Sorry but this isn't going to be a fun post as I would like it to be. It's going to come off perhaps as a bit of rant, perhaps I'll be disliked for it, but I'll just have to live with it.
On my background: I'm a male. I'm a poli-sci graduate, and I've worked for various human rights and other organizations on gender-related issues. That's about all you need to know.
I don't think it'll come as a surprise to anyone if I say we live in a sexist society. Perhaps some of the most eloquent of you will say that our societal structure is patriarchal (well done!). Yet somehow, when we look at ourselves, we don't feel touched by this phenomenon. "Oh I get along with the ladies, they like me, I like them, all's guuud, I ain't no sexist".
Yup, we're in a bit of a bind. Somehow the society is sexist but none of the people in it are. How is this possible? Well it isn't. Sorry guys. It's become embedded in our culture. Sorry ladies as well, because many of you contribute to your own demise. There is absolutely no grounds to start a blame game. But we can genuinely do something about it. And since many of us disregarded our physical bodies and sacrifice our souls on the altar of e-sports, might as well give it a shot on the very ungrateful universe that is the internet.
So how are girls treated on the internet, more particularly in the Starcraft community. Let's start with the SlayerS_Eve joining SlayerS thread. First page.
There are 20 posts per page. 2 were banned, one is the OP. 17 posts left.
Of the 17, more than half mention she's a girl. Here are some of the comments we get:
"I'm glad female gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well she does" "shes no tossgirl though...but shes still extremely cute" "That's nice, it would be fun if we could have a bit more diversity ... anyone know how good she is?"
Here are three pretty positive posts (it gets ohsomuch worse after the first page...). And yet I can't help but feel something's strange. Let's turn it the other way.
"I'm glad more male gamers are making it into Esports as well=D im excited to see how well he does" "he's no nada though... but hes still extremely cute" "that's nice, it would be fun if we could have a bit more diversity ... anyone know how good he is?"
Doesn't feel right does it? So the first post is underlining that there are less female players in ESports. True. But I can't help but feel that more is expected of her because she's a lady. "excited to see how well she does", would you be as excited as if it were an unknown male amateur? Probably not. Reaction one: Women in ESports seem to be part of some sort of experiment to see if women can really play video games.
Second post, not much to say. Reaction two: Women in ESports are judged on their looks a lot more than men are.
And the third quote pretty much leads to a reaction similar to the first.
NOTE: people are gonna say "yeah but if it were a dude people what also question her skillz, get out! trolololol". To that I anwser, the quote doesn't say "I'm glad more amateur gamers are making it into ESports".
OK so we've established that women and men are treated differently with empirical evidence (my sociology professors would be proud). Now let's move back to theoretical.
I'm not gonna gather evidence for all my claims, it's out there, and I don't think it's necessary. So here we go. How are gentlemen and ladies treated differently in ESports?
-> Women have an additional stress factor to deal with, since there are so few they somehow "represent the female community", and that's just wrong. They represent themselves and their skill level.
-> Women have to take additional personal crap on their looks.
-> Women take additional crap on their intelligence, simply due to the fact that they are women
-> Women can't talk about gender issues without being called "attention whores" (note the word "whore" rather than troll)
-> Women have to bear with chivalry. Doesn't sound too bad? Yet it's a recognition of weakness and lesser ability to do certain things.
-> Women have to bear with emo. More than dudes. Getting ridiculously over-sentimental messages, dealing with crushes, etc.
So who's up for vasectomy?
Gender discrimination is all around us. Hell, I've done it as well, it's culturally accepted. Every time you hold a door for a lady. Every time you're nice to her just because she's a girl. Every time you make a sexist joke you wouldn't say in front of a lady. Every time you make a post on how cute a female gamer is. Every time you root for a girl just because she's a girl. These are all banal things, but they show that our society is biased.
So what to do about it?
Not much. But if everyone can make just a tiny effort to do the following effort on themselves, it'd be a great start:
- Don't get emotionally over-attached. There's a time and place for things, and a private messaging box usually isn't that great for dating.
- Try to not make sexual comments on women in ESports. Basically stuff you wouldn't say to your girlfriend.
- Try to not make comments on X female gamer representing women in ESports. She's not. She's representing herself and her team. They don't need more stress than they already have.
- Try not to be chevalresque. To me a white knight is a dude who will give a lady better treatment because she's a lady. This leads me to my next point.
- Try to tell the difference between a white knight and a person who just doesn't want women to be alienated from ESports. Condemning sexism isn't being a white knight. Holding doors is.
- Try not to prejudice women on their gaming knowledge. They are human and can be talked to as equals.
- Try to avoid sexist language, words like "rape", "whore", etc. are just plain dumb and insensitive, they do no good to ESports in general.
- To tournament planners, try not to reinforce these clichés, in the sense trying to get more viewers by putting a pretty face on your stream. You might get positive feedback, but it does no good to women in ESports.
This is hard shit to do. Even for me. But I'm not asking nor expecting radical change. For every person who follows at least a little piece of this advice, it's a win for integrating women into our community.
Hopefully at least one person will be self-conscious enough to do the introspective exercise. I know I will.
Thanks for reading, my next blog post will be more entertaining, I promise!
Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
Thanks for this. I've been trying to improve on many of these points myself, and it's extremely hard because this behavior is so ingrained into and considered "acceptable" in our society.
On another note, people should check the following out as well:
On July 15 2011 05:21 Complete wrote: Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
Her personnality? Do you know her?
Her marketability? Are you trying to sell her?
I'm saying not that we should ignore it, but that it shouldn't influence our judgement on her skill/performance. I know that ain't happening, but we can make an effort to make ESports more female-friendly.
On July 15 2011 05:21 Complete wrote: Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
Her personnality? Do you know her?
Her marketability? Are you trying to sell her?
I'm saying not that we should ignore it, but that it shouldn't influence our judgement on her skill/performance. I know that ain't happening, but we can make an effort to make ESports more female-friendly.
No I don't know her nor am I attempting to sell her - Would you like to share the point of those questions now other than trying to sensationalize your argument?
But for myself, I can only say, I can open doors myself, I'm not a weak victim who needs to be rescued. Too me, a polite man open doors to other men aswell. Not just to girls. That would be sexism, either thinking I can't do it, or that he is trying to get some by being more polite to me than to others.
But that is probably a Swedish thing, as many foreigners have said that Sweden is the only country "where men hold doors for other men" :D
In every other thing I agree, and a womans skill should not be measured on her looks. If we did that the other way around, there wouldn't really be that many pro gamers at all imho
As for me, looking at male pro gamers I don't really care what they look like, if they have acne, if they are fat or skinny. Maybe because I am in a relationship and already have a sexlife, I don't fantasize about every man I lay eyes on.
My fav player is MC, based on the fact that he playes Protoss, and he is very good at it. Might be better ones that I haven't discovered yet, so time will tell
Also I don't think of girl gamers as girl gamers, but as gamers. Gender does not matter.
On July 15 2011 05:21 Complete wrote: Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
Her personnality? Do you know her?
Her marketability? Are you trying to sell her?
I'm saying not that we should ignore it, but that it shouldn't influence our judgement on her skill/performance. I know that ain't happening, but we can make an effort to make ESports more female-friendly.
No I don't know her nor am I attempting to sell her - Would you like to share the point of those questions now other than trying to sensationalize your argument?
Sure!
My point is that her being a women doesn't say anything on her personnality, or on how she will play. Being a progamer is a legitimate part of her personnality because it's a personal accomplishment. Being a woman isn't.
I don't give a rat's if she has market value. The money being made off of her isn't going into my pocket, and marketing her as a female is putting useless pressure on her. Chances are she won't perform as well as she could. Chances are she's gonna take more crap. Chances are it's gonna be bad for ESports.
Are you Complete?
EDIT for saris, indeed Suedes are strange in a good way though. I'm fine with holding doors if you do it for other men too and it's a normal thing. Not if you go out of your way to do it because it's for a woman.
Allright then we are at the same page here. Nice to see men who can think with their brains Also that goes the other way around too, some girls should use their brains a bit more
3/5 for a good effort but a message I completely disagree with. One point you made was posts like this: "I'm glad female gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well she does"
Well what if it was: "I'm glad American/White/Canadian/European/Foreign/Black/Arabic/etc gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well they do" I certainly would have no problem with that. The simple fact is, they are another minority group in the scene. And by being a minority, it's fair to expect people to see if you represent your minority group well.
Yes women are expected to look good. But you are aware that male pros also wear makeup, right? If they don't, that's just unprofessional on their part.
Your comments on chivalry honestly misrepresent the truth. I would certainly hold the door for a woman, not because I don't think they could do it themselves, but as a gesture of kindness.
There is discriminatory language for every minority group. It's something that you just have to learn to cope with. There's absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it. Besides, if they can open doors on their own, why can't they deal with sexism?
As an afterthought, I don't exactly appreciate the pretentious tone of this piece.
I'm ok with this argument. And I agree with most of it. However once again... when you start telling me that because my female co-worker can't carry something because it's too heavy for her and I pick it up and do it for her its sexism, go away. lol You must have read that recent article about lesser sexism and thought it was awesome. Feminists have started to hurt themselves with those types of things.
Also, female athletes in any sport get a lot of attention if they can do it as well as a guy. (most can't due to genetics omg more sexism? no.. science.) It's going to happen regardless of what people think is good and/or bad. You think the Korean's weren't just as impressed with TossGirl competing? or just sitting there looking pretty? Also, I think its safe to assume SlayerS_Eve is there for marketing reasons. Brilliant move on Jessica's part lol Makes them $
I often comment on how cute male progamers are. Does that mean that I'm in the clear to comment on female progamers? Am I in the wrong if I comment on male progamers and not female progamers? =O
On July 15 2011 05:52 Lightwip wrote: 3/5 for a good effort but a message I completely disagree with. One point you made was posts like this: "I'm glad female gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well she does"
Well what if it was: "I'm glad American/White/Canadian/European/Foreign/Black/Arabic/etc gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well they do" I certainly would have no problem with that. The simple fact is, they are another minority group in the scene. And by being a minority, it's fair to expect people to see if you represent your minority group well.
Yes women are expected to look good. But you are aware that male pros also wear makeup, right? If they don't, that's just unprofessional on their part.
Your comments on chivalry honestly misrepresent the truth. I would certainly hold the door for a woman, not because I don't think they could do it themselves, but as a gesture of kindness.
There is discriminatory language for every minority group. It's something that you just have to learn to cope with. There's absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it. Besides, if they can open doors on their own, why can't they deal with sexism?
As an afterthought, I don't exactly appreciate the pretentious tone of this piece.
Sure it happens for minorities. But the thing is, people don't care as much if a player is American/White/Canadian/European/Foreign/Black/Arabic. Foreign perhaps, poor HuK... But when it's a woman people jump on it. My point is, these players aren't representing minority groups. The community makes them represent minority groups, adding on to the stigma.
Sure pros wear makeup. Pros want to look good. Good for them. In many cases it's an epic fail. This doesn't take away from the point that it matters less to the community, how good a male pro looks.
Sure chivalry is kind. That's what makes it chivalry. Would you pull my chair out at the dinner table out of kindness? Probably not. Although the message of weakness behind it has for the most part disappeared (not entirely) from popular culture, it's still at the root of the practice. Also your kindness just proves another one of my points, that you act with more kindness towards women.
Sure women can deal with sexism. I can deal with racism. I just don't want to have to.
I'd suggest you don't like the pretentious tone because you disagree with the content, but that would be pretentious
Edit for Omni, if you would do the same for a male worker with less physical strength, then I'm fine with it.
As for the bit on make-up, it depends on the tone. I'm not as much bothered by "she's good looking" than I am by "I'd shag that".
If there was an article about a chinese person joining a korean team, i think half of the posts would say "Whoa, awesome, chinese". Does that mean people are xenophobic? No.
I want to go over your list
- Don't get emotionally over-attached. There's a time and place for things, and a private messaging box usually isn't that great for dating.
Agree 100%, don't be an idiot
- Try to not make comments on how cute female gamers are. Sure I'd fly to Korea and live in a dumpster if SlayerS_Eve asked me out. Should I post it on a forum? Hell no (to whoever says I just did I say go eat a tree).
Disagree, she was recruited for her "skills and looks". People post threads like "nada's body". Wholeheartedly disagree. She is pretty cute btw.
- Try to not make comments on X female gamer representing women in ESports. She's not. She's representing herself and her team. They don't need more stress than they already have.
It's because females don't play esports as much as males competitively. Huk went to korea and he not only represents himself, but he represents the idea that a foreigner can compete with the koreans. She represents herself and the ability for female gamers to compete.
- Try not to be chevalresque. To me a white knight is a dude who will give a lady better treatment because she's a lady. This leads me to my next point. - Try to tell the difference between a white knight and a person who just doesn't want women to be alienated from ESports. Condemning sexism isn't being a white knight. Holding doors is.
Not sure what your point is here. There's nothing wrong with treating people better than yourself on a consistant basis. The bad part is called chauvanism. Being courteous to females is a good thing, they really appreciate it. I also hold the door open for men and for children. I tend to hold it open for females more often, but there's nothing wrong with that.
- Try not to prejudice women on their gaming knowledge. They are human and can be talked to as equals.
Ok, yes this is sexism. I agree. Being condescending because of someone's sex is sexist. 100% agree. My wife plays video games, and I talk to her like any other person.
- Try to avoid sexist language, words like "rape", "whore", etc. are just plain dumb and insensitive, they do no good to ESports in general.
1000% agree. Something like 1 in 3 girls have been sexually abused. Although they are just words, you could accidentally bring up undesired emotions from someone in that situation.
- To tournament planners, try not to reinforce these clichés, in the sense trying to get more viewers by putting a pretty face on your stream. You might get positive feedback, but it does no good to women in ESports.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Streams are meant to entertain. Men enjoy seeing a female face mostly because esports is a giant sausage fest. There's nothing wrong with hiring male or female actors for entertainment purposes.
In general, some people have a slighty warped view of sexism. Instead of trying to ignore the differences, I say embrace them. Certain things, like treating someone worse because of something that is beyond their control is bad, however treating someone more favorable is never a bad thing. Girls these days are also finding that line between being treated similarly and treated differently. My wife will hold the door open for me sometimes.
The ultimate goal of any relationship should be trying to please the other person without any expectation in return. When I hold the door open for a female, it's because I believe it's a nice thing to do. I don't hold any expectations against the female and don't consider her inferior or superior to myself.
The whole thing is a mindset. Motivation is the most important thing. If the motivations are pure, then the actions should not be criticized. If the intentions are selfish (such as destiny using the word rape for entertainment purposes), then it is wrong and should be criticized.
On July 15 2011 05:21 Complete wrote: Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
The OP is indeed a poor argument. I would expand upon your point saying that if the roles were reversed, women would indeed do that.
Thanks for the writeup, OP! I agree with a lot of it. I don't think it's going to put a dent in the gender arguments of TL, but it's a nice, logical way to look at it.
I know it's been touched on, but what about the business aspects of e-sports that utilize the common tactic of sex appeal. Let's face it, did tossgirl really get all those photo shoots because she was one of the best female BW players? Maybe at the start, but ultimately her looks became a tool to sell pro gaming. How do we reconcile societal biases when it's used as such a strong marketing agent? I personally don't think it will without some sort of paradigm shift, but what do you think?
I actually don't like the door-holding as an example of annoying chivalry. I think that most people tend to hold the door open for people behind them, both men and women.
What does annoy me is how if a woman is carrying a moderately heavy object (or even anything, really), a man is expected to take it for her. This is something that does directly imply inferiority no matter how you spin it. If it's something like she's carrying multiple things, then I'll ask if she wants me to take one or two of them (just like I would with anyone). If she asks or is visibly struggling, I'll take it off her hands. But immediately offering to carry it for her when she has no indication of needing your help? That's condescending as hell.
I've been sick of chivalry as a concept for a while. Though maybe it's partially because I'm not interested in women as sexual partners and thus don't feel a need to impress them with such things. Though, if I were, then I would definitely rather be with a woman who likes a guy who acknowledges that she is an independent and capable person than a woman who likes a guy who treats her like a delicate little damsel.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior? The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole. B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart. B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced. B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch. Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
EDIT: (after reading that bullshit Male Privelege Checklist)
The fool (yes, absolute idiot) that superciliously wrote the "Male Privelege Checklist" has yet to realize what the word "analysis" means. They write stupid shit (no, I'm not just raging, it is shit) like, "If I'm male, I have male superheroes (which are default) to look up to," without for ONE SECOND considering why this is. Men are stronger, faster, better at sports - why, then, is it a surprise that superheroes, the manifestation of strength and knight-like gallantry (remember, all knights were men) are mostly men? This should be obvious, and it is...but not to the writer.
Anything else? "If I'm male, then the gods of my religion are portrayed as male."
Couple of reasons for this. Gods are the manifestation of protection, strength, justice, and security (kinda like superheroes, right?). The great kings (Hammurabi, Akbar) military leaders (Alexander, Caesar) philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) and protectors (the father of a family) were all MEN. Why, then, is it an "injustice" when the utter embodiment(s) of such characteristics were also men?
At an even more basic level, the people who wrote these books were scholars (men) advisers (in the case of the Bible) (men) or soul-searchers, philosophers, etc. Basically, they were men. Why, then, is it a surprise that the Gods, AKA main characters of these books, were also men?
Look at other shit this dumbass says. "If I'm a man, I can turn on the TV and see people of my own gender represented." That's because most of the people who are doing great (or terrible, think of Hitler) things - the entrepreneurs (Jobs and Gates) leaders (Obama, FDR, JFK, Eisenhower) and scientists (Craig Venter, Stephen Hawking) are fucking MEN. I've already addressed the fact that women have had less opportunities in the past in the material preceding, but why can't women (at least as scientists and inventors) succeed in the same capability?
"If I'm a man, I will probably be hired more easily for a job." That's not because men are men, that's because men are empirically better workers, more inventive, and more ambitious. Look at the CEO's of the top 100 tech companies, or any companies in fact. The fact that they're all men isn't a result of societal oppression (at least not here in the US), so why haven't women done better for themselves? Plenty of women had the SAME opportunities and education and parental background as men like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, most better than Steve Jobs (who was a hobo for a while). Why haven't they invented more and done more? Because even when they were on the same level in society, they couldn't do it. This reasoning applies to every item on that checklist, basically; when/if you read that article, when you read every single rule, think, "Is this an arbitrary advantage? Or is it because of something that's been demonstrated over the ages?"
Because the person writing that shit certainly didn't.
- To tournament planners, try not to reinforce these clichés, in the sense trying to get more viewers by putting a pretty face on your stream. You might get positive feedback, but it does no good to women in ESports.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Streams are meant to entertain. Men enjoy seeing a female face mostly because esports is a giant sausage fest. There's nothing wrong with hiring male or female actors for entertainment purposes.
My point is that it is commercialising the female body. There are many cases in which the girl is hired just to feed the sausage fest. That is sexism. You wouldn't hire a man. I can accept it if it's doesn't deteriorate the image of gaming girls, but it does. When you see an interviewer that is female and knows nothing about the game, it creates a stigma.
EDIT: To the guy who posted just above me: The course of nature creates inequalities. The question then is, should we maintain them, or try to recreate equality? The circumstances in which inequlity was created are't the same as they are in our modern society. Its not because nature has been unfair to people in the past that we should be unfair to them in the present. I am clearly for more equality. If you're not, then the debate ends there.
"3/5 for a good effort but a message I completely disagree with. One point you made was posts like this: "I'm glad female gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well she does"
Well what if it was: "I'm glad American/White/Canadian/European/Foreign/Black/Arabic/etc gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well they do" I certainly would have no problem with that. The simple fact is, they are another minority group in the scene. And by being a minority, it's fair to expect people to see if you represent your minority group well. "
- When I play (sure bronze league, but anyway) I don't in any way represent anyone else than ME. I shouldn't be given the responsibility to represent women as a gender. Why? Because I can't do it. What I do does not reflect anybody elses talent or opinions.
If I would be so lucky to join a pro team, then I would represent the team, because that would be my job. It is not my job to make sure men around the world start thinking better about women in general. If men look down on us, then the problem is in their heads, and they can seek help, perhaps a therapist should be in place... I don't get paid for 8 or 10 hours of trying to make men realize women have brains too, not just boobs, butts and fake eyelashes.
"Your comments on chivalry honestly misrepresent the truth. I would certainly hold the door for a woman, not because I don't think they could do it themselves, but as a gesture of kindness."
- Yes, this is what I mean, why do you have a need to be extra kind to girls, when boys are just as good an deserves to be treated just as so?
"There is discriminatory language for every minority group. It's something that you just have to learn to cope with. There's absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it. Besides, if they can open doors on their own, why can't they deal with sexism?"
Because sexism is like rasism and nazism. Do you expect the jews from WW2 to have to deal with what they went through? Or black people during the slavery?
I say NO, because discriminating is always wrong, imho.
Being able to open a door is not the same thing as being discriminated for being born with a vagina. What did I do that was so wrong, that people stopped caring about who I was and only judging me for my body? Oh right, I have a uterus...??
I actually think we are better than that. Women. And men. Together, just think of what we could do for this world. But no. It's more important to fap...
Jokes aside, this is a very interesting topic, and it makes me have to use my brains and not my mascara. Thanks for that
I agree with the factual parts, but not the opinions. Mainly because...
pretending something isn't an issue doesn't make it an issue. Women are different from men; that's not debatable. Why should we refrain from commenting on the difference?
Nobody goes into the thread about the blind gamer and say, "well, Boxer beat him anyway and we need to judge him based on his skill level, not who he is or his limitations." No, he's different, and we can treat the situation differently because of it. It's natural for us to find any departure from the norm interesting.
Why do you think she is bad for E-sports?Tossgirl never accomplished anything and as far as I know she was good for E-sports, STX marketted her pretty well.
On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote: The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior? The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole. B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart. B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced. B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch. Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior? The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole. B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart. B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced. B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch. Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
There's some truth in what you argue (though I would say that the historical oppression of women is more due to a difference in temperament than a difference in ability). However, what I consider discrimination is not the blind denial of any overall differences between demographic groups, but rather the biased treatment of individuals based on how your stereotypes dictate they will be, e.g. "I see a woman carrying that large box. She is a woman, so she must be too weak to carry it. Therefore, I will go offer to take it for her."
On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote: The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc.
Actually, it's a testament to the fact that everyone who goes on televised matches wears makeup, as is the case with most programs where people are well lit.
As to your other points, they're mostly misguided. Women are smaller than men, and weaker on average. But you haven't shown, nor have conclusive, repeatable experiments, that women are not as smart.
The difference, which is not what you suggest, is that evolutionarily men are always going to have more variation than women are, because it was only the strongest male or two in the herd that mated with all the women. Thus it's favorable for men to take a 10% chance of being really amazing and getting all the women and a 10% chance of really sucking, rather than taking a 100% chance of being mediocre and getting no women.
On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote: I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order:
- I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
- Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle.
- It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene.
Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote: I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order:
- I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
- Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle.
- It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene.
Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes.
I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though).
On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote: Oops missed this one!
On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote: I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order:
- I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
- Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle.
- It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene.
Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes.
I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though).
Athletes in the olympics actually are representing their country, the country is the team they play for.
Just like Eve is representing SlayerS.
Roger Federer isn't representing fondue eaters. He's not representing people with curly hair.
Actually, I believe the reason why men wrote the bible etc is that men usually have a stronger physique, and can/could easily overpower women and scare them into obedience.
Also the fact that women carry and give birth to the baby obvoisly made men think that this is all we're good for, let them stay home with the kids.
Well. We can do both. Multitasking ftw! Raising kids, working, playing games... we can even carry home bags of food from the store, drive cars (most traffic accidents are caused by men, so ppl complaining about how women can't drive, being careful may save lives mmkay) and so on.
It is also interesting looking at the animals and comparing male/female. Some female animals kill their partner after sex, since the male is not needed anymore. What if this was true among humans today? Wouldn't it be awful? Yet it is okay to state that men are better at tactics and such in combat? How do you know, men solved that problem hundreds of years ago, by prohibiting women to be in the army, to work etc...
On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote: Oops missed this one!
On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote: I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order:
- I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
- Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle.
- It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene.
Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes.
I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though).
Athletes in the olympics actually are representing their country, the country is the team they play for.
Just like Eve is representing SlayerS.
Roger Federer isn't representing fondue eaters. He's not representing people with curly hair.
I have to disagree. Brian Wilson is definitely representing people with beards.
On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote: Oops missed this one!
On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote: I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order:
- I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
- Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle.
- It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene.
Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes.
I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though).
Athletes in the olympics actually are representing their country, the country is the team they play for.
Just like Eve is representing SlayerS.
Roger Federer isn't representing fondue eaters. He's not representing people with curly hair.
I have to disagree. Brian Wilson is definitely representing people with beards.
On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote: Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior? The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole. B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart. B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced. B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch. Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
There's some truth in what you argue (though I would say that the historical oppression of women is more due to a difference in temperament than a difference in ability). However, what I consider discrimination is not the blind denial of any overall differences between demographic groups, but rather the biased treatment of individuals based on how your stereotypes dictate they will be, e.g. "I see a woman carrying that large box. She is a woman, so she must be too weak to carry it. Therefore, I will go offer to take it for her."
Your last example is completely true. But look at this:
She is a woman, so she must be too weak to carry it. Therefore, I will go offer to take it for her.
I'm not trying to say this doesn't happen. But look at any Olympic weight lifting record, or hell, every day life. Men are stronger than women - the assumption that she must be too weak to carry it may not always be true, but it is most certainly based on constant and empirical observation. And in this case, women actually benefit from this stereotype.
It's nice that you took the time to think and write this out. But just one caveat: as a female who's almost always been in very male-dominated environments, it's almost frustrating when people try to be too PC. Don't ignore facts. Specifically addressing this point:
- Try to not make comments on how cute female gamers are. Sure I'd fly to Korea and live in a dumpster if SlayerS_Eve asked me out. Should I post it on a forum? Hell no (to whoever says I just did I say go eat a tree).
If you're surprised that the new SlayerS member is a girl, say so. I mean, I was surprised. (My reaction, verbatim: "whoooooooaaaaaa chick on slayerssssssss hurayyyyyyyyyyy.") And if you think she's cute, say that too. Since she hasn't played, what else are you supposed to say? Girls generally know that's the first thing a guy thinks, anyway. Her being a girl and her being cute do have bearing in the discussion, so do feel okay discussing it; just be tasteful about it. Consciously restraining yourself in these cases is a form of sexism unto itself, and it creates an artificial atmosphere that isn't really conducive to open discussion.
Sidenote: Ha, at this rate girl blogs will become a minority in favor of sexism blogs.
On July 15 2011 06:06 matjlav wrote: I actually don't like the door-holding as an example of annoying chivalry. I think that most people tend to hold the door open for people behind them, both men and women.
What does annoy me is how if a woman is carrying a moderately heavy object (or even anything, really), a man is expected to take it for her. This is something that does directly imply inferiority no matter how you spin it. If it's something like she's carrying multiple things, then I'll ask if she wants me to take one or two of them (just like I would with anyone). If she asks or is visibly struggling, I'll take it off her hands. But immediately offering to carry it for her when she has no indication of needing your help? That's condescending as hell.
I've been sick of chivalry as a concept for a while. Though maybe it's partially because I'm not interested in women as sexual partners and thus don't feel a need to impress them with such things. Though, if I were, then I would definitely rather be with a woman who likes a guy who acknowledges that she is an independent and capable person than a woman who likes a guy who treats her like a delicate little damsel.
Men are biologically stronger than women. THAT is a fact of life. How is it condescending to offer to carry something that is heavy?
People say all this stuff about chivalry and crap. What about just being a generally helpful person to everyone? I would offer help to anyone that had to move heavy stuff. I would offer it MORE to women than men because women are generally weaker than men.
There's a difference between being a nice person and someone who is acknowledges someone as an independent and capable person. They are not mutually exclusive.
Asking "do you need help carrying something" is being considerate person. It should be offered regardless of gender, especially if the person looks like they are having difficulty.
As an overall aside I'm pretty sick of the whole gender equality issue. There ARE some fundamental differences between the physical, emotional, etc. reactions between the sexes and brushing them under the rug in favor of "equality" is pretty much stupid as all can be. Yes, there are some horrible people in this world who like to make sexist remarks, do sexist things, etc., but that doesn't mean that we should be aiming for equality for everyone is every aspect of life. That is just foolish. Treat others they way you would want to be treated. Honestly, who cares what gender, race, or whatever else they are.
Barack Obama becoming the President of the United States was a big deal to a lot of people, because he became the first black US president; for the same reason, like it or not, a lot of people will consider him to "represent the black community", and you can be sure that the next black presidential candidate will be compared to him.
Just like with race, Gender Equality does not mean the identity and differences of the genders need to be forcibly and artificially suppressed- it means we need to understand our differences, tolerate them, and treat each other with respect. I will cheer on SlayerS_Eve as a woman and as a progamer, for she is both.
On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote: The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc.
Actually, it's a testament to the fact that everyone who goes on televised matches wears makeup, as is the case with most programs where people are well lit.
As to your other points, they're mostly misguided. Women are smaller than men, and weaker on average. But you haven't shown, nor have conclusive, repeatable experiments, that women are not as smart.
The difference, which is not what you suggest, is that evolutionarily men are always going to have more variation than women are, because it was only the strongest male or two in the herd that mated with all the women. Thus it's favorable for men to take a 10% chance of being really amazing and getting all the women and a 10% chance of really sucking, rather than taking a 100% chance of being mediocre and getting no women.
I've got an experiment!
Let's leave the human race alone for 12,000 years and see what happens.
Oh, look. They've evolved into a patriarchal society where it's basically assumed that men are smarter, stronger, faster, more ambitious, and more intelligent. The technological and military and political and spiritual and philosophical and scientific leaders have for thousands of years been men. Oh, look! Men figured out nuclear fusion first. Oh, look! A man figured out black holes and string theory first. Oh, look! A man discovered the structure of an atom first. Oh, look! It was a man at the head of the Arabic and Greek and Roman empires during their reigns of dominance. [sarcasm]Wow, this experiment is really ambivalent on who is better at doing most everything.[/sarcasm]
There's a fucking experiment for you, and if that's not conclusive, you must not believe in gravity.
Actually, it's a testament to the fact that everyone who goes on televised matches wears makeup, as is the case with most programs where people are well lit.
Wow, you do a great job of ignoring the fact that no male progamer is nearly as beloved if they have such an abysmal win rate. Wow, you do a great job of ignoring the fact that the best female in the world at something gets her ass handed to her by mediocre males. I'm not saying TossGirl is bad at StarCraft, no, but I am saying that if she was a guy, she sure as hell wouldn't be on a progaming team or fielded, ever. Or have one fan, let alone fan clubs and TL dedications.
On July 15 2011 06:06 matjlav wrote: I actually don't like the door-holding as an example of annoying chivalry. I think that most people tend to hold the door open for people behind them, both men and women.
What does annoy me is how if a woman is carrying a moderately heavy object (or even anything, really), a man is expected to take it for her. This is something that does directly imply inferiority no matter how you spin it. If it's something like she's carrying multiple things, then I'll ask if she wants me to take one or two of them (just like I would with anyone). If she asks or is visibly struggling, I'll take it off her hands. But immediately offering to carry it for her when she has no indication of needing your help? That's condescending as hell.
I've been sick of chivalry as a concept for a while. Though maybe it's partially because I'm not interested in women as sexual partners and thus don't feel a need to impress them with such things. Though, if I were, then I would definitely rather be with a woman who likes a guy who acknowledges that she is an independent and capable person than a woman who likes a guy who treats her like a delicate little damsel.
Men are biologically stronger than women. THAT is a fact of life. How is it condescending to offer to carry something that is heavy?
People say all this stuff about chivalry and crap. What about just being a generally helpful person to everyone? I would offer help to anyone that had to move heavy stuff. I would offer it MORE to women than men because women are generally weaker than men.
It is a fact that men in general are stronger than women in general. But that doesn't mean that a woman automatically needs your help whenever she has to carry something heavier than a purse. As a fairly scrawny guy, I know a good number of women who are probably stronger than I am.
In situations where you would help a man or a woman (i.e. they are visibly struggling, they ask, or they have a ton of stuff to carry that you could help with) then yes, of course you should offer to help. But if you just see a woman carrying a box and automatically think that it's your duty as a man to help her, it is indeed condescending.
On July 15 2011 06:42 eshlow wrote: There's a difference between being a nice person and someone who is acknowledges someone as an independent and capable person. They are not mutually exclusive.
Asking "do you need help carrying something" is being considerate person. It should be offered regardless of gender, especially if the person looks like they are having difficulty.
I agree with this.
On July 15 2011 06:42 eshlow wrote: As an overall aside I'm pretty sick of the whole gender equality issue. There ARE some fundamental differences between the physical, emotional, etc. reactions between the sexes and brushing them under the rug in favor of "equality" is pretty much stupid as all can be. Yes, there are some horrible people in this world who like to make sexist remarks, do sexist things, etc., but that doesn't mean that we should be aiming for equality for everyone is every aspect of life. That is just foolish. Treat others they way you would want to be treated. Honestly, who cares what gender, race, or whatever else they are.
When you just treat people as individuals and act appropriately, the need to stereotype goes away, regardless of what generalized qualities an entire demographic might have. That's my point.
The most controversial point has been commenting on the looks of women players. I specified sexual comments that you wouldn't make to your girlfriend (provided the two of you are mentally stable).
Hope this'll clear out some of the flames and draw some attention (and heartZ) to the other points!
On July 15 2011 06:28 saris84 wrote: Actually, I believe the reason why men wrote the bible etc is that men usually have a stronger physique, and can/could easily overpower women and scare them into obedience.
Also the fact that women carry and give birth to the baby obvoisly made men think that this is all we're good for, let them stay home with the kids.
Well. We can do both. Multitasking ftw! Raising kids, working, playing games... we can even carry home bags of food from the store, drive cars (most traffic accidents are caused by men, so ppl complaining about how women can't drive, being careful may save lives mmkay) and so on.
It is also interesting looking at the animals and comparing male/female. Some female animals kill their partner after sex, since the male is not needed anymore. What if this was true among humans today? Wouldn't it be awful? Yet it is okay to state that men are better at tactics and such in combat? How do you know, men solved that problem hundreds of years ago, by prohibiting women to be in the army, to work etc...
So if you believe that men have a stronger physique, why must you deny empirical evidence that they're smarter as well? NOBODY is, in present US society, scaring or oppressing women so that they are prevented with coming up with algorithms or operating systems or software. Yet, the heads of all successful tech companies are men.
Also, the fact that women carry and give birth to the baby indeed betrays the fact that they're better caretakers. Why do you think most elementary school teachers are women? They're more patient, and better at understanding and mediating fights and stuff. Why do you think that this isn't as true for high school teachers? Because it's less about taking care of little kids, and more about having a firm authority in the classroom. Elementary school teachers are a lot more like mothers than college professors, and so more of them are women.
Well, you can do both. Raising kids - yes, you are better. Working - not as good: ambitious and inventive people tend to be men, and nobody is preventing girls in high school from founding companies like Steve Jobs did. Most traffic accidents are caused by men because most people on the road (to work, for example) are men. Try to actually look for the reason behind a fact before just spewing it out. Men tend to drive more because they have to go to work, and men tend to drive their families around. If 60% of drivers are men, then it's only reasonable that most accidents are caused by men.
It is also interesting looking at the animals and comparing male/female. Some female animals kill their partner after sex, since the male is not needed anymore. What if this was true among humans today? Wouldn't it be awful? Yet it is okay to state that men are better at tactics and such in combat? How do you know, men solved that problem hundreds of years ago, by prohibiting women to be in the army, to work etc...
Well, thanks for proving my point. In the Latrodectus species and the Panthera Leo species, the female is indeed the better hunter, the stronger and more powerful gender. In Homo Sapiens, men are. The reason women don't kill men after sex is because men ARE needed after sex...needed to invent, to discover, to lead, and to proclaim. It's not okay to state that men are better at tactics? Why do you think, thousands of years ago, that women were "prohibited to be in the army, to work etc..."? It's because men were better soldiers, and better fighters. Hell, look at any Olympic sport today - soccer, football, anything physically demanding. The level of competition among men is far above the level in competition in women. This is demonstrated in TossGirl's complete dominance of the female league and sound and regular thrashing in the male league. Men and women both realized thousands of years ago what you still can't figure out - women make for better medics and nurses and caretakers, and men serve as better soldiers and thinkers and leaders. It's not, as I've already said, the result of a coin-toss. It's that countries using weaker soldiers and less ambitious thinkers (women) and worse and more impatient and less understanding caretakers (men) probably didn't do to well. Can men make it on their own? Nope.
Think of it like two tools: a power screwdriver and a wire clipper or something. Women do many things better than men, and many things worse than men. You can try to put women in charge or in composition of an army. You can try to put a screw in with a clipper. It just won't work, or won't work as well as doing with people what they're meant to do - using a tool the way it's meant to be used. The reason we use power screwdrivers to screw things in isn't because we one day decided that this would be the way to do things. We use a hammer to band in a nail because that's what works. We use men to compose and lead armies because that's what tends to work.
On July 15 2011 05:21 Complete wrote: Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
Her personnality? Do you know her?
Her marketability? Are you trying to sell her?
I'm saying not that we should ignore it, but that it shouldn't influence our judgement on her skill/performance. I know that ain't happening, but we can make an effort to make ESports more female-friendly.
I know I'm late to the party but the whole point of being a professional is to have marketability and a perceived personality that will earn you the most. MC or Idra are popular for their marketability and personality. Don't make it out to be a women's esports issue.
On July 15 2011 06:52 Malyce wrote:
Modification on the OP.
The most controversial point has been commenting on the looks of women players. I specified sexual comments that you wouldn't make to your girlfriend (provided the two of you are mentally stable).
Hope this'll clear out some of the flames and draw some attention (and heartZ) to the other points!
I can't take that seriously since most of my girlfriends//partners are pretty damn far from vanilla. I'm more reserved and polite when discussing people I don't know rather than talking to my girlfriend privately.
That isn't to say rape and whore aren't completely unacceptable terms, though I do skew my opinion when it is self described "I just got raped by a siege tank and four of his marauder buddies". That's kinda funny. "I'm going to rape you with a siege tank and four of his marauder buddies".. is not funny at all.
Idk, that's me and my opinion. What I'd really like is for this to be unneeded and for women to have a higher percentage of representation in esports. Unfortunately for me I find it unremarkable that SlayerS recruited a female player and that all of this is a real non issue that is doing a disservice with over attention.
On July 15 2011 06:28 saris84 wrote: Don't feed the trolls.
That guy is either trolling, a kid or an idiot. Or all three. There is no way he should be given so many words. I know he won't change his mind because of them. Though I suppose I do appreciate the effort.
mens looks get commented on just as much as womens look in the sc scene. every time theres a new code a player, first page theres a comment about how cute he is. noone ever makes a fuss about it.
and i disagree that theres sexism against women in our community either apart from the usual trolling someone like anna has been well recieved for her work.
everyone who gets a free ride gets criticized. just because not many men get it, due to the multitudes of men who work hard to be the best doesnt mean a man getting a free shot at a team for his looks (its happened in other industries) wouldnt get shit on.
every person getting a free ride gets shit, nothing to do with sexism and i think its really sexist for people to white knight in defence of people who do get free rides ; /
i personally havent commented on her yet, because i dont know about the korean scene, maybe shes really good. but the fact that 'noone' has heard of her isnt promising.
But the fact that BoxeRs team, the same team that recruited Alicia when everyone thought he was a cheesenoob, shows the team has skill at finding a diamond in the rough. Or a grand master.
The most controversial point has been commenting on the looks of women players. I specified sexual comments that you wouldn't make to your girlfriend (provided the two of you are mentally stable).
Hope this'll clear out some of the flames and draw some attention (and heartZ) to the other points!
I can't take that seriously since most of my girlfriends//partners are pretty damn far from vanilla. I'm more reserved and polite when discussing people I don't know rather than talking to my girlfriend privately.
I took it to mean comments that you wouldn't feel comfortable making about another girl to your girlfriend. As in most girls would be okay with you saying another girl's pretty, but not with you relating sexually explicit things you'd like to do with said other girl.
But then again, maybe some girls like their boyfriends doing the latter...I would say that's not the norm though.
Oh, and here are some hearts: ♥♥♥ Your other points are pretty good. White knighting gets annoying.
i am just so completely speechless at djbhINDI's post i can't even think of where to begin i'm just going to go kill myself right now this world isn't worth living in with people like him in it bye
On July 15 2011 05:21 Complete wrote: Poor argument. Her being a female progamer is a legitimate part of her personality and marketability. We shouldn't just ignore it which is what it seems like you're trying to argue.
Her personnality? Do you know her?
Her marketability? Are you trying to sell her?
I'm saying not that we should ignore it, but that it shouldn't influence our judgement on her skill/performance. I know that ain't happening, but we can make an effort to make ESports more female-friendly.
I know I'm late to the party but the whole point of being a professional is to have marketability and a perceived personality that will earn you the most. MC or Idra are popular for their marketability and personality. Don't make it out to be a women's esports issue.
The most controversial point has been commenting on the looks of women players. I specified sexual comments that you wouldn't make to your girlfriend (provided the two of you are mentally stable).
Hope this'll clear out some of the flames and draw some attention (and heartZ) to the other points!
I can't take that seriously since most of my girlfriends//partners are pretty damn far from vanilla. I'm more reserved and polite when discussing people I don't know rather than talking to my girlfriend privately.
That isn't to say rape and whore aren't completely unacceptable terms, though I do skew my opinion when it is self described "I just got raped by a siege tank and four of his marauder buddies". That's kinda funny. "I'm going to rape you with a siege tank and four of his marauder buddies".. is not funny at all.
Idk, that's me and my opinion. What I'd really like is for this to be unneeded and for women to have a higher percentage of representation in esports. Unfortunately for me I find it unremarkable that SlayerS recruited a female player and that all of this is a real non issue that is doing a disservice with over attention.
On July 15 2011 06:28 saris84 wrote: Don't feed the trolls.
That guy is either trolling, a kid or an idiot. Or all three. There is no way he should be given so many words. I know he won't change his mind because of them. Though I suppose I do appreciate the effort.
Really? I used empirical examples, analogy, and logic to support my example. I offered a rebuttal to every "argument"(in quotes because they were that bad) others threw at me.
Trolls generally say pretty stupid stuff, and don't back up what they've said. Can you contradict a single thing I've said here? Until then, I'm not a troll (as my arguments are, as not disprovable, logical) not a kid(or maybe a smart kid, because even your oh-so-wise being can't disprove me) and not an idiot (see not a troll). In fact, the only person who has failed to argue substantively, made ridiculous and unproven allegations, attacked their opponent instead of their opponent's argument, and insisted that others are illogical is you. Problem?
EDIT: Also, look at your pathetic words:
There is no way he should be given so many words.
Read: I don't like your opinion, so you shouldn't be able to voice it. Fail.
On July 15 2011 07:18 nozh wrote: i am just so completely speechless at djbhINDI's post i can't even think of where to begin i'm just going to go kill myself right now this world isn't worth living in with people like him in it bye
You don't know where to begin, or you can't? What part of my post is wrong? Show me where I've demonstrated that I make this world not living in. This doesn't include disrobing truths you're not prepared to handle.
I like female programers, but don't like female "gamers" that get there based on something besides skill. If you are a woman and can play with the boys, good for you. If you are nowhere near the level you are competing in and are there because you're hot or girly or feminine or "girlz rock clan!!!" then I'll look down on you. Kinda the same if the company VP got to be VP because she's hot, not because she's good at her job.
Would obviously like to see much more female gamers though. Gender roles and what others find attractive in different sexes makes this tougher/less rewarding for women, though.
I find that chivalry is just a part of our culture. If you see a man and a woman walking down the street and the woman is carrying a heavy object while the man is carrying nothing, people will judge the man as weak or thoughtless. It's just the way things are. The guys aren't judging the girl by being chivalrous, but preventing themselves from being judged - by the girl or by others.
"Women have to bear with chivalry." Man wat. Forget that crap. I had a feminist english professor who tried to get us to buy that holding the doors for women was a bad thing. Screw that thinking. It's terrible and it's wrong.
I open and hold the door for my wife everywhere we go, whether it's a restaurant or the car, and I always will.
It is the fact that it is not truths, it is just your opinion, however you tell it like it would be true as 1+1...
and the fact that you listed women good at doing things that doesn't require much intelligence, and portraying men as the oh so smart thinker, that IS sexiest.
Because you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to change a diaper or put a spoon in a baby's mouth. Mentally challenged people have children. It aint that hard.
You did not mention that females can often speak more languages, no, because that requires reading, and women don't do that, they clean, cook and wipe shit all thay because that is all we're good for (in your eyes it seems).
You don't have very high thoughts about women. And more people think just like you. That is exactly why women don't get good at sports, because all the best leaders choose to teach the kids with penises.
They did an experiment in Sweden with some soccerteams. They discovered that the girls who were taught to play like boys got better, and the girls who were treated as little wussies at practise, did not become as good. They later merged two teams, one male, one female, and the girls became as good as the boys.
Also it is proven again with a femal isehocke goalie who played a lot of games with men, because she was brought up to me tough. People who have kids let their little girls cry about everything, and they teach the boys to suck it up and be a man. This is the problem. That for years, people have been making a difference in emotional issues among their children.
Also regarding your comments on how women are good medics and men are good soldiers, I think it says more about how men are less intelligent, than the other way around.
Women heal.
Men kill.
Without us, you would die. Without you, there would be no war. The problem isn't that women aren't smart. The problem is, neither are men...
Alright I read your whole blog and while broadly speaking I agree about the whole sexism thing, I think you're being a little too overprotective of women in E-sports and making too many assumptions in general.
-> Women have an additional stress factor to deal with, since there are so few they somehow "represent the female community", and that's just wrong. They represent themselves and their skill level.
Why do you think this is a bad thing? What if girl gamer X wants to be a role model for aspiring female gamers? There's no need for you to proactively tell people not to cheer for the representatives of girl gaming when we're trying to support their endeavors.
-> Women have to take additional personal crap on their looks.
Two way street. Good looking girls benefit more from being good looking than good looking men do. In Slayers_Eve's case this is a good thing. She's being given a golden opportunity she otherwise wouldn't have gotten if she weren't cute+female.
-> Women take additional crap on their intelligence, simply due to the fact that they are women
-> Women can't talk about gender issues without being called "attention whores" (note the word "whore" rather than troll)
-> Women have to bear with chivalry. Doesn't sound too bad? Yet it's a recognition of weakness and lesser ability to do certain things.
-> Women have to bear with emo. More than dudes. Getting ridiculously over-sentimental messages, dealing with crushes, etc.
Probably true, but irrelevant to E-sports.
- Don't get emotionally over-attached. There's a time and place for things, and a private messaging box usually isn't that great for dating.
You really think people who do this are being serious? It's just harmless trolling.
- Try to not make sexual comments on women in ESports. Basically stuff you wouldn't say to your girlfriend.
You wouldn't tell your girlfriend you'd do her? jk I know what you mean but once again it's just harmless message board trolling.
- Try not to be chevalresque. To me a white knight is a dude who will give a lady better treatment because she's a lady. This leads me to my next point.
- Try to tell the difference between a white knight and a person who just doesn't want women to be alienated from ESports. Condemning sexism isn't being a white knight. Holding doors is.
Explain how this is relevant to E-sports. Can't be chivalrous and hold doors across the internets now can we?
- Try to avoid sexist language, words like "rape", "whore", etc. are just plain dumb and insensitive, they do no good to ESports in general.
Rape is inappropriately used, yes. I've yet to hear anyone use "whore" on TL (without being banned) or any SC2 cast.
So you complain about chivalry towards woman, than you make this needlessly long blog about not treating woman differently in a community where it seems everyone gets shit talked. Every tourney thread has people shit talking guy players too, some guy players get called ugly and have their appearance complained about all the time, why aren't you posting a thread about not treating people based on superficial reasons, instead of a hypocritical blog about treating women better because they are women.
The most controversial point has been commenting on the looks of women players. I specified sexual comments that you wouldn't make to your girlfriend (provided the two of you are mentally stable).
Hope this'll clear out some of the flames and draw some attention (and heartZ) to the other points!
If I were you I would change that to comments you wouldn't make to your mother or your friend's girlfriend. You must not have a very fun (or mentally unstable) relationship.
That blatantly sexist guy posting in here is just awful. Seriously we live with the ramifications of a society developed by the physically larger sex so men have the better positions and women get shoved into a caretaker role.
Sit there and act like history has been meritocratic. He should go get a real education in history instead of posting that shit.
OP, I think you made some great points and that this community doesn't realize how sexist it is is sad.
On July 15 2011 07:34 saris84 wrote: It is the fact that it is not truths, it is just your opinion, however you tell it like it would be true as 1+1...
and the fact that you listed women good at doing things that doesn't require much intelligence, and portraying men as the oh so smart thinker, that IS sexiest.
Because you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to change a diaper or put a spoon in a baby's mouth. Mentally challenged people have children. It aint that hard.
You did not mention that females can often speak more languages, no, because that requires reading, and women don't do that, they clean, cook and wipe shit all thay because that is all we're good for (in your eyes it seems).
You don't have very high thoughts about women. And more people think just like you. That is exactly why women don't get good at sports, because all the best leaders choose to teach the kids with penises.
They did an experiment in Sweden with some soccerteams. They discovered that the girls who were taught to play like boys got better, and the girls who were treated as little wussies at practise, did not become as good. They later merged two teams, one male, one female, and the girls became as good as the boys.
Also it is proven again with a femal isehocke goalie who played a lot of games with men, because she was brought up to me tough. People who have kids let their little girls cry about everything, and they teach the boys to suck it up and be a man. This is the problem. That for years, people have been making a difference in emotional issues among their children.
Also regarding your comments on how women are good medics and men are good soldiers, I think it says more about how men are less intelligent, than the other way around.
Women heal.
Men kill.
Without us, you would die. Without you, there would be no war. The problem isn't that women aren't smart. The problem is, neither are men...
You can post your own opinions on why women are better as you please. But to say that women are as good or better than men at a physical sport is just being plain silly. Also, the majority of the world's doctors are men, not women, the vast majority of wartime medics are men. Women speak more languages? (lol?)
Also, pretending that immense physical, emotional and psychological differences between men and women only exist because of outside factors and social perception is a terrible, terrible fad.
I hope humanity grows past it soon so men can go back to being manly scowling chums like Gregory Peck and women to mesmerizing curvy bombshells like Aria Giovanni.
Some of us don't support the idea of humans as androgynous hermaphrodites :p
You can post your own opinions on why women are better as you please. But to say that women are as good or better than men at a physical sport is just being plain silly. Also, the majority of the world's doctors are men, not women, the vast majority of wartime medics are men. Women speak more languages? (lol?)
Oh of course I quoted a man's statement about how women are only good as caretakers and men are awesome soldiers, maybe you did not understand my comments were related to another post :/
Well if yo uare right, then the other guy totally fails in this discussion, and so I have nothing to defend as far as women being not as intelligent.
And yes, I was taught back in highschool that usually girls can speak more languages then men, and come to think about it, I speak 4, my mom 3, my sisters 3, and my brother 2. My father 2. My boyfriend...2 most boys/men I know don't speak more than 2 unless they work as translators.
Also the sports thing, why can't women run as fast and kick a ball as good as men? ALL men are not stronger or faster than all women. I probably know girls who can benchpress more than men in this thread.
The physical difference is about this much: if a man and a woman work out just as much, a man can bench 100kg when woman can bench 85. It is not more than that.
And you have the right to have your opinions on how women are not good at sports, but as long as they keep training separately, how can anyone expect them to get any better. If we can't join in, we can't really get better. thank you for your comments
Read: I don't like your opinion, so you shouldn't be able to voice it. Fail.
Either I wrote that too obliquely or you misread what I wrote. I said you were responding to an idiot. No amount of time or effort will change his views, if they even are his. You should invest less energy writing rebuttals that won't be challenged or have any impact.
On July 15 2011 07:18 nozh wrote: i am just so completely speechless at djbhINDI's post i can't even think of where to begin i'm just going to go kill myself right now this world isn't worth living in with people like him in it bye
You don't know where to begin, or you can't? What part of my post is wrong? Show me where I've demonstrated that I make this world not living in. This doesn't include disrobing truths you're not prepared to handle.
Your long post, about the areas men are better than women and where women are better than men, felt like it was a suggestion to save time and outright dismiss careers like female engineers or a man deciding he would be most happy as a kindergarten teacher.
Otherwise, I simply do not see the point in that post. What do I care about averages? How do I benefit from keeping it in mind, when walking through life? If I instead take up the equality flag, I may find something interesting, I would have otherwise missed. It also feels more fair to the individuals. I guess this is what made "nozh" speechless.
If you generalize men and women instead of looking at the respective individuals, you may overlook something special. For example, the very first programmer was a woman, which makes her perhaps the founder of Computer Science? The term "radioactivity" was coined by a woman, the first research into it was done by her, and she got a Nobel Prize for it.
Also, what you wrote about road traffic was wrong. I remember it as the average man having a higher chance to have an accident for any driven mile compared to the average woman. Perhaps what you wrote about women having more patience is more important than men having more driving skill.
You can post your own opinions on why women are better as you please. But to say that women are as good or better than men at a physical sport is just being plain silly. Also, the majority of the world's doctors are men, not women, the vast majority of wartime medics are men. Women speak more languages? (lol?)
Oh of course I quoted a man's statement about how women are only good as caretakers and men are awesome soldiers, maybe you did not understand my comments were related to another post :/
Well if yo uare right, then the other guy totally fails in this discussion, and so I have nothing to defend as far as women being not as intelligent.
And yes, I was taught back in highschool that usually girls can speak more languages then men, and come to think about it, I speak 4, my mom 3, my sisters 3, and my brother 2. My father 2. My boyfriend...2 most boys/men I know don't speak more than 2 unless they work as translators.
Also the sports thing, why can't women run as fast and kick a ball as good as men? ALL men are not stronger or faster than all women. I probably know girls who can benchpress more than men in this thread.
The physical difference is about this much: if a man and a woman work out just as much, a man can bench 100kg when woman can bench 85. It is not more than that.
And you have the right to have your opinions on how women are not good at sports, but as long as they keep training separately, how can anyone expect them to get any better. If we can't join in, we can't really get better. thank you for your comments
So what I got from that is, your isolated experience and applying int to the whole planet. It's pretty simple why women aren't physically capable as men, Testosterone. The most elite athletes in the world play in leagues exclusive to men. I'm still puzzled as to why people think men and women can do the same things, we are two completely different genders, to believe that we can ever be the same is nonsense.
There are shitloads of ways men are systematically discriminated against, all around the world [1][2][3], and you decide to whine about slang, fans and how bad it is that people hold the door? Really?
So what I got from that is, your isolated experience and applying int to the whole planet. It's pretty simple why women aren't physically capable as men, Testosterone. The most elite athletes in the world play in leagues exclusive to men. I'm still puzzled as to why people think men and women can do the same things, we are two completely different genders, to believe that we can ever be the same is nonsense.
I am not saying we are the same. I am trying to say that women are not less worth than men. I am saying, that no one should be discriminated. No one should be put down based on their genitals and hormone production.
Yes, men can grow stronger physically (most men, some actually have disease that affect their hormones). But I am saying that women should not be treated bad because of that.
And men are being put down in some ways too, and to me, that is equally wrong and I will do whatever I can to help change that.
Because gender aside, we are humans and we have a lot in common, and I don't understand why society always choose to accentuate our differences instead of our similarities
Sure, we are men and women, but we are also individuals. We can't always speak about people "in general" because, today, people actually use their heads. They have different opinions about everything. I know girls who use men. Girls who use sex appeal to get stuff for free for example. I also know that when a boy grabbes a girl, it is "omg sexual harrassment" and when a girl does the same, the guy "should just be grateful a girl touched him". And so on.
These are things I want to change. And to me it doesn't matter why it became this way, all that matters is that people start treating each other with respect.
And raising the issue and having discussions is a great way to start, isn't it? I know I learned things today that will make me a better person and better at discussing. Have a nice evening
And saying women will not be as good as men, does not help. Because we are good at different things, sure, so we can't really compare. My main trouble here is getting som men to understand that women are not less intelligent. We are not mentally challenged, yet we get treated that way.
On July 15 2011 07:34 saris84 wrote: It is the fact that it is not truths, it is just your opinion, however you tell it like it would be true as 1+1...
and the fact that you listed women good at doing things that doesn't require much intelligence, and portraying men as the oh so smart thinker, that IS sexiest.
Because you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to change a diaper or put a spoon in a baby's mouth. Mentally challenged people have children. It aint that hard.
You did not mention that females can often speak more languages, no, because that requires reading, and women don't do that, they clean, cook and wipe shit all thay because that is all we're good for (in your eyes it seems).
You don't have very high thoughts about women. And more people think just like you. That is exactly why women don't get good at sports, because all the best leaders choose to teach the kids with penises.
They did an experiment in Sweden with some soccerteams. They discovered that the girls who were taught to play like boys got better, and the girls who were treated as little wussies at practise, did not become as good. They later merged two teams, one male, one female, and the girls became as good as the boys.
Also it is proven again with a femal isehocke goalie who played a lot of games with men, because she was brought up to me tough. People who have kids let their little girls cry about everything, and they teach the boys to suck it up and be a man. This is the problem. That for years, people have been making a difference in emotional issues among their children.
Also regarding your comments on how women are good medics and men are good soldiers, I think it says more about how men are less intelligent, than the other way around.
Women heal.
Men kill.
Without us, you would die. Without you, there would be no war. The problem isn't that women aren't smart. The problem is, neither are men...
Isehocke. Lawl.
Okay, to the immense and frequent logical fallacies in your posts, and your complete lack of reading comprehension. I'll start with
It is the fact that it is not truths, it is just your opinion, however you tell it like it would be true as 1+1...
Ignoring the grammar and usage errors, lets address your "logic". Not once do you demonstrate even a SINGLE instance where your allegation is true. Are Steve Job's and Bill Gates' achievements my opinion? Are the Rwandan and Biafran civil wars my opinion? Are the military talents of Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon my opinion? Are the discoveries of men like Einstein and Newton and Hawking (and the lack of such discoveries [barring Curie's] on women's part) my opinion? Are the philosophical masterpieces churned out by men like Emerson, Plato, and Thoreau my opinion? No, or at least you fail to prove so (which would make your statement, hmm, an...opinion). Yet, the only thing connecting these facts to my point is my logic, logic which you have failed to disprove - your first sentence has NO backing behind it at all.
and the fact that you listed women good at doing things that doesn't require much intelligence, and portraying men as the oh so smart thinker, that IS sexiest.
Because you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to change a diaper or put a spoon in a baby's mouth. Mentally challenged people have children. It aint that hard.
Exactly. I'm not a sexist, I'm a realist. It's racist to say all African Americans commit crimes. Is it racist to say that African Americans are disproportionately represented in American prisons? No, because it's a fact. Then why is it sexist to say that men are better at things that require intelligence, if the overwhelming majority of historical evidence supports this fact?
Let's look at rocket science, something you bring up in passing. Let's look at a rocket - the chemicals that burn in that rocket, the physics that govern that rocket, the telescope that examines that rocket's destination, the electricity that keeps the computers running that rocket, the computers running that rocket, the designers of that rocket, and the expertise that flies the rocket. EVERYTHING I've mentioned above was first discovered, perfected, and maintained by MEN. Newton, Einstein, Lavousiet, Seaborg, Armstrong, Aldrin, Franklin, Faraday, the Wright Brothers, Galileo. Are women stopped from compounding images through mirrors? Through flying a kite or calculating an electron charge? From experimenting? From writing complex mathematical equations that govern our world?
You did not mention that females can often speak more languages, no, because that requires reading, and women don't do that, they clean, cook and wipe shit all thay because that is all we're good for (in your eyes it seems).
Where is your evidence for this? You offer nothing to prove this. When I say something like, "Great scientists are men," I prove it with examples. Here's an example to rebut your unsupported point: At my school, there are as many male as female language teachers. <See that? That's called evidence. It's not the best, nor can I absolutely prove it to you. So here's some logic.
The greatest writers and readers tend to be a bit more balanced than scientists, but hell.
Look to the great poets. T. S. Shakespeare. Elliott, Robert Frost, Homer, Chaucer. Romeo and Juliet. The Odyssey, Paradise Lost, the Canterbury Tales.
Philosophical writing? Plato. Thoreau. Emerson. Hawthorne. Nature. Each and All. Resistance to Civil Government.
Prose? Dostoyevsky. Orwell. Leo. Steinbeck. Bradbury. War and Peace. Grapes of Wrath. Animal Farm. Lord of the Flies.
Existentialism, Trancendentalism, Post-Structuralism, Modernism, Romanticism. All concepts created by men. All concepts written by men. All works created by men. < See that? That's called evidence. Example. Only from this base can logic be drawn.
You don't have very high thoughts about women. And more people think just like you. That is exactly why women don't get good at sports, because all the best leaders choose to teach the kids with penises.
Women who have been trained by the best leaders (like, say, the STX Coach or the coach of any women's athetic team) fail to compete with men. Why do you think that the great leaders, like Alexander, chose the kids with penises? Maybe KT and SKT want players who win more than a twelfth of their games. Maybe Alexander and Hitler wanted armies who didn't bleed and give childbirth and move slowly and less often and were weaker. Has it struck you that army composition, education, science, and writing didn't happen in a day? There was a very long time over which humans learned that women simply weren't as good as men at these things, and the empirical results, such as all of the great male scientists and lack of great female scientists, concur. The EVIDENCE is on my side, and you provide none.
There's a reason that the greater part of the human race has women taking care of children - women are better at this. It wasn't just decided 10,000 years ago - I've provided logic for this and you haven't provided contradictory reasoning. This is the same reason we use a hammer, not a nail clipper, to pound in nails. Certain kinds of tools are better at certain kinds of jobs. Women just tend to be better at child care and cooking and nursing than they are at composing music or writing or discovering or leading. Once again, you talk of how society has suppressed women, giving them less chance to demonstrate talent. Once again, I'll remind you that this suppression is not just arbitrary, and even when it is removed (like in the US) women fail to compete. Nobody's making all teenage girls or college girls stay at home or cook and clean or even have boyfriends. Yet, only college guys (who have the exact same opportunities) like Jobs or Gates or Zuckerberg create astonishing technology empires. Here, men and women start at the same level, but only men are achieving greatness.
They did an experiment in Sweden with some soccerteams. They discovered that the girls who were taught to play like boys got better, and the girls who were treated as little wussies at practise, did not become as good. They later merged two teams, one male, one female, and the girls became as good as the boys.
Cool. I'll number my responses.
1. Experimentation 101: your experiment is a piece of shit if you're defining things that are completely subjective to be true. What was the methodology of this experiment? How do you measure how "good" someone is at soccer? How do you teach someone to play like boys vs play like girls? What are the precise differences? This experiment is flawed throughout. Just counting goals doesn't mean jack - Real Madrid managed to beat Barcelona 1-0 despite Barca having a significant possession advantage throughout. Barcelona then trounced RM a week or so later.
2. Congrats. One flawed, subjective experiment about one tiny slice of human life vs 12,000 years of evidence from billions of test subjects, this one example totally outweighs the summation of human experience. No, it doesn't.
3. So what? At the national and international level of every sport, we see that the Olympic champions in straight up effort and conditioning (as opposed to coaching) sports like running, swimming, high jumping, etc. are all men. Fastest human? Usain Bolt. Best swimming Homo Sapien? Michael Phelps. Best soccer player, maybe? Harder to define, but you could go with Pele, Ronaldo, Maradona, Messi...all men. The reason the entire world watches the men's world cup but less than 25 nations even play in the women's world cup is the same reason that the US cares about the NFL more than random high school football games...the level of competition is simply higher.
4. Are you actually trying to argue that women are as strong/athletic as men? Everyone in this thread but you acknowledges the undeniable fact that men are stronger.
Also it is proven again with a femal isehocke goalie who played a lot of games with men, because she was brought up to me tough. People who have kids let their little girls cry about everything, and they teach the boys to suck it up and be a man. This is the problem. That for years, people have been making a difference in emotional issues among their children.
What is proven? I can play a bunch of StarCraft with Lee Young Ho or Lim Yo Hwan. That proves jack about how good I am. She was brought up to be tough? Methodology? Consistency? Objectivity? Did she become as good as a pro NHL male goalie? I sure don't think so, and you SURE don't prove so.
However, men like Eisenhower, Clinton, Gandhi, Confucius, Buddha, Lenin...the leaders that are remembered, the leaders in America's textbooks are all men. Revolutionary war? The founding fathers, Washington, Adams, Jefferson. Civil War? Lincoln and Stonewall and Douglas. France? England? Apart from Joan d'Arc, it was men who defined the military conflicts...Napoleon, Henry, William. One or two examples of really badly done experiments not even proving anything conclusively do not outweigh the past millennium.
Also regarding your comments on how women are good medics and men are good soldiers, I think it says more about how men are less intelligent, than the other way around.
Women heal.
Men kill.
Wow, your statement sounds dramatic but falls on its face as soon as you question the logic behind it.
Men kill? Sure, if you look only at discoveries like the Atom Bomb and the Gun...but what about irrigation? Vaccination? Fertilization? Electricity? Pasteur. Faraday. The men of Sumeria and Phoenicia.
Also, men are actually better field medics than women. Have you seen Saving Private Ryan? Notice that to be a medic takes endurance, physical strength, and a tolerance for violence that women don't usually have? I wasn't saying that women make for better medics than men. I was saying that women make for better medics than soldiers and it's true. In the entirety of history, the great armies, like the Roman, the Persian, the Spartan, and the Indian armies were ALL almost exclusively men. If you're seriously going to say that women make for better soldiers(OR field medics), read a textbook on the conditions of war. Then tell me that the same women who complain about breaking a nail and that require makeup everyday and are testy due to menstruation 3 days a month would do well under battle conditions, to say nothing of physical ability.
Without us, you would die. Without you, there would be no war. The problem isn't that women aren't smart. The problem is, neither are men...
I literally talk of this exact argument in one of my posts...looks like you didn't read them.
Without men, women would die. Without men, there might be less war, but there would be no vaccination, no irrigation, no astronomy, no particle physics, no electricity, less architecture, less art. Hell, men invented the toilet, the telephone, the refrigerator, the computer, the very internet you're using. Do you actually think before you type?
Also, the greatest humanitarians (read: people who stop war) were male...Gandhi, Eisenhower, Buddha, Einstein. You don't cite any examples except for two flawed studies that prove nothing conclusive and don't outweigh every historical example I've cited...and you say that I am flaunting my opinions as fact?
The problem is, women aren't smarter or more ambitious or faster or stronger or better at writing or philosophy or movie making or philanthropy or entrepreneurship or battle or leadership or strategy. The problem is that they don't realize this, will argue in the face of all facts that this is false, and think on top of everything, that they are the smart ones. QQ
On July 15 2011 07:18 djbhINDI wrote: EDIT: Also, look at your pathetic words:
There is no way he should be given so many words.
Read: I don't like your opinion, so you shouldn't be able to voice it. Fail.
Either I wrote that too obliquely or you misread what I wrote. I said you were responding to an idiot. No amount of time or effort will change his views, if they even are his. You should invest less energy writing rebuttals that won't be challenged or have any impact.
Now I'm the one that's pissed.
Oh fuck, I'm sorry. Man, I just feel really awk right now.
Has anyone in this thread read "Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar? It explains how men, from birth are conditioned to be manipulated by woman. It was even written by a woman, whom after writing it received countless death threats from other woman.
On July 15 2011 07:18 nozh wrote: i am just so completely speechless at djbhINDI's post i can't even think of where to begin i'm just going to go kill myself right now this world isn't worth living in with people like him in it bye
You don't know where to begin, or you can't? What part of my post is wrong? Show me where I've demonstrated that I make this world not living in. This doesn't include disrobing truths you're not prepared to handle.
Your long post, about the areas men are better than women and where women are better than men, felt like it was a suggestion to save time and outright dismiss careers like female engineers or a man deciding he would be most happy as a kindergarten teacher.
Otherwise, I simply do not see the point in that post. What do I care about averages? How do I benefit from keeping it in mind, when walking through life? If I instead take up the equality flag, I may find something interesting, I would have otherwise missed. It also feels more fair to the individuals. I guess this is what made "nozh" speechless.
If you generalize men and women instead of looking at the respective individuals, you may overlook something special. For example, the very first programmer was a woman, which makes her perhaps the founder of Computer Science? The term "radioactivity" was coined by a woman, the first research into it was done by her, and she got a Nobel Prize for it.
Also, what you wrote about road traffic was wrong. I remember it as the average man having a higher chance to have an accident for any driven mile compared to the average woman. Perhaps what you wrote about women having more patience is more important than men having more driving skill.
Firstly, straight up wrong. Herman Hollerith or Babbage far preceded the first female programmers. Also, I specifically mentioned Curie in a previous post, leading me to: Secondly, you fail. The entirety of male/female relationship is generalizations. The observation that men are benefited here or there is a generalization. My post isn't a suggestion, it's a logical proof that, apart from EXCEPTIONS, those that buck the trend (remember the analogy of black holes?) men have systematically and categorically demonstrated throughout the ages that they are better. This is me saying "The president of the USA is usually white" and you saying, "Oh yeah, what about Obama?" I'm not trying to say that what I'm saying is true 100% of time, but that it is generally true.
I'm generalizing men and women to show that the GENERAL "sexism" against women is in fact based in GENERAL observation, and is founded on a hierarchy of fact that is GENERALLY true. Did you read the post? I allude several times to the fact that there are exemplary women. On average, which is the only thing that matters when talking of issues that affect more than one person (like sexism!) my post has a very real point, and that is to justify what you and others label as sexism but I prefer to call realism, and demonstrates exactly why the prejudice you and OP feel is misguided is actually rooted in holistic fact and observation. You speak of how the individual can change things - the average does represent the individual. The chances are that the individual woman will be a lot closer to Paris Hilton than Mary Cury, and observation dictates that this is in fact true. A very low percentage of men are as ambitious or constructive to a company as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but at the hiring table, employers keep in mind that there are virtually no women who have succeeded in this way. The chances go according to general rule, which is exactly why my post has huge relevance.
ok so first, YOU said that women are better medics(saying that caretakers are all we are good for), and then, you take it back and say men are. I don't get it, really, could be that it is very late, could be that I constantly have to write and think in a language second to my native one and could be that it was a whole lot of text going on. And yes, I am so sorry for misspelling some things, Icehockey for example. in my country it is called Ishockey. I apologize oh wise man. I will end my posts here since my message is not getting through.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree? You will forever look down on me as you see me as less intelligent,mostly because I don't have as much testosterone and no ancestors of mine where either Einstein or any greek old man. Or Marie Curie for that matter, maybe she secretly was a hefty man because women and science don't match
And I will forever treat you with respect as I think everyone deserve it no matter race, gender and so on. I will respect you as a person who stands up for his beliefs, even if I do not agree that men are better. And if I misunderstood you in any way, I am really sorry.
Please take into consideration, I am a woman, and what do I know. Time to change some diapers, ask strong men to carry my bags, deliver some children and cook for my manly man. How did I ever escape from the kitchen? Omg there is a whole new world out here, ready to explore! Sing with me my friend! "a whole neeewww woooooooooorld.............." Winkwink, sarcasm, and big love to all you people out there <3
On July 15 2011 08:18 Frigo wrote: There are shitloads of ways men are systematically discriminated against, all around the world [1][2][3], and you decide to whine about slang, fans and how bad it is that people hold the door? Really?
I don't think that degree was worth it, OP.
Poor thing! Are you feeling alright?
The OP was essentially about how to improve gender equality in Starcraft. I'm afraid you'll just have to live with the fact that your body just isn't as resistant as a woman's and so you'll die sooner.
Oh and out of curiosity I did go over the list of "male discrimination". I could go over every single one and tell you why it's bullcrap, but this is totally aside the point.
So please don't whine about your life expectancy. If you don't like the thread or don't think it's relevant fine. But at least try to stay on topic...
djbhINDI, you completely ignore the fact that women are indeed catching up to men in achievements in the modern age in favor of pointing to history, where women were systematically put down and oppressed. That is by no means "empirical evidence" that men are smarter anymore than the fact that more hot chocolate is sold during hockey season shows that hockey makes people like hot chocolate. Yes, there must have been some reason that men took the reins; I would say it's because of greater physical strength + naturally being more aggressive individuals. It does not mean that they are smarter.
As we have made more of an effort to encourage women to pursue science & math careers, more women have been doing so and succeeding. (one source). Obviously, this is also influenced by people making an effort to higher women for diversity purposes. I could find plenty of other evidence for you, but my point is that you examine it this problem at the most superficial level possible, ignoring the plethora of other factors that contributes to female underperformance throughout history.
One truly objective piece of evidence about how women's talent has been surpressed throughout history is their increasing representation in the classical music world through the past 200 years. As soon as blind auditions were introduced (where the performer auditions for orchestras behind a screen), the amount of women in professional symphony orchestras shot up from 5% in 1978 to 36% in 1998 (source). This may or may not be correlated to "intelligence," but there's some solid evidence that female underachievement is caused by more than just incapability. And you need to look no further than prodigious modern musicians like Martha Argerich to see that there are really some brilliant women out there in music.
Overall, I don't think "are men or women smarter?" is a question that can really be answered reliably and without bias. What we can say is that many men exist who are smarter/stronger than other women, and many women exist who are smarter/stronger than other men. So just treat everyone as individuals, recognizing their personal strengths and weaknesses. What do you hope to accomplish by encouraging discrimination on a demographic basis? There is simply no point to it.
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
1. IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It's like any other standardised testing system. The only thing accurately measured by IQ is how good you are at taking an IQ test.
2. If you take a society where women have less access to education at are destined to stay at home and take care of the children, sure men are gonna score higher on tests like this one.
3. A very high result on an IQ test can be the result of mental illness, perhaps more common amongst men? I don't know.
4. This is one study on one country.
5. "The mean difference of IQ between men and women is of 5". That doesn't seem too shocking, given the points mentionned above.
It is obvious and inescapable that people view female gamers differently... because they are different. Literally there are very few of them. This isn’t only a bad thing, I bet you a girl can become pro with a lot less skill than a man simply because it would be very good publicity to have a girl on your team.
... And most of us probably want to see more girls in the community, others are probably tired of girls presenting themselves like "hey I'm a girl who likes computer games, I'm an important part of this community. Please vote for me in a beauty contest."
The debate on who between men and women is smarter is ridiculous. There have been countless studies since the beginning of anthropology on this. If you want a good read, try Gould on measuring intelligence.
Thing is, you can't measure how smart someone is. There is no way of doing so. There is no objective definition of intelligence. No need to look any further.
Plus I have seen people say that throughout history men have always been smarter than women. Now let's check out a basic trend. When did women become more and more successful in society? When they got improved legal equality. So there is a correlation between the success of women and their oppression (no need to be Einstein to figure that out). So what'll happen if there is absolutely no discrimination against women at all in a given society? Can't tell, nobody's succeeded, not even Sweden. But I'd eat my hat if the success rate of women was not at the very least the same as that of men.
Also nobody is contesting that men have faster muscle development then women. However there aren't many conclusions you can get out of it. Men are better at physical sports. Yay. That's about it.
1. IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It's like any other standardised testing system. The only thing accurately measured by IQ is how good you are at taking an IQ test.
2. If you take a society where women have less access to education at are destined to stay at home and take care of the children, sure men are gonna score higher on tests like this one.
3. A very high result on an IQ test can be the result of mental illness, perhaps more common amongst men? I don't know.
4. This is one study on one country.
5. "The mean difference of IQ between men and women is of 5". That doesn't seem too shocking, given the points mentionned above.
The quote from the article contradicts like 3 of your points above...
In my 2005 paper in the British Journal of Psychology we looked at 22 surveys sampling 20,000 university students. In 21 out of the 22 studies males always had an advantage. That's a lot. We ignored the survey from Mexico because the results were consistent with a university that was extremely selective with respect to females.
I think it's fairly well know that men have a greater "range" in intelligence. While there's no probably overt difference between the genders in average IQ, like the paper says there's a greater number of men at both ends of the spectrum of very high IQ [and very low IQ.] Something likely due to the interactions between XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes.
I don't really see this anything to use against either gender. It just is what it is. High IQ doesn't make someone better than another person.
Additionally, historically the guy who was posting in this thread about the "inventiveness" of men over than of women. That is generally historically true. I remember reading somewhere about how midwifery has traditionally been a women's issue (for obvious reasons), but no woman thought of the idea to invent forceps to help deliver babies.
Men and women tend to excel at different aspects. No one doubts women tend to be better at emotional and verbal communication. That doesn't make men inferior. Nor should any "potential" advantages men have over women make women "inferior." There are differences that may be due to many different factors whether cultural, genetic, gender, etc.
I don't think they should be swept under the rug in favor of "equality" but they also shouldn't be used to claim superiority or denounce other groups as inferior.
The results from the quote are unpublished. There are two different studies in the paper.
The thing is, you can't make a reasonable conclusion from a summary of a research paper. It would require a very meticulous overview of the methodology used.
There can be a million reasons for which the study showed the results it did. Assuming it is biological disparity is pushing it.
Also if IQ doesn't even measure intelligence, there is no point in having this debate. At the very most one could conclude that certain men are predisposed to do well on IQ tests.
On July 15 2011 09:56 Malyce wrote: The results from the quote are unpublished. There are two different studies in the paper.
The thing is, you can't make a reasonable conclusion from a summary of a research paper. It would require a very meticulous overview of the methodology used.
There can be a million reasons for which the study showed the results it did. Assuming it is biological disparity is pushing it.
Also if IQ doesn't even measure intelligence, there is no point in having this debate. At the very most one could conclude that certain men are predisposed to do well on IQ tests.
^^^ I editted my post to make it longer above.
Also, you can read the whole paper here. I don't think you understand IQ tests that well. They do statistical analysis on things to eliminate biases. I would suggest reading the paper.
Honestly, we're not in a bind. I wish people would consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, we're not at fault for creating an environment that does not foster female participation and that women in the majority probably just don't give a damn about video games, much less ESPORTS.
Honestly, there will never be gender equality. Simple because women are not like, nor are, men. Maybe there's a reason why we live in a male-dominated world. Can I go outside and pick a fight with some random women on the street? No. With 100% gender equality? What would be the difference of fighting a girl or a guy?
No such thing as equality, at least to a degree. But even so, even reaching that degree of acceptable with females, it will never change the fact that its a women and not a man, and just because you don't see it that way, other people do, and with 6+billion I'm pretty certain it will be a very long time til humans ever reach that stage.
For activist trying to push equality....good luck.
Did you really need a spin-off blog on this topic? -_-
Anyways, I already replied to this exact same argument in the other blog, so I'll just reiterate again: that person is an unknown amateur gamer with no distinguishable history or accomplishments. That person being female is the only remarkable and news-worthy (this part is debatable though) fact. It's only reasonable and rational for people to talk about it.
If you want to turn this into a political or ethical issue, your gripe is with the people in SlayerS who decided to treat her as promotional eye-candy and made this signing more public than it really should have been, and partially with the OP of the TL thread who carried this piece of non-important news over here. They decided to give her attention for the sole reason of being female. They are the cause of the problem - random forum people reacting to it in one way or the other are really not.
The whole gender equality issue (at least on TL) is blown waaaay out of proportion and can be (and normally is) sorted out with a slightly more aggressive moderation. Just like the idiots get banned for all kinds of... well, idiocy, they'll get banned for this too.
No need to write what's essentially an attention blog to fuel the flames even more.
PS. And I'm going to say this as a Slayers fan - after losing two games at the start of the season, coming up with this publicity stunt does not make me happy and I can't see how it can be good for the team (I can think of a number of reasons why it can be bad though). But that's a story for a different topic.
On July 15 2011 11:32 Ajnin wrote: Honestly, there will never be gender equality. Simple because women are not like, nor are, men. Maybe there's a reason why we live in a male-dominated world. Can I go outside and pick a fight with some random women on the street? No. With 100% gender equality? What would be the difference of fighting a girl or a guy?
No such thing as equality, at least to a degree. But even so, even reaching that degree of acceptable with females, it will never change the fact that its a women and not a man, and just because you don't see it that way, other people do, and with 6+billion I'm pretty certain it will be a very long time til humans ever reach that stage.
For activist trying to push equality....good luck.
I think the "equality" in this context is used with the meaning of equality as in the French Revolution, not in a mathematical sense. The kind of "equality" that is about a normal person having the same vote as a billionaire and getting the same rights in court, etc.
Personally I would be so much more excited about the SlayerS pickup if it was a male. We know why they picked up Eve. But if it was a diamond league male, it would be Boxers official prodigy, and that would be amazing. I never comment on progamers looks in general, I'm probably not the only one. (although I did vote Grubby as sexiest male progamer in some thread). The one problem I have is the women who use their looks as a means to break into the scene when they otherwise couldn't (will not mention names).
Let's create an institution that deals with e-sports related gender discrimination. Put people in there that cry the most about inequality and pay them a salary. Also we need to introduce a quota that at least 30% of participants in a tournament have to be female.
Does that turn you on (in a completely non-sexist way) Malyce?
On July 15 2011 18:25 underscore wrote: Let's create an institution that deals with e-sports related gender discrimination. Put people in there that cry the most about inequality and pay them a salary. Also we need to introduce a quota that at least 30% of participants in a tournament have to be female.
Does that turn you on (in a completely non-sexist way) Malyce?
Nope sorry mate, I don't get turned on that easily
As I said in my OP (I should do statistic on how many people who come and rant in the blog actually read the whole OP) I don't have the pretention to change the entire SC2 scene. If you don't feel concerned by this article, perhaps it's just a bit too new-age for you. And that's fine, move on. I score a free win for every soul that says "well alright, I'll try to change that one specific point".
A quota is a terrible idea. Players should participate based on skill, not on their sex. That sort of quota is discriminatory.
For the other posters:
I actually no very well what an IQ test is. I have a pretty high IQ. Does that mean I'm smart? Well... no. It means I'm good at identifying shapes within other shapes, and whatever other silly exercices I had to do during my last IQ test. Intelligence is too complicated and controversial to be measured.
Also I recognise biological differences between men and women. These differences however, apart from physical characteristics, are EXTREMELY controversial in sociological research. So I'd rather be safe and say all major behavioral/mental/psychological etc. differences (including "intelligence") between men and women are culturally induced and mainly the result of sociolisation.
I think SlayerS way of selling Eve was petty. The "hey look we gotta girl trololol, let's have her sit on our GSTL bench while we rack up fans" is an absolutely aweful attitude. And now, unfortunately, if she screws up and proves to be bad, that's a big hit for women in ESports. It sucks that she has to be the martyr, I wouldn't trade places with her for anything, but because of the structure of the ESports fanbase, now she's become iconic. Sort of like HuK in GSL, except that HuK has proven to be awesome.
You're blurring the line between unfair stereotyping and recognizing the difference between two different things. It doesn't help that they're both referred to as "discrimination," with all of the negative connotations of the word.
For example: "She's pregnant." Doesn't sound as weird as "He's pregnant." Why? Not because I'm sexist, but because girls can get pregnant and guys can't. I know this doesn't have a direct bearing on the girl gamer, but this illustrates that flipping it around and seeing that it doesn't make sense doesn't prove that a statement or opinion is sexist.
No, real sexism is where underqualified guys get hired instead of qualified girls. Where underqualified guys get promoted over qualified girls. Even when any significant value over 50% of the time, guys are chosen over equally qualified girls. But then again, sometimes not so much: consider that in Korea, girls are guaranteed 1 day off a month, the reasoning being that they'll have PMS once a month. That's 5% of working days, and it doesn't let the company pay them 5% less. But who pushed for those laws? Yeah, girls.
It's all bullshit. Just give yourself a check once in a while to be sure, and don't consciously discriminate, and you're fine.
On July 15 2011 19:29 BottleAbuser wrote: For example: "She's pregnant." Doesn't sound as weird as "He's pregnant." Why? Not because I'm sexist, but because girls can get pregnant and guys can't. I know this doesn't have a direct bearing on the girl gamer, but this illustrates that flipping it around and seeing that it doesn't make sense doesn't prove that a statement or opinion is sexist.
I think I've said a million times, what you're stating is a biological difference. It's wrong to justify social differences (as I put in the OP) by stating biological differences.
Apart from that, sure there's discrimination both ways. I have mandatory military service, that's a huge discrimination against guys (against girls as well who are seen as unfit to serve, but nvm).
The thing is, the OP doesn't go over every single case of societal discrimination. It talks about discrimination within the online gaming community.
If you feel fine with the way you behave that's good for you. A lot of people are uncapable of introspection when it's pushed on by an outsider. I'm not expected you are anyone here to be a saint.
I'm saying that recognizing an objective difference is not unfair discrimination. As you appear to agree with. So, what's different when we say "girls usually don't do well, let's see how this one does"? You'd have to be delusional to deny that girls give objectively, statistically, and historically poorer performances in competitive computer games.
On July 15 2011 19:44 BottleAbuser wrote: I'm saying that recognizing an objective difference is not unfair discrimination. As you appear to agree with. So, what's different when we say "girls usually don't do well, let's see how this one does"? You'd have to be delusional to deny that girls give objectively, statistically, and historically poorer performances in competitive computer games.
They do. And I agree that girls don't do well. And I'm rooting for SlayerS_Eve.
It's unfair though to say "this person is representing the girl gaming community". First of all because said community is practically non-existent in professional gaming, and secondly because (although it happens and there isn't much we can do about it) in an ideal world, it would be more fair to judge her on her skill than on her sex.
However if you disagree with this one point and agree with all the rest, you're already more progressive than most of the people who posted on this blog.
No, no... if she's the single girl in pro starcraft 2, she's representing girls in pro starcraft 2. Just as every Korean starcraft 2 pro is representing Korea in pro starcraft 2, and to a lesser extent guys in pro starcraft 2 (because it's diluted by other male players). I think you're finding sexist trends in things that aren't really sexist, and the reason I have a problem with that is that it dilutes the meaning of the word and idea. Sexism is unacceptable, but when you start calling innocuous and innocent things sexism, no one cares about sexism any more.
Thank you for providing material for my first megapost of the day. This builds directly off of Riku's blog from yesterday. Let's see where this goes...
For one thing, your background in human rights organizations means that you have been pre-exposed to biases surrounding gender inequality, which means that you can automatically be placed on one side of the debate, which is this:
Gender inequality exists and we can do something about it.
We live in the time of Post-Feminism (or Fourth Wave Feminism as those lingering in the movement would have us believe), and women in Western society have been liberated and are free to pursue any vocation that they choose without any legal barriers preventing them from doing so. Let's start with the discussion firmly centered on the West too, because let's face it women's rights elsewhere in the world are non-existent.
So here in the West despite the legal freedoms gender inequalities are present in everyday life. Women are treated differently by males, who dominate society. I say males dominate society because they are over-represented in positions of political power and authority. The business and industrial spheres of society are thoroughly male-dominated, and although there are many prominent female figures in politics the field still has a male majority. Clearly though, most progressive nations throughout the world do not seem opposed to having female leaders. Even nations with horrible women's rights records have had female prime ministers (India/Pakistan).
Some of the most prominent female politicians of the past half-century.
So, focusing again on Western society, the problem of female inequality does not seem to be in how the institution treats women but in how regular people treat women. Both men and women treat women differently than men, and obviously the equality ideal is to have men and women all treated the same without a second thought. But if one were to think about the situation, they know that to make a sweeping cultural change like making men and women treat each other with 100% equality, is impossible.
Through all of human history, men and women have been treated differently. How can that change now?
It can't. Men and women are simply different. Men and women have different emotional intelligence in different regions of the emotional spectrum. Men and women have different kinesthetic and spatial abilities. Men and women have different physical abilities, and different intellectual abilities. (Myers, David (2010). Psychology. Myers in Modules, 9th Edition.)+ Show Spoiler [For Example] +
More women excel at mathematics, but more men are good at mathematics.
Women are raised to behave a certain way, and men are raised to behave a certain way. Unless parents raise their children differently than they were taught to raise their children, then nothing will change. Only subtle changes will occur over time as societal attitudes shift. The differences will still be there - they're just be different differences.
Women nowadays seek attention and gratification, and weaker men freely give it to them. More savvy men at least understand what they're getting out of the exchange. Sex and attention, as always, are the primary commodities men and women use as they interact (Money and property being the forms in which the attention is manifested). As long as most people are OK with this process occurring, you can't really make a difference.
Say you have, for example, a girl who knows that she is somewhat of a slut and likes the attention she gets from being that way. Men around her shower her with attention and get sex in exchange. Neither party really cares about what this makes the other person - they're all getting what they want. If everyone is getting what they want then who among them is going to say there is a problem and it has to be changed?
The goal of the women's rights movement should not be to change society with regards to male-female interactions. How women are treated in E-Sports or on the Internet are small-time problems. Real women's issues lie in legal and institutional barriers to women, which bar women from high-paying jobs, quality education, and positions of authority and ownership. Many of these barriers have been cleared in the West, and now the focus should be on the rest of the world. Clearing these barriers will prevent such problems as the gross shift in birthrates in Asia. Because men are more valued by parents, the birthrate ratio of boys to girls is around 150:100 in most Asian cities. In one Korean city it's as much as 200:100. That is a real problem.
Birth rate is being manipulated in Korea? That's news to me. I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this: if we have a >75% male population (as the word "most" combined with >99% male would imply), we must have a hell of a lot more transsexuals than I'm aware of.
Douglas says she was surprised that one of the countries that backed the resolution was South Korea, a country with a strong preference for sons. But maybe it's not so surprising, given that the South Korean government, recognizing that there's a severe gender imbalance in the country because of sex selective abortions, has been attempting to change public opinion with a "Love Your Daughter" campaign. Meanwhile, South Korean men have been traveling to other countries, primarily Vietnam, to find a wife.
With the advent of ultrasounds that enable sex-selection, the sex ratio at birth in some cities in South Korea climbed to 125 by 1992 and is over 130 in several Chinese provinces from Henan in the north to Hainan in the south.
OP is looking too deep into something and blowing it out of proportion. Men treat men differently than they treat women. Women treat women differently than they treat men. Yes, people should have equal rights, so that men and women both have the same opportunities and protections. However, men will always treat women differently because they are well... different physically and mentally. Girls and guys behave differently and have different ways of viewing certain things... To expect equal treatment for women is just ridiculous... (when I say treatment i don't mean like equal rights or opportunities). I am not going to act the same way around girls as I do guys simply because it's not practical to either side. I'm going to treat my dog like a dog and my cat like a cat (exaggerated differences but you get the point. Differences between guys and girls are not as drastic but still there). My dog and cat both can do what they want and have the same rights inside my own home. However, the way I act and what I do with both of them is a little bit different since they behave/like different things.
Nice effort op but this is far off in the tl community. I have studied gender studies and i never start arguing about sexism in our society on the internet because people won't understand it. They simply can not. Like i can not understand a very difficult math problem without month or years of research and maybe then i won't get it. Most people even don't really get the difference between gender and sex.
And the most recent discussions are about how "clear" the biological part really is. We live in a sexist and patrichial society and its freeking annoying but dealing on a sc2 forum with it? Way way too useless in my opinion.
though i am totally for every body who deserves it to be treated well and respectfully regardless of whether you are male/female, straight/gay, caucasian/not caucasian, majority/minority etc, theres always a thought that lurks in my head: they are DIFFERENT, and treating people that are physically/socially different the exact same as you would someone that is completely normal is something that is inevitably gonna be very forced. if everyone in the world were suddenly able to treat all minorities the same as they would a normal person, everyone will "know" that the person in question is different, but they choose to feign ignorance, resulting in what i feel is a superficial, insincere, and fake treatment of this person.
On July 16 2011 07:06 Finrod1 wrote: Nice effort op but this is far off in the tl community. I have studied gender studies and i never start arguing about sexism in our society on the internet because people won't understand it. They simply can not. Like i can not understand a very difficult math problem without month or years of research and maybe then i won't get it. Most people even don't really get the difference between gender and sex.
And the most recent discussions are about how "clear" the biological part really is. We live in a sexist and patrichial society and its freeking annoying but dealing on a sc2 forum with it? Way way too useless in my opinion.
Thank you for understanding my strife. Sure it's useless if you look at the big picture but at least it gets a little debate going, it didn't take me too long to write the OP, and for every selfless soul that was convinced that there maybe a thing or two to change attitude-wise, it's a small victory for women in ESports . And the distinction between gender and sex has become very blurry in English since the UN began using gender as an equivalent to sex. It's very different in other languages, in French for example "genre" and "sexe" have consivered their initial meaning.
OMin that is I think the feedback I've been getting the most. "But they're different!" And then when you ask them how men and women are different, it usually becomes speculation (the kind that leads to crisis).
It's been the same throughout history. Every time a group is discriminated, its due to "natural differences". This was the case during colonisation. It has caused fascism. Thing is, in most cases "natural differences" are used to justify oppression.
So what natural differences are there? Physical aptitude, testosterone. Fine. Personnality? Perhaps to a certain extent, but it is enhanced by the fact that men and women treated differently. Intelligence? There's no solid evidence of it. Gaming skills? I'm quite sure that this has very little to do with "natural differences".
It's very important not to erect existing differences into natural differences. It is correct to say female progamers aren't as numerous as male progamers. It is incorrect to say that this difference is "natural". You would be amazed (I know I was) by the strength of social construct.
I'm always quite amazed by the demographics involved on this topic. Most people opposing the OP are mostly men, mostly from the USA (sorry guys <3), and mostly have never studied gender relations (or immediately thought it was stupid). If you look at those approving it, you will see a few women, and some people who actually have academic knowledge on the issue.
The reason this is interesting is that this is a topic on which the "common sense" opinion runs short, because of the sociological constraints of dealing with a solid ideological framework. It takes considerable effort to leave said framework, process which is facilitated through study. In perhaps more accessible terms, common sense can help debate on a lot of things, but not so much for discrimination. Discriminatory practices are in most cases (especially today with the most obvious forms of discrimination being openly condemned) assimilated into culture and belief. If your culture is discriminatory, such discrimination is suttle and widely tolerated, then the common sense which also stems from said culture will necessarily be biased.
Basically the debate ends up as one between "common sense" (although some posts are just plain stupid) and "academic knowledge" (not always a guarantee of being right but usually not bad when compared to common sense). Common sense says things are fine, because I know I'm not discriminatory, and so my society isn't, and so any difference in treatment must be due to natural differences. As for academic knowledge, well, check the OP
Beating a dead horse here, but I've got nothing better to do.
Regardless of actual potential and ability, girls haven't performed as well as guys. A high-profile team picks up a girl, and that's exciting, because it might be a one time thing, or it might be part of the trickle that will eventually become a torrent of female professional gamers. Yeah, my expectation is that it's a one time thing. (Is that sexist?) Either way, being excited about it doesn't inherently make you sexist.
I feel that you might be referring to my arguments with your bash on the "natural differences" and "common sense" viewpoints. I admit that sometimes I'll attribute things to natural differences when they aren't really, and I know that there are serious sexism problems. I'm not waving them away, I'm trying to discriminate between... well, what I perceive as natural differences and willful sexism. Is there some academic tool you can use to draw the line between logical and appropriate social responses to natural differences, and unfair discrimination? I'd love to know.
I wasn't actually targetting anybody's post in particular, and certainly yours were far from the worst misconceptions I've seen on this blog post.
It's very nice that rather than saying "you're full of BS" that you take interest in my arguments, so big hearts to you <3 <3
In our everyday lives, especially if you're a white male living in a privileged country, we've all been bashed in the brain with "don't be racist!", "don't be sexist!", "don't be communist!" and a lot of other "ist"s that should be avoided. So we've all been (or at least the more reasonable of us) through the process of trying our best not to be any of the above. And so we become very profoundly convinced that we're not racist/sexist. If someone calls me a racist (and it happens, I'm Swiss for X's sake), I feel genuinely offended.
And so it's hard to break this shell we've created around ourselves. Particularly when it comes to sexism. But it is possible! Or at least to a certain extent.
There are a few "tools" used by sociologists and anthropologists (at least that's how we call them in Europe, donno about other regions of the world, I hear that in the US some anthropologists study the behaviour of monkies, which seems bizarre to me) to draw the line between what is discrimination and what is not.
Mainly what is used is a very potent mix of historical analysis (to study discrimination in the past, it's causes and consequences, and draw parrallels with the present), sociological study (through interviews, surveys, mainly qualitiative research), anthropological methodology (participative observation and inter-cultural compairisons) and tools that are proper to gender studies.
I unfortunately cannot go into more detail on this, as every research paper has its own methodolgy. I'd suggest, if this really interests you, that you try to look through some research papers by reknown gender specialists. They can be sociologists or anthropologists, current or long gone. Soon enough, you'll pick up a "gender train of thought" that you can apply to any social sphere. Here I tried to apply it to SC2 and the internet. And all hell broke loose
EPT
I've been trying to improve on many of these points myself, and it's extremely hard because this behavior is so ingrained into and considered "acceptable" in our society.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Margaret_Thatcher.png/245px-Margaret_Thatcher.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Indiragandhi.jpg/200px-Indiragandhi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://image.chosun.com/sitedata/image/201106/13/2011061300200_0.jpg)
