Percentage of Women in Game Development Has Doubled

[verdant monkai]

Hopefully these women will make interesting developed women characters. That everyone seems to be klammmering for.

 

[saltyanon]

What quotas? Who said anything about quotas?

Oh please. You've got to be naive if you don't think this can devolve into some affirmative action type quota filling. Or hasn't already.

So, talking about an obvious societal development occurring throughout the entire modern world would somehow make you magically understand your nonsense?

Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific.

And not providing facts somehow makes more sense? Please. If anything this "increase" has to do more with "oh shit we gotta hire more women to not look sexist", than anything else, which makes it all just a sad attempt at pandering and checklisting instead of actually trying to fix things.

I grew up on the countryside.
I assure you, the jobs that include wading through shit are hardly male-only.

I grew up and live in a third world country. I assure you your concept of wading through sewage is very different, and it's almost exclusively done by impoverished men. It's also funny that being a woman here makes landing a front-desk job or a secretary job easier.

Because if not, if men aren't asking in droves to work in a dangerous and uncomfortable and unglamorous job on a minimum vage, it's a double standard to expect women to.

And it's quite hypocritical to want equality in all fields but then suddenly it's not necessary when it comes to "uncomfortable and unglamorous minimum wage jobs". The people asking for equality aren't just talking about equal opportunity too (because that already exists), they want equal numbers. Hence, the existence of articles that highlight the amount of women in x industry.

 

[chikusho]

What quotas? Who said anything about quotas?

Oh please. You've got to be naive if you don't think this can devolve into some affirmative action type quota filling. Or hasn't already.

Please provide quotes, because I have said nothing of the sort.
If someone else has, well, then why the hell aren't you discussing that with them?

So, talking about an obvious societal development occurring throughout the entire modern world would somehow make you magically understand your nonsense?

Sorry, you're going to have to be more specific.

And not providing facts somehow makes more sense? Please. If anything this "increase" has to do more with "oh shit we gotta hire more women to not look sexist", than anything else, which makes it all just a sad attempt at pandering and checklisting instead of actually trying to fix things.

You know, a fairly important precedent to hiring women is.. you know.. women applying.
How the hell would someone hire women to not look sexist without having a pool to choose from?

Also, checklisting does fix things, and isn't pandering in the slightest.

I grew up on the countryside.
I assure you, the jobs that include wading through shit are hardly male-only.

I grew up and live in a third world country. I assure you your concept of wading through sewage is very different, and it's almost exclusively done by impoverished men. It's also funny that being a woman here makes landing a front-desk job or a secretary job easier.

Keyword here, impoverished.
How the hell can you even begin to compare a job taken out of desperation for life and family to a job people dream of their entire lives? A job which also has great cultural influence, and in part shapes the perception of the world.

Because if not, if men aren't asking in droves to work in a dangerous and uncomfortable and unglamorous job on a minimum vage, it's a double standard to expect women to.

And it's quite hypocritical to want equality in all fields but then suddenly it's not necessary when it comes to "uncomfortable and unglamorous minimum wage jobs". The people asking for equality aren't just talking about equal opportunity too (because that already exists), they want equal numbers. Hence, the existence of articles that highlight the amount of women in x industry.

First of all, who wants equality in all fields, again? I have no clue who you're talking about, so I sense that the strawman is strong in you.
The people asking for equality are talking about equal opportunity which is still a far ways off.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

and it's only going to increase, as time has shown. It's going to get to the point where we will have 50-50 or at least very close to it. Not that a lot of people will admit that

As time has shown...with what, exactly?

Probably the increasing gender equalization in every field.

I'm of the persuasion that males and females trend towards different interests and thus that representation in any field of work will rarely be 50/50. You'll have to back that up if you're claiming it's something to 'admit' rather than 'believe'. Not that I'd care if it did, people should do what they like.

With the slow erosion of gender roles, men and women probably won't trend toward gender specific interests as time goes on. At least not in any relevant capacity.

Still nothing to show that 50/50 is the outcome. Some fields have seen a more rapid change, like biology, yet physics is still mainly men. I myself see at university that there are less women in civil engineering than environmental or electrical. Female students tend to do better at English than males and worse at maths in primary school. Anyway, I don't profess to know that genders have preferences, although judging from the unequal stabilisation I do think that. You are the one that has to justify using 'probably' and 'relevant' where no evidence has been found. It's all hypothetical at the moment, you don't know that women and men don't have preferences based on gender and I don't know that they do. What we should be doing is creating an environment where people can do what they like and seeing what happens. It doesn't matter if it's 50/50 or not. But because we don't know, I am against making it easier or harder for anyone to pursue any career option based on their gender than it should be.

 

[chikusho]

Still nothing to show that 50/50 is the outcome.

Quite the contrary. There are a number of things that point toward such a development. For instance, the rapidly increasing percentage reported in this very thread.
Also, historically, women used to hardly have jobs at all. Now they make up 50 percent of the workforce in the US (and other places). In my opinion, that's a highly relevant development.

Some fields have seen a more rapid change, like biology, yet physics is still mainly men. I myself see at university that there are less women in civil engineering than environmental or electrical. Female students tend to do better at English than males and worse at maths in primary school.

Slow change =/= no change. Neither does it disprove a close to 50/50 split down the line. Especially since, even now, women are still not being equally accepted in most fields, even though it's getting better.

You are the one that has to justify using 'probably' and 'relevant' where no evidence has been found.

The evidence is in the obvious direction we're seeing in all fields as time moves on.

It's all hypothetical at the moment, you don't know that women and men don't have preferences based on gender and I don't know that they do.

I do know that preferences are both encouraged and discouraged in society today, so that even the most ambitious person might find the struggle to be accepted in a particular field to be too much to bear.

What we should be doing is creating an environment where people can do what they like and seeing what happens. It doesn't matter if it's 50/50 or not.

True, but it's still a long, long way there.

But because we don't know, I am against making it easier or harder for anyone to pursue any career option based on their gender than it should be.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Still nothing to show that 50/50 is the outcome.

Quite the contrary. There are a number of things that point toward such a development. For instance, the rapidly increasing percentage reported in this very thread.
Also, historically, women used to hardly have jobs at all. Now they make up 50 percent of the workforce in the US (and other places). In my opinion, that's a highly relevant development.

Some fields have seen a more rapid change, like biology, yet physics is still mainly men. I myself see at university that there are less women in civil engineering than environmental or electrical. Female students tend to do better at English than males and worse at maths in primary school.

Slow change =/= no change. Neither does it disprove a close to 50/50 split down the line. Especially since, even now, women are still not being equally accepted in most fields, even though it's getting better.

You are the one that has to justify using 'probably' and 'relevant' where no evidence has been found.

The evidence is in the obvious direction we're seeing in all fields as time moves on.

It's all hypothetical at the moment, you don't know that women and men don't have preferences based on gender and I don't know that they do.

I do know that preferences are both encouraged and discouraged in society today, so that even the most ambitious person might find the struggle to be accepted in a particular field to be too much to bear.

What we should be doing is creating an environment where people can do what they like and seeing what happens. It doesn't matter if it's 50/50 or not.

True, but it's still a long, long way there.

But because we don't know, I am against making it easier or harder for anyone to pursue any career option based on their gender than it should be.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

For the first part, increasing equality in opportunity is going to lead to more women in traditionally male fields. Still doesn't mean that in the end both men and women equally want those jobs. Come back when it is 50/50 out of opportunity alone, until then you don't know that'll be the case. For the last, yes, you do, and you haven't suggested it.

 

[saltyanon]

Please provide quotes, because I have said nothing of the sort.
If someone else has, well, then why the hell aren't you discussing that with them?

The fact that articles like this exist as I've stated. A report on statistics to provide satisfaction to a certain demographic that will only say "equal opportunity" is achieved when there are "equal numbers".

You know, a fairly important precedent to hiring women is.. you know.. women applying.
How the hell would someone hire women to not look sexist without having a pool to choose from?

The industry isn't short of female applicants. All we have to do is prioritize women applicants over male applicants and trash merit-based hiring and we're good.

Also, checklisting does fix things, and isn't pandering in the slightest.

Heh, quite naive. Yeah, affirmative action checklisting really did a good job at fixing racism didn't it? It's dumb to think that increasing the target demographic's numbers is going to change anything. In fact, you're only exposing more of them to the same problems you want to fix. You're not fixing the core issue, you're just throwing more fodder at it.

How the hell can you even begin to compare a job taken out of desperation for life and family to a job people dream of their entire lives? A job which also has great cultural influence, and in part shapes the perception of the world

You said "all fields". You opened up that possibility. That's what you get for talking in absolutes.

First of all, who wants equality in all fields, again? I have no clue who you're talking about, so I sense that the strawman is strong in you.

The target demographic for articles such as this.

The people asking for equality are talking about equal opportunity which is still a far ways off.

Equal numbers != equal opportunity. Those people either want equal numbers or the elimination of "sexism", neither of which is equal job opportunity. Have you even worked in the "industry"? Hiring is by and large, merit-based.

 

[chikusho]

The fact that articles like this exist as I've stated. A report on statistics to provide satisfaction to a certain demographic that will only say "equal opportunity" is achieved when there are "equal numbers".

So, reporting on a a true development within a field is the same as saying "equal opportunity" is achieved when there are "equal numbers"?
I'm sorry, I just don't know what to make of that statement. Paranoia? Jaundice? Imprudence?
Also, even if that was true, what does that have to do with me? I never mentioned quotas, but you did. Persecution complex?

The industry isn't short of female applicants. All we have to do is prioritize women applicants over male applicants and trash merit-based hiring and we're good.

First of all, if every field has no shortage of female applicants, yet are still male dominated, I'd say that's a pretty good sign of a close to 50/50 split down the line.
Secondly, merit-based hiring won't be possible until men and women have the same status and perception in the industry. And women won't have the same status unless they get the chance to be perceived as functioning within it.
And that might happen slowly over time as maybe more people get their head out of their ass, or it could be speed along by forcing some degree of interaction. Also, having more women work in the industry encourages young girls and women to see that it is possible to get in to a field which they love.

Yeah, affirmative action checklisting really did a good job at fixing racism didn't it? It's dumb to think that increasing the target demographic's numbers is going to change anything. In fact, you're only exposing more of them to the same problems you want to fix. You're not fixing the core issue, you're just throwing more fodder at it.

Affirmitive action created huge advances in education and employment for black people and women. And education and employment means the opportunity to move out of poverty, which is something guaranteed to improve your status in society, and your perception of people around you.
The core issue gets fixed by having people interact so as to realize that their prejudices are wrong. And society is way better off by having more diversity in it, both economically and psychologically.

You seem to be forgetting that those numbers are representative of actual people.

How the hell can you even begin to compare a job taken out of desperation for life and family to a job people dream of their entire lives? A job which also has great cultural influence, and in part shapes the perception of the world

You said "all fields". You opened up that possibility. That's what you get for talking in absolutes.

Yes, I said, and still see, that all fields have seen an increased gender representation. As in, it's something that is happening right now. I made a simple observation.
And your reply to that observation is that we should force women to wade in shit for equality. How the hell are you making that connection?

The target demographic for articles such as this.

Even if that was true (which is seriously reaching), I have no idea why you would bring it up with me.

Equal numbers != equal opportunity. Those people either want equal numbers or the elimination of "sexism", neither of which is equal job opportunity.

Equal number does not necessarily mean equal opportunity, but it could. It's a very good way of measuring equal opportunity though.
Also, the elimination of sexism would of course increase job opportunities for women. What are you on about?

For the first part, increasing equality in opportunity is going to lead to more women in traditionally male fields. Still doesn't mean that in the end both men and women equally want those jobs.

Not right now maybe, but as the next generation grows up and knows from the outset that it's possible, that might very well change what men and women want. As has been the trend for the last 60 years.

Come back when it is 50/50 out of opportunity alone, until then you don't know that'll be the case.

So, instead of praising a development and analyzing what it means, everyone should shut the hell up and do nothing? How productive.. :/

For the last, yes, you do, and you haven't suggested it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.