfortable around women in skimpy dresses.

While you're not prohibiting people from attending, you're creating an environment that certain groups feel uncomfortable in ergo exclusionary.

Instead the statements made and the complaints are "this makes me uncomfortable and I should never have to see it." Which, by definition, means that it should never exist in the same space that you also exist.

Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Let's say that we concede that the proper place for informal parties like this are away from the GDC after-party. Cool, we can have an after-after-party. Guess what happens next? Everyone shows up to the after-after-party and suddenly that becomes the place where deals are made, connections happen, and the journalists have to come. Then we have news stories about dancers at the after-after-party.

How about this. Don't organise after-after-parties.

There's nothing wrong with feeling dissatisfied as part of a minority. Or agitating for a little more focus on your personal needs. What's going on though isn't that. Or at least it's not being articulated that way.

Really? despite what most might think, The issue isn't "Female developer/organise doesn't like seeing half naked woman", rather "Female developer/organiser doesn't like the idea of her "gender" being used solely for entertainment" at a supposed gathering of professionals.

Yes, and one of those places is an after-party at a conference.

That's arguable, which is why we're arguing it.

Well if your only concern why organise a rave; I would assume they arrange it for entertainment purposes. While I dislike raves, the last time I attended one the people there appeared to be enjoying themselves and might enjoy attending them with members of an association group if they belonged to one.

Is there some reason they shouldn't organise raves?

There's no need. If the attendees want entertainment they can go to a rave after. The conference should be about the conference.

I don't see why a rave has less right to exist than a conference or any other kind of company outing. There are doubtlessly people who dislike conferences to the same degree I dislike raves.

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

I'd have a different opinion if they made the events mandatory (which they sometimes do for conferences)

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

 

[wulf3n]

Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Except it didn't happen at an industry event, it happened at a night club open to the public, held by people who were not the convention organisers.

Really? [http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/28/igda-responds-to-the-gdc-party-faux-pas/]

It was a party organised by YetiZen [http://yetizen.com/] a company that organises game development workshops and co-presented by the IGDA [http://www.igda.org/]

They didn't just go to some random party afterwards, they went to an after-party organised by the organisers of the conference.

Now you may say "Oh, but it was "wargaming" who organised the party, YetiZen had nothing to do with it" [http://yetizen.com/2013/03/30/official-statement-by-the-yetizen-ceo-on-the-yetizen-igda-gdc-party/2/], to which I reply standard marketing BS, if you put your name on something you better make sure its something you agree with

 

[Snooder]

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

I don't think you really understand how these sorts of events come about. The whole after-party thing starts as a way for people to unwind and relax informally a bit outside the strictly professional environment of the conference itself.

The fact that deals are made and stuff happens isn't the reason for the after-party's existence, it's simply a side-effect of getting various people together in the same room. The reason those people are there in the first place is to have fun. It's pretty simple. Conference ends, some friends get together to hang out and talk shop a bit. The next year people hear about how awesome that party was and more people show up. Then the next year some marketing agency hears about all those people getting together and decides to promote their product in the same place. Then the next year another company decides to replicate the success of the first party and hosts their own event. Ten years down the line you end up with multiple companies "sponsoring" different parties and different events and it ends up being the place to be, where even more deals are made than at the primary event.

Saying "oh it's too big now, you're not here for fun anymore" defeats the whole purpose.