Tomb Raider's Writer Gives #1ReasonToBe In Gaming Industry

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

snip

So the industry is fine to you then? If RP's PR campaign works then great.

snip

? then your statement of more means nothing, just "I dunno, but I don't like how it is". I was asking you to clarify what "more" means then if 50/50 is something you don't support.

Also how am I picking a fight? Or do you view any differing opinion or questions as starting a fight? Usually to start a fight you usually have to hate each other first.

Female gamers and those tuned into the culture do have a decent market share of 20-25% of gamers the rest being mostly mobile and casual games, but to broaden the brush and show even non-gamers "a reason to be in the industry".

 

[EvilRoy]

When does "more" end?

Slippery Slope Fallacy. Your "argument" fails.

I tried to express the problem with this and guessing by the response I got on the last page I think I failed pretty hard. If you don't mind I'd like to take another shot in explaining the 'more' problem.

The major thing is how infuriating that statement can be to a person on the other side of the fence. That is, a person in a position or with an assigned duty to encourage professional diversity along gender lines. Saying 'more' just isn't helpful for us in the least.

On one hand it has an implication that whatever progress we or others in similar situations have made is not enough, while on the other hand it produces a completely nebulous goal. Women aren't sprinkles, you can't just say 'when' once you have enough. Which is where 50/50 comes from. It's a conservative assumption with regards to the necessary level of diversity in order to achieve 'enough' by way of 'more'.

It could just as easily be that 60-40 or 30-70 is the necessary level, but when you're dealing with scientists, engineers, businesspeople and accountants the instant assumption is that the books must be balanced first, and then if 'more' persists or gives way to 'too much' we can work from there.

So now you're probably thinking "If women aren't sprinkles, then they aren't a water tap either. You can't just adjust the levels like that." Which is totally right. Because the problem isn't 'more' or 'enough' or 'too much', the problems are the boundaries to entry which range from professional bias, to societal bias, to parental bias. When you say 'more', you can be asking us to do anything from removing all professional bias (we try), to actively recruiting one gender over the other, to selling a lifestyle/future to parents and society, to kidnapping them in the night and sitting them Clockwork Orange style in a lecture hall.

So instead of saying we need 'more' women in game development, just say something like I dunno... "We need to remove the negative female stigma of employment in gaming. Where has it come from, what can we do about it?" And then do that again and again for any other barriers to entry you can identify.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

This really isn't the topic for that but are you serious? Anita Sarkeesian is so damn passive about her criticisms that I sometimes get bothered by her not having strong enough of a stance. Is it at all possible to criticize the way that genders are getting presented without it being "demonizing" games? And whether or not the female stereotypes are harmful, they're sure as hell sad and depressing

well so are you it seems, calling something harmful or another strong word with a negative connotation, shames any and all who may enjoy them, usually with the desire to remove it and any who like it.

RP has a good idea, as rather than complain about what is already out, more women should get into the industry and create games they'll actually like, rather than complain about.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

snip

I think rather than disagreeing with your points they felt offended that someone put words in their mouths, no matter how legitimately. If you don't keep the arguments focused solely on what they said, even if other avenues open up, else you're putting words in their mouth and they won't listen.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The major thing is how infuriating that statement can be to a person on the other side of the fence. That is, a person in a position or with an assigned duty to encourage professional diversity along gender lines. Saying 'more' just isn't helpful for us in the least.

... how is it not helpful? More than there are now.

you can be asking us to do anything from removing all professional bias (we try), to actively recruiting one gender over the other,

This. This is what we mean. Those two - remove professional bias and do some active recruiting.

The point of "more" is that, when an industry has an extremely low percent of female employees, and there are women actively trying to get into the industry and are being passed over or fired for being women, then that is a problem. And no, I'm not saying that you or your particular company did that, but someone's company did.

The point is, 50/50 is NOT a reasonable "assumption". If you look at total game designers educated, it isn't a 50% split. However, the percent in the video game industry is worse than the graduation numbers. I would be nice if they were similar.

"We need to remove the negative female stigma of employment in gaming. Where has it come from, what can we do about it?" And then do that again and again for any other barriers to entry you can identify.

I believe that is exactly what we HAVE been saying. The summary of the above is "more".

Also keep in mind that, while you may be an expert on H&R, a lot of the rest of us are not. We don't know the terms, the practices, or the issues specifically. But we do know that women are not represented in the gaming industry and that the numbers of female employees are bizarrely low compared to how many women have computer science degrees.

Edit: Sorry, I accidentally deleted part of that sentence before the original posting. It has been corrected.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I am all for women doing whatever career they want, just don't force quotas or other arbitrary means to achieve the false sense of "equality" that often comes from pushing for the benefit of one side.
Feminism by definition is against equality, and by practice is really pushing for female supremacy (pushing for "equality" by focusing on the needs of one).

There's Anita Sarkeesian....

That name makes me laugh, and thus I pretty much ignored the rest of that post. Anita is what I would call a crybaby. She looks for everything she can find to be offended about and spins it to support her view. Facts are something she isn't concerned about. She is among the LAST people you should name in this regard.

Spoiler: This video shows what I am talking about very well

Title may be a bit off-putting, but you'll understand why it was called that.

 

[Abomination]

The major thing is how infuriating that statement can be to a person on the other side of the fence. That is, a person in a position or with an assigned duty to encourage professional diversity along gender lines. Saying 'more' just isn't helpful for us in the least.

... how is it not helpful? More than there are now.

And when will that nebulous criteria be met so that the emphasis on encouraging more women to join the industry can be lifted?

The 50/50 suggestion is used because it's the only value everyone can agree would be 'the most equal' but at the same time we all know in order to even get near to it some very specific 'encouragements' will need to be used - which in turn will require affirmative action. Is 75/25 enough? 70/30? 65/35? 60/40? 55/45? What is the goal here? Attempting societal change in an industry is a time consuming and expensive procedure. It also needs to be done in a way where a female interested in the industry will not have an advantage over a male interested in the industry because of the campaign to encourage more females to join the industry.

you can be asking us to do anything from removing all professional bias (we try), to actively recruiting one gender over the other,

This. This is what we mean. Those two - remove professional bias and do some active recruiting.

Hold on, BOTH? Actively recruit one gender over the other? That means turning aside men to recruit women in their place to "balance the books". That is the LAST thing one should do to resolve this problem as it will simply create problems in the workplace "You only got this job because you're a woman" and it could be TRUE.

The point of "more" is that, when an industry has an extremely low percent of female employees, and there are women actively trying to get into the industry and are being passed over or fired for being women, then that is a problem. And no, I'm not saying that you or your particular company did that, but someone's company did.

Hold on, you're saying there is no evidence of it happening but it most certainly did? That happens in EVERY industry for BOTH genders. There is going to be a situation where someone is hired over another candidate that has been shortlisted because of their gender difference... but it's not an industry wide epidemic.

The point is, 50/50 is NOT a reasonable "assumption". If you look at total game designers educated, it isn't a 50% split. However, the percent in the video game industry is worse than the graduation numbers. I would be nice if they were similar.

It most certainly is a reasonable assumption when we're dealing with the idea of balancing participation rates between two groups. 50/50 is the optimal and until a different figure is given as to what would be acceptable we can only assume that is what the end goal of balancing is.

"We need to remove the negative female stigma of employment in gaming. Where has it come from, what can we do about it?" And then do that again and again for any other barriers to entry you can identify.

I believe that is exactly what we HAVE been saying. The summary of the above is "more".

Also keep in mind that, while you may be an expert on H&R, a lot of the rest of us are not. We don't know the terms, the practices, or the issues specifically. But we do know that women are not represented in the gaming industry and that the numbers of female employees are bizarrely low compared to how many women have computer science degrees.

Unfortunately it is not what has been said, all that has been said is "there need to be more women in the gaming industry" and that is a nebulous request or demand.

Destruction of the industry barriers to entry is the only action that should be taken. The number of females entering the industry will increase organically. Too much encouragement will only build resentment and you'll be back at square one. This does mean that it will take at least a generation for males to not hold over a 95% majority but there is no easy and immediate solution to the gender disparity and far more factors than just education, employment and female interest in the role.

 

[demoman_chaos]

You're the kind of person that all the adults in the video game community are getting sick of dealing with. I don't even know where to start...

You could start by trying to say pushing for the benefit of one and ignoring the needs of the other makes for equality, which we both know is false.
You could try to explain why Anita has made 1 20 minute video (that is very easily proven false and shows a supreme lack of actual research) in the year she has had $150k given to her by Kickstarter.
You could also try doing something other than insulting the age of someone you don't even know the age of (been playing games for about 20 years now, got my start with the original Sonic the Hedgehog and never looked back).

Debates work via exchange of facts and ideas, and when done proper lead to both sides learning about the other and sometimes coming to an agreement of what is and is not true. I've taken part in countless ones, with various people with very varied knowledge of the particular subject. I have a pretty firm grasp on the behaviors associated with different stages of debates. I've found personal insults tend to be last resort "I'm out of counterpoints" sort of things. Don't start with those mate.

 

[Abomination]

I am all for women doing whatever career they want, just don't force quotas or other arbitrary means to achieve the false sense of "equality" that often comes from pushing for the benefit of one side.
Feminism by definition is against equality, and by practice is really pushing for female supremacy (pushing for "equality" by focusing on the needs of one).

Look, I disagree with some of the methods of the current major branch of feminism as much as the next person but to say that feminists as a whole are for female supremacy is just plain incorrect.

Your concern over quotas and gender-specific-encouragement-advantages is a valid one but your statement was seriously undermined by your interpretation of feminism.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Look, I disagree with some of the methods of the current major branch of feminism as much as the next person but to say that feminists as a whole are for female supremacy is just plain incorrect.

Your concern over quotas and gender-specific-encouragement-advantages is a valid one but your statement was seriously undermined by your interpretation of feminism.

Dear chap, pushing for the rights of one and ignoring the needs of the other can lead only to supremacy of one and subjugation of the other. Feminism is just that, ignoring men's rights and pushing for special treatment of women. You cannot argue that minimum quotas of women is not special treatment. You cannot argue that Wimbledon paying women the same prize money for playing less tennis (3 sets vs 5) is just. You cannot say it is fine and dandy for their to be headlines of new websites titled "All Men are Rapists" and "Men are the Problem" while saying "Black People are all Pedophiles" is wrong. It is the same thing, only different targets.

THIS [http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/] shouldn't be allowed, we should agree.

 

[Abomination]

Look, I disagree with some of the methods of the current major branch of feminism as much as the next person but to say that feminists as a whole are for female supremacy is just plain incorrect.

Your concern over quotas and gender-specific-encouragement-advantages is a valid one but your statement was seriously undermined by your interpretation of feminism.

Dear chap, pushing for the rights of one and ignoring the needs of the other can lead only to supremacy of one and subjugation of the other. Feminism is just that, ignoring men's rights and pushing for special treatment of women. You cannot argue that minimum quotas of women is not special treatment. You cannot argue that Wimbledon paying women the same prize money for playing less tennis (3 sets vs 5) is just. You cannot say it is fine and dandy for their to be headlines of new websites titled "All Men are Rapists" and "Men are the Problem" while saying "Black People are all Pedophiles" is wrong. It is the same thing, only different targets.

THIS [http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/] shouldn't be allowed, we should agree.

What you have highlighted is my issues with feminism and while some of their misguided methods give the impression, at times, that what they want is superiority can I please highlight something you said moments earlier:

I've found personal insults tend to be last resort "I'm out of counterpoints" sort of things.

and stating that ALL feminists want to be superior to men is just the same thing on a far broader scale.

I do not deny that their claimed goal and the intention of most of their members is just - an egalitarian society between genders - I do question their methods. It starts at first with their very name: feminism which, when compared to any other word in the English language, evokes the idea of fem - female, isim - focus.

But to tell them what their intentions are, no matter their actions, will just resort to nothing but talking past each other. No matter how much I believe their efforts are entering the territory of hindering an egalitarian society I will not insist what their motives are... for a person's motives are VERY personal and dictating what someone's motives are is easy to perceive as a personal attack.

 

[demoman_chaos]

What you have highlighted is my issues with feminism and while some of their misguided methods give the impression, at times, that what they want is superiority can I please highlight something you said moments earlier:

I've found personal insults tend to be last resort "I'm out of counterpoints" sort of things.

and stating that ALL feminists want to be superior to men is just the same thing on a far broader scale.

I do not deny that their claimed goal and the intention of most of their members is just - an egalitarian society between genders - I do question their methods. It starts at first with their very name: feminism which, when compared to any other word in the English language, evokes the idea of fem - female, isim - focus.

But to tell them what their intentions are, no matter their actions, will just resort to nothing but talking past each other. No matter how much I believe their efforts are entering the territory of hindering an egalitarian society I will not insist what their motives are... for a person's motives are VERY personal and dictating what someone's motives are is easy to perceive as a personal attack.

Please point out where I stated all feminists want to be superior to men, for I know not where that was hiding. From what I can see, I have been speaking of feminism as a whole and not the individual's wants. Feminism by design is not pro-equality, which is my point.

 

[blalien]

THIS [http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/] shouldn't be allowed, we should agree.

Part of living in a free society is that people are allowed to say whatever they want, with a few limits, and then we are allowed to criticize them. That, plus your completely warped definition of feminism and your belief that Anita Sarkeesian's level of skill as a games commentator has any relevance to a conversation about the rape threats and personal attacks leveled against her, are why I have no desire to "debate you on the issues." I have no delusions that any logical points I make wouldn't go right over your head. You can't start with a statement as mind-blowingly idiotic as "Feminism by definition is against equality" and then expect people to treat you as an intellectual.

 

[Abomination]

Please point out where I stated all feminists want to be superior to men, for I know not where that was hiding. From what I can see, I have been speaking of feminism as a whole and not the individual's wants. Feminism by design is not pro-equality, which is my point.

Feminists call themselves feminists because they subscribe to the feminism doctrine. They SHARE the goals of feminism, that is why they are called and call themselves feminists.

Feminism was designed during a period of time where women were second class citizens BY LAW by individuals whose goals were for the idea of female equality - the right to vote and work on their own terms and no longer essentially be property of their fathers, brothers or husbands (AKA the patriarchal figure).

It was about equality then and it still is (supposedly) about equality now.

Feminism is a movement that individuals follow and its motives are manifested by the individuals that follow it. A movement can not have a motive if it has no followers. To say a movement's motive is X then members of that movement's motives are also said to be X.

 

[Abomination]

THIS [http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/] shouldn't be allowed, we should agree.

Part of living in a free society is that people are allowed to say whatever they want, with a few limits, and then we are allowed to criticize them. That, plus your completely warped definition of feminism and your belief that Anita Sarkeesian's level of skill as a games commentator has any relevance to a conversation about the rape threats and personal attacks leveled against her, are why I have no desire to "debate you on the issues." I have no delusions that any logical points I make wouldn't go right over your head. You can't start with a statement as mind-blowingly idiotic as "Feminism by definition is against equality" and then expect people to treat you as an intellectual.

If you believe the points you would raise would go straight over the head of an individual then be the "bigger man" and do not address the individual in a negative manner.

Calling someone an idiot is not going to convince them to magically see things your way. If you are only interested in insulting them then you are not engaging in a discussion. Engage in a discussion or do not engage at all.

 

[demoman_chaos]

THIS [http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/] shouldn't be allowed, we should agree.

Part of living in a free society is that people are allowed to say whatever they want, with a few limits, and then we are allowed to criticize them. That, plus your completely warped definition of feminism and your belief that Anita Sarkeesian's level of skill as a games commentator has any relevance to a conversation about the rape threats and personal attacks leveled against her, are why I have no desire to "debate you on the issues." I have no delusions that any logical points I make wouldn't go right over your head. You can't start with a statement as mind-blowingly idiotic as "Feminism by definition is against equality" and then expect people to treat you as an intellectual.

Would it be alright if I said "All Mexicans are Rapists" or "Jews are the Problem" then? Of course not, I'd be beaten with a comically oversized mallet or something for saying such things. Hell, saying "Women are inferior to Men in some ways" is absurd and would never get approved. Point here is that if you replace "men" with any other group, it becomes unacceptable. To me, THAT is unacceptable.

Anita wanted those comments so she could play the victim. Without people throwing her insults, she wouldn't be getting any attention. She baited those comments, and got exactly what she wanted. She is no different than the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church, surviving the hate because of the hate. Interesting fact, her videos before the funding and after the funding aren't any different really. I am very curious where that money actually went.

You haven't provided an argument because you don't have one. How can you say something designed to benefit one at the expense of the other is not biased? How does pushing for specifically the rights of one, mean you are for equality?

Feminists call themselves feminists because they subscribe to the feminism doctrine. They SHARE the goals of feminism, that is why they are called and call themselves feminists.

Feminism was designed during a period of time where women were second class citizens BY LAW by individuals whose goals were for the idea of female equality - the right to vote and work on their own terms and no longer essentially be property of their fathers, brothers or husbands (AKA the patriarchal figure).

It was about equality then and it still is (supposedly) about equality now.

Feminism is a movement that individuals follow and its motives are manifested by the individuals that follow it. A movement can not have a motive if it has no followers. To say a movement's motive is X then members of that movement's motives are also said to be X.

Fun fact: Power never has had a gender bias. Those with money are those with power. The men in charge didn't just rule over women, they ruled over men too. Yes there are quite a few oddities, like women voting, but majority of claims are just plain silly (like the idea you could legally beat your wife). It is understandable though, considering men did majority of the hard labor and all the dying in wars (not supporting it, just acknowledging there was a reason for it).

Nowadays there are men at the top, but also men at the bottom with women generally in the middle. I'll support the push for 40% of Board Execs being women as soon as the push for 40% of garbage collectors being women begins. Equality also means women hitting a man would get the same punishment as a man hitting a woman, but that is a silly notion isn't it? True equality is a pipe dream, for you can't equalize two things which are not equal (humans are like most animals in that the male and female are quite different).

Women of today don't have much to complain about really, getting preferential treatment across the board (such as much softer punishment for the same crimes).

 

[Abomination]

Feminists call themselves feminists because they subscribe to the feminism doctrine. They SHARE the goals of feminism, that is why they are called and call themselves feminists.

Feminism was designed during a period of time where women were second class citizens BY LAW by individuals whose goals were for the idea of female equality - the right to vote and work on their own terms and no longer essentially be property of their fathers, brothers or husbands (AKA the patriarchal figure).

It was about equality then and it still is (supposedly) about equality now.

Feminism is a movement that individuals follow and its motives are manifested by the individuals that follow it. A movement can not have a motive if it has no followers. To say a movement's motive is X then members of that movement's motives are also said to be X.

Fun fact: Power never has had a gender bias. Those with money are those with power. The men in charge didn't just rule over women, they ruled over men too. Yes there are quite a few oddities, like women voting, but majority of claims are just plain silly (like the idea you could legally beat your wife). It is understandable though, considering men did majority of the hard labor and all the dying in wars (not supporting it, just acknowledging there was a reason for it).

Nowadays there are men at the top, but also men at the bottom with women generally in the middle. I'll support the push for 40% of Board Execs being women as soon as the push for 40% of garbage collectors being women begins. Equality also means women hitting a man would get the same punishment as a man hitting a woman, but that is a silly notion isn't it? True equality is a pipe dream, for you can't equalize two things which are not equal (humans are like most animals in that the male and female are quite different).

Women of today don't have much to complain about really, getting preferential treatment across the board (such as much softer punishment for the same crimes).

How has anything you have posted relate to the motive behind feminism? You have gone off on a tangent that does not relate at all to the motives of feminism - the topic we were discussing and what you actually asked me a question about.

 

[blalien]

She is no different than the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church, surviving the hate because of the hate.

Seriously, you can't keeping saying shit this stupid and expect to get taken seriously.

Your main point appears to be that feminism implies the advancement of women to the expense of men. Just go to the Wikipedia page for feminism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism Your concerns are addressed before the table of contents. This is really basic stuff. It's like you're walking into Math 101 and insisting that 2+2=5 over the protests of the teacher and everybody else in the room. This is why I can't debate you - you haven't done the bare minimum of due diligence before walking into the debate. If you actually do just a teensy bit of your own research and come to the understanding that feminism and men's rights are not mutually exclusive, maybe then I'll consider having a conversation with you.

 

[demoman_chaos]

How has anything you have posted relate to the motive behind feminism? You have gone off on a tangent that does not relate at all to the motives of feminism - the topic we were discussing and what you actually asked me a question about.

I am good at tangents, one of my best skills actually.
Feminism was made for the benefit of women specifically, not really much else to say.

Your main point appears to be that feminism implies the advancement of women to the expense of men. Just go to the Wikipedia page for feminism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism Your concerns are addressed before the table of contents. This is really basic stuff. It's like you're walking into Math 101 and insisting that 2+2=5 over the protests of the teacher and everybody else in the room. This is why I can't debate you - you haven't done the bare minimum of due diligence before walking into the debate. If you actually do just a teensy bit of your own research and come to the understanding that feminism and men's rights are not mutually exclusive, maybe then I'll consider having a conversation with you.

Feminism is for the advancement of women, not for equality. If it was for equality, they would mention that the fact women have much shorter prison sentences for the same crime, are MASSIVELY favored in courts (despite my dad having a recorded confession of my mother's involvement with meth, his lawyer told him all she had to do to win custody was claim she had found Jesus (they must have been playing Hide and Seek) and had changed her ways and she would have won easily), and that women can freely hit men without worry of any backlash and would be opposed to it. They would be against quotas, which creates massive bias since a company can't hire a man if they are required to hire a woman even if the man is significantly better qualified.
Fact is, even the name "feminism" shows bias. Linking the wikipedia page is like linking the website to Wal Mart when someone explains how Wal Mart is toxic to any town it plagues (killing all other businesses, etc). I mean, you can't even insult me properly (don't make me insult myself for you).

Show me somethings feminists have done that wasn't strictly pro-females, that is assuming you can find anything (be easier to find sensible in the story of Noah's Ark I suspect).