Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[Brandon Strader]

Well, I don't see that many "hottest IT guys" links...

That's because it would look like this:

And neither men nor women would be interested in THAT

[zircon]

This is perhaps somewhat telling but the only woman on OCR in the game industry, AFAIK (please correct me if I'm wrong), is Jill. We're generally on the same page about this stuff and I only mention that because she doesn't post frequently.

That said just search for articles about #1reasontobe, for example...

http://www.develop-online.net/news/43693/GDC13-Standing-ovation-as-women-devs-let-loose-on-sexism-in-games

http://kotaku.com/5963528/heres-a-devastating-account-of-the-crap-women-in-the-games-business-have-to-deal-with-in-2012

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/11/women-video-game-industry-twitter-1reasonwhy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/1reasonwhy-reveals-sexism-gaming-industry_n_2205204.html

Short version, female game developers on the whole seem to pretty much agree that there is rampant sexism in the industry.

Edited April 7, 2013 by zircon

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

Right, I suppose this was a quick cameo to conveniently sweep aside most of what I wrote as being purely semantic, when I went to great lengths to explain the substantive, meaningful implications of Anita's statements as made, with plenty of examples, and pointed out how they could easily be modified to avoid demonizing, exaggerating, contradicting, etc. - very much questions of substance, not style. Talk about moving goalposts... if you had the time to read what I wrote, I think you'll see that in the midst of rewriting her statements, I was actually doing exactly what you describe - focusing on what I find is actually problematic about this topic. If you didn't have the time to read it all, no worries, but don't play the semantics card as a replacement for doing so, especially when we've been discussing how the damsel-in-distress trope is "lazy"...

I'm not trying to sweep aside your argument. I just don't think it's valuable to pick apart how she framed the video even if you are making a substantive point, unless you are directing the commentary to her personally in a place where she would read it. I think people's arguments would be a lot easier to parse out and understand if laid out separately from their commentary on Anita's presentation. For the record, I do agree with some of your points.

[Bleck]

That's because it would look like this:

And neither men nor women would be interested in THAT

I know everyone else here is hell bent on just ignoring the stupid and offensive posts you're making so I'm going to bite the bullet here and ask you to maybe stop making stupid and offensive posts

[Xelebes]

Yes, I'm sure that is what the intent of the list was. Hot chicks successful in IT, with some of the profiles using words focusing on their appearance. As the RPS author points out, you simply don't see the same sort of thing for men. By definition, that's sexism. If you don't think sexism like that is bad, okay, we disagree on that. But I don't see how you could characterize it as anything but sexist, unless you know of a "Hottest Guys in IT" list.

Or let's put it this way: Is there a hot list for lawyers? A hot list for accountants? A hot list for engineers? A hot list for educators? If there isn't, why is that the case?

[Ramaniscence]

Sidenote:

That's because it would look like this:

And neither men nor women would be interested in THAT

I was actually wondering what that list would look like because my thoughts are like...Bill Gates, Gabe Newell, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg...I guess Justin Timberlake now a days, but that's kind of a stretch. Linus Torvalds isn't a half bad looking guy when he wants to, but ehh.

So I found this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dell/the-10-sexiest-guys-in-tech

http://www.buzzfeed.com/melismashable/the-hottest-men-in-tech

http://www.businessinsider.com/hot-tech-guys-2012-2?op=1

And then I remembered: Man, Peter Cashmore is attractive.

No homo.

[Bleck]

A bit caustic there *_*... but I just want to say that I think the entire point is... Well, I don't see that many "hottest IT guys" links... It just isn't done that way.

So I found this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dell/the-10-sexiest-guys-in-tech

http://www.buzzfeed.com/melismashable/the-hottest-men-in-tech

http://www.businessinsider.com/hot-tech-guys-2012-2?op=1

so yeah I think the lesson here is that implying that the proof that something is sexist towards women is the lack of equivalent male variants is disingenuous when that isn't actually true

[zircon]

so yeah I think the lesson here is that implying that the proof that something is sexist towards women is the lack of equivalent male variants is disingenuous when that isn't actually true

I searched "sexiest men in technology" and Google actually wanted to autocorrect to "sexiest women in technology". By the way, try searching:

"sexiest men in technology"

And not only are there literally only three results (three), but the 2nd one is for sexy women, not men.

Now search "sexiest women in technology". 209,000 results. Speaks for itself.

"hottest men in tech" <- 604 results

"hottest women in tech <- 500,000+ results

Edited April 7, 2013 by zircon

[djpretzel]

Yes, I'm sure that is what the intent of the list was. Hot chicks successful in IT, with some of the profiles using words focusing on their appearance. As the RPS author points out, you simply don't see the same sort of thing for men. By definition, that's sexism. If you don't think sexism like that is bad, okay, we disagree on that. But I don't see how you could characterize it as anything but sexist, unless you know of a "Hottest Guys in IT" list.

No, by definition, that is not sexism. That is trend analysis. It would be sexism if women were prevented from creating such lists, or instructed that they shouldn't look at such lists. They aren't. They don't (as much). Men just seem to be more interested in wasting hours upon hours looking at pictures of naked ladies than women are in looking at naked men. That by definition is NOT sexism, nor does it bother me, nor should it bother you. It's a little embarrassing for us, but it is not:

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

It's plainly not the first, and the second requires that you believe that the hotlists themselves are "conditions fostering stereotypes of social roles"; seeing as they're QUITE popular, and not mandatory, and are usually bereft of meaning other than the obvious prurient interest, I strongly disagree that they fit the bill. Simply because there is not a precisely (or even remotely) equal amount of the corresponding counterpart does not instantly make something sexist.

I think your whole response to this really missed the obvious point

My "whole" response that you just admitted you didn't have time to completely respond to? Okay...

which was that the examples create an environment that is unwelcoming toward women, and reinforces the notion that IT/games is a field for men, by men. That's the message that is being sent.

Lists on websites can be and usually are ignored. This one catered to heterosexual men, clearly. Websites that cater to different audiences, and are indulgent and stupid and clearly not part of any commentary on the actual field are JUST that. People need to be expected to have BASIC filters. The Rock Band incident got exactly the amount of negative feedback it deserved, but where you seem to think there was a "message," I prefer to use Hanlon's Razor and chalk it up to incompetence. I am not persuaded there was any intention behind it, nor do I think a reasonable person should be expected to interpret it as a commentary that any women entering the field of games will be electrocuted and spanked. You mention an "unwelcoming" environment, but the author of the article SPECIFICALLY uses the phrase "physically harmed victim" - his words, not mine. That's beyond unwelcoming; the point is not so obvious as you would have it.

Again, the argument is that it reinforces the "by men, for men" stereotype of gaming and the game industry. And of course, there are women that have no problem with this stuff. At GDC, I went to the Riot Games booth and there was a giant 20 foot poster of this character:

http://i1248.photobucket.com/albums/hh497/Kaiokhen/Leaguecraft/a2JjDh.jpg

I don't have any statistics on this, nor do I think statistics exist, but you would probably agree that SOME people would look at that and have no problem, and OTHER people would look at it, roll their eyes, and write off (or at least look down on) Riot Games as a company that is pandering to men, and probably run by men. They might lose some or even all interest in working for Riot, or playing their games.

Sure. But would their loss of interest be justified or reasonable? There are people who would lose all interest in working for a company based on a bunch of reasons. As long as you agree that it is fundamentally okay for companies to make games that DO cater to men - regardless of the quantity or percentage - then it is not unreasonable for them to have this poster. If it's not okay to make games that cater just to men, it's not okay to make games that cater to any one group, and all of the sudden we've significantly neutered the art form. The coherent argument is that there is a disparity between the number of female gamers and the number of games that either cater to them, or avoid catering so directly to heterosexual men so as to make them lose interest. If there's a market there waiting to be realized, then its realization should improve the overall quality of games, which I'm all for, but that neither starts OR ends with knee-jerk labels of "sexism" and demonizing objectification.

As the author of the article points out, this stuff accumulates. You see a giant poster of boobs representing a company's professional presence at the biggest game industry networking event. Then you see 2 girls at another booth hired to do nothing but wear a skimpy outfit to attract attention to that booth. Then you look at a demo for Soulcalibur V and see Ivy's... everything, and so on, and so forth.

Hey, you profited from that everything!! I like that everything, too. Not ashamed to admit it. Games have a ways to go before diversifying into an art form that has titles that are less indulgent in general - it's a medium that naturally attaches itself to instant gratification. A lot of indie games are really branching out, but they usually avoid objectification & many tropes by simply being abstract enough for those concepts to not even apply - it's almost like "cheating" but it nevertheless creates games that can truly offer a fairly universal experience, like Journey, Flower, etc. As for this stuff accumulating, that IS plainly a slippery slope argument, and revolves around the imagined cumulative subconscious mass of mainstream imagery in the hearts & minds of individuals. I wasn't aware we had the science to measure that; once you start invoking it, you go dangerous places.

That's mostly what I'm objecting to. I think making developers feel a little embarrassed about overuse of tropes or perceived over-sexualization is fine; calling it sexist, though, and arguing that the cumulative effect is subconsciously building up inside brains and causing rampant feelings of unwelcomeness, well... you lose me. You don't need to go there (other more persuasive arguments), you shouldn't go there (weakens your point, aligns with undesirable arguments), you actually CAN'T really go there (no real data), so... why go there?

I searched "sexiest men in technology" and Google actually wanted to autocorrect to "sexiest women in technology". By the way, try searching:

"sexiest men in technology"

And not only are there literally only three results (three), but the 2nd one is for sexy women, not men.

Now search "sexiest women in technology". 209,000 results. Speaks for itself.

It speaks for itself? Let me phrase the question a different way: What number of results would strike you as NOT sexist? 50/50? Or will we have eliminated the sexism when BOTH searches return zero results? All I'm seeing here is that men like looking at women more than vice versa, which doesn't strike me as an epiphany of any great magnitude, nor as inherently sexist in and of itself.

Edited April 7, 2013 by djpretzel

[Ramaniscence]

I searched "sexiest men in technology" and Google literally wanted to autocorrect to "sexiest women in technology". By the way, try searching:

"sexiest men in technology"

And not only are there literally only three results (three), but the 2nd one is for sexy women, not men.

Now search "sexiest women in technology". 209,000 results. Speaks for itself.

"hottest men in tech" <- 604 results

"hottest women in tech <- 500,000+ results

Yea I mean, it's the internet. I didn't mean it as an endorsement either for or against anything Monorbow said. The search was bound to bring up something. The idea that nothing at all would pop up would just be ridiculous. I, just like others, generally don't associate "tech industry" with "attractive males" so I figured it was worth a shot.

There are more than three, though. There's also one on a gay website exclusively about gay attractive men in the tech industry which I thought was interesting but an entirely different story.

[Bleck]

"hottest men in tech" <- 604 results

"hottest women in tech <- 500,000+ results

I was going to say something about how the existence of these lists isn't actually sexist and to imply as such is a kneejerk reaction to something harmless but djp put it better than I would have

[Xelebes]

My biggest complaint about hotlist in IT is that:

A) it's a publication that puts it forward. A publication with its reputation on the line from which it extracts money. What law publication, what writer publication, what educator publication is this also done in? Are their reputations on the line?

Furthermore, what is that publication trying to suggest? What is its message? Hey, look! There are hot girls who work in IT? Is this something novel to the industry? Are the hot men in IT lists a reaction to the hotlists focussed on women?

C) Who is the market for these hotlists? How will they receive that message? How have you seen the audience receive that message?

Edited April 7, 2013 by Xelebes

[zircon]

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

This is absolutely what I mean. Since we're doing the dictionary thing, 'discriminate' in this context means:

2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice

These sort of lists make a distinction based on the class of 'hot women', emphasizing appearance over merit, and are prejudiced against women that are not hot. This goes toward the whole 'unwelcoming environment' thing I mentioned.

You mention an "unwelcoming" environment, but the author of the article SPECIFICALLY uses the phrase "physically harmed victim" - my words, not his. The point is not so obvious as you would have it.

I think you're interpreting what he wrote far too literally. The "loud and clear" message is not literally and specifically "you have to be in a BDSM-themed video". I find that reading to be extremely unreasonable and if you emailed the author I'm sure he would agree with what I'm saying. But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Sure. But would their loss of interest be justified or reasonable?

Yes, it is both justified and reasonable. If you read about the #1reasontobe trend I mentioned earlier or watch talks by female game developers you will see that there is a wide consensus among female developers about sexism in the industry. Why would anyone want to put themselves in an environment where they're in a minority likely to be discriminated against and made uncomfortable?

As long as you agree that it is fundamentally okay for companies to make games that DO cater to men - regardless of the quantity - then it is not unreasonable for them to have this poster. If it's not okay to make games that cater just to men, it's not okay to make games that cater to any one group, and all of the sudden we've significantly neutered the art form.

It's okay for a company to make games that cater to men. I don't believe it's okay for such a company to be exclusive of women IN the company. Having such a poster at a *professional networking and industry event* is exclusive.

[Bleck]

These sort of lists make a distinction based on the class of 'hot women', emphasizing appearance over merit, and are prejudiced against women that are not hot. This goes toward the whole 'unwelcoming environment' thing I mentioned.

I think that 'people are unwelcoming to unattractive people' is not really a women's issue nor is it something that can conclusively be dealt with in any capacity that does not involve forcing people to not care about physical attractiveness (which is arguably impossible)

Why would anyone want to put themselves in an environment where they're in a minority likely to be discriminated against and made uncomfortable?

It's okay for a company to make games that cater to men. I don't believe it's okay for such a company to be exclusive of women IN the company. Having such a poster at a *professional networking and industry event* is exclusive.

saying that a company that makes games that cater to men is probably biased against hiring women is a fallacy

the concept of 'discomfort' is a really vague idea that I don't really think justifies action in a lot of situations, as it can constitute both reasonable and unreasonable reactions; for example, I believe that saying "maybe I don't want to consider a career with this company because this poster of Miss Fortune shows off her cans" is unreasonable, as the physical appearance of the character arguably has nothing to do with your career, nor is it reasonable to assume that this character's design will play into your social and professional interactions with the people who make up this company, and Riot is a company that has recently been taking significant steps with their art team to curb their arguably sexist female character designs in favor of things that are more reasonable and attractive

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bleck

[djpretzel]

These sort of lists make a distinction based on the class of 'hot women', emphasizing appearance over merit, and are prejudiced against women that are not hot. This goes toward the whole 'unwelcoming environment' thing I mentioned.

Prejudice against the unattractive is fundamentally different from prejudice against women. Also, it's not prejudice at all - the sphere of relevance IS physical attraction itself. Prejudice would only apply if the articles were making OTHER judgments about the women, BEYOND their physical appearance. It isn't pre-judgment, it's just plain old judgment. Nothing about emphasizing appearance over merit is inherently sexist, and these lists aren't interested in abstract "merit" in the first place. So yeah...

I think you're interpreting what he wrote far too literally. The "loud and clear" message is not literally and specifically "you have to be in a BDSM-themed video". I find that reading to be extremely unreasonable and if you emailed the author I'm sure he would agree with what I'm saying. But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I read the words that are there. I quote them. If there are 99 booths that are okay and one that has weird spanking electrocution shit, the environment is welcoming to most people, most of the time, and probably makes A LOT of people uncomfortable in that 100th booth, not just women. Then again, if that's your thing, those other 99 booths were bollocks.

Yes, it is both justified and reasonable. If you read about the #1reasontobe trend I mentioned earlier or watch talks by female game developers you will see that there is a wide consensus among female developers about sexism in the industry. Why would anyone want to put themselves in an environment where they're in a minority likely to be discriminated against and made uncomfortable?

I have already stated that I do not agree with a knee-jerk equivalence of sexism and objectification, and so I find no justification or reason. I encourage you to read Paglia on this topic, although I'm sure she's not the only one who has pointed out that modern ideas about feminism and sexism should not de facto condemn objectification.

It's okay for a company to make games that cater to men. I don't believe it's okay for such a company to be exclusive of women IN the company. Having such a poster at a *professional networking and industry event* is exclusive.

But the poster is FROM THEIR GAME... that caters to men. If it's okay to make the game, surely it's okay to promote it? How they handle the hiring process and how they treat their own employees is another matter, but I find it odd to propose that a company that makes games with "boobies for the men" should hide those boobies when they are attempting to hire women. I mean... they'd find out eventually, right? And of course, we're operating on the assumption that they'd be offended in the first place.

Edited April 7, 2013 by djpretzel

[Brandon Strader]

So we should boycott Soul Caliber V, or...?

[ectogemia]

I read the DJP Manifesto - 2013. Look like we sing the same tune. I especially loved those quotes at the end. The sexes should be regarded equally but our innate differences should be embraced, and the complementarity manifested within those differences is something to celebrate. How many of us are so stupid as to actually regard women or men as they are depicted in popular media? Some people, for sure, but most of us trust our own experiences in reality with the other gender, I reckon. Does anyone here really believe that creating some bland, inoffensive, homogenized representation of the sexes in video games or whatever would change how one gender sees the other? It certainly wouldn't affect my perception because I have a mind with the ability to think critically about what I see and assess its validity based upon what I know.

And can someone tell me exactly what it is that's wrong with a female character with big tits or a male character with big muscles? Those are things that, like, actually are on women or men. I understand that the backlash comes from essentially ALL current games having big-boobied women and jacked-out men, but if the feminist agenda were to come to fruition and some normative bodies were used for character models in most games, what do you think the reaction would be to a character designer deviating and creating, say, a chesty female character? Is this an issue with designing ALL characters around exaggerated aspects of gender-specific anatomy, or is it with designing ANY characters AT ALL as such? I certainly hope no one wants things to tend towards the latter...

I know everyone else here is hell bent on just ignoring the stupid and offensive posts you're making so I'm going to bite the bullet here and ask you to maybe stop making stupid and offensive posts

I think you surrendered the right to make that demand when you decided to make several thousand consecutive stupid and offensive posts.

So we should boycott Soul Caliber V, or...?

I'm not trying to stir the shit pot here necessarily, but zircon, you did work on this game, and by your definition, it's pretty damn sexist. Is there any internal conflict with you being associated with a game which has contents you find to be morally objectionable? Also, I may be totally misassessing your stance on the sexes. This thread is 230984 pages, after all, and I've only the most recent 10 posts

Edited April 7, 2013 by ectogemia

[EC2151]

Well, the series has gotten steadily worse over time, so I'd say go for it.

Soul Caliber IV? That was trash, man. Pure trash. I do dislike over time how the SC women have gotten more ridiculous outfits. I prefer a different approach to women characters.

Different types of media will naturally be targeted, created, or marketed with various groups in mind. Male power fantasies are not really going to appeal to women (unless they are one of those cool women who think Die Hard is one of the best movies ever made!), nor do they really have to. I don't think everything has to have a pretty lady on the front to get my attention, as nice as that would be, but as others have said, it would be a knee-jerk response to see something like that and immediately cry afoul.

Edited April 7, 2013 by EC2151

[Bleck]

I see that brandon has changed the topic to tropes vs. genders even though that's not really what the discussion is about

[Tensei]

I read the DJP Manifesto - 2013. Look like we sing the same tune. I especially loved those quotes at the end. The sexes should be regarded equally but our innate differences should be embraced, and the complementarity manifested within those differences is something to celebrate. How many of us are so stupid as to actually regard women or men as they are depicted in popular media? Some people, for sure, but most of us trust our own experiences in reality with the other gender, I reckon. Does anyone here really believe that creating some bland, inoffensive, homogenized representation of the sexes in video games or whatever would change how one gender sees the other? It certainly wouldn't affect my perception because I have a mind with the ability to think critically about what I see and assess its validity based upon what I know

And can someone tell me exactly what it is that's wrong with a female character with big tits or a male character with big muscles? Those are things that, like, actually are on women or men. I understand that the backlash comes from essentially ALL current games having big-boobied women and jacked-out men, but if the feminist agenda were to come to fruition and some normative bodies were used for character models in most games, what do you think the reaction would be to a character designer deviating and creating, say, a chesty female character? Is this an issue with designing ALL characters around exaggerated aspects of gender-specific anatomy, or is it with designing ANY characters AT ALL as such? I certainly hope no one wants things to tend towards the latter...

What is the 'feminist agenda' you are talking about? Who in this thread was in favor of creating a 'bland, inoffensive, homogenized representation of the sexes' that you seem to be arguing against?

[djpretzel]

What is the 'feminist agenda' you are talking about? Who in this thread was in favor of creating a 'bland, inoffensive, homogenized representation of the sexes' that you seem to be arguing against?

That's a fair question. It's difficult to talk about feminism and THE feminist agenda because there are differing views, and hence differing agendas. The phrase "feminist agenda" has unfortunately been demonized enough by conservatives that I think it now mentally translates for many people directly into "radical feminist agenda," representing the most extreme positions possible, which I doubt many here would endorse. In this case, I think the concern is specifically about a few things:

1. Attitudes towards objectification that instantly equate it with sexism and condemn it outright
   
2. Attitudes about the sexes that operate from a position that any activity, role, institution, etc. that is not comprised equally of both sexes is inherently sexist
   
3. Attitudes about the consumption of media that attempt to make concrete statements about cumulative subconscious psychological impacts
   
4. Attitudes about gender roles that ignore any aspect of evolutionary pscyhology whatsoever and chalk up nearly all differences between the sexes to "social construction" and "the patriarchy"
   

This would be an excellent time to point out that talking about "the feminist agenda" is just as nebulous as talking about "the patriarchy" and avoid the double standard.

These four attitudes/beliefs are a common part of many feminist agendas, including those being put forth in this thread and in Anita's videos. The black-and-white, oversimplifying nature of them, paired with #3 - which is disturbing in that it establishes causality out of thin air between media/art and "the populous" - would result in pretty crappy art in my opinion. Last I checked art was about exploring the human condition, not denying it. This is why I think simply pointing out the overuse of tropes, the lack of depth & variety in female characters, and the wealth of alternatives for game developers to pursue is a much more persuasive argument, because it is additive and not subtractive in nature, and doesn't rely on any of the positions mentioned above.

So yeah, it was a good and fair question, and while I know it wasn't directed at me, I feel like I've answered it.

Edited April 7, 2013 by djpretzel

[Xelebes]

It would be interesting to dissect what these arguments are.

1. Attitudes towards objectification that instantly equate it with sexism and condemn it outright

This is an argument that is grounded in sexuality. It is difficult to be expected to be the aggressor in a sexual relationship and not know the fine line between accepted aggression and unwanted aggression, which can be distorted in interpretation to mean objectification. The best course to seek amelioration is to be the aggressor. However, not every women has the confidence to be the aggressor. Does the aggregate art forms contribute to suppressing this confidence?

1. Attitudes about the sexes that operate from a position that any activity, role, institution, etc. that is not comprised equally of both sexes is inherently sexist

Um. . . strawman argument. You will need to be more specific with your wording here.

1. Attitudes about the consumption of media that attempt to make concrete statements about cumulative subconscious psychological impacts

The issue centres around esteem, hopes and achievement. If those are not the scope of what women are to do then. . . eh, yeah, no.

1. Attitudes about gender roles that ignore any aspect of evolutionary pscyhology whatsoever and chalk up nearly all differences between the sexes to "social construction" and "the patriarchy"
   

Okay, I do loathe the vocabulary that feminists cloister themselves with, but ultimately I find that with every discourse needs to remove themselves from the omphaloskepsis of their discourse to have the content of that discourse disseminated. However, I find that you might be attributing too many things to evolutionary psychology, a field that suffers from too many MRA trolls and other bigots, as a defensive measure. If we are going to cite evolutionary psychology, I want to see which authors you are citing from so that we can clarify which is plausible and which is reactionary cow-patties.

[Garpocalypse]

So we should boycott Soul Caliber V, or...?

oh no, no no no no. Please no....

You guys didn't go there, this is not happening. This is not happening.

[djpretzel]

This is an argument that is grounded in sexuality. It is difficult to be expected to be the aggressor in a sexual relationship and not know the fine line between accepted aggression and unwanted aggression, which can be distorted in interpretation to mean objectification. The best course to seek amelioration is to be the aggressor. However, not every women has the confidence to be the aggressor. Does the aggregate art forms contribute to suppressing this confidence?

I'm pretty sure that was all nonsense.

Um. . . strawman argument. You will need to be more specific with your wording here.

I won't need to be anything, and your own level of specificity - as per the above meandering reply about aggressors re: objectification - was about as vague as it gets. Also, it's nice to say "strawman" and illustrate that you know what a logical fallacy is, but you do need to apply them in the right scenarios. In this case, the point can be seen in Andy's expectation that there be an exactly equal number of websites with hot pictures of men as there are women. The RPS article also talks about "balance" quite a bit. There seems to be a notion that in a just world, all forums would naturally tend toward equilibrium. I think the gaming industry needs some diversity, no argument there, but I reject notions that it or any other field will only be devoid of sexism when a 50/50 ratio (or corresponding to population diversity) is attained.

The issue centres around esteem, hopes and achievement. If those are not the scope of what women are to do then. . . eh, yeah, no.

And you're telling me *I* need to be more specific? That sentiment's meaning is nearly inscrutable. I cannot respond to it because as far as I can tell it is bereft of relevancy.

Okay, I do loathe the vocabulary that feminists cloister themselves with, but ultimately I find that with every discourse needs to remove themselves from the omphaloskepsis of their discourse to have the content of that discourse disseminated. However, I find that you might be attributing too many things to evolutionary psychology, a field that suffers from too many MRA trolls and other bigots, as a defensive measure. If we are going to cite evolutionary psychology, I want to see which authors you are citing from so that we can clarify which is plausible and which is reactionary cow-patties.

Cow-patties? Really? "every discourse needs to remove themselves from the omphaloskepsis of their discourse" - this is a sentence that should never have happened.

For the benefit of others: Steven Pinker.

[Xelebes]

I'm pretty sure that was all nonsense.

If that suits you, then it is your problem.

I won't need to be anything, and your own level of specificity - as per the above meandering reply about aggressors re: objectification - was about as vague as it gets. Also, it's nice to say "strawman" and illustrate that you know what a logical fallacy is, but you do need to apply them in the right scenarios. In this case, the point can be seen in Andy's expectation that there be an exactly equal number of websites with hot pictures of men as there are women. The RPS article also talks about "balance" quite a bit. There seems to be a notion that in a just world, all forums would naturally tend toward equilibrium. I think the gaming industry needs some diversity, no argument there, but I reject notions that it or any other field will only be devoid of sexism when a 50/50 ratio (or corresponding to population diversity) is attained.

The strawman argument here is that because you believe Andy's sole or main objection to the hotlist is the lack of a 50/50 split. That is how you worte that down. As for my meandering bit, the cause and effect must be followed. I'm sorry if I'm not gifted in articulating the observed chain of events that I have seen.

And you're telling me *I* need to be more specific? That sentiment's meaning is nearly inscrutable. I cannot respond to it because as far as I can tell it is bereft of relevancy.

Well, here would be an opportune time for someone who actually experiences this to speak on those experiences. It would be really odd for me to speak for someone on that.

Cow-patties? Really? "every discourse needs to remove themselves from the omphaloskepsis of their discourse" - this is a sentence that should never have happened.

For the benefit of others: Steven Pinker.

Every discourse hs their jargon. Many heavily involved in their discourse are not able to communicate without escabing jargons. There are some accounting theorists who cannot escape the inclusion of some terms as debits and credits.

Your previous comment about them "preaching to the choir" is of the similar vein of thought and I would characterise that as accurate. That is a problem.

As for the bullshit that besieges evolutionary psychology, you will have to spend a bit more time to see where the whopping cow-patties lay. As for Steven Pinker, I have some of his books. They are books on linguistics, not on evolutionary psychology. Is he really an expert on evolutionary psychology?

Edited April 7, 2013 by Xelebes