It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
Hot chicks get bonuses in life. It's simple and pretty universal in all aspects of life.
P.S. If women want equality in E-Sports, earn it. I'm not saying this in a sexist way, but it's realistic. We're currently having Women's Only Soccer games. Why not be Co-Ed? Because it wouldn't be fair. Whether or not that applies to gaming has yet to be proven (to my knowledge, at least). But if it is truly Co-Ed in people's ability to compete/be a part of, have a woman prove it. Simply demanding equal respect/treatment doesn't make much sense if nothing can be done with it (imo)...
It has nothing to do with anything you stated. Women generally just don't feel drawn to engage in dedicated, long-term, competition. Look at chess. Look at poker. The disparity between the average female players and the average male players is huge in these fields (doesn't actually have to do with their skill, just the fact that there aren't as many females in these competitions so it's essentially statistically impossible that a female would be at the same level as the top males), and they doesn't even suffer the same problems that you cited as do female e-sports players.
Imo most women dont really have the desire/drive/competitive urge/whatever you want to call it required for competitive starcraft. I think its a hormone thing. Nothing to do with intellegence or the overwhelmingly male community turning them off. testoster-craft
Even if that is true what the community is doing certainly doesn't help. Just because things might not be as even as we would like them to be doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to mitigate the things that will make them even worse.
On July 15 2011 10:18 Nothingtosay wrote: Even if that is true what the community is doing certainly doesn't help. Just because things might not be as even as we would like them to be doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to mitigate the things that will make them even worse.
What the community is doing basically has no effect, because barriers to entry already existed. take it away and nothing will change because you aren't addressing the basic problem
I'll probably use some generalizations and wording that may be kind of iffy in this post. This may sound incredibly sexist, but I don't see 'most' women as possessing the same kind of near-obsessive attraction to difficult problem-solving oriented fields that men do. At least whatever type of personality seems to follow that path seems not to proc in females nearly as frequently. Examples include math/science fields of study (this is backed up by statistics, and pretty obvious) and It's likely something in the female brain chemistry, but obviously not well-understood.
My question (and this is not simply pondering, but nearly academic) is why do men like to play games so much and why do women not? What do women spend their time and obsession on that men do not because of our obsession with competition and sports and problem solving?
I doubt an attractive male in a female-dominated area (geographic or professional/topical) would fail to attract a lot of attention from the females in that field. If starcraft was a university, it would be 99% male and the few females there are would obviously receive a massive amount of attention, it's pretty obvious.
Giving attention to woman does in-fact not scare them off. Why? Because you have to show yourself to the community for them to even make a fan club. If you just want to play Starcraft 2 you can, without telling others your gender.
"Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring" People do realize, but they do it anyway. It hardly harms anything. If woman want to be seen, they will act in a way to be seen.
"Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as *link*" You are just being assumptive now, You think female only tournaments are a bad thing for woman in e-sports. Please just stop now. Do you even consult any female competitors before you made this statement?
I really think, that op's post was made by someone who just hasn't had much female interaction in years.
On July 15 2011 10:25 Probulous wrote: Your OP is misleading and is bound to start a flame war.
Gender Disparity in Esports != unwarranted fan clubs.
In this particular case there may a connection but would you argue if a Probulous fan club sprung up?
Please clarify what you are trying to say because the women in Esports thing has been done to death.
I really don't see why this thread would make anyone angry
Because these thread tend to go down the following path
OP mentions gender as a factor in ESPORTS/gaming/whatever.
Someone disagrees
People go apeshit because there is a distinct lack of understanding when to comes to females in general.
Have you browsed the blogs section recently. I understand your point, and is why I asked you clarify between the two things you talk about. It is just from experience that pretty much anything that suggests anything about women will turn into a flamewar. I wish it was otherwise, but I am yet to be convinced.
I mean even the threads you mention turned into arguments which have no place in fan club thread.
Besides, if your point is that Fan Clubs get started for no-namers, why the heading? Just seems like you're attention seeking and it detracts from your point.
Why does the OP and people like him need a reason for a fanclub to exist? People have done much worse with people much less praiseworthy. It's harmless fun, so stop putting your own little spin on it.
E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
There's a study out there stating that female brains are different from male brains. Face it, females and males work differently, mentally and physically. The exact reason why the ratio of female to male pro gamers is so big has yet to be determined.
I'm sorry, but I may be slightly curt when I respond because I've seen this thread on TL at least 7 times, with the same content.
I think that before you blame the male community for oogling over female personalties (which happens irl anyway), look at the other social constructs.
I have never found a society in which the vast majority think women should be playing video games in general. It's always appeared to me to be the manly (but also generally perceived as lazy, which I crucify people for when they say that) thing to do. Those women who rise above it are the anomaly imo.
Also, I think that the female-only tournaments do not solve the problem you are bringing up, but address a different issue. The female-only tournament I think was meant to help build interest among women, not to specifically be different from a male tournament due to persecution (which is what I feel you are implying slightly) or physical incapability.
My tldr: You analyzed stuff wrong, and hence your conclusion is wrong.
talk to any of your girl friends op. and ask them why they don't play games. it's not because of the community, it's because that they're just not interested.
Theres womens only soccer, volleyball and basketball leagues because theres a difference in PHYSICAL attributes.
There should be absolutely no segregation of womens leagues from male starcraft leagues. it makes no sense, because there is no physicality involved in video games.
Well, I've had this little rant stored up for a while. Ever since the KellyMilkies thing, to be honest.
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
This isn't to say by any means that we (as men OR women) can't overcome these genetic predispositions; after all, we're rational, self-aware beings, right? If it were impossible to overcome genetic wiring, then I would have to agree with certain radical feminists who say men should pay higher taxes because a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by men. Bust THAT one out at your next dinner party and see how well it goes over. The point of this is that we can't really blame sexism in the scene for keeping women out of it. The more we try to tell ourselves as a society that men and women are exactly the same, the more evidence to the contrary we seem to find. Women generally have less interest in competition than men. Simple as that.
That being said, is the scene sexist? God yes. I've never met a bigger group of pigs than a bunch of highly competitive men gathered together specifically for the benefit of whatever they're competing in. In some ways, it's natural. To be competitive at anything that requires the amount of skill that Starcraft (or rugby, or chess) does, one usually has to possess certain traits that make him a dominant force in social situations. The problem is that these traits, especially in YOUNG men, often manifest as borderline sociopathy. Frankly, the way men my age treat women is often pretty appalling. If women are deemed nominally attractive (I believe "hot" is the colloquial here) then they're allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (this is not a good thing, as I'll explain in a moment) as long as they do it with the understanding that they're not ACTUALLY one of the guys, they're just there for eye-candy and hopefully a fuck later. If they're not deemed attractive, they often fight an uphill battle altogether; the link between the anonymity of the internet and rampant douchebaggery is well-documented, and nowhere is it more evident than when men get together to judge a woman's physical appearance instead of her contribution to the community.
That brings me to my next point, which is that women have JUST AS MUCH responsibility as men for changing the perception of the scene. Take the KellyMilkies fiasco:
For those that don't know, KellyMilkies is a middling Starcraft player that did some casting for GSL a few seasons back. And that just about sums up her entire SC career. From there, she did a photo shoot in her underwear for a men's magazine and proceeded to plaster it all over the internet.
When the shit hit the fan, the thread her shoot was posted in was immediately bogged down with two kinds of posts: those saying she had no business doing a photo shoot at all and those saying that those that didn't like her photo shoot were sexist - and probably gay.
I'll say it right now: I was disgusted by the shoot. I never posted in that thread, because the whole thing was a cluster-fuck, but I was absolutely appalled. The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality. THAT, friends, is the definition of sexism, and we had every right and reason to run her out of town.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist. And holy SHIT if that doesn't smack of patriarchy (a word I'm really, REALLY loathe to use, by the way) I don't know what does. So women that do jack shit for the community get a free pass, as long as they're deemed by a group of oversexed 20-somethings as "hot" enough to fuck? (Sporrer, I'm looking at you.)
Women need to stop using their sexuality as an "easy-in" to what's percieved as a boys-only club. This goes for any male dominated scene (heavy metal music particularly comes to mind). Women have just as much of a responsibility to contribute to the community they want to be a part of, and if the only way they can think of to gain acceptance is to show their tits, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get treated like sex objects.
I realize this ran kind of long, so let me sum it up:
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist.
Don't know about you but I thought she is damn fine. I would think she is simply making the most of her opportunities.
On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote: Well, I've had this little rant stored up for a while. Ever since the KellyMilkies thing, to be honest.
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
This isn't to say by any means that we (as men OR women) can't overcome these genetic predispositions; after all, we're rational, self-aware beings, right? If it were impossible to overcome genetic wiring, then I would have to agree with certain radical feminists who say men should pay higher taxes because a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by men. Bust THAT one out at your next dinner party and see how well it goes over. The point of this is that we can't really blame sexism in the scene for keeping women out of it. The more we try to tell ourselves as a society that men and women are exactly the same, the more evidence to the contrary we seem to find. Women generally have less interest in competition than men. Simple as that.
That being said, is the scene sexist? God yes. I've never met a bigger group of pigs than a bunch of highly competitive men gathered together specifically for the benefit of whatever they're competing in. In some ways, it's natural. To be competitive at anything that requires the amount of skill that Starcraft (or rugby, or chess) does, one usually has to possess certain traits that make him a dominant force in social situations. The problem is that these traits, especially in YOUNG men, often manifest as borderline sociopathy. Frankly, the way men my age treat women is often pretty appalling. If women are deemed nominally attractive (I believe "hot" is the colloquial here) then they're allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (this is not a good thing, as I'll explain in a moment) as long as they do it with the understanding that they're not ACTUALLY one of the guys, they're just there for eye-candy and hopefully a fuck later. If they're not deemed attractive, they often fight an uphill battle altogether; the link between the anonymity of the internet and rampant douchebaggery is well-documented, and nowhere is it more evident than when men get together to judge a woman's physical appearance instead of her contribution to the community.
That brings me to my next point, which is that women have JUST AS MUCH responsibility as men for changing the perception of the scene. Take the KellyMilkies fiasco:
For those that don't know, KellyMilkies is a middling Starcraft player that did some casting for GSL a few seasons back. And that just about sums up her entire SC career. From there, she did a photo shoot in her underwear for a men's magazine and proceeded to plaster it all over the internet.
When the shit hit the fan, the thread her shoot was posted in was immediately bogged down with two kinds of posts: those saying she had no business doing a photo shoot at all and those saying that those that didn't like her photo shoot were sexist - and probably gay.
I'll say it right now: I was disgusted by the shoot. I never posted in that thread, because the whole thing was a cluster-fuck, but I was absolutely appalled. The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality. THAT, friends, is the definition of sexism, and we had every right and reason to run her out of town.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist. And holy SHIT if that doesn't smack of patriarchy (a word I'm really, REALLY loathe to use, by the way) I don't know what does. So women that do jack shit for the community get a free pass, as long as they're deemed by a group of oversexed 20-somethings as "hot" enough to fuck? (Sporrer, I'm looking at you.)
Women need to stop using their sexuality as an "easy-in" to what's percieved as a boys-only club. This goes for any male dominated scene (heavy metal music particularly comes to mind). Women have just as much of a responsibility to contribute to the community they want to be a part of, and if the only way they can think of to gain acceptance is to show their tits, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get treated like sex objects.
I realize this ran kind of long, so let me sum it up:
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
I like posts like this. They if nothing else, it's interesting and stirring.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist.
Don't know about you but I thought she is damn fine. I would think she is simply making the most of her opportunities.
Anyway this is all way
I....I don't even know w....
Jesus, you missed the point entirely didn't you? Why am I even telling you that it doesn't matter two fucking wits what she looked like.
TRYING TO BUY YOUR WAY INTO A SCENE USING YOUR SEXUALITY IS A SUREFIRE WAY TO MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A SEX OBJECT.
OP talks about gender disparity in e-sports, I addressed that. How the hell is that off-topic?
In general, men have much more of a competitive drive than women do. Spending your entire evolutionary history competing with each other for the affections of females will do that to a gender.
On July 15 2011 11:05 Probulous wrote: ^^ is why these threads don't work.
who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist.
Don't know about you but I thought she is damn fine. I would think she is simply making the most of her opportunities.
Anyway this is all way
I....I don't even know w....
Jesus, you missed the point entirely didn't you? Why am I even telling you that it doesn't matter two fucking wits what she looked like.
TRYING TO BUY YOUR WAY INTO A SCENE USE YOUR SEXUALITY IS A SUREFIRE WAY TO MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A SEX OBJECT.
OP talks about gender disparity in e-sports, I addressed that. How the hell is that off-topic?
Because, as I outlined in my very first post, he wrote a misleading OP. What he is trying to discuss is whether the growth a these instant fanclubs are good for the community. He uses the Sporrer and Slayers_Eve fanclubs as examples and tries to link this to some grand gender theory.
It is a bad OP and your response is worse.
As for your point, I would argue she was part of the community before she took her clothes off but clearly you are not trying to have a rational discussion. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
...What? This is an entirely unwarranted assertion. First, the "promote the belief" - no, because nowhere does the tournament ever espouse that belief, the problem instead (if we were to assume that this "belief" is reality) is in the eyes of ignorant beholders who misinterpret what those tournament mean. Look, there's College only CSL's, but the existence of those tournaments do not imply that college players cannot compete with non-college pros.
Second, there is obvious benefit to such tournaments that you're flatout ignoring. It's a way to gather people of a particular minority community together, it's undoubtable that people receive greater encouragement and would feel more inclined to participate if they are given a community of people who share something in common to promote that.
This is the same as every other gaming community. You have the girls that actually play the game and the girls who show there tits to feel popular on the internet. You probably don't know the girls who play the game.
On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote: Well, I've had this little rant stored up for a while. Ever since the KellyMilkies thing, to be honest.
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
This isn't to say by any means that we (as men OR women) can't overcome these genetic predispositions; after all, we're rational, self-aware beings, right? If it were impossible to overcome genetic wiring, then I would have to agree with certain radical feminists who say men should pay higher taxes because a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by men. Bust THAT one out at your next dinner party and see how well it goes over. The point of this is that we can't really blame sexism in the scene for keeping women out of it. The more we try to tell ourselves as a society that men and women are exactly the same, the more evidence to the contrary we seem to find. Women generally have less interest in competition than men. Simple as that.
That being said, is the scene sexist? God yes. I've never met a bigger group of pigs than a bunch of highly competitive men gathered together specifically for the benefit of whatever they're competing in. In some ways, it's natural. To be competitive at anything that requires the amount of skill that Starcraft (or rugby, or chess) does, one usually has to possess certain traits that make him a dominant force in social situations. The problem is that these traits, especially in YOUNG men, often manifest as borderline sociopathy. Frankly, the way men my age treat women is often pretty appalling. If women are deemed nominally attractive (I believe "hot" is the colloquial here) then they're allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (this is not a good thing, as I'll explain in a moment) as long as they do it with the understanding that they're not ACTUALLY one of the guys, they're just there for eye-candy and hopefully a fuck later. If they're not deemed attractive, they often fight an uphill battle altogether; the link between the anonymity of the internet and rampant douchebaggery is well-documented, and nowhere is it more evident than when men get together to judge a woman's physical appearance instead of her contribution to the community.
That brings me to my next point, which is that women have JUST AS MUCH responsibility as men for changing the perception of the scene. Take the KellyMilkies fiasco:
For those that don't know, KellyMilkies is a middling Starcraft player that did some casting for GSL a few seasons back. And that just about sums up her entire SC career. From there, she did a photo shoot in her underwear for a men's magazine and proceeded to plaster it all over the internet.
When the shit hit the fan, the thread her shoot was posted in was immediately bogged down with two kinds of posts: those saying she had no business doing a photo shoot at all and those saying that those that didn't like her photo shoot were sexist - and probably gay.
I'll say it right now: I was disgusted by the shoot. I never posted in that thread, because the whole thing was a cluster-fuck, but I was absolutely appalled. The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality. THAT, friends, is the definition of sexism, and we had every right and reason to run her out of town.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist. And holy SHIT if that doesn't smack of patriarchy (a word I'm really, REALLY loathe to use, by the way) I don't know what does. So women that do jack shit for the community get a free pass, as long as they're deemed by a group of oversexed 20-somethings as "hot" enough to fuck? (Sporrer, I'm looking at you.)
Women need to stop using their sexuality as an "easy-in" to what's percieved as a boys-only club. This goes for any male dominated scene (heavy metal music particularly comes to mind). Women have just as much of a responsibility to contribute to the community they want to be a part of, and if the only way they can think of to gain acceptance is to show their tits, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get treated like sex objects.
I realize this ran kind of long, so let me sum it up:
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
This reflects my opinions precisely.
To anyone who disagrees: imagine the response to Sporrer if she was ugly.
On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote: Well, I've had this little rant stored up for a while. Ever since the KellyMilkies thing, to be honest.
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
This isn't to say by any means that we (as men OR women) can't overcome these genetic predispositions; after all, we're rational, self-aware beings, right? If it were impossible to overcome genetic wiring, then I would have to agree with certain radical feminists who say men should pay higher taxes because a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by men. Bust THAT one out at your next dinner party and see how well it goes over. The point of this is that we can't really blame sexism in the scene for keeping women out of it. The more we try to tell ourselves as a society that men and women are exactly the same, the more evidence to the contrary we seem to find. Women generally have less interest in competition than men. Simple as that.
That being said, is the scene sexist? God yes. I've never met a bigger group of pigs than a bunch of highly competitive men gathered together specifically for the benefit of whatever they're competing in. In some ways, it's natural. To be competitive at anything that requires the amount of skill that Starcraft (or rugby, or chess) does, one usually has to possess certain traits that make him a dominant force in social situations. The problem is that these traits, especially in YOUNG men, often manifest as borderline sociopathy. Frankly, the way men my age treat women is often pretty appalling. If women are deemed nominally attractive (I believe "hot" is the colloquial here) then they're allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (this is not a good thing, as I'll explain in a moment) as long as they do it with the understanding that they're not ACTUALLY one of the guys, they're just there for eye-candy and hopefully a fuck later. If they're not deemed attractive, they often fight an uphill battle altogether; the link between the anonymity of the internet and rampant douchebaggery is well-documented, and nowhere is it more evident than when men get together to judge a woman's physical appearance instead of her contribution to the community.
That brings me to my next point, which is that women have JUST AS MUCH responsibility as men for changing the perception of the scene. Take the KellyMilkies fiasco:
For those that don't know, KellyMilkies is a middling Starcraft player that did some casting for GSL a few seasons back. And that just about sums up her entire SC career. From there, she did a photo shoot in her underwear for a men's magazine and proceeded to plaster it all over the internet.
When the shit hit the fan, the thread her shoot was posted in was immediately bogged down with two kinds of posts: those saying she had no business doing a photo shoot at all and those saying that those that didn't like her photo shoot were sexist - and probably gay.
I'll say it right now: I was disgusted by the shoot. I never posted in that thread, because the whole thing was a cluster-fuck, but I was absolutely appalled. The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality. THAT, friends, is the definition of sexism, and we had every right and reason to run her out of town.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist. And holy SHIT if that doesn't smack of patriarchy (a word I'm really, REALLY loathe to use, by the way) I don't know what does. So women that do jack shit for the community get a free pass, as long as they're deemed by a group of oversexed 20-somethings as "hot" enough to fuck? (Sporrer, I'm looking at you.)
Women need to stop using their sexuality as an "easy-in" to what's percieved as a boys-only club. This goes for any male dominated scene (heavy metal music particularly comes to mind). Women have just as much of a responsibility to contribute to the community they want to be a part of, and if the only way they can think of to gain acceptance is to show their tits, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get treated like sex objects.
I realize this ran kind of long, so let me sum it up:
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
This reflects my opinions precisely.
To anyone who disagrees: imagine the response to Sporrer if she was ugly.
Yet I think that one of the main reasons she showed up at NASL was that she was pretty and she was in the field. I don't think her 0 experience with the community made NASL hire her, I think they were going for sex-appeal to bring in more crowds and act as a sort of "cheerleader".
Ok let's break this down and see what we can find in here.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
Nothing wrong with this. Reasonable introduction, I am expecting something that shows we as a community specifically target females which pushes them away (there are plenty of examples of this).
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
And the crazy begins.
Your premise is that these fanclubs were created simply because these people are females. The Linday Sporrer one was created in response to people bagging her interiews on the weekend. This actually has nothing to do with being female per se. She simply got a bad reputation and people created a thread to show her some support. I mean even if her reputation was created because she is female doesn't mean that her fanclub is somehow baseless. She has fans -> They want a fanclub -> problem?
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it?
You may next to warm up if you want to stretch like that. Are you saying that there are less women in ESPORTs because we have premature fanclubs?
If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
This is true and has been discussed to death.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
Again, this has been discussed to death. Your belief that somehow these tournaments create a belief women cannot compete with men in ESPORTS is laughable. I would say they are simply tournaments for a specific section of the community. It is just a showing of girl power. There are not a high numbers of girl gamers, this is just a way for those that are girls to get together. There is no crusade to segregate men from this exclusive community.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Treating women like anyone else would simply mean ignoring the fact that they are women. By creating this thread and using the examples you have you have pointed out that you do not infact treat women the same as anyone else.
Have you made this thread for other fanclubs that popped overnight? What about invitation leagues? They cater to a specific section of the community, do they deserve ridicule for segregating people? I know I am stretching the point here but how else can I make you see that you are doing exactly the thing you are railing against.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
This is only tangentially related to your title, I think you should reread what you have written. I think people should just ignore the fact that there are women in this community and move on to more important things.
On July 15 2011 11:19 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports
I couldn't disagree more, these can only help the opposite gender become more interested in the competitive seen. Imagine you are a young women in her 20's who has been playing Starcraft 2 for a while now and is looking to enter the competitive scene. She opens up the good'ol Firefox and begins scanning the list of small tournaments on TL and see's dozens of them with some up and coming online heroes. "What's this a tournament for girls only?" She asks her self. "I should sign up for that." A tournament for girls only will seem less stressful, and is a good way for female gamers to "get their feet wet" and become accustomed to the competitive seen.
(Before people tear me a new one for giving my opinion please temember that I'm allowed to have one in the same way that you are allowed to have yours.)
I got my ass handed to me, called a ton of names etc for saying that I felt as though KellyMilkies photoshoot wasn't beneficial to the image of women in esports as more than sex objects. At the time I had to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if I myself was attractive. I got called judgemental, narrow-minded and prudish just because I couldn't fathom why anyone wanting respect/to be judged upon something deeper than their aesthetic values would do a shoot like that. Perhaps Kelly had other objectives in mind, but since I don't know her personally and could only go by this article/her photos I don't know/care what her motivations were.
It has been more of an uphill struggle for me to gain respect/get my work out there in certain respects. I've not even got a fanclub despite two years of photo shoots, projects and other work for TL. I feel as though I would have one if I was as attractive as Ms. Sporrer (and probably also if I was still more active on TL.) I did get a lot of comments during my active time on TL, and made a few friends which was nice.
My worst experience actually came working with foreign esports 'journalists' a couple of years back. I found that the majority of them sucked up to the cute game booth girls at the event I was working at, and yet acted very condescendingly to me, or simply ignored me. I even had one person whom I specifically went out of my way to stop work to meet, and whom ditched me to chat to cute Korean girls instead.
However, in the Korean scene I haven't felt that kind of negativity/lack of interest due to my lack of 'hotness.' It's probably got something to do with the language barrier as well, but I've found the Korean staff far more welcoming than some of the male foreign fans/staff I've met. As for the issue of girls not gaming. That's simply not true. I'm an avid gamer myself (I love survival horror and RPGs), but since I'm drawn towards games that are not multiplayer my gaming experiences are largely kept to myself. I do know plenty of foreign girls who do game (in the same way as myself, or using online games/multiplayer stuff etc.)
I have found that there's a weird categorization that seems to happen with certain guys who are also into gaming/geek hobbies. Hot girls who are geeks are considered to be positive things, but unattractive girls are sometimes labeled losers/freaks for the same hobbies their 'hot' counterparts share. It'd be nice to feel as though we could be judged upon talent, motivation and achievements first instead of looks. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
Competitive Target Shooting is a unisex sport: i.e. men and women compete as equals in most competitions (the notable exception is the olympics, but the winning scores are roughly the same). Starcraft and Target Shooting are both similar in the fact that both of them have a physical aspect, take a lot of practice, benefit from practicing as a team although they are both solo sports, and also a huge mental/ pressure aspect when the time comes.
So anyone that says that women aren't capable of performing at the level of men in starcraft I don't believe.
The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality.
Apart from commentating pretty much every SEA tourney for the last year?
On July 15 2011 11:54 NeverGG wrote: (Before people tear me a new one for giving my opinion please temember that I'm allowed to have one in the same way that you are allowed to have yours.)
I got my ass handed to me, called a ton of names etc for saying that I felt as though KellyMilkies photoshoot wasn't beneficial to the image of women in esports as more than sex objects. At the time I had to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if I myself was attractive. I got called judgemental, narrow-minded and prudish just because I couldn't fathom why anyone wanting respect/to be judged upon something deeper than their aesthetic values would do a shoot like that. Perhaps Kelly had other objectives in mind, but since I don't know her personally and could only go by this article/her photos I don't know/care what her motivations were.
It has been more of an uphill struggle for me to gain respect/get my work out there in certain respects. I've not even got a fanclub despite two years of photo shoots, projects and other work for TL. I feel as though I would have one if I was as attractive as Ms. Sporrer (and probably also if I was still more active on TL.) I did get a lot of comments during my active time on TL, and made a few friends which was nice.
My worst experience actually came working with foreign esports 'journalists' a couple of years back. I found that the majority of them sucked up to the cute game booth girls at the event I was working at, and yet acted very condescendingly to me, or simply ignored me.
However, in the Korean scene I haven't felt that kind of negativity/lack of interest due to my lack of 'hotness.' It's probably got something to do with the language barrier as well, but I've found the Korean staff far more welcoming than some of the male foreign fans/staff I've met. I even had one person whom I specifically went out of my way to stop work to meet, and whom ditched me to chat to cute Korean girls instead.
As for the issue of girls not gaming. That's simply not true. I'm an avid gamer myself (I love survival horror and RPGs), but since I'm drawn towards games that are not multiplayer my gaming experiences are largely kept to myself. I do know plenty of foreign girls who do game (in the same way as myself, or using online games/multiplayer stuff etc.)
I have found that there's a weird categorization that seems to happen with certain guys who are also into gaming/geek hobbies. Hot girls who are geeks are considered to be positive things, but unattractive girls are sometimes labeled losers/freaks for the same hobbies their 'hot' counterparts share. It'd be nice to feel as though we could be judged upon talent, motivation and achievements first instead of looks. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
Now where is my hug emoticon....
Pm'd
Edit: I just hope that with time this community will mature. Maybe I am being overly optimistic but that is all we have. That is one of the great hopes that comes with a larger community. Hopefully it will force people to take a good look at how they treat others and change. Sponsorships, big tournies, press coverage. All these things put greater scutiny on our representatives, and hopefully this will lead to a more professional community.
On July 15 2011 11:19 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports
I couldn't disagree more, these can only help the opposite gender become more interested in the competitive seen. Imagine you are a young women in her 20's who has been playing Starcraft 2 for a while now and is looking to enter the competitive scene. She opens up the good'ol Firefox and begins scanning the list of small tournaments on TL and see's dozens of them with some up and coming online heroes. "What's this a tournament for girls only?" She asks her self. "I should sign up for that." A tournament for girls only will seem less stressful, and is a good way for female gamers to "get their feet wet" and become accustomed to the competitive seen.
That quotation is from the OP btw, the quotation you have is misattributing it to me when I was also criticizing that statement, lol.
Girls don't play video games as much as guys. That is the reason for the gender disparity, nothing else. Therefore, those who are attractive women will have a much easier time getting attention in this community than those who are just the average starcraft player. This is why Sporrer gets the 50 page fan club without knowing anything about the game. I would like a higher female population in the community, but the only thing that I think can do that is more exposure for the game and e-sports in general. Female only tournaments are good for just that reason, getting more females into competitive starcraft. Honestly, the fact that females get all this attention is probably a bad thing, as their every move will be scrutinized, but it is nowhere near the number one reason for the disparity. Less girls playing the game=less girls involved in this game's community. There we go.
Yeah woman really have it easy in esports! I mean really! There is no hardship at all with trying to just be a gamer when 99% of the other sex either loves you to the point of disgust or hates you for being a camwhore/undeserving.
No woman doesn't have it easy, it's pretty fucking hard, something most of you guys would learn if you had a girlfriend that was a gamer.
If there was enough woman around that they weren't special then we wouldn't have this discussion, but topics like this make for a fucking bad invitation to esports for woman. You're only fueling your own stupid fire. Not to mention that 90% of all games sexualize woman or make for pisspoor "hero models" (things you want to identify with, say why we guys love certain game characters whilst everyone hates every male Final Fantasy character after FF7.)
I do however admit that people like Kelly Milkies ruin it alot for the rest of womankind (my girlfriend hates her) because she's a class A example of : Not performing well enough, and when all else fails and nobody cares/likes you still, then do what most woman do; Expose yourself and make yourself into a sexual object... showing us that once again girls are here to be "pretty" and not just be who the fuck ever they want to be.
So if you complain on people like Kelly Milkies, then yeah I agree. But stop making it sound like every woman is a manhating succubus.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
Show me scientific proof please. Not saying you're wrong, but saying it like you are just sounds so 1910.
I guess you are right to a certain point.. hot women are scared to interact with weirdos and freaks that make them the center of attention just like that... they have way too much interaction with shit like that in real life.. why would they wanna experience the same stuff online? on the other hand, hot women are just not into games.. as simple as that.
It's probably because physical attractiveness is a lot more important for women than it is for men, so they naturally need to focus on such aspects, to which gaming is very much antithetical.
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
I shortened this to avoid needless space waste hes on the first page folks. I agree with about 99% of what you said, however, I do believe women like competition maybe not as much as men but we wouldn't have girl leagues if they didn't. Other than that QFT and well said.
1) heaps of people on the internet are just flat dickheads. it's an outlet for the side of human nature that unfortunately exists. look at 4chan. revolting. females seem less inclined to tolerate this. 2) relates to 1. newbies are often scorned and made fun of. look at the lindsey sporrer 'fanclub'. a lot of the stuff in there just blatantly disrespects her. yeah she's completely new to starcraft but fucks sake, give the lass a chance. 3) females just aren't treated equally. either people are slobbering over them or they're the topic of just completely tasteless discussions. there are probably more females than we realise simply because they're unwilling to admit that they're female, so they don't have to deal with that sort of shit.
theres no discrimination going on, its just simply a supply issue, there arent enough females out there trying to break in to pro gaming compared to the amount of males.
that and women typically by nature arent really into competitive things, they are more about social and cooperative stuff which is why the largest amount of girl gamers in the world are mmorpg gamers.
1) heaps of people on the internet are just flat dickheads. it's an outlet for the side of human nature that unfortunately exists. look at 4chan. revolting. females seem less inclined to tolerate this. 2) relates to 1. newbies are often scorned and made fun of. look at the lindsey sporrer 'fanclub'. a lot of the stuff in there just blatantly disrespects her. yeah she's completely new to starcraft but fucks sake, give the lass a chance. 3) females just aren't treated equally. either people are slobbering over them or they're the topic of just completely tasteless discussions. there are probably more females than we realise simply because they're unwilling to admit that they're female, so they don't have to deal with that sort of shit.
will it ever change? maybe not.
I hope you're wrong here.
A little offtopic but you sir have an awesome username...
On July 15 2011 12:27 Keldrath wrote: theres no discrimination going on, its just simply a supply issue, there arent enough females out there trying to break in to pro gaming compared to the amount of males.
that and women typically by nature arent really into competitive things, they are more about social and cooperative stuff which is why the largest amount of girl gamers in the world are mmorpg gamers.
Are you saying we need to build additional pylons?
On July 15 2011 11:54 NeverGG wrote: (Before people tear me a new one for giving my opinion please temember that I'm allowed to have one in the same way that you are allowed to have yours.)
I got my ass handed to me, called a ton of names etc for saying that I felt as though KellyMilkies photoshoot wasn't beneficial to the image of women in esports as more than sex objects. At the time I had to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if I myself was attractive. I got called judgemental, narrow-minded and prudish just because I couldn't fathom why anyone wanting respect/to be judged upon something deeper than their aesthetic values would do a shoot like that. Perhaps Kelly had other objectives in mind, but since I don't know her personally and could only go by this article/her photos I don't know/care what her motivations were.
It has been more of an uphill struggle for me to gain respect/get my work out there in certain respects. I've not even got a fanclub despite two years of photo shoots, projects and other work for TL. I feel as though I would have one if I was as attractive as Ms. Sporrer (and probably also if I was still more active on TL.) I did get a lot of comments during my active time on TL, and made a few friends which was nice.
My worst experience actually came working with foreign esports 'journalists' a couple of years back. I found that the majority of them sucked up to the cute game booth girls at the event I was working at, and yet acted very condescendingly to me, or simply ignored me. I even had one person whom I specifically went out of my way to stop work to meet, and whom ditched me to chat to cute Korean girls instead.
However, in the Korean scene I haven't felt that kind of negativity/lack of interest due to my lack of 'hotness.' It's probably got something to do with the language barrier as well, but I've found the Korean staff far more welcoming than some of the male foreign fans/staff I've met. As for the issue of girls not gaming. That's simply not true. I'm an avid gamer myself (I love survival horror and RPGs), but since I'm drawn towards games that are not multiplayer my gaming experiences are largely kept to myself. I do know plenty of foreign girls who do game (in the same way as myself, or using online games/multiplayer stuff etc.)
I have found that there's a weird categorization that seems to happen with certain guys who are also into gaming/geek hobbies. Hot girls who are geeks are considered to be positive things, but unattractive girls are sometimes labeled losers/freaks for the same hobbies their 'hot' counterparts share. It'd be nice to feel as though we could be judged upon talent, motivation and achievements first instead of looks. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
On July 10 2011 10:37 NeverGG wrote: 'Reducing girls to "Wow she is smoking hot" is as bad as calling them ugly bitches.'
Being judged purely upon your physical appearance as a girl isn't exactly fun. However, (speaking from an experience here on TL and irl) getting told you're part of the ugly bitch squad is definitely worse than being told you're smoking hot. Guys who'd dismiss a girl (as a friend) purely because she isn't 'smoking hot' aren't worth knowing anyway ^_^.
This is the third(?)fourth time I've seen you complain about how people see you never.
Based on some far away glimpses of memories in a birthday and kitten blog, I didn't think you were that bad looking.
I should say "I didn't think you were bad looking" and remove the that... but it's just the way I talk. +1 to the never looks good.
God I just want to slap you. Shut up about thinking yourself unnatractive. You don't want that kind of attention.
unfortunately i have a very cynical view of the internet, thanks to 4chan. the anonymity fuels all the disgusting elements of humanity that you don't come across as often in real life.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
Tell me women don't have the dexterity for Starcraft after seeing that...
Why does everyone think everything has to be 50/50 with males and females or there is some discrimination going on. Why can't they accept that most men and women like different things, and are good at different things.
lol @ fanclubs having anything to do with furthering equality in esports. argue a better point. when it comes to fanclubs, they are being treated like everyone else - they have fans, so they get a fanclub.
female-only tournaments are good for females because they get their shit pushed in in unigender tournaments and they lose confidence as they see no females ever in a unigender tournament. there's no law put in place to stop females from joining unigender tournaments, just skill to stop them from getting far like everyone else. if winning a tournament gives them the confidence to try to get to the top, it's good.
as far as what i want to do with women in esports, it's not up to me or any guy. they have the opportunity to win, it's not being held from them. they have the opportunity to play 12 hours a day for a long time to get really good, it's not being held from them. it's up to WOMEN to represent themselves as something worth respecting, or they get none, the same way that people who post in strat forum 'i'm rank 1 diamond in my league and here's my build' get no respect.
and anyways, i can't speak for SlayerS_Eve because she's just one of many players trying to train to get better and win, but somebody like Lindsey Sporrer is doing good for our community by being connected to a different culture in our world but embracing esports and not being shy to tell people about it. ok, she's hot, so what? she's basically a professional hot girl, she's a model/actress. those are the kind of people who do what she did at NASL. that's a great thing that someone like her comes and tries to be involved in our community of her own accord (wanting to go to MLG, etc) and if you think she has to be a pro to be contributing to the scene, ask yourself what you're doing to help the scene and if you think that tops Lindsey. you probably don't do shit but post on TL and watch tournaments like most people.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
In terms of athletic sports I'm willing to agree but to suggest that women cannot be as good as men with a mouse and keyboard is just sexist. I'm confident if as many women devoted as many hours to this game as men do, they would enjoy similar levels of success. Alot of women just aren't as attracted to the competitive world of gaming as men are and the few that are get stigmatized as 'attention whores' or 'tomboys'. The handful of female sc players I do know are talented for the amount of time they've invested in the game and it's a shame there aren't more.
Just to be clear: I think KellyMilkies was a terrible caster, a mediocre player, and quite attractive. If she wasn't 'chosen' by someone in the scene specifically for her looks/being a woman, I don't know how she got as far as she did.
That said, show us a girl who plays Starcraft as well as top male players do and we'll talk. What needs clarifying is why most women are so disinterested in competitive pursuits.
On July 15 2011 11:54 NeverGG wrote: (Before people tear me a new one for giving my opinion please temember that I'm allowed to have one in the same way that you are allowed to have yours.)
I got my ass handed to me, called a ton of names etc for saying that I felt as though KellyMilkies photoshoot wasn't beneficial to the image of women in esports as more than sex objects. At the time I had to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if I myself was attractive. I got called judgemental, narrow-minded and prudish just because I couldn't fathom why anyone wanting respect/to be judged upon something deeper than their aesthetic values would do a shoot like that. Perhaps Kelly had other objectives in mind, but since I don't know her personally and could only go by this article/her photos I don't know/care what her motivations were.
It has been more of an uphill struggle for me to gain respect/get my work out there in certain respects. I've not even got a fanclub despite two years of photo shoots, projects and other work for TL. I feel as though I would have one if I was as attractive as Ms. Sporrer (and probably also if I was still more active on TL.) I did get a lot of comments during my active time on TL, and made a few friends which was nice.
My worst experience actually came working with foreign esports 'journalists' a couple of years back. I found that the majority of them sucked up to the cute game booth girls at the event I was working at, and yet acted very condescendingly to me, or simply ignored me. I even had one person whom I specifically went out of my way to stop work to meet, and whom ditched me to chat to cute Korean girls instead.
However, in the Korean scene I haven't felt that kind of negativity/lack of interest due to my lack of 'hotness.' It's probably got something to do with the language barrier as well, but I've found the Korean staff far more welcoming than some of the male foreign fans/staff I've met. As for the issue of girls not gaming. That's simply not true. I'm an avid gamer myself (I love survival horror and RPGs), but since I'm drawn towards games that are not multiplayer my gaming experiences are largely kept to myself. I do know plenty of foreign girls who do game (in the same way as myself, or using online games/multiplayer stuff etc.)
I have found that there's a weird categorization that seems to happen with certain guys who are also into gaming/geek hobbies. Hot girls who are geeks are considered to be positive things, but unattractive girls are sometimes labeled losers/freaks for the same hobbies their 'hot' counterparts share. It'd be nice to feel as though we could be judged upon talent, motivation and achievements first instead of looks. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
On July 10 2011 10:37 NeverGG wrote: 'Reducing girls to "Wow she is smoking hot" is as bad as calling them ugly bitches.'
Being judged purely upon your physical appearance as a girl isn't exactly fun. However, (speaking from an experience here on TL and irl) getting told you're part of the ugly bitch squad is definitely worse than being told you're smoking hot. Guys who'd dismiss a girl (as a friend) purely because she isn't 'smoking hot' aren't worth knowing anyway ^_^.
This is the third(?)fourth time I've seen you complain about how people see you never.
Based on some far away glimpses of memories in a birthday and kitten blog, I didn't think you were that bad looking.
I should say "I didn't think you were bad looking" and remove the that... but it's just the way I talk. +1 to the never looks good.
God I just want to slap you. Shut up about thinking yourself unnatractive. You don't want that kind of attention.
Oow. Actually, I'd like to be attractive. It beats feeling ugly all the time. However, I am not (I had this sentiment drilled into me from a young age by a lot of people), and regardless of what anyone says it does affect how guys treat me. Luckily, I'm currently friends with a few guys who can look past that issue so we can hang out and generally have a fun time related to our hobbies.
Theres no gender disparity in esports, theres a gender disparity in the games related to said esports. Its not like there being blocked out of the higher echelons, there just isnt a lot of chicks who play starcraf2, relative to males. This is not an issue the community should or even could influence, if the game isnt interesting to females, or wasnt marketed properly to them [not sure how you could market a war game to girls honestly] its well beyond our control.
On July 15 2011 11:54 NeverGG wrote: (Before people tear me a new one for giving my opinion please temember that I'm allowed to have one in the same way that you are allowed to have yours.)
I got my ass handed to me, called a ton of names etc for saying that I felt as though KellyMilkies photoshoot wasn't beneficial to the image of women in esports as more than sex objects. At the time I had to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if I myself was attractive. I got called judgemental, narrow-minded and prudish just because I couldn't fathom why anyone wanting respect/to be judged upon something deeper than their aesthetic values would do a shoot like that. Perhaps Kelly had other objectives in mind, but since I don't know her personally and could only go by this article/her photos I don't know/care what her motivations were.
It has been more of an uphill struggle for me to gain respect/get my work out there in certain respects. I've not even got a fanclub despite two years of photo shoots, projects and other work for TL. I feel as though I would have one if I was as attractive as Ms. Sporrer (and probably also if I was still more active on TL.) I did get a lot of comments during my active time on TL, and made a few friends which was nice.
My worst experience actually came working with foreign esports 'journalists' a couple of years back. I found that the majority of them sucked up to the cute game booth girls at the event I was working at, and yet acted very condescendingly to me, or simply ignored me. I even had one person whom I specifically went out of my way to stop work to meet, and whom ditched me to chat to cute Korean girls instead.
However, in the Korean scene I haven't felt that kind of negativity/lack of interest due to my lack of 'hotness.' It's probably got something to do with the language barrier as well, but I've found the Korean staff far more welcoming than some of the male foreign fans/staff I've met. As for the issue of girls not gaming. That's simply not true. I'm an avid gamer myself (I love survival horror and RPGs), but since I'm drawn towards games that are not multiplayer my gaming experiences are largely kept to myself. I do know plenty of foreign girls who do game (in the same way as myself, or using online games/multiplayer stuff etc.)
I have found that there's a weird categorization that seems to happen with certain guys who are also into gaming/geek hobbies. Hot girls who are geeks are considered to be positive things, but unattractive girls are sometimes labeled losers/freaks for the same hobbies their 'hot' counterparts share. It'd be nice to feel as though we could be judged upon talent, motivation and achievements first instead of looks. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
On July 10 2011 13:11 obesechicken13 wrote:
On July 10 2011 10:37 NeverGG wrote: 'Reducing girls to "Wow she is smoking hot" is as bad as calling them ugly bitches.'
Being judged purely upon your physical appearance as a girl isn't exactly fun. However, (speaking from an experience here on TL and irl) getting told you're part of the ugly bitch squad is definitely worse than being told you're smoking hot. Guys who'd dismiss a girl (as a friend) purely because she isn't 'smoking hot' aren't worth knowing anyway ^_^.
This is the third(?)fourth time I've seen you complain about how people see you never.
Based on some far away glimpses of memories in a birthday and kitten blog, I didn't think you were that bad looking.
I should say "I didn't think you were bad looking" and remove the that... but it's just the way I talk. +1 to the never looks good.
God I just want to slap you. Shut up about thinking yourself unnatractive. You don't want that kind of attention.
Oow. Actually, I'd like to be attractive. It beats feeling ugly all the time. However, I am not (I had this sentiment drilled into me from a young age by a lot of people), and regardless of what anyone says it does affect how guys treat me. Luckily, I'm currently friends with a few guys who can look past that issue so we can hang out and generally have a fun time related to our hobbies.
you are making me sad never :[
id be friends with you i like rpgs and survival horrors
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
There are both cultural and physical reasons for why there are so extremely few women in esports or gaming.
The culture part is the notion that young women must dress in a certain way, behave in a certain way and paint their face so that they look like completely different people. Women are also more scrutinized than men for not upholding these norms. Beeing seen as a dork is more devastating to a woman than to a man because the woman has these ridiculous standards put upon her by pop culture and juvenile people. Only the strong willed independent women will even consider competing in computer games.
I know quite a few women that at the age of 10-12 loved playing video games. But almost none of them actually play them now. When I ask why I get the answer that during the teen years it wasn't acceptable to play computer games as a girl. As the teen years are so formative to what our interests are I think that this might be the biggest reason for why we dont see many women in esports.
The physical part is obviously the difference in hormone levels and the evolutionary incentive to compete. Males have allways competed over land, food (now money) and women vs other men. This strong incentive makes it obvious that men have developed a big will to compete. Since men have had the physical dominance over women for a long long time it has fallen upon them to compete over these things.
With women the main competition has been to attract men. But bear in mind that this competition has also existed for a long time. In our modern society when women are equal to men in terms of right and independence I think that instinct can be used to compete over whatever a woman wants to compete over. From an evolutionary standpoint it wouldn't be too far fetched to see more women develope a more competetive drive because of how they now exist in society. Obviously from an evolutionary perspective this would take a very long time though. But that doesn't discredit the fact that competition allready exist in female social groups to a high level.
Lets face it. You do need a strong drive to compete if you're gonna be sucessful in competetive gaming. You will never become a pro gamer unless you have this drive. You need a big drive to win and be the best. But since women obviously have a competetive mindset to some things in life I believe that the cultural obstacle is the huge thing that doesn't allow women in esports.
On July 15 2011 11:54 NeverGG wrote: (Before people tear me a new one for giving my opinion please temember that I'm allowed to have one in the same way that you are allowed to have yours.)
I got my ass handed to me, called a ton of names etc for saying that I felt as though KellyMilkies photoshoot wasn't beneficial to the image of women in esports as more than sex objects. At the time I had to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if I myself was attractive. I got called judgemental, narrow-minded and prudish just because I couldn't fathom why anyone wanting respect/to be judged upon something deeper than their aesthetic values would do a shoot like that. Perhaps Kelly had other objectives in mind, but since I don't know her personally and could only go by this article/her photos I don't know/care what her motivations were.
It has been more of an uphill struggle for me to gain respect/get my work out there in certain respects. I've not even got a fanclub despite two years of photo shoots, projects and other work for TL. I feel as though I would have one if I was as attractive as Ms. Sporrer (and probably also if I was still more active on TL.) I did get a lot of comments during my active time on TL, and made a few friends which was nice.
My worst experience actually came working with foreign esports 'journalists' a couple of years back. I found that the majority of them sucked up to the cute game booth girls at the event I was working at, and yet acted very condescendingly to me, or simply ignored me. I even had one person whom I specifically went out of my way to stop work to meet, and whom ditched me to chat to cute Korean girls instead.
However, in the Korean scene I haven't felt that kind of negativity/lack of interest due to my lack of 'hotness.' It's probably got something to do with the language barrier as well, but I've found the Korean staff far more welcoming than some of the male foreign fans/staff I've met. As for the issue of girls not gaming. That's simply not true. I'm an avid gamer myself (I love survival horror and RPGs), but since I'm drawn towards games that are not multiplayer my gaming experiences are largely kept to myself. I do know plenty of foreign girls who do game (in the same way as myself, or using online games/multiplayer stuff etc.)
I have found that there's a weird categorization that seems to happen with certain guys who are also into gaming/geek hobbies. Hot girls who are geeks are considered to be positive things, but unattractive girls are sometimes labeled losers/freaks for the same hobbies their 'hot' counterparts share. It'd be nice to feel as though we could be judged upon talent, motivation and achievements first instead of looks. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
On July 10 2011 13:11 obesechicken13 wrote:
On July 10 2011 10:37 NeverGG wrote: 'Reducing girls to "Wow she is smoking hot" is as bad as calling them ugly bitches.'
Being judged purely upon your physical appearance as a girl isn't exactly fun. However, (speaking from an experience here on TL and irl) getting told you're part of the ugly bitch squad is definitely worse than being told you're smoking hot. Guys who'd dismiss a girl (as a friend) purely because she isn't 'smoking hot' aren't worth knowing anyway ^_^.
This is the third(?)fourth time I've seen you complain about how people see you never.
Based on some far away glimpses of memories in a birthday and kitten blog, I didn't think you were that bad looking.
I should say "I didn't think you were bad looking" and remove the that... but it's just the way I talk. +1 to the never looks good.
God I just want to slap you. Shut up about thinking yourself unnatractive. You don't want that kind of attention.
Oow. Actually, I'd like to be attractive. It beats feeling ugly all the time. However, I am not (I had this sentiment drilled into me from a young age by a lot of people), and regardless of what anyone says it does affect how guys treat me. Luckily, I'm currently friends with a few guys who can look past that issue so we can hang out and generally have a fun time related to our hobbies.
you are making me sad never :[
id be friends with you i like rpgs and survival horrors
In regards to female only tournaments, I feel that at the small community level it's no big deal and sure it can encourage them to get involved. At the small community level you could have a Black only, Gay only, Bald only, Blonde only w/e only tournament and because of the small scale of what is generally 50-100 dollars it's not the end of the world.
What I don't agree with is having a larger scale tournament, as some of the weekly events that are popping up for female tournaments, having them as small novelty tournaments are alright but I would never want to see an MLG: Women's Division or any female only tournament with a prize pool over a couple hundred dollars. It doesn't serve any real purpose other than segregating the genders and allowing what would be mediocre players to remain semi-pro within a lesser pool of competition.
Essentially, it's a similar argument to, "Do we want Koreans in foreigner tournaments", you can hold whatever view point you want, but I believe that should sort of carry over to the view of Women's tournaments to remain consistent. If you believe that the best players should win at the end of the day regardless of all else, which I largely do, then you shouldn't really be for female only tournaments.
On July 15 2011 13:00 SirKibbleX wrote: Just to be clear: I think KellyMilkies was a terrible caster, a mediocre player, and quite attractive. If she wasn't 'chosen' by someone in the scene specifically for her looks/being a woman, I don't know how she got as far as she did.
That said, show us a girl who plays Starcraft as well as top male players do and we'll talk. What needs clarifying is why most women are so disinterested in competitive pursuits.
Women don't like competition in the same sense that men do. By that I mean that direct one-on-one confrontations with a clear winner and loser are not the way of the fairer sex because that person whose ass you just kicked might be the one who babysits your kids tomorrow while you are off picking berries in the woods. This is why all of the commercials on ESPN are oriented towards men, who relish competition because proving yourself superior to some other guy invariably increases your chances of getting laid later on.
I think the disparities in gender are only some that exist within esports. The activity is also heavily white, and upper or middle class. In short, most online gamers come from a place of privlege that doesn't allow many to recognize how communities are constructed in exclusionary ways. Whether it be harassing language within games, or a culture that teaches women to not spend their time indoors online, etc is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there's a strong bias in online gaming as well as in many other wakes of life where these biases are built into structures, making the formats seem like their neutral where everyone can freely participate when in fact they're not.
More telling to me about flame wars erupting is the backlash original posters get when they try to challenge issues they find important to them that challenges dominant viewpoints like sexism, racism, homophobia, anthropocentrism, you name it. There is an immediate rush of the masses to defend the status-quo instead of recognizing that people are raising issues that can be dealt with in a productive manner in ways that would exclude other people. Instead of assuming everyone's a troll about to flame you, look for what can be gained and work to help make their viewpoints understood instead of immediately shot down... ESPECIALLY if it's a viewpoint that speaks against dominant traditions because too often they're disregarded by knee jerk reactions that ensures patriarchal systems prop up gaming communities.
ALSO - @nemo14, I'm troubled by your gender essentialism. "Women don't like competition in the same sense that men do" is inaccurate. Many women like it as much or more than some men do. You assume a static notion of male or female that is (a) an incorrect blanket assumption for everyone that is very over-simplified; and (b) entrenches the very beliefs that ensure the gaming community will continue to not be as open as it could to women... because we believe there's no reason to because women don't want it anyhow.
On July 15 2011 14:01 sailorferret wrote: I think the disparities in gender are only some that exist within esports. The activity is also heavily white, and upper or middle class. In short, most online gamers come from a place of privlege that doesn't allow many to recognize how communities are constructed in exclusionary ways. Whether it be harassing language within games, or a culture that teaches women to not spend their time indoors online, etc is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there's a strong bias in online gaming as well as in many other wakes of life where these biases are built into structures, making the formats seem like their neutral where everyone can freely participate when in fact they're not.
More telling to me about flame wars erupting is the backlash original posters get when they try to challenge issues they find important to them that challenges dominant viewpoints like sexism, racism, homophobia, anthropocentrism, you name it. There is an immediate rush of the masses to defend the status-quo instead of recognizing that people are raising issues that can be dealt with in a productive manner in ways that would exclude other people. Instead of assuming everyone's a troll about to flame you, look for what can be gained and work to help make their viewpoints understood instead of immediately shot down... ESPECIALLY if it's a viewpoint that speaks against dominant traditions because too often they're disregarded by knee jerk reactions that ensures patriarchal systems prop up gaming communities.
ALSO - @nemo14, I'm troubled by your gender essentialism. "Women don't like competition in the same sense that men do" is inaccurate. Many women like it as much or more than some men do. You assume a static notion of male or female that is (a) an incorrect blanket assumption for everyone that is very over-simplified; and (b) entrenches the very beliefs that ensure the gaming community will continue to not be as open as it could to women... because we believe there's no reason to because women don't want it anyhow.
When talking about a gender consisting of over 3 billion people, it's quicker and more accurate to make a statement based on the overwhelming majority trend. If every post about females had to have a ridiculously long list of exceptions and other possibilities, it'd be retarded. Generalisations aren't "disturbing" when used on a global scale like has been used in this thread.
It'd be impolite to use the same generalisations when talking to a person on an individual or small group scale though.
If there were definitely a lot more female gamers in the industry, I'm sure female-only tournaments would banish. And yes, many of us are discouraged by gender discrimination in-game, so some of us usually like to hide the fact that we are females to ensure a more peaceful and mannered game. As a matter of fact, research shows 38% of gamers are females. However, I am sure the very statistics do not apply to highly competitive and strategic games such as SC2 (because of the way two genders are differently wired so we think differently..etcetc).
Honestly, I don't see a problem with a minority group (in this case, females) holding tiny tournaments for themselves. It feels good to meet someone who probably has a lot more in common with you compared to the majority of the boys on bnet. It's kind of nice to have a safe haven where you can say, "I'm a girl, you're a girl, we're all girls, I don't think there will be a problem here. I won't anticipate any crude remarks pertaining to the fact that I am a woman in this tournament." etc etc. It's more of a social thing rather than real competitive gaming. If the prize pool was a lot bigger and the audience were more serious about the these tournaments then I am sure that would be a whole different story.
I agree with the fanclub completely. Even though I am not a Destiny fan, I was first surprised when the admins first took down Destiny's fanclub back in Jan. I think the message was don't make a fan club who hasn't done anything notable or something along those lines. It's stupid that this Lindsey (who pretty has done nothing except do a couple of interviews) is allowed to keep a fanclub. Double standard much?
Even if women were treated equally, there wouldn't be masses of them playing SC IMO. First, there are already fewer females in gaming in general I'm pretty sure. Second, even though this gap has been closing, the majority of females don't seem to be attracted to highly competitive games.
That being said, I do think that both the community and certain types of girls who do enter the competitive scene hurt female growth in it. The gaming community, like the host said, often gives undue attention to girls (they don't even have to be that hot tbh) and in turn, most of the girls which stay around are those which crave that type of attention. Those who aren't obsessing over these women eventually become annoyed and simply expect every women in the gaming community is bad and only there as eye candy. Viscous cycle, since this attitude further discourages genuinely talented women from entering the community.
Less women compared to men in a competitive environment.... you act like this not a norm.
All I have to say about this is, Danika Patrick. Hot, crappy at racing (comparatively to her peers), super popular. Women who have accomplished nothing but are attractive and popular happens in EVERY competitive environment with a decent following. This is no different.
Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
On July 15 2011 14:01 sailorferret wrote: I think the disparities in gender are only some that exist within esports. The activity is also heavily white, and upper or middle class. In short, most online gamers come from a place of privlege that doesn't allow many to recognize how communities are constructed in exclusionary ways. Whether it be harassing language within games, or a culture that teaches women to not spend their time indoors online, etc is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there's a strong bias in online gaming as well as in many other wakes of life where these biases are built into structures, making the formats seem like their neutral where everyone can freely participate when in fact they're not.
More telling to me about flame wars erupting is the backlash original posters get when they try to challenge issues they find important to them that challenges dominant viewpoints like sexism, racism, homophobia, anthropocentrism, you name it. There is an immediate rush of the masses to defend the status-quo instead of recognizing that people are raising issues that can be dealt with in a productive manner in ways that would exclude other people. Instead of assuming everyone's a troll about to flame you, look for what can be gained and work to help make their viewpoints understood instead of immediately shot down... ESPECIALLY if it's a viewpoint that speaks against dominant traditions because too often they're disregarded by knee jerk reactions that ensures patriarchal systems prop up gaming communities.
ALSO - @nemo14, I'm troubled by your gender essentialism. "Women don't like competition in the same sense that men do" is inaccurate. Many women like it as much or more than some men do. You assume a static notion of male or female that is (a) an incorrect blanket assumption for everyone that is very over-simplified; and (b) entrenches the very beliefs that ensure the gaming community will continue to not be as open as it could to women... because we believe there's no reason to because women don't want it anyhow.
When talking about a gender consisting of over 3 billion people, it's quicker and more accurate to make a statement based on the overwhelming majority trend. If every post about females had to have a ridiculously long list of exceptions and other possibilities, it'd be retarded. Generalisations aren't "disturbing" when used on a global scale like has been used in this thread.
It'd be impolite to use the same generalisations when talking to a person on an individual or small group scale though.
Eleaven clarified my position quite well. Thank you!
So many skewed misconceptions about the difference between man and woman in this thread...
Not all women scoot by in life just by being good looking, a lot of them actually achieved something also in sports. eSports is less physical than real sports so there is absolutely no reason why a woman should not be able to dominate here. eSports don't require more willpower or whatever than most other forms of sports where women are doing well.
The reason why no woman has done so yet is simply because of lack of interest and remnants of oppinion that gaming is not socially acceptable. That is my oppinion anyway and probably not a fact as so many of your posts claim to be.
On July 15 2011 15:18 fenX wrote: Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
This seems really dumb to me. Men aren't good at teaching, yet somehow all the males in eSports do fine learning from one another, but you qualify that with "Men are especially bad at teaching to women". Yeah man, that's why there aren't any male professors right, oh wait...
I don't believe that men are bad at teaching or especially bad at teaching women. How would female leagues lead to females teaching females better? They can still learn from each other in practice and just go compete with everyone else. This is piss poor reasoning to support female leagues in my opinion, there are so many weird transitions in there... Yeah, a girl will come up with some amazing new style and understanding by practicing with other girls, right? Little girls can't look up to girls unless they have female only leagues, right?
I want to say that I disagree with the OP. There are very few females in e-sports because they're not interested for the most part. Simple as that. They tend not to like videogames and they tend not to like competition - so obviously it's not too interesting for many.
1- A few are genuinely interested and they're useful to the community, and sure they have to put up with BS, but I think that someone with enough of a passion to do that will manage to deal with it. I can't think of many names in SC2 specifically, but we have a few.
2- A few more are genuinely interested, but they only get known because of their gender. Good for them, but it's frustrating to see more qualified contenders being left out because they're male. + Show Spoiler +
As a comparison, to be a fireman, there are weight-lifting tests - the charge to pass the test is lower for women here. People won't get less fat if a woman has to carry them through a fire, though.
3- Others are paid to look good at NASL and they couldn't care less. Collecting that paycheck, really. You can certainly find bronze players who would be willing to do it for free and would do a much better job. I don't want to sound sexist, I'm not - but it's a Starcraft event so your staff should know what Starcraft is...
4- Others are useless to the community but get a rise out of the guys. They're around FOR that. I won't give any name, but for those of you who read blogs, there's this (relatively) new forum user who's essentially here to blog about her life, post NSFW pictures of herself... It's not a SC platform for her, it's just her personal area to reach people or whatever. Instead of starting a real blog, might as well do TL and have a secure reader-base. I mean, just like any nerd forums, it's not surprising that there are many lonely guys on TL, ready to give those people all the attention they'll ever need.
On July 15 2011 16:01 PhiliBiRD wrote: SC2 is a Strategy game. Strategy is a man's prowess. Not a woman's.
At least, in general :-)
I Rofled.
Quite true though - ask a woman "Hey do you ever fantasise about how to run a country, building armies and thinking of military strategies?"
Answer is a definitive 'NO'
Then she files for divorce and gets half your stuff. Guess that's more of a tactic than a strategy though.
But no they're definitely capable of thinking strategically IMO. My gf doesn't even play Starcraft but she watches and is willing to talk about it. She comes to some pretty logical conclusions sometimes whereas some guys have played 500+ games and they're still stuck in bronze and don't understand why you can't open by making 3 pylons and 2 assimilators before gate. I would say that sometimes, her reasoning even adds some depth to how I play. Sometimes it's completely wrong too but the foundations are generally pretty darn good considering that she doesn't play.
You can't get women as exited about eSports as men, because men and women are different. This may come as a surprise to you. Only two places I can think of (right now) where 100% gender neutral treatment is required are law and wages. Otherwise it's just silly to treat as men and women were the same, because they aren't.
On July 15 2011 15:18 fenX wrote: Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
That's kinda dumb and insulting. I'm a girl and I can perfectly understand what my SC2 'teachers' are telling me.
On July 15 2011 15:18 fenX wrote: Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
That's kinda dumb and insulting. I'm a girl and I can perfectly understand what my SC2 'teachers' are telling me.
Let's duke it out =)
And he didn't mean to be insulting, men and women learn differently, it's a psychology thing. Not sure if he's right but there's truth behind what he's saying at the very least.
It is embarrasing in my point of view the treatment that women (particularly good looking ones) get. Getting a job simply because of your looks, and not even being able to adequately do your job, and then getting a fan club of 53 pages in 3 days.
Wow.
So the SC2 community is so lonely/pathetic that we /cheer everytime we see a girl doing anything in esports even if she is incompetent? Awsome.
Looks are a huge bonus, but not the most important thing when it comes down to it. If all you want is looks, than pay the girl to stand there holding the microphone for the person being interviewed, while the interviewer is someone actually capable of doing the job.
But seriously saying "Here is some eye candy who knows nothing about the game." and people would rather have this than a person who actually knows/follows/loves the game.. is embarrassing.
But its just me, but its things like this that support all of the negative stereotypes/assumptions about esports and all of its followers. Lonely quiet horny nerdy guys who have never been in a relationship, will LOVE having a beautiful female involved even if she knows nothing about the scene.
Meh I am all for getting more women actually involved, but idk who people are trying to kid by saying "look this beautiful girl is interested in esports! So interested she doesnt even know the names of the 3 playable races... which is almost impossible to not know... if you have played the game even once or even had it explained to you."
Forcing it, and coming off fake, is worse than not having any actual interested good looking women. BTW Leah B Jackson is awsome cause she actually knows her shit/actually is a part of the gaming community/culture. She isnt jsut a good-looking puppet like so many women are on the scene.
On July 15 2011 16:16 Greentellon wrote: You can't get women as exited about eSports as men, because men and women are different. This may come as a surprise to you. Only two places think of (right now) where 100% gender neutral treatment is required are law and wages. Otherwise it's just silly to treat as men and women were the same, because they aren't.
It's a really tricky balancing act though, particularly when it comes to jobs and sports, particularly eSports. As someone mentioned earlier, the weight lifting requirement for women as firemen is lower but if they ever have to carry someone out of a fire, they aren't going to shed 50 pounds from seeing that the person who has to carry them has breasts so those particular changes of requirements don't really make sense to me.
In terms of regular sports, men are considered to be physically superior to their female counterparts so it's not always fair to pair the two together.
In regards to eSports, particularly games like Starcraft, the question is whether males can be considered to have a mental advantage that is generally too difficult for females to overcome in which case female tournaments would be appropriate as they are for physical sports.
Even as a man, I think it would be kind of unfortunate to say that we're physically superior, and also mentally superior to the point where women have to have their own avenue of competition. Obviously, there's the statement that men are more competitive than women to round out the whole category without demeaning women but competition is essentially present in everything these days so that would once again reach the same point.
I just don't see a reason to segregate unless we're trying to say outright that women can't compete with us in any of these avenues. It just seems silly.
As for attitude towards women, there are less of them, obviously it will be different, it goes both ways, they get more positive attention and they get more negative attention. What irks me is when they ignore one aspect and pretend they're being victimized when they are being criticized as anyone else would be. I feel it largely balances out, just don't flip your shit and get emotional and people will eventually mellow out. Also, don't act astonished when people focus on you being a female when that's what you've been utilizing to get a leg up in the scene anyways.
On July 15 2011 15:18 fenX wrote: Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
That's kinda dumb and insulting. I'm a girl and I can perfectly understand what my SC2 'teachers' are telling me.
Let's duke it out =)
And he didn't mean to be insulting, men and women learn differently, it's a psychology thing. Not sure if he's right but there's truth behind what he's saying at the very least.
Dude what the hell are you talking about? Who told you that men and women learn differently? This is one of the most offensive standpoints I've seen. There are many different ways to learn and none of them are exclusive to males or females. Don't make up your own facts and then say "it's a psychology thing". If you're gonna talk about differences in men and women you can talk about hormone levels and cultural differences. You can not talk about how womens brains are magically different from mens. Cause they aren't.
On July 15 2011 15:18 fenX wrote: Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
That's kinda dumb and insulting. I'm a girl and I can perfectly understand what my SC2 'teachers' are telling me.
Let's duke it out =)
And he didn't mean to be insulting, men and women learn differently, it's a psychology thing. Not sure if he's right but there's truth behind what he's saying at the very least.
Dude what the hell are you talking about? Who told you that men and women learn differently? This is one of the most offensive standpoints I've seen. There are many different ways to learn and none of them are exclusive to males or females. Don't make up your own facts and then say "it's a psychology thing". If you're gonna talk about differences in men and women you can talk about hormone levels and cultural differences. You can not talk about how womens brains are magically different from mens. Cause they aren't.
Didn't you hear? Men can't teach women, women can only really learn from one another, and in order to learn from one another, women need to play tournaments against each other, because the standard for tournaments is to try and coach your opponent obviously. Oh... Oh... And then, little girls will look up to you.
The post that started this chain is honestly a little idiotic in my opinion.
On July 15 2011 15:18 fenX wrote: Women don't go to e-sports because there are no women already in e-sports to teach them, so they can only learn from men or by themselves. And men are bad at teaching and especially bad at teaching to women. Men and women have different ways of thinking (no matters what is the reason behind that, might it be genetics, education, gods or poneys), so they have different ways of learning and understanding. That's why is good to have female gamers leagues, they can learn from each other in their own way and not through the filter of man's brain<>woman's brain translation. Also it's good that female players who are good enough get some attentions, maybe some of them will be able to teach other girls, little girls who starts playing will have someone to look upon, and maybe someday we'll see a genius girl who can compete against men, and she'll probably have a completely different style and understanding of the game.
That's kinda dumb and insulting. I'm a girl and I can perfectly understand what my SC2 'teachers' are telling me.
Let's duke it out =)
And he didn't mean to be insulting, men and women learn differently, it's a psychology thing. Not sure if he's right but there's truth behind what he's saying at the very least.
Dude what the hell are you talking about? Who told you that men and women learn differently? This is one of the most offensive standpoints I've seen. There are many different ways to learn and none of them are exclusive to males or females. Don't make up your own facts and then say "it's a psychology thing". If you're gonna talk about differences in men and women you can talk about hormone levels and cultural differences. You can not talk about how womens brains are magically different from mens. Cause they aren't.
What the hell are you talking about there are no difference between a woman's brain and a man's brain? They're not "magically different", they are different. Men have an easier time with some topics in school and women are better with other topics. Men and women process things differently. Some methods of teaching apply better to men, some methods apply better to women. Some teachers may get better results with one gender or the other.
It's not stupid... And if it was offensive to you, I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood me... there truly is nothing offensive about what I'm saying.
On July 15 2011 16:27 MaestroSC wrote: It is embarrasing in my point of view the treatment that women (particularly good looking ones) get. Getting a job simply because of your looks, and not even being able to adequately do your job, and then getting a fan club of 53 pages in 3 days.
Wow.
So the SC2 community is so lonely/pathetic that we /cheer everytime we see a girl doing anything in esports even if she is incompetent? Awsome.
Looks are a huge bonus, but not the most important thing when it comes down to it. If all you want is looks, than pay the girl to stand there holding the microphone for the person being interviewed, while the interviewer is someone actually capable of doing the job.
But seriously saying "Here is some eye candy who knows nothing about the game." and people would rather have this than a person who actually knows/follows/loves the game.. is embarrassing.
But its just me, but its things like this that support all of the negative stereotypes/assumptions about esports and all of its followers. Lonely quiet horny nerdy guys who have never been in a relationship, will LOVE having a beautiful female involved even if she knows nothing about the scene.
Meh I am all for getting more women actually involved, but idk who people are trying to kid by saying "look this beautiful girl is interested in esports! So interested she doesnt even know the names of the 3 playable races... which is almost impossible to not know... if you have played the game even once or even had it explained to you."
Forcing it, and coming off fake, is worse than not having any actual interested good looking women. BTW Leah B Jackson is awsome cause she actually knows her shit/actually is a part of the gaming community/culture. She isnt jsut a good-looking puppet like so many women are on the scene.
This post is amazing. I want more women in eSports as well, but getting them in JUST for their looks will not help anything. They need to have at least a fundamental understanding of the game that they were hired to cover or play. What SlayerSJessica is doing is awesome, and I have high hopes for Eve, I hope she is determined enough to reach a very high level. (though people shouldnt be making a fanclub with no content till she plays, imo) But what NASL did was not awesome. I would have rather had a fat guy with acne do those interviews as long as he was in silver league or above. And if this fat guy did a good job with these interviews, I would love for him to have a fan club because of his interviewing prowess. That would at least make us not look like nerds who are desperate to see hot girls so much that it is to the point where we don't even give a crap if they know anything about our game.
Anna Prosser. Leah B Jackson. Eleine Sun, Seltzer. These are 4 women who have been ACTIVE in the esports scene. Another thing they have in common is that they all lack fanclubs. Yet teamliquid feels compelled to give a model with no game knowledge a 50 page fanclub. The difference is that they are not marketed for their looks. It's sad really, when a model with no knowledge is deemed more valuable to the community than long time contributors, and it doesn't look good to the outside.
On July 15 2011 16:16 Greentellon wrote: You can't get women as exited about eSports as men, because men and women are different. This may come as a surprise to you. Only two places think of (right now) where 100% gender neutral treatment is required are law and wages. Otherwise it's just silly to treat as men and women were the same, because they aren't.
It's a really tricky balancing act though, particularly when it comes to jobs and sports, particularly eSports.
I said wages not "jobs". By that I mean, for equal skill set, performance and time commitment in same company/work place you get the same wage regardless of gender.
Of course companies and such are allowed to select the most suitable candidate regardless of what gender he is. The simple fact is that if 99% of programmers who apply to jobs (I took that number out of my hat) are men, then how can you have "gender equality" when women simply do not want to. Because we are different.
On July 15 2011 16:16 Greentellon wrote: You can't get women as exited about eSports as men, because men and women are different. This may come as a surprise to you. Only two places think of (right now) where 100% gender neutral treatment is required are law and wages. Otherwise it's just silly to treat as men and women were the same, because they aren't.
It's a really tricky balancing act though, particularly when it comes to jobs and sports, particularly eSports.
I said wages not "jobs". By that I mean, for equal skill set, performance and time commitment in same company/work place you get the same wage regardless of gender.
Of course companies and such are allowed to select the most suitable candidate regardless of what gender he is. The simple fact is that if 99% of programmers who apply to jobs (I took that number out of my hat) are men, then how can you have "gender equality" when women simply do not want to. Because we are different.
I'm not sure what you mean by equality in that regard, you can technically have equal opportunity for both genders even in something like programming where 99% of applicants and staff are males, it generally doesn't work out that way, but that's what "equality" implies in that sense. All applicants judged on their merit and not on their gender, unfortunately, that doesn't end up being the case.
On July 15 2011 16:16 Greentellon wrote: You can't get women as exited about eSports as men, because men and women are different. This may come as a surprise to you. Only two places think of (right now) where 100% gender neutral treatment is required are law and wages. Otherwise it's just silly to treat as men and women were the same, because they aren't.
It's a really tricky balancing act though, particularly when it comes to jobs and sports, particularly eSports. As someone mentioned earlier, the weight lifting requirement for women as firemen is lower but if they ever have to carry someone out of a fire, they aren't going to shed 50 pounds from seeing that the person who has to carry them has breasts so those particular changes of requirements don't really make sense to me.
In terms of regular sports, men are considered to be physically superior to their female counterparts so it's not always fair to pair the two together.
In regards to eSports, particularly games like Starcraft, the question is whether males can be considered to have a mental advantage that is generally too difficult for females to overcome in which case female tournaments would be appropriate as they are for physical sports.
Even as a man, I think it would be kind of unfortunate to say that we're physically superior, and also mentally superior to the point where women have to have their own avenue of competition. Obviously, there's the statement that men are more competitive than women to round out the whole category without demeaning women but competition is essentially present in everything these days so that would once again reach the same point.
I just don't see a reason to segregate unless we're trying to say outright that women can't compete with us in any of these avenues. It just seems silly.
As for attitude towards women, there are less of them, obviously it will be different, it goes both ways, they get more positive attention and they get more negative attention. What irks me is when they ignore one aspect and pretend they're being victimized when they are being criticized as anyone else would be. I feel it largely balances out, just don't flip your shit and get emotional and people will eventually mellow out. Also, don't act astonished when people focus on you being a female when that's what you've been utilizing to get a leg up in the scene anyways.
This, I couldn't of said it better myself, In particular the last part.
Competition is something in a man's nature. It is natural that there are more male competitiors, because we are more suited to it. Women choose men for mating, they don't need to compete, men compete for women.. Competition just isn't their thing, just like being a fashion model and using lipsticks isn't ours.
This doesn't mean there aren't females who compete in SC2, but they are fewer in number firstly because of this, and also due to gender roles found in society.
From toys to colours, we are seperated into how we are supposed to behave/like from the moment of our birth. Therefore in that logic, video games are something "suited" to a boy, while a girl is supposed to be interested in more girly things like whatever our parents think to be. There are few who want to or who can break away from this cycle, and even fewer who are not scared of the competition aspect of Starcraft.
On July 15 2011 17:13 Bleak wrote: Competition is something in a man's nature. It is natural that there are more male competitiors, because we are more suited to it. Women choose men for mating, they don't need to compete, men compete for women.. Competition just isn't their thing, just like being a fashion model and using lipsticks isn't ours.
This doesn't mean there aren't females who compete in SC2, but they are fewer in number firstly because of this, and also due to gender roles found in society.
From toys to colours, we are seperated into how we are supposed to behave/like from the moment of our birth. Therefore in that logic, video games are something "suited" to a boy, while a girl is supposed to be interested in more girly things like whatever our parents think to be. There are few who want to or who can break away from this cycle, and even fewer who are not scared of the competition aspect of Starcraft.
i think women's lack in competitiveness also stems from men's astute perception that competitive women would make horrible mothers. i'm sure those who had abusive mothers can understand what it's like to have a total control freak, who threatens to abandon and abandons their family, often coming back just to be a parasite.
evolution my friend
competition fits a man's fair nature. women who are more partial to the world will be nuts if they also are to be burdened with testosterone
On July 15 2011 17:12 IzieBoy wrote: if there is going to be a female pro gamer, she's going to be highly publicized...it's a fact
See, that's fine but if she fails to deliver results, then people should expect her to be heavily criticized for it. If she's getting all that publicity because she's a girl, that's the positive attention right there, if she's not up to par, then it's sort of disproportionate and perpetuates the attitude towards women in the competitive scene. If you're highly publicized for pretty much nothing, then expect to be heavily criticized as well, particularly if you don't deliver results.
Gamers, regardless of their gender, should get attention for their skills, not for their looks. This also applies to any other kind of competitive scene.
You want to be recognized by the gamer community? Earn it. This is no beauty contest. This is war.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
Hm. The whole too much adoring attention = driving women from esports, I'm not sure about. Certainly I agree that both the fanclub pages are premature. I think most would agree with that. But does that equal less women in esports? Lindsey at least seemed to think it cute that there was already a fanclub... so maybe?
A far bigger issue is that everytime a female contributes to esports they get torn apart because they aren't a goddess of starcraft: A woman with the macro of Flash, the multi-tasking of Bisu, the knowledge of Artosis, the body of Nada, the looks of Tasteless, the voice of Day9, and the bm of Idra. Instead they are interested in promoting Starcraft (Anna) or commentate (lil-Susie, kellymilkies) or play and commentate (CheekyDuck?- Starcraft art for sure) or do interviews (several names), etc, etc. Aka small contributions however they can, to the best of their ability. And with very, very few exceptions I can think of, most threads about them stir up a lot of crap- especially those 'evil' female-only tournaments. Oh the villainy!
So it's probably a bit of both- way too much adoration on the one side and absolute derision and even open hostility for anything but a goddess of Starcraft (when we have a very, very small population of talent to draw upon from the other gender.) How dare a female dare darken the halls of our elite esport without arriving a fully-formed Starcraft superstar! It could be both, but my money's on the hostility.
I don't know anything about Ms. Sporrer. It's very possible that she is interested in learning the material. It's very possible that she has the natural capacity to learn the material. If she can do this, I commend her. However, it looks very, very bad when Josh Suth is tweeting on the day of the event that she is rummaging through Wikipedia in order to get a primer on the game. There are people on this message board with fifteen-plus years of real-time strategy experience who would be dangerously underqualified to speak about the way that the game of StarCraft plays at its highest levels. There are people on this message board who do not care for what IdrA thinks, a man that has been playing these games forty-plus hours per week over the course of the last three years, and played these games at a fantastically high level. And now, a girl who was thrust into a position of authority because she has a marketable talent (i.e. "cute girl talking about video games") has developed a huge fan base because of her affiliation with StarCraft...even though she knows absolutely nothing about StarCraft. I don't say that to be snarky. She doesn't know the game. She may be able to learn the game, but for now, she doesn't know the game. The game doesn't need that kind of baggage. I don't think it's a good thing when the first comparison I can evoke is a comparison with Olivia Munn. Video game journalism and competitive video games needs fewer Olivia Munns. If the subculture can't yield women who know the games and play them at a high level, then that's just something that we're going to have to live with.
On July 15 2011 17:36 Falling wrote: [...] A far bigger issue is that everytime a female contributes to esports they torn apart because they aren't a goddess of starcraft: [...]
They wouldn't get torn apart if nobody would know them. And why would i want to know a player who isn't above average? Just because the player is female?
I'm just playing devils advocate here. ___________
I don't have anything against female starcraft 2 players and i like it when they're recognized by the community, but they shouldn't be hyped just because they're female.
Maybe they shouldn't be hyped, but how are you going to stop that? Yell at everyone for naturally reacting in surprise that there's female gamer, particularly a good looking one? It's a rarity and therefore noticeable. You can close your eyes and pretend you're colour blind, but when you're the only white dude in a Buyi village in China you're going to get stares. It's natural and I don't see how you're going to stop it nor really why you would want to.
And you're not going to get this goddess of gaming that has that list of attributes above (macro of Flash, etc, etc) until there is a gender equality in esports. And I suggest tearing the heads off of every girl that dares to raise their hand to contribute in the small ways they can, doesn't help.
On July 15 2011 17:36 Falling wrote: [...] A far bigger issue is that everytime a female contributes to esports they torn apart because they aren't a goddess of starcraft: [...]
They wouldn't get torn apart if nobody would know them. And why would i want to know a player who isn't above average? Just because the player is female?
I'm just playing devils advocate here. ___________
I don't have anything against female starcraft 2 players and i like it when they're recognized by the community, but they shouldn't be hyped just because they're female.
the thing is... women are just less competitive at sports related activities and this branches into e-sports as well...i've also never heard of a female gladiator...and the legends of certain female heroines such as the Amazon warriors are very silly and unbelievable...if ballet and cheerleading is a sport, it may explain why the quality is kinda static and why they are going out of style..
i've yet to hear of a women who takes steroids just to be better at say soccer or hockey...
look at your pro-gamers today...they seriously are taking things to the extreme just to win... most of the korean pros look like caffeine addicts
women should be hyped...it's called affirmative action
On July 15 2011 17:57 Falling wrote: Maybe they shouldn't be hyped, but how are you going to stop that? Yell at everyone for naturally reacting in surprise that there's female gamer, particularly a good looking one? It's a rarity and therefore noticeable. You can close your eyes and pretend you're colour blind, but when you're the only white dude in a Buyi village in China you're going to get stares. It's natural and I don't see how you're going to stop it nor really why you would want to.
And you're not going to get this goddess of gaming that has that list of attributes above (macro of Flash, etc, etc) until there is a gender equality in esports. And
You cant stop the hype. I was just saying, i dont think they should be hyped. =)
On July 15 2011 17:57 Falling wrote:I suggest tearing the heads off of every girl that dares to raise their hand to contribute in the small ways they can, doesn't help.
Getting attention for doing nothing special doesn't help either.
On July 15 2011 17:36 Falling wrote: [...] A far bigger issue is that everytime a female contributes to esports they torn apart because they aren't a goddess of starcraft: [...]
They wouldn't get torn apart if nobody would know them. And why would i want to know a player who isn't above average? Just because the player is female?
I'm just playing devils advocate here. ___________
I don't have anything against female starcraft 2 players and i like it when they're recognized by the community, but they shouldn't be hyped just because they're female.
the thing is... women are just less competitive at sports related activities and this branches into e-sports as well...
i've yet to hear of a women who takes steroids just to be better at say soccer or hockey...
look at your pro-gamers today...they seriously are taking things to the extreme just to win... most of the korean pros look like caffeine addicts
women should be hyped...it's called affirmative action
But then they should show us, that the hype was justified.
On July 15 2011 17:36 Falling wrote: [...] A far bigger issue is that everytime a female contributes to esports they torn apart because they aren't a goddess of starcraft: [...]
They wouldn't get torn apart if nobody would know them. And why would i want to know a player who isn't above average? Just because the player is female?
I'm just playing devils advocate here. ___________
I don't have anything against female starcraft 2 players and i like it when they're recognized by the community, but they shouldn't be hyped just because they're female.
the thing is... women are just less competitive at sports related activities and this branches into e-sports as well...
i've yet to hear of a women who takes steroids just to be better at say soccer or hockey...
look at your pro-gamers today...they seriously are taking things to the extreme just to win... most of the korean pros look like caffeine addicts
women should be hyped...it's called affirmative action
But then they should show us, that the hype was justified.
On July 15 2011 17:36 Falling wrote: [...] A far bigger issue is that everytime a female contributes to esports they torn apart because they aren't a goddess of starcraft: [...]
They wouldn't get torn apart if nobody would know them. And why would i want to know a player who isn't above average? Just because the player is female?
I'm just playing devils advocate here. ___________
I don't have anything against female starcraft 2 players and i like it when they're recognized by the community, but they shouldn't be hyped just because they're female.
the thing is... women are just less competitive at sports related activities and this branches into e-sports as well...
i've yet to hear of a women who takes steroids just to be better at say soccer or hockey...
look at your pro-gamers today...they seriously are taking things to the extreme just to win... most of the korean pros look like caffeine addicts
women should be hyped...it's called affirmative action
But then they should show us, that the hype was justified.
show us under the female criteria of performance
That's fine by me. =) Like i said before, i think it's good when they're getting attention, but they should show us that they're not just eye-candy.
I think SonicTitan summed up 90% of the things to be discussed in this thread in a great post, kudos to him. I'd have to agree with him 100%.
However, I'd have to say I also dislike how these fanclubs have suddenly sprung up with recent female people involved in e-Sports when there are quite a lot of male people in the community who have done far more and received little/no recognition for it.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I think the OP is missing the part where Women aren't as good at men when it comes to gaming. Statistically speaking at least.
This is a pretty good post
"Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters."
Right, to all those who consider "Eye candy" girls effecting our community you need to step back from your little world you live in, and turn on a television once in a while. Women are used as a "marketing tool" i know this is really bad, but it is the truth. Pretty woman sell, and they do this very well!
The reason you see Sporrer @ NASL, isnt for the fact she is a pro gamer, or loves SC2 so much she begged for a job...She is there simply to attract more fans to watch because some "eye candy" is there and males like this.
Is this wrong? Well, yes and no in my opinion. You have a Lindsay who was offered the job, accepted it knowing nothing about SC2 and deep down probably because she is a very pretty lady and would be used as one. Then you have the other side, where NASL clearly picked her for being a marketing tool to help boost its profile to the rest of the world, by having these peices of eye candy interviewing and talking into the camera.
So to me, there being used as a marketing tool? In a buisness perspective, i find this fine, money makes the world turn round, not trolls on the internet and not sexism groups. If the people like Lindsay accept the job like this without knowing about the game, so be it, there the ones who will be known as "money grabbers" or "fame whores" whatever.
However, there are 2 current females who are doing alot for the SC2 scene who are very nice "eye candy" these are Incontrols girl friend "Anna Proser" who is Miss Oregon and Miss USA contestant, who even tried to speak about SC2 ini her Miss Oregon pagent speech thing they have to do (you know when they say about world peace and stuff). She is very beautiful yet there is no huge fuss about her? And no trolls QQn them at every possible moment? Also theres "Seltzer" (Rachel Quirico) she aswell is a peice of eye candy, but she has her on SC2 site, lots of news in the SC2 scene, and always helping out. And was pretty funny in her interviews @ NASL. But again theres no huge fuss about her? No trolls QQn her because shes there for her looks whatever? Seems to me that theres alot of shes ok, but shes not. That is what i call "Sexism" not the Lindsay case, or the Kelly issue, but the fact that you only talk about certain females in the SC2 community and not all of them.
And to even mention SlayerS_Eve is just STUPID. She is probably going to be an epic player, she has won offline tournaments before as stated in the post. She was picked out by SlayerS Jessica, boxers girl friend/wife because she herself probably wanted more girls into the SC2 scene, and that SHE IS GOOD AT THE GAME. Just because she is female and is "good looking" is not the reason, the post says something about looks, but thats just miss translation im sure of it.
People need E-Sports to grow, and to grow to bigger audiences is with "eye candy" helping to bring people in. Take american football, theres cheerleaders on the pitch every time out, and a big half time show (In NBA aswell wheres theres more timeouts) yet i dont see any complaints about this? When pretty girls in short skirts "dancing" around getting more people to turn up to the basketball game!
So in my opinion if you want to "BM" Lindsay and any other eye candy marketing tool, BM the company that hired them, or the tournament in our cases.
So dont hate women for being pretty, hate NASL for hiring them!
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
First thing first The F/M will never be even close to balanced due to the simple fact that male usually enjoy competition and games more then female. Since the creation of Chess and Sudoku both male and female played yet out of the hundreds of book written they were all written by males and even now the best chess player are male. Not to mention things such as sports. Second, i played with few girls ( no sc2 but other online games ) they were decent player and up to the point when we had to talk on vent/skype i did not realize they were girls and i did not really care when i found out since we were not playing football or fucking, we were play video games and online there is no difference between a man and a woman. If you can only get more then 20 viewers on your stream if you show your cleavage then expect to get stalked ( many of you know the female players im talking about so i won't give names ) then expect to get stalked by some kids that are watching your stream.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
I don't understand this viewpoint at all. Isn't this a problem you have? I only see a group of people that want to have fun and compete with each other. You might have a point if women could only enter those tournaments or if they are organized in a way to directly appeal to a male demographic. None which are true in this case. People should just lighten up.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
On July 15 2011 11:54 NeverGG wrote:Honestly, I'd love to see what would happen if a girl who isn't considered 'hot' went pro and was good at what she did. It'd definitely be a good gauge of which (male) members of TL are judging us on more than our faces/bodies. (Aka. Who is worth being friends with.)
Imagine if an average looking girl won the GSL.
I bet R1CH has a panic button at TL HQ ready for that LR thread.
Let's be real; I want women to succeed in E-sports as much as the next guy. However, when was the last time IN ANY game one has actually produced results?
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
The last sentence must be a joke, right?
Like in BW (for example, TossGirl), I think they should keep the genders integrated in tournaments. SC2 doesn't require that much physical strength, it requires reflexes. Also, Females are as smart as males.
I agree partly with the OP on the attention females receive. However, I don't see what's wrong with giving them extra attention. It won't scare them away, it will welcome them, unless they are too scared to talk to the opposite gender.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =)
I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =)
I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Ahh good ^_^ but thats a different issue i think. That is the women socialists attempting to prove womens competition on its own is "good" enough to draw in the audiences of males and females to the same level as the "just" male scene. For example in England there has been a huge debate about Mens football vs Womens football, quite stupid i know. Male football in england is dubbed the best "league" in the world to watch, having seen the other leagues (maybe im a bit biast who knows) i would agree that the Premier League is better than any other league on the amount of high levels team it has (About 5/6 high level teams). But the women think that they are good enough to compete with the premier league viewings and male football ratings by making there own leagues and competing on that level. However just like our national football team the womens team is as shit as ours ^_^ and womens football in general is just not up to the standards as men, maybe because physical differences maybe not. But women fight for the right to do what men can do and think they can do it better, this will never change, all men can do is "accept" women will always "challenge" us on anything we do, be it how much we can drink, to how hard we can challenge ourselves mentally and physically.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =)
I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Ahh good ^_^ but thats a different issue i think. That is the women socialists attempting to prove womens competition on its own is "good" enough to draw in the audiences of males and females to the same level as the "just" male scene. For example in England there has been a huge debate about Mens football vs Womens football, quite stupid i know. Male football in england is dubbed the best "league" in the world to watch, having seen the other leagues (maybe im a bit biast who knows) i would agree that the Premier League is better than any other league on the amount of high levels team it has (About 5/6 high level teams). But the women think that they are good enough to compete with the premier league viewings and male football ratings by making there own leagues and competing on that level. However just like our national football team the womens team is as shit as ours ^_^ and womens football in general is just not up to the standards as men, maybe because physical differences maybe not. But women fight for the right to do what men can do and think they can do it better, this will never change, all men can do is "accept" women will always "challenge" us on anything we do, be it how much we can drink, to how hard we can challenge ourselves mentally and physically.
I (think i) get you. And i think it's good that women try to compete with men in starcraft. But my question is, if women have no preset disadvantage in all those things required to be a good starcraft player, why are there female only tournaments?
If there's no difference in terms of skill, i think female only tournaments will hurt the reputation of female players because the division between men/woman is implying that women can't really compete with men in this game.
Theres nothing stopping women competing if they want to, i personally only know one who plays SC2 and she's currently in bronze, could get to silver if she played more.
After talking to her about playing she actually said that people will play a ladder game with her flirting the whole time, beat her and then just leave the game and give her the win O.o
I think the reason there are not many pro sc2 women playing is because as a whole in the sc2 community women make up less the 1%. I think that esports needs to be advertised more to increase popularity and hopefully get away from the image people have of kids sitting at home with a bag of crisps playing in their own filth.
Women only leagues are not the answer when there aren't enough women playing in the first place
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
Tell me women don't have the dexterity for Starcraft after seeing that...
Though that us extremely impressive, and I doubt that it's a physical problem, that might not be the best example. You can practice a piano piece for days and days until you get it right. I don't consider myself a very fast, dextrous person, but I can pieces that most would consider challenging with my eyes closed simply because i practice them a lot. Starcraft isn't the same type of practice, because you won't be doing the exact same thing every game. It'd be more of a reaction time thing than a a straight up dexterity thing. I don't know what everyone's argument on a woman's reaction v. a man's, but that'd be a more likely scenario.
Regardless, I still find the argument that women are too physically inferior a plausible excuse
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =)
I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Ahh good ^_^ but thats a different issue i think. That is the women socialists attempting to prove womens competition on its own is "good" enough to draw in the audiences of males and females to the same level as the "just" male scene. For example in England there has been a huge debate about Mens football vs Womens football, quite stupid i know. Male football in england is dubbed the best "league" in the world to watch, having seen the other leagues (maybe im a bit biast who knows) i would agree that the Premier League is better than any other league on the amount of high levels team it has (About 5/6 high level teams). But the women think that they are good enough to compete with the premier league viewings and male football ratings by making there own leagues and competing on that level. However just like our national football team the womens team is as shit as ours ^_^ and womens football in general is just not up to the standards as men, maybe because physical differences maybe not. But women fight for the right to do what men can do and think they can do it better, this will never change, all men can do is "accept" women will always "challenge" us on anything we do, be it how much we can drink, to how hard we can challenge ourselves mentally and physically.
I (think i) get you. And i think it's good that women try to compete with men in starcraft. But my question is, if women have no preset disadvantage in all those things required to be a good starcraft player, why are there female only tournaments?
If there's no difference in terms of skill, i think female only tournaments will hurt the reputation of female players because the division between men/woman is implying that women can't really compete with men in this game.
Think top 2% of 2 000 000 players, and top 2% of 100 000, who are the best? If anyone has some evidence for a statement like "women think worse" I would really like to see it.
I think the female-only thing is pretty harmless and my guess is that it's mostly meant to draw attention to female gamers and for the players to socialize with other females. I didn't think "they need their own league because they are genetically inferior", maybe others did though and that would be pretty sad.
On July 15 2011 10:26 SirKibbleX wrote: I'll probably use some generalizations and wording that may be kind of iffy in this post. This may sound incredibly sexist, but I don't see 'most' women as possessing the same kind of near-obsessive attraction to difficult problem-solving oriented fields that men do. At least whatever type of personality seems to follow that path seems not to proc in females nearly as frequently. Examples include math/science fields of study (this is backed up by statistics, and pretty obvious) and It's likely something in the female brain chemistry, but obviously not well-understood.
My question (and this is not simply pondering, but nearly academic) is why do men like to play games so much and why do women not? What do women spend their time and obsession on that men do not because of our obsession with competition and sports and problem solving?
I doubt an attractive male in a female-dominated area (geographic or professional/topical) would fail to attract a lot of attention from the females in that field. If starcraft was a university, it would be 99% male and the few females there are would obviously receive a massive amount of attention, it's pretty obvious.
Truth.
Statistics dont lie. Its true that in some fields the gender distribution will cause either gender to receive more attention.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
Care to provide a source for the reaction time statement? It's not that I don't believe you but that's an intriguing statement which I'd like to see backed up.
On July 15 2011 19:55 Sableyeah wrote: Statistics dont lie. Its true that in some fields the gender distribution will cause either gender to receive more attention.
To be honest, I think the issue runs a lot deeper than just looking at attitudes to women in e-sports. This is an incredibly reductive approach and should likely be reconsidered. The real issue here is with the overtly cisgender-centric viewpoint taken not only by TL, but by the community at large. The problem is that there's a kind of combined hetero-normative environment that promotes a certain view of both players and fans that should really be subjected to further scrutinisation.
Fundamentally, what we need to ask ourselves here is whether or not the issue is with the way in which we approach and perceive female gamers/casters, or with the way in which we approach gender as a particularised phenomenon. Perhaps the quintessence of this can be found in Butler's work on gender theory, which suggests that gender itself is performative, in which case we see that these are individuals who are not only possessed of a particular gender, but also to an extent "performing" that gender.
If we accept a scenario in which that's the case (and who am I to argue?), it seems only fair to accept that those individuals within the community (in this case, TL) are also engaged in a continuous re-interpretation of their own gender/orientation. Given that this is the case, it's hard to criticise fan clubs like those mentioned in the OP without also obliquely critiquing the ideas of gender-as-construct in a fashion that is, perhaps at its core, oppressive (in a gender-as-partial-inculcation sense, at least).
To sum up, this is why I PM love letters to all of the female TL users I encounter.
I had hoped that esports would be a sport which crosses boundaries, in particular countries and genders. You don't need to speak a particular language to be good at esports and there are no physical aspects which benefit males over females. :-/
You'd guess women spend more time around a pc than men do.
Imo it's a cultural thing (aka gaming is for nerds) I have yet to see a woman with a near obessive drive to be the best gamer there ever was.
I do not see why a woman can't get really good at SCII though, it requires reflexes, yes but isn't there evidence that women can multitask better than men can?
Wouldn't better multitasking make for a higher skillceiling?
The reason people like Lindsey Sporrer is not because she is hot or a girl. At least not only. It is the fact that she is so hot and therefore intimidates the nerds she interviews (aaand knows nothing about the game). It produces hilarious awkward situations.
Oh, and I also believe women are just not as competetive as men, genetically. (For safety: Of course women can become competetive blabla, but men have it in their genes to compete. It is normal for men to want to compete, it is normal for women not to want to compete. But you don't have to act according to the norm.)
Anyone could compete, but they'd still have to be relatively good enough to do so, and there's nothing preventing them from doing so if they so wish to.
"E-sports" = video games and there's no advantage for either gender in the realm of video games. What you may be suggesting would only apply to actual sports and not video games.
There's plenty of gamer girls but many of them would choose not to compete or they play some non competitive games/more casual. ( Nakagawa Shouko? )
I seriously can't believe how essentializing people are of men and women in this thread. Quick generalizations undermine the crucial differences between people. When someone says women are like X and men are like Y and hide that statement behind the mistaken belief that because it is "generally true" that it is ok to essentialize that to all men and women. The problem with this is three-fold:
1) It assumes a biological difference between men and women and not cultural conditioning, which has a bigger impact on which men or women end up being driven to competition versus non-competitive activities. When people continue to generalize they contribute to that cultural conditioning, making is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2) Make an excuse for why women participate in e-sports less then men instead of seeking a way to increase women's participation in online gaming. Maybe we should look to the way our community is structured instead of making excuses for why the exclusion is taking place.--Ie the productive question is "what can be done" not "why is it like this" if your answer to why is simply that it's "natural."
3) Essentializing is the first step to discrimination and stereotyping. Even if something is generally true (which I'm not conceding on this point, but let's just say it is) continue to use such essentializing rhetoric creates a stereotype that once again perpetuates the problems that exist. Put simply, if someone labels women as whole-sale less competitive in nature than men the end result is that when people encounter women they approach them as if they are not competitive in nature--treating them different than the might otherwise want. Generalizations are not excuses for lazy argumentation or labeling... especially when that labeling is used as a reason why people's lack of participation are acceptable.
Bottom line is this: If online gaming is important and valuable then we should seek to extend these benefits (even if just fun and enjoyment) to all instead of preserving its patriarchal underpinnings.
You can make valid arguments for the Blizzard versus KeSPA debacle; consequently, that only affects BW and the Korean scene. Everything else is slim pickings. Now, I don't necessarily agree with all the Kelly Milkies or Lindsey Sporrer's of the world, but I can understand the executive reasoning behind it. To a certain extent. To be frank, I don't find either one of them aesthetically pleasing, but that is an entirely different story. Some people like mandarin oranges while others like tangerines. The major concern I have is with the fact they came unprepared for the roles assigned to them by GOM and NASL. It's not their fault. It's the stupid bookies who thought they were ready for the limelight. Our system for booking people is incredibly flawed.
A little aside: I heard Kelly on Boris' stream the other day and I still find her actual voice highly unattractive. I gave it a shot. It’s been a while since I heard her last ramble. She’s made some improvement, but I still tuned out rather abruptly. It goes far beyond her articulation; she was pronouncing her words much better. It's the fact her voice breaks over the mike and that’s why the message gets lost most of the time. That's the biggest no-no in radio. I'm still adamant on not giving Kelly a microphone. They don't have to put her on air. She can do something behind the scenes. No problem. She wants to be an On Air personality? I don't buy it.
When it comes to broadcasting standards in my neck of the woods you need to have an established voice. For instance, radio and disc jockeys around here usually have very crisp soothing voices. I don’t know the broadcasting standards in Singapore, but I do know the other markets very well and I have a very hard time believing anyone at network would put her on camera. Not in the English-speaking world anyway. She can keep chasing the dream though. You need chops and this goes way beyond gender.
Let me elaborate. Very few English casters have the proper skill sets for a major radio station let alone network TV. I would have a very hard time selling a guy like Dan and Nick even and that’s supposed to be the best we’ve got. The only person I know who has any marketability would be none other than the brash TotalBiscuit. He has the most established voice in the business (don’t take this the wrong way, when I say established I mean a strong, powerful voice; not his viewership). He has other skills that make him a good candidate. This includes his out-there personality and the ability to talk on the fly. Once again, the emphasis is on the voice and that’s the major focus of this rant.
I'll take it a step further. You know those girls who speak in Valley? Otherwise known as Valley Speak (I know it's redundant, so sue me). For those who aren't familiar with the term Valley think Clueless or Legally Blonde. Kelly annoys me just as much as those women. On the other hand, I can understand Valley quite clearly, although the dialect is just as annoying and it really sends me the wrong impression.
Then again, I can recall an English exam I wrote in '96 where low and behold... the article was written by a journalist who was fluent in Valley Speak and how she had to go through peaks and valleys to get where she is today. If you weren’t aware, Valley Girls have a really bad rep in North America (over here we don’t call them Valley Girls, we call them Japs—not to be mistaken for Japanese people, but well-off Jewish kids), especially in the wonderful world of academia. These women can be very smart, but I find many of them that lack the ability to articulate themselves in a clear and concise manner when it comes to public speaking. This is the general stereotype we have of them to say the least. In the end, this sends people the wrong message such as me. Sound like anyone familiar?
Back to my critique on the Valley girl article. The woman blew me away. Everything from her writing to her style was posh. The piece was in Valley Speak and her point was crystal clear; not to mention, very witty as well. Earth-shattering really. She like totally changed my perspective of her within the first two paragraphs. I digress.
With that said, if they want to contribute let them try to contribute. Someone really needs to show them the ropes though. Lindsey wasn’t fucking ready. Way to throw her into the lion’s den. I would have a few choice words for the person who ultimately made that decision. You don’t want to be Clueless. You want to be Legally Blonde.
I cannot believe how many silly executive decisions I’ve seen and this game is barely a year old. For the guys who have been in the business prior whether it is BW or WCIII. You should really know better by now. With that said, you cannot blame Kelly or Lindsey for the opportunities given to them. It’s not their fault. Instead you should be pointing the finger at the executives who made the decision that they were ready. Newsflash, train your fucking employees or find someone who can. Live and learn.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =)
I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Yes, there is a difference between male and female thinking: the variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women. Men have much more retards, and much more geniuses than women, who tend to be much closer to the mean. This does not mean that exceptional women do not exist, but they are much more rare than exceptional men. Likewise, this does not mean that retarded women do not exist, but they are much more rare than retarded men. The average male is about equal to the average female, though.
Essentially, male mammals are the testing ground for novel mutations, as men are reproductively expendable. That is, a male can have much more offspring than a female, for obvious reasons.
Yes, there is a difference between male and female thinking: the variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women. Men have much more retards, and much more geniuses than women, who tend to be much closer to the mean. This does not mean that exceptional women do not exist, but they are much more rare than exceptional men. Likewise, this does not mean that retarded women do not exist, but they are much more rare than retarded men. The average male is about equal to the average female, though.
This is the most essentialistic statement yet that's been posted.... and continues to assume a biological and not a cultural rationale to why it is (especially when the poster goes onto use evolution as the justification for it). There is not an intrinsic difference between male and female thought... and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the "variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women." The smartest of men are not smarter than the smartest of women. I'll revise that statement: there is no standard of intelligence where you can objectively compare who has a higher mental ability because what people value in intellect and ability are different. You can also note that the majority of tests that measure things like intelligence are made by white males with cultural biases figured into them. There is a lot more evidence showing that things like IQ tests entrench perceived divisions between races and gender than there is evidence proving men to be smarter or more competitive in nature than women.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
I find this quite true, HOWEVER this is not uncommon in all sports and there is probably a reason for this
Name any sports, theres always a womens only league championship such as the WNBA or the FIFA women's world cup
Its nothing new and Starcraft is beginning to show what other sports have in terms of gender based championships. Yes it can be argued that this is E-Sports, that men don't have the advantage in terms of their structure body over a female which I guess is present in sports.
IT IS NOTHING NEW there have been arguments and debates of gender based tournaments for a lot of sports
So what I want is someone to buildup on my post, what is the real reason for gender base sports tournaments? Is it because of the male biological advantage over female? Is having a girls only e-sports or any sports tournaments truly a bad thing? I disagree, however we dont see a tournament thats called MALES ONLY NBA or anything like this? What are your guys opinions of this?
I agree with you about the male advantage in terms of their body structure, but is their a male advantage in "thinking". Like, are there female only poker tournaments, female only chess tournaments? Do males have obvious advantages (nobody would let a female football team play against a male football team) in terms of strategy, multitasking, speed? If so, then the female only tournaments in sc2 would be justified.
Female poker players are good! There are plenty of Female poker players on the WSOP tour and EP tour!! Very good ones, whoever mentioned woman arent good at poker needs to go do some research!! Woman Poker Player
She is ranked 33rd on 2011 rich list! That says alot considering she is higher than people like Daniel Nergranu etc etc! Woman are equal in Poker!
I dont think anybody said woman aren't good at poker and i dont know if my post maybe came off a little offensive, and if it did, it wasn't meant that way. =)
I was just asking, if males have advantages in terms of thinking (like poker, chess, any sport that doesn't involve physical attributes) over women. So if there's no skill difference between women and men in those regards, i dont get the female only sc2 tournaments.
Yeah, totally agree. They are saying to themselves they arent good enough to compete with men by settig up there own tournaments/leagues/divisions whatever. If they just tried to (for example using GSL) GSL code A, and got in then people would take notice of it, rather then them playing again female players only who no one has heard of anyway because there not on the main stage!
There will be more girls when e-spotrs becomes more mature, when top players will be earning more money and would date models. Then the viewership of the tourneys will be more casual people and not gamers. Then girls will get into it)
As for playing starcraft i dont think many girls will do it. It's not necessary too. You dont expect everyone who watches football to play, it right? Especially when they are girls.
How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
Yes, there is a difference between male and female thinking: the variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women. Men have much more retards, and much more geniuses than women, who tend to be much closer to the mean. This does not mean that exceptional women do not exist, but they are much more rare than exceptional men. Likewise, this does not mean that retarded women do not exist, but they are much more rare than retarded men. The average male is about equal to the average female, though.
This is the most essentialistic statement yet that's been posted.... and continues to assume a biological and not a cultural rationale to why it is (especially when the poster goes onto use evolution as the justification for it). There is not an intrinsic difference between male and female thought... and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the "variance in mental ability is much higher in men than women." The smartest of men are not smarter than the smartest of women. I'll revise that statement: there is no standard of intelligence where you can objectively compare who has a higher mental ability because what people value in intellect and ability are different. You can also note that the majority of tests that measure things like intelligence are made by white males with cultural biases figured into them. There is a lot more evidence showing that things like IQ tests entrench perceived divisions between races and gender than there is evidence proving men to be smarter or more competitive in nature than women.
Do you people really believe what you say? That the only biological difference between men and women is the difference in sexual organs?
Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it.
man it so unfair that celeberties who havnt done anything useful with there life get more attention than people who realy deserver it -.- how often on TV do u see doctors getting awards for saving people lifes, proberly very rarley but when some usless 20 yr old with a nice body who has rich parents says something slightly racist the entire front page of a newpaper is covering it consumerism isnt fair ftw
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it.
Intelligence isn't solely biological. Almost nothing is. IQ tests are also both gender and racially biased. They also only measure one kind of intelligence... certainly not the best intelligence. And male variance is not higher in everything... especially if you include the things people in this thread are labeling as "female traits". Why is emotion not a form of intelligence? Why not cooperation? Why is competition equated as "male" and the measure of intelligence?
The things people consistently point to as biological difference has a large cultural influence to it. Science does not back up your patriarchal claims, nor does it explain matriarchal societies or animal groups who have female leaders. Those examples prove that your claims that men are empirically smarter, more competitive, whatever are driven by cultural influences because the variance changes from cultural to culture.
My point is: essentializing statements that use surface-level comparisons between men and women are not only inaccurate but uphold differences that are not ingrained but are taught. Your contribution to these stereotypes perpetuates the cultural conditions that make it so.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_- I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature. Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there. StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
Would you mind telling us what tournaments you're speaking of? If it's true, that you can't play in some NA tournaments even though you have a NA account but aren't actually living in NA, then i'd say that this had to change, because i can't find any justification for it. How would they even be able to check your location?
And i say it again, i personally dont complain about female only tournaments, i just want to know why there is a need for it.
On July 15 2011 22:15 Xiphos wrote: I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_- I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature. Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there. StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
I care about my drones, does that make me a woman?
Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it.
Intelligence isn't solely biological. Almost nothing is. IQ tests are also both gender and racially biased. They also only measure one kind of intelligence... certainly not the best intelligence. And male variance is not higher in everything... especially if you include the things people in this thread are labeling as "female traits". Why is emotion not a form of intelligence? Why not cooperation? Why is competition equated as "male" and the measure of intelligence?
The things people consistently point to as biological difference has a large cultural influence to it. Science does not back up your patriarchal claims, nor does it explain matriarchal societies or animal groups who have female leaders. Those examples prove that your claims that men are empirically smarter, more competitive, whatever are driven by cultural influences because the variance changes from cultural to culture.
My point is: essentializing statements that use surface-level comparisons between men and women are not only inaccurate but uphold differences that are not ingrained but are taught. Your contribution to these stereotypes perpetuates the cultural conditions that make it so.
Learn to read. "primarily" does not mean "solely". IQ tests are not racially/gender biased. They are a reasonably accurate measure of intelligence, in that people who score highly on IQ tests, are those who are regarded by other people as intelligent.
Because those female traits are not forms of intelligence. Emotion is the bloody antethesis of intelligence: "thinking with your heart, instead of your head.". Cooperation is not intelligence. Competiveness is not intelligence. Competition is equated as male, because men are more competitive than women on average. g is the measure of intelligence.
They have a small cultural influence, though there is a large nutritional influence to many of them. The only matriarchal societies on earth, are hunter gatherer societies. Hardly the pinnacle of civilization. Yes, science does back up patriarchal claims. You will have to do a lot better than spouting platitudes, to convince me that the social system that built all civilizations is not better than the alternative, which is only found in ghettos and hunter gatherer tribes...
Let me make it clear for you: intelligence is primarily genetic. Intelligence is measured well by IQ. Imperfectly, but close enough. Male variance in IQ tests is much higher than female variance in IQ tests. The male and female average in IQ is about the same.
Male variance in everything is higher. IQ, reflexes, strength, height, ambition, you name it.
Intelligence isn't solely biological. Almost nothing is. IQ tests are also both gender and racially biased. They also only measure one kind of intelligence... certainly not the best intelligence. And male variance is not higher in everything... especially if you include the things people in this thread are labeling as "female traits". Why is emotion not a form of intelligence? Why not cooperation? Why is competition equated as "male" and the measure of intelligence?
The things people consistently point to as biological difference has a large cultural influence to it. Science does not back up your patriarchal claims, nor does it explain matriarchal societies or animal groups who have female leaders. Those examples prove that your claims that men are empirically smarter, more competitive, whatever are driven by cultural influences because the variance changes from cultural to culture.
My point is: essentializing statements that use surface-level comparisons between men and women are not only inaccurate but uphold differences that are not ingrained but are taught. Your contribution to these stereotypes perpetuates the cultural conditions that make it so.
The guy is just stating statistical facts, and is talking about variability within groups which you don't seem to understand what it is. Most likely men would have more extreme cases when it comes to your female strengt stereotype abilities as well, it doesn't matter if the mean is higher or lower.
I kind of agree that saying things like "men are biologically more competitive" can be a problematic statement, but someone talking about how it varies within groups you are obviously aware of the individual variance that this involves. Saying that the cause for such a difference lies in evolution probably means essentialism, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less scientifically sound than any discourse theory or social construct theory. At least the speculation in evolution is based on something more than a personal opinion.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
Would you mind telling us what tournaments you're speaking of? If it's true, that you can't play in some NA tournaments even though you have a NA account but aren't actually living in NA, then i'd say that this had to change, because i can't find any justification for it. How would they even be able to check your location?
And i say it again, i personally dont complain about female only tournaments, i just want to know why there is a need for it.
On July 15 2011 22:15 Xiphos wrote: I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_- I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature. Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there. StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
I care about my drones, does that make me a woman?
I'm just joking, i see what you're getting at.
Umm the biggest one I can think of is. IPL Season 1 NA Season 2 NA/Europe Season 3 will be NA/Europe/Korea(a smaller pool then the former 2)
Learn to read. "primarily" does not mean "solely". IQ tests are not racially/gender biased. They are a reasonably accurate measure of intelligence, in that people who score highly on IQ tests, are those who are regarded by other people as intelligent.
Because those female traits are not forms of intelligence. Emotion is the bloody antethesis of intelligence: "thinking with your heart, instead of your head.". Cooperation is not intelligence. Competiveness is not intelligence. Competition is equated as male, because men are more competitive than women on average. g is the measure of intelligence.
Not true. You have a self-referential definition of intelligence. I can't convince you things like emotion, art, friendship are intelligence because you define it differently. The dictionary says " The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" which include things other than what IQ tests, etc.
They have a small cultural influence, though there is a large nutritional influence to many of them. The only matriarchal societies on earth, are hunter gatherer societies. Hardly the pinnacle of civilization. Yes, science does back up patriarchal claims. You will have to do a lot better than spouting platitudes, to convince me that the social system that built all civilizations is not better than the alternative, which is only found in ghettos and hunter gatherer tribes...
Give me you cites on science backing up your patriarchal claims. Post em, and I'll post the responses... because you're wrong. Also the claim that matriarchal societies are uncivilized is flat out ethnocentric and the exact rationale used to justify the killing and enslavement of "savage" indigenous populations. Native Americans were uncivilized so we could take their land, African males were too feminine and did't abide by European ideals of intelligence and were enslaved. The alternative is NOT return to ghettos or hunter gather tribes (though that would probably hurt the environment way less and be the intelligent thing to do as a species to preserve our planet... but that's another thread). The answer is to encounter individuals as individuals, to avoid using essentialistic language, and to look at the way our current society is constructed so we can be aware of biases etc so we can work to fix them. Sadly, people are too set on defending the status-quo than questioning why things are the way they are.
Lastly, @Eleaven- I do not deny all biological facts. However, the majority of people deny the vast majority if not all of cultural influences. Genes may tether us to a certain area but our ability to go beyond that starting point almost infinite. There is no biological fact that proves men as more competitive than women that doesn't also show a large degree of cultural influences that enable environmental conditions to make it so. In short, don't mistake stereotypes for biological facts.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
Would you mind telling us what tournaments you're speaking of? If it's true, that you can't play in some NA tournaments even though you have a NA account but aren't actually living in NA, then i'd say that this had to change, because i can't find any justification for it. How would they even be able to check your location?
And i say it again, i personally dont complain about female only tournaments, i just want to know why there is a need for it.
On July 15 2011 22:15 Xiphos wrote: I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_- I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature. Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there. StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
I care about my drones, does that make me a woman?
I'm just joking, i see what you're getting at.
Umm the biggest one I can think of is. IPL Season 1 NA Season 2 NA/Europe Season 3 will be NA/Europe/Korea(a smaller pool then the former 2)
Sorry, i can't find anything regarding this on their website or in the threads posted here. Could you link me the site where it says that only players living in NA are allowed to play the IPL NA tournaments?
Learn to read. "primarily" does not mean "solely". IQ tests are not racially/gender biased. They are a reasonably accurate measure of intelligence, in that people who score highly on IQ tests, are those who are regarded by other people as intelligent.
Because those female traits are not forms of intelligence. Emotion is the bloody antethesis of intelligence: "thinking with your heart, instead of your head.". Cooperation is not intelligence. Competiveness is not intelligence. Competition is equated as male, because men are more competitive than women on average. g is the measure of intelligence.
Not true. You have a self-referential definition of intelligence. I can't convince you things like emotion, art, friendship are intelligence because you define it differently. The dictionary says " The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" which include things other than what IQ tests, etc.
They have a small cultural influence, though there is a large nutritional influence to many of them. The only matriarchal societies on earth, are hunter gatherer societies. Hardly the pinnacle of civilization. Yes, science does back up patriarchal claims. You will have to do a lot better than spouting platitudes, to convince me that the social system that built all civilizations is not better than the alternative, which is only found in ghettos and hunter gatherer tribes...
Give me you cites on science backing up your patriarchal claims. Post em, and I'll post the responses... because you're wrong. Also the claim that matriarchal societies are uncivilized is flat out ethnocentric and the exact rationale used to justify the killing and enslavement of "savage" indigenous populations. Native Americans were uncivilized so we could take their land, African males were too feminine and did't abide by European ideals of intelligence and were enslaved. The alternative is NOT return to ghettos or hunter gather tribes (though that would probably hurt the environment way less and be the intelligent thing to do as a species to preserve our planet... but that's another thread). The answer is to encounter individuals as individuals, to avoid using essentialistic language, and to look at the way our current society is constructed so we can be aware of biases etc so we can work to fix them. Sadly, people are too set on defending the status-quo than questioning why things are the way they are.
Lastly, @Eleaven- I do not deny all biological facts. However, the majority of people deny the vast majority if not all of cultural influences. Genes may tether us to a certain area but our ability to go beyond that starting point almost infinite. There is no biological fact that proves men as more competitive than women that doesn't also show a large degree of cultural influences that enable environmental conditions to make it so. In short, don't mistake stereotypes for biological facts.
You do realize that..
1. It's impossible to create a perfect test that isn't biased, and in developing the WIAS IQ test they are constantly trying to minimize the problems that inevitably exist. It's far from perfect especially in the sense that high score = high intelligence, but overall it's a test that is useful for determining which individuals are in need of help. Disregarding it as "biased" is just an easy way out and I welcome you to try to create an instrument that does the same thing and isn't biased.
2. How would one do research that eliminates the possbility of cultural bias? Saying that "there is no such research" is just silly because you can't expect that, and the qualitative research regarding the degree of cultural influence is even easier to argue against. The normal discussion in this kind of research is "how much of the variability can be attributed to the environment and how much can be attributed to the individual or group". Noone is denying a cultural effect but you seem a bit radical in your approach.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
Would you mind telling us what tournaments you're speaking of? If it's true, that you can't play in some NA tournaments even though you have a NA account but aren't actually living in NA, then i'd say that this had to change, because i can't find any justification for it. How would they even be able to check your location?
And i say it again, i personally dont complain about female only tournaments, i just want to know why there is a need for it.
On July 15 2011 22:15 Xiphos wrote: I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_- I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature. Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there. StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
I care about my drones, does that make me a woman?
I'm just joking, i see what you're getting at.
Umm the biggest one I can think of is. IPL Season 1 NA Season 2 NA/Europe Season 3 will be NA/Europe/Korea(a smaller pool then the former 2)
Sorry, i can't find anything regarding this on their website or in the threads posted here. Could you link me the site where it says that only players living in NA are allowed to play the IPL NA tournaments?
"IGN Entertainment and its eSports division is excited to announce the IGN Pro League! The first season of the IPL is an invitational tournament to showcase what we can provide to you, the viewer, as well as serving as a test run for us for all of our new production and operations mechanisms. 16 players representing 9 different North American based clans will be competing for a prize pool of $5,000 and 4 automatic qualifier spots for IPL Season 2! The goal of the IPL is to bring a professional, polished viewing experience to fans of eSports, as well as supporting the development of eSports both nationally and internationally through a sustainable tournament system that rewards those who play in it."
I know there's a German only league and a Polish only league as well. Not to mention there's dozens of tournaments for people from Bronze-Diamond only.
Not every tournament has the goal of finding the best player in the world. If the KKK wanted to run a white supremacist only SC2 tournament, it really wouldn't affect anyone else.
It's quite easy when you're in the dominant Norm to suggest that things are alright or equal, like IdrA saying Zerg is fine/underpowered after winning a starleague. Some experiences are simply substantive and sexual and racial discrimination are two of them, and no matter how much it frustrates you to admit it, you cannot understand it nor might you ever realize its existence until you've felt it in a serious way.
Many female SC2 players want to have their own identity and their sex is part of that. Most likely for many of you, your masculinity is part of yours but you simply don't realize it because it's treated as a given on the internet..
EDIT: Re-reading this thread, holy shit there's a fuck ton of misogynists on TL. IzieBoy, I've never seen someone project their own personal demons so openly, and against a huge swath of people. Your mother being a bitch has nothing to do with women wanting to play SC2 together.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
The OP complains that it is hurting female pro-gaming... when it really isn't
Dude it's just another restriction. Why do some tournaments only include people from North America? Many Europeans have North American accounts but cannot enter these tournaments... why would you want to exclude european counterparts? Korean etc.
Of course there are thousands of tourneys each years so I don't see why anyone cares if they have a tourney or 2 that are female only... Are they having fun? yes.... will we think they are the best in the world? Nope...
It's not like they just stopped entering other tourneys just to focus on the "FEMALE CUP."
The number of female starcraft 2 players compared to male is prolly pretty slim so of course females cannot compete at the same level... its common sense.
Would you mind telling us what tournaments you're speaking of? If it's true, that you can't play in some NA tournaments even though you have a NA account but aren't actually living in NA, then i'd say that this had to change, because i can't find any justification for it. How would they even be able to check your location?
And i say it again, i personally dont complain about female only tournaments, i just want to know why there is a need for it.
On July 15 2011 22:15 Xiphos wrote: I've seen women getting crazy over....fb games....like farmville..-_- I think that women in nature are more of nurturing, motherly side of them while men were mostly evolved to be more civilized from hunters and more "aggressive" in nature. Farmville is a game that requires somewhat of great care (of "crops" lol) so women tend to display their nurturing nature there. StarCraft on the other hand is a game of "killer instinct", you have to do a certain thing to SURVIVE so that makes women less likely to participate.
I care about my drones, does that make me a woman?
I'm just joking, i see what you're getting at.
Umm the biggest one I can think of is. IPL Season 1 NA Season 2 NA/Europe Season 3 will be NA/Europe/Korea(a smaller pool then the former 2)
Sorry, i can't find anything regarding this on their website or in the threads posted here. Could you link me the site where it says that only players living in NA are allowed to play the IPL NA tournaments?
"IGN Entertainment and its eSports division is excited to announce the IGN Pro League! The first season of the IPL is an invitational tournament to showcase what we can provide to you, the viewer, as well as serving as a test run for us for all of our new production and operations mechanisms. 16 players representing 9 different North American based clans will be competing for a prize pool of $5,000 and 4 automatic qualifier spots for IPL Season 2! The goal of the IPL is to bring a professional, polished viewing experience to fans of eSports, as well as supporting the development of eSports both nationally and internationally through a sustainable tournament system that rewards those who play in it."
Reality is gender biased. I'm not going into racial IQ differences, though the fact that certain ethnicities score higher and lower than whites on IQ tests do not prove that IQ tests are flawed, unfortunately.
Not true. You have a self-referential definition of intelligence. I can't convince you things like emotion, art, friendship are intelligence because you define it differently. The dictionary says " The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" which include things other than what IQ tests, etc.
Because they aren't intelligence. Just because something is nice to possess, does not mean it is intelligence. Stop conflating every positive character trait with intelligence.
What do you call civilization? I know it when I see it, and i generally associate it with wonders of architecture, art, science, industry and government. Damn straight I think western/eastern civilization is better than hunter gathering. I live in luxury and comfort because of the work that my patriarchal ancestors did.
Jibba: what do you expect? Men to regard women as other men? That won't happen. Women have the opportunity to play SC2 anonymously, and get good before "coming out", if you will. Everyone has a right to expect courtesy, but respect? Respect must be earned.
I know there's a German only league and a Polish only league as well. Not to mention there's dozens of tournaments for people from Bronze-Diamond only.
[...]
Ok, this one made me think about my "why would there be a need for a female only tournament" question and it kind of made the question obsolete. :D
1. It's impossible to create a perfect test that isn't biased, and in developing the WIAS IQ test they are constantly trying to minimize the problems that inevitably exist. It's far from perfect especially in the sense that high score = high intelligence, but overall it's a test that is useful for determining which individuals are in need of help. Disregarding it as "biased" is just an easy way out and I welcome you to try to create an instrument that does the same thing and isn't biased.
Do you realize that's the same reason why we shouldn't use it to make blanket statements like women are biologically less intelligent than men? My point is not that we should use unbiased tests but that we shouldn't use such tests to make generalizations of genders, races, etc... especially when the impact of that statement is to exclude certain people as a whole because they are less intelligent.
2. How would one do research that eliminates the possbility of cultural bias? Saying that "there is no such research" is just silly because you can't expect that, and the qualitative research regarding the degree of cultural influence is even easier to argue against. The normal discussion in this kind of research is "how much of the variability can be attributed to the environment and how much can be attributed to the individual or group". Noone is denying a cultural effect but you seem a bit radical in your approach.
A lot of people are minimizing or flat out denying cultural effects of intelligence on the sexes. If you don't disagree that cultural influences effect how women or men are competitive or not then we're on the same page. If you defend it as a purely biology thing then my statements still apply. Nothing is purely nature or nurture. Neither should be presumed to be dominant. Most in this thread attribute it almost entirely to biology.
@ventiri - wikipedia is not a source. Just like a forum thread is not evidence of proof either. Please increase your citation quality if you want to make quality arguments. There is no reason why some traits are considered intelligence and others are not. It's entirely arbitrary. One could argue that competition and the intelligence that "men" have, which brought us nuclear and biological weapons, terrorism, environmental destruction, etc is not intelligence at all but outright stupidity. ... AND MORE IMPORTANTLY...
Damn straight I think western/eastern civilization is better than hunter gathering. I live in luxury and comfort because of the work that my patriarchal ancestors did.
Damn straight you do. Your ancestors perpetuated genocide, enslavement, and a bunch of other nasty things so we could exterminate savages for civilization and untold destruction. Yes, you live in luxury... at the expense of others in history and currently. The defense of civilization has been the defense of imperialism, extermination, and war for generations. Using the discourse of civilization to defend the benefit of patriarchy is absurd... unless of course the patriarchal intelligence of destruction is what we seek to uphold. Care about your planet, care about your community, care about others.... even if they appear uncivilized to you. Don't just label them as unintelligent, backwards, and less than people who live in "civilization." It's not only culturally insenstive but also, again, literally the exact defense used in every colonial campaign. Even Disney movies like Pocahontas (which are hardly the pinnacle of liberal education or a radical philosophy) repeatedly point out how discourses of savageness and civilization is destructive.
Hardt & Negi's book "Empire" has a lot more on this subject as well.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
Oh I absolutely think there's a need. For no other reason except for girls getting together for some competitive fun. Girl's night out? Guy's poker? (Mind you mixed poker is still better.) Point is, do females need to justify the need to play the game together? Oh, and people most certainly complain about female tournaments. Loudly and often. As often as a new thread announcing said female tournament.
Which brings me to another point that I had at one point considered turning into a stand-alone thread. Maybe everyone's right. Maybe girl's shouldn't have their own league, maybe Anna has contributed nothing to esports, maybe CheekyDuck should never have been interviewed, maybe kellymilkies should never have done the FHM photoshoot (can you think of any other recent controversies? I'm sure there was something about lil-susie), oh. and maybe Tossgirl looks like a man...
Maybe that's all true, but sometimes I wish people would spend more time being welcoming and less time being right. Everyone is so concerned about being right. Particularly that girl's never receive more attention than is their due, that if a girl dare raise their hand to identify that, yes they are female and they would like to contribute to Starcraft in whatever way they can (or just do some other side projects).... then teh internetz jumps them and strings them up. "How dare anyone even acknowledge you existence until you have macro of Flash, the multi-tasking of Bisu, the knowledge of Artosis, etc, etc." "Go back to the hole you crawled out from" we roar. "And do not return until you are a goddess of gaming."
Maybe we're right. But is it worth it? If we truly want to see gender equality, maybe being a little more welcoming would help?
On July 15 2011 19:52 Sablar wrote: Think top 2% of 2 000 000 players, and top 2% of 100 000, who are the best? If anyone has some evidence for a statement like "women think worse" I would really like to see it.
Equally good? But competitive play has nothing to do with the top 2%. That's the Masters League. It has to do with top 0.01%. In almost any field, that is where men outperform women. Men tend to deviate from the average much more than women do. That means there are many more highly talented males than highly talented women and many more horribly bad men than horribly bad women. Look at IQ scores. Men score a few points higher on average, but if you look at scores like 140 or 60, men outnumber women 10 to 1. (not the actual number, but look it up).
EDIT: It seems someone has already made this point and got nowhere with the deniers in this thread. The way you try to salvage your argument and get away from this fact is hilarious. There has never been a female Gauss, Ramanujan or Einstein. The closest you get is Emmy Noether, which is not very close at all. There's no cultural drive that makes you as capable as Einstein.
There is no reason to assume the male domination of the pro scene will end when women start playing games as much as men. Pro Starcraft will probably, like pro chess and mathematics, be a male thing forever.
I don't understand why people want to change things to draw in women. Do we really need them? If they're not interested in e-sports, that's their own problem.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
Oh I absolutely think there's a need. For no other reason except for girls getting together for some competitive fun. Girl's night out? Guy's poker? (Mind you mixed poker is still better.) Point is, do females need to justify the need to play the game together? Oh, and people most certainly complain about female tournaments. Loudly and often. As often as a new thread announcing said female tournament.
Which brings me to another point that I had at one point considered turning into a stand-alone thread. Maybe everyone's right. Maybe girl's shouldn't have their own league, maybe Anna has contributed nothing to esports, maybe CheekyDuck should never have been interviewed, maybe kellymilkies should never have done the FHM photoshoot (can you think of any other recent controversies? I'm sure there was something about lil-susie), oh. and maybe Tossgirl looks like a man...
Maybe that's all true, but sometimes I wish people would spend more time being welcoming and less time being right. Everyone is so concerned about being right. Particularly that girl's never receive more attention than is their due, that if a girl dare raise their hand to identify that, yes they are female and they would like to contribute to Starcraft in whatever way they can (or just do some other side projects).... then teh internetz jumps them and strings them up. "How dare anyone even acknowledge you existence until you have macro of Flash, the multi-tasking of Bisu, the knowledge of Artosis, etc, etc." "Go back to the hole you crawled out from" we roar. "And do not return until you are a goddess of gaming."
Maybe we're right. But is it worth it? If we truly want to see gender equality, maybe being a little more welcoming would help?
Yea, i already realized my argumentation was wrong. I have nothing more to say about female only tournaments.
I wasn't against it in the first place, but still had a "distorted view" of the subject.
1. It's impossible to create a perfect test that isn't biased, and in developing the WIAS IQ test they are constantly trying to minimize the problems that inevitably exist. It's far from perfect especially in the sense that high score = high intelligence, but overall it's a test that is useful for determining which individuals are in need of help. Disregarding it as "biased" is just an easy way out and I welcome you to try to create an instrument that does the same thing and isn't biased.
Do you realize that's the same reason why we shouldn't use it to make blanket statements like women are biologically less intelligent than men? My point is not that we should use unbiased tests but that we shouldn't use such tests to make generalizations of genders, races, etc... especially when the impact of that statement is to exclude certain people as a whole because they are less intelligent.
2. How would one do research that eliminates the possbility of cultural bias? Saying that "there is no such research" is just silly because you can't expect that, and the qualitative research regarding the degree of cultural influence is even easier to argue against. The normal discussion in this kind of research is "how much of the variability can be attributed to the environment and how much can be attributed to the individual or group". Noone is denying a cultural effect but you seem a bit radical in your approach.
A lot of people are minimizing or flat out denying cultural effects of intelligence on the sexes. If you don't disagree that cultural influences effect how women or men are competitive or not then we're on the same page. If you defend it as a purely biology thing then my statements still apply. Nothing is purely nature or nurture. Neither should be presumed to be dominant. Most in this thread attribute it almost entirely to biology.
@ventiri - wikipedia is not a source. Just like a forum thread is not evidence of proof either. Please increase your citation quality if you want to make quality arguments. There is no reason why some traits are considered intelligence and others are not. It's entirely arbitrary. One could argue that competition and the intelligence that "men" have, which brought us nuclear and biological weapons, terrorism, environmental destruction, etc is not intelligence at all but outright stupidity. ... AND MORE IMPORTANTLY...
Damn straight I think western/eastern civilization is better than hunter gathering. I live in luxury and comfort because of the work that my patriarchal ancestors did.
Damn straight you do. Your ancestors perpetuated genocide, enslavement, and a bunch of other nasty things so we could exterminate savages for civilization and untold destruction. Yes, you live in luxury... at the expense of others in history and currently. The defense of civilization has been the defense of imperialism, extermination, and war for generations. Using the discourse of civilization to defend the benefit of patriarchy is absurd... unless of course the patriarchal intelligence of destruction is what we seek to uphold. Care about your planet, care about your community, care about others.... even if they appear uncivilized to you. Don't just label them as unintelligent, backwards, and less than people who live in "civilization." It's not only culturally insenstive but also, again, literally the exact defense used in every colonial campaign. Even Disney movies like Pocahontas (which are hardly the pinnacle of liberal education or a radical philosophy) repeatedly point out how discourses of savageness and civilization is destructive.
Hardt & Negi's book "Empire" has a lot more on this subject as well.
Actually, wikipedia is a pretty good source, and if you don't believe what is written, you can check out the citation links at the bottom of the page.
The competition and intelligence that men have, has also brought us the internet, roads, water filtering, electricity, sewers, poetry, sculpture, literature, starcraft, solar panels and many others things that you regard as positive. Power is just a tool, one that can be used for good or for ill. Good men use it for good, while corrupt men use it for evil. Good women use it for good, while corrupt women use it for evil. I reject the idea that men are more predisposed towards evil than women. Power corrupts the corrupt.
Please don't tell me you believe the myth of the noble savage? The idea that hunter gatherer tribes are less prone to violence is utter nonsense. Western/Eastern/Middle Eastern/African/South American/Central American civilizations and "tribes" have all been responsible for atrocities. The west, due to being technologically advanced, has been better at it recently. When two competing groups go to battle, the stronger will prevail. Such is the way of the world. The conflict is everpresent, it is only a matter of whether the conflict is overt or covert.
On July 15 2011 23:30 vetinari wrote: Jibba: what do you expect? Men to regard women as other men? That won't happen. Women have the opportunity to play SC2 anonymously, and get good before "coming out", if you will. Everyone has a right to expect courtesy, but respect? Respect must be earned.
Why should anyone have to play anonymously and repress their identity? There's an expectation that that's what women should do, but that same expectation doesn't exist for men. Be whoever you are, and own it. NeverGG, I think that's what you're lacking more than anything else. Certainly good looks are a very useful asset (and as with any type of asset, you really shouldn't hold it against people for having it) but if you have a confident and engaging attitude, people will look past that stuff.
There's different kinds of respect. The girls aren't looking for respect as players any more than any other non-pro player (and as far as I know, none of them claim to be professionals.) They're asking for respect as human beings, to act like themselves openly and play the game they way they want to (as long as it's within the ToS.) Likewise, you certainly can hate on them for doing it (not in the LR threads, please) but it's no different than going to a Gold-only tournament and telling everyone they suck. At that point you're just being a douche bag.
EDIT: Seriously, stop talking about the advancement of early civilization. It might sound "useful" for your argument but really it has no relevance to modern Western society. The evolutionary psychology of "aggressive male hunters" is completely absurd, and SC2 hardly classifies as an aggressive activity. And if you think women lack competitive spirit or aggression, then you're really just quite ignorant.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
Girls will never compete with men in terms of physical abilities, no matter if it is about velocity, strength, even psychologically men are usually far ahead in terms of determination and sacrifice. Sexual dimorphism DOES matter and you cannot overcome the process of several million years of evolution with an ideology.
In real sports you can see women not doing sports which are not segregated (boxing, judo, speaking of experience), whereas segregated team sports such as soccer, basketball are quite appreciated by them. So segregation is the best way to attract the most girls, but in the end they will always be very few.
On July 15 2011 21:58 Utinni wrote: How many females get to actually play against each other tournaments? Prolly very few if any... I don't get why all you guys are getting butt hurt at restrictions on tournaments.
It's a game, its for entertainment value.
People will watch, People will tell their friends... any publicity is good publicity...
These threads are so over done and pointless except to make nerds huff and puff.
Learn to enjoy the the content you are given or make your own tourney and make sure to invite calvin and hobbes.
You're missing the point. Nobody complains about female only tournaments. It's not like i'm offended by it or anything, but i ask myself, why there is even a need for those tournaments? In my opinion it is implying that women can't compete with their male counterparts.
Now i don't think that's the case, so why would they want to exclude themselfs from their male opponents? I just want to know why, i don't want them to get rid of those tournaments but if you ask me, there's no need for it.
Oh I absolutely think there's a need. For no other reason except for girls getting together for some competitive fun. Girl's night out? Guy's poker? (Mind you mixed poker is still better.) Point is, do females need to justify the need to play the game together? Oh, and people most certainly complain about female tournaments. Loudly and often. As often as a new thread announcing said female tournament.
Which brings me to another point that I had at one point considered turning into a stand-alone thread. Maybe everyone's right. Maybe girl's shouldn't have their own league, maybe Anna has contributed nothing to esports, maybe CheekyDuck should never have been interviewed, maybe kellymilkies should never have done the FHM photoshoot (can you think of any other recent controversies? I'm sure there was something about lil-susie), oh. and maybe Tossgirl looks like a man...
Maybe that's all true, but sometimes I wish people would spend more time being welcoming and less time being right. Everyone is so concerned about being right. Particularly that girl's never receive more attention than is their due, that if a girl dare raise their hand to identify that, yes they are female and they would like to contribute to Starcraft in whatever way they can (or just do some other side projects).... then teh internetz jumps them and strings them up. "How dare anyone even acknowledge you existence until you have macro of Flash, the multi-tasking of Bisu, the knowledge of Artosis, etc, etc." "Go back to the hole you crawled out from" we roar. "And do not return until you are a goddess of gaming."
Maybe we're right. But is it worth it? If we truly want to see gender equality, maybe being a little more welcoming would help?
I actually disagree with you. I don't think people have some ridiculous expectations as you say, "How dare anyone even acknowledge you existence until you have macro of Flash, the multi-tasking of Bisu, the knowledge of Artosis, etc, etc."
They merely expect the attention to be equivalent to what level of contribution and skill would be expected of a male counterpart. There are obviously some trolls but most criticism is very valid and is pretty consistent with what would be expected from a male in the same position. Could you give any example of this expectation of every woman being required to be the "Goddess of gaming?" because I don't see it at all.
Rachel gets a lot of praise and support for most of her interviews, and gets criticized when she asks dumb questions from time to time or poke fun at for saying "HasuOrbs" or something silly, just like anyone else would. Anna similarly gets praise and criticism based on the quality of her content. The same is true for most women I can think off, of the top of my head.
I don't think anyone has some ridiculously high expectations, but for some reason when it comes to women, you're either a troll or a white knight. People who screw up are always criticized on TL, people who do something right are almost always praised, because of the volume of posts it can seem overwhelming at times but this view that TL is somehow this huge ball of negativity or hate for any woman who isn't perfect seems silly to me.
On July 15 2011 23:30 vetinari wrote: Jibba: what do you expect? Men to regard women as other men? That won't happen. Women have the opportunity to play SC2 anonymously, and get good before "coming out", if you will. Everyone has a right to expect courtesy, but respect? Respect must be earned.
Why should anyone have to play anonymously and repress their identity? There's an expectation that that's what women should do, but that same expectation doesn't exist for men. Be whoever you are, and own it. NeverGG, I think that's what you're lacking more than anything else. Certainly good looks are a very useful asset (and as with any type of asset, you really shouldn't hold it against people for having it) but if you have a confident and engaging attitude, people will look past that stuff.
There's different kinds of respect. The girls aren't looking for respect as players any more than any other non-pro player (and as far as I know, none of them claim to be professionals.) They're asking for respect as human beings, to act like themselves openly and play the game they way they want to (as long as it's within the ToS.) Likewise, you certainly can hate on them for doing it (not in the LR threads, please) but it's no different than going to a Gold-only tournament and telling everyone they suck. At that point you're just being a douche bag.
No one has to play anonymously. However, if you are uncomfortable with being a female in a male dominated area, you have that option. If you have sufficient confidence to be yourself, a yourself that will get plenty of attention due to sheer rarity, then you can do so too. No one is forcing women to wear online burkas, for gods sake. Women online should receive courtesy from men and women. Actually, everyone should be courteous to everyone, online or in real life.
As for respect: you can earn it in many ways, whether it be by displays of skill, virtuous living or achievement, and you can lose it in many ways, by demonstrations of ill-judgement and bad behaviour. But it must be earned. I think the idea that everyone deserves respect for simply being is utterly foolish. It represents the loss of a useful tool for channelling humans to productive and good behaviour.
No one is entitled to respect for simply being, but everyone is entitled to courtesy. The two are different.
edit about your edit: rubbish. Modern western civilization is not qualitatively different. Human nature has not changed.
Everyone is deserving of equal moral consideration... even if not respect. That means not excluding people or creating places that are exclusionary.
You should also read Jacques Rancière's writings on the subject of equality. Even if everyone is not equal in skill, intellect, etc... the presumption of equality is a beneficial one for society as a whole. Equality is a starting point, not a goal. So long as you can understand beings as equal even if you don't respect them that's fine. If lack of respect is a reason to deny equality then there's a problem.
On July 15 2011 19:52 Sablar wrote: Think top 2% of 2 000 000 players, and top 2% of 100 000, who are the best? If anyone has some evidence for a statement like "women think worse" I would really like to see it.
Equally good? But competitive play has nothing to do with the top 2%. That's the Masters League. It has to do with top 0.01%. In almost any field, that is where men outperform women. Men tend to deviate from the average much more than women do. That means there are many more highly talented males than highly talented women and many more horribly bad men than horribly bad women. Look at IQ scores. Men score a few points higher on average, but if you look at scores like 140 or 60, men outnumber women 10 to 1. (not the actual number, but look it up).
EDIT: It seems someone has already made this point and got nowhere with the deniers in this thread. The way you try to salvage your argument and get away from this fact is hilarious. There has never been a female Gauss, Ramanujan or Einstein. The closest you get is Emmy Noether, which is not very close at all. There's no cultural drive that makes you as capable as Einstein.
There is no reason to assume the male domination of the pro scene will end when women start playing games as much as men. Pro Starcraft will probably, like pro chess and mathematics, be a male thing forever.
I don't understand why people want to change things to draw in women. Do we really need them? If they're not interested in e-sports, that's their own problem.
I was kind of arguing on that side, but lets switch it up then.
Men overall are more extreme than women, yes, but that doesn't mean women are inherently worse. I dislike when people are just denying statistics because they are inappropriate, but the logic behind them can still be questioned.
Males tend to reach the extremeties more often than women does yes, but it doesn't mean that 1) this is genetic or inherent to males or 2) that this is the case for SC2. It's not like it goes for everything. 3) The skills required for SC2 are so broad that it's not like 1 single attribute that will mean success. Like IQ will probably correlate with success in SC2, but that doesn't mean you are pro because of a high IQ.
Furthermore the brain is very plastic and we can expect boys growing up with computer games to gain and edge, and also have a different brain structure because that is what training does to the brain. A difference in ability even when evident at a neural level doesn't mean that men are born better at said ability which seems to be a common misunderstanding.
Apart from that it's not like men are better at information processing tasks and reaction times. Women often have a higher mean. I just looked up some studies and found one 7000+ respondant study where women were "slower and more variable" than men in reaction time. Another study had women as faster in some choice related RT
All this said I'm not rejecting the possibility that there is a genetical advantage for males. A generally higher variability in test scores just isn't proof of something like that, see study below for the example with more variability among women in reaction time. You need university access though.
"Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey.Der G, Deary IJ."
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
Girls will never compete with men in terms of physical abilities, no matter if it is about velocity, strength, even psychologically men are usually far ahead in terms of determination and sacrifice. Sexual dimorphism DOES matter and you cannot overcome the process of several million years of evolution with an ideology.
In real sports you can see women not doing sports which are not segregated (boxing, judo, speaking of experience), whereas segregated team sports such as soccer, basketball are quite appreciated by them. So segregation is the best way to attract the most girls, but in the end they will always be very few.
Evolutionary psychology is bullshit conjecture with an enormous selection bias.
Men are ahead in terms of determination and sacrifice? Do you know how frequent ACL injuries are in women's soccer, yet tons and tons of women try to play through them? Women sacrifice their bodies a lot more than men do in some sports and combined with a higher pain tolerance and their own personal determination leads to a ton of career ending/quality of life effecting injuries, from the middle school level on up.
Rancière, really? Rancière's view on equity within society was terrible. He's like the Mises of post-modern philosophy, although luckily not many people agree with him.
I find it eternally ironic that minorities desire to be treated equally, but simultaneously act in ways that single themselves out. They'll have X-only gatherings as they develop and maintain their own culture, try to integrate into the existing culture and be shocked when things don't pan out the way they expect.
On July 16 2011 00:48 vetinari wrote: edit about your edit: rubbish. Modern western civilization is not qualitatively different. Human nature has not changed.
Really? Is that why we do things like plan pregnancies or have them for our own pleasure? Do men select women for their hip bearing capacity (keep in mind this is a site with a lot of KPOP fanboys)? And women choose men for their alpha male behavior? Please don't turn this into another PUA bullshit fest.
Not qualitatively different? Do you understand what that means in terms of research? (hint: it doesn't mean anything in your context.)
On July 16 2011 00:52 sailorferret wrote: Everyone is deserving of equal moral consideration... even if not respect. That means not excluding people or creating places that are exclusionary.
You should also read Jacques Rancière's writings on the subject of equality. Even if everyone is not equal in skill, intellect, etc... the presumption of equality is a beneficial one for society as a whole. Equality is a starting point, not a goal. So long as you can understand beings as equal even if you don't respect them that's fine. If lack of respect is a reason to deny equality then there's a problem.
Really? I'd rather live in a community that excluded rapists and murderers, and looked down upon the rude, the arrogant and the promiscious* (among other negative traits.) It generally tends to be safer, and more pleasant to live in such a place.
As for equality ... /shrug, there is nothing wrong with assuming other people are your equal, until they prove otherwise, with word or deed. People are not equals, though that does not mean that they cannot earn respect, or that they do not deserve courtesy. I do not regard a criminal as an equal, nor do I regard a child born mentally handicapped as an equal. But the child deserves to be treated with kindness, and criminals deserve the opportunity to atone for their crimes.
*You will never convice me that promiscuity is a morally neutral trait, let alone a good. Individual sexual satisfaction does not outweight the harm done to men, women and children and society as a whole.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: It is no secret that like many fields e-sports is currently a male dominated arena. While I would have a hard time believing that the vast majority of people wish for e-sports to remain this way; I believe that the actions of the community don't reflect a desire to inject more females into the culture of e-sports. Several recent events have intrigued me enough to the point that I feel that it would helpful to see what other memebers of the community feel about the matter.
Please be aware that I am not personally attacking any individual in this thread especially considering the fact that they are not responsible for the actions of TL.
The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Do people not realize that the undeserved reverence and vigilant e-staring ( I use staring instead of stalking because I don't believe it has even come close to being appropriate for that term) is one of the reason why women are driven from this industry and other ones like it? If you treat women just like anyone else I guarantee more would be willing to participate in e-sports. The reason why many girls are afraid of even letting people know that they are female online is because of all the fervent attention it will bring upon them. I'm sure that the mmo players among all ave heard the female members of their guild complaining about what happens when people on their server/realm/world w/e you call it figure out that they are female.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is female only tournaments such as http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230697 . These do nothing but promote the belief that women cannot compete with men in e-sports which to me seems to be nothing but utter ridiculousness. E-sports are for the most part mental activities the physical requirement is not high enough that sexual dimorphism would have any significant effect.
If you want more women in esports stop treating them differently. Women if you want to be treated equally then stop voluntarily segregating yourself with things such as female leagues and tournaments.
Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
Girls will never compete with men in terms of physical abilities, no matter if it is about velocity, strength, even psychologically men are usually far ahead in terms of determination and sacrifice. Sexual dimorphism DOES matter and you cannot overcome the process of several million years of evolution with an ideology.
In real sports you can see women not doing sports which are not segregated (boxing, judo, speaking of experience), whereas segregated team sports such as soccer, basketball are quite appreciated by them. So segregation is the best way to attract the most girls, but in the end they will always be very few.
Evolutionary psychology is bullshit conjecture with an enormous selection bias.
Men are ahead in terms of determination and sacrifice? Do you know how frequent ACL injuries are in women's soccer, yet tons and tons of women try to play through them? Women sacrifice their bodies a lot more than men do in some sports and combined with a higher pain tolerance and their own personal determination leads to a ton of career ending/quality of life effecting injuries, from the middle school level on up.
Rancière, really? Rancière's view on equity within society was terrible. He's like the Mises of post-modern philosophy, although luckily not many people agree with him.
The ironic thing about torn acls is that girls tend to be a lot more susceptible to tearing a knee ligaments.than men. Although this doesn't affect determination. It just kind of makes your post a bit ironic :-p
On July 16 2011 00:52 sailorferret wrote: Everyone is deserving of equal moral consideration... even if not respect. That means not excluding people or creating places that are exclusionary.
You should also read Jacques Rancière's writings on the subject of equality. Even if everyone is not equal in skill, intellect, etc... the presumption of equality is a beneficial one for society as a whole. Equality is a starting point, not a goal. So long as you can understand beings as equal even if you don't respect them that's fine. If lack of respect is a reason to deny equality then there's a problem.
Really? I'd rather live in a community that excluded rapists and murderers, and looked down upon the rude, the arrogant and the promiscious* (among other negative traits.) It generally tends to be safer, and more pleasant to live in such a place.
As for equality ... /shrug, there is nothing wrong with assuming other people are your equal, until they prove otherwise, with word or deed. People are not equals, though that does not mean that they cannot earn respect, or that they do not deserve courtesy. I do not regard a criminal as an equal, nor do I regard a child born mentally handicapped as an equal. But the child deserves to be treated with kindness, and criminals deserve the opportunity to atone for their crimes.
*You will never convice me that promiscuity is a morally neutral trait, let alone a good. Individual sexual satisfaction does not outweight the harm done to men, women and children and society as a whole.
I feel like you're taking what he said in a completely different direction than he intended, when he was talking about exclusion and equality, he mentioned it as a starting point, you're judged from there based on your abilities and actions. I highly doubt that he meant we shouldn't try to get rid of murderers and rapists, merely that everyone should start out with the same regard and then it goes up and down from there based on their actions. As for your comment on promiscuity, I don't want to get off-topic so I'll just say I disagree.
I agree with him for the most part, and I think you really just took something completely irrelevant from his post. He wasn't talking about leaving rapists and murderers as part of society, merely that no one should be excluded for something or given leniency in regards to something because of their gender.
On July 16 2011 00:48 vetinari wrote: edit about your edit: rubbish. Modern western civilization is not qualitatively different. Human nature has not changed.
Really? Is that why we do things like plan pregnancies or have them for our own pleasure? Do men select women for their hip bearing capacity (keep in mind this is a site with a lot of KPOP fanboys)? And women choose men for their alpha male behavior? Please don't turn this into another PUA bullshit fest.
Not qualitatively different? Do you understand what that means in terms of research? (hint: it doesn't mean anything in your context.)
You know, people in the past also planned pregnancies. Contraception has been known for a bloody long time, which includes the fertility delaying effects of nursing. Women wanted children in the past too. Men still desire the 0.7 W/H ratio. Yes, they do. They stay with men based on whether the men display the appropriate mix of alpha and beta behaviour (the appropriate level of the latter is not zero, despite what PUA would have you believe). This has not changed.
Your point? I'm using the common use meaning, not the research meaning. I'm pretty sure you know what I mean, though, and if you know the correct way of saying it, could you write it out? My English isn't perfect.
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
The main reason you don’t see more female players (and new players in general) is training style in esports. Right now to get better at Starcraft you play more games. Bad expo timings? Play more games. Losing to bunker rushes? Play more games. Poor marine micro under pressure? Play more games. If you go to any other sport and only play the sport itself with no other training you will never get close to competing with the best. If a Golf player is having problems with his drive he gets three buckets of balls and sits on the driving range to work on his swing, he doesn’t go play the back 9 for 16 hours straight. If a football player is having trouble controlling passes he gets a partner and they pass the ball around, they don’t line up for a scrimmage. If a basketball player has a bad free-throw percentage he gets on the line with a rack of balls and goes at it, he doesn’t wait to get fouled in a game. I get that some things you can only learn in-game (true in any sport), but there are so many elements of playing that could be trained outside the game and SC players seem oblivious to it.
I understand this mentality came from Korea where they grind out 16 hours of games a day as training and if everyone is grinding training games then the person playing the most games will be at the top of the skill tree, so it looks like this is the best way to practice. The problem is that mentality is bullshit. While players can know their weaknesses they can never address them directly so the rate of improvement and skill ceiling are very low. Moving back to the topic, most chicks can’t sit down and grind out games all day. Even ones that are interested in Starcraft can’t do it. Hell, most dudes can’t do it even when they are being paid to do it. Until Starcraft is broken out into different areas of skill and a training schedule is worked for those areas you are never going to see an influx of new, skilled (male or female) gamers.
The other interesting thing about esports is the physical component is very small compared to traditional sports. The best female tennis player will never be able to compete with the best male tennis player (Serena tried, shit was hilarious). Starcraft isn’t like that, the only physical element is APM. Women could compete at the highest level but until the path to being Good --> Great --> Master --> Pro is more clear and defined we are not going to see it. I would love to see a Tony Schwartz or a Peter Drucker type trainer come into the SC world. I know it will happen eventually because these larger corporate sponsors are taking interest in esports and as a result I think the focused training mindset of modern management will bleed into western teams. That thought makes me hot in the pants because once the training regiment gets sorted out in the west we will finally start winning some goddamn tournaments.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
I'd just like to mention, whilst i don't agree with everything you say (though most of it makes perfect sense), I respect your ability to keep composure in everything you say, also your commitment to your argument is nice to see
Perhaps a more welcoming esports infrastructure would help out a lot. I think the real trouble is the resentment it causes when equally talented males feel left out because they won't receive the same opportunities
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Before, it used to be "oh ya Riku's a girl, sweet cosplay" or whatever. Now all of a sudden it's an issue because people who care that she's a girl must have noticed this fact.
Women very simply don't like to compete in SC2. They get satisfaction from other things. If a girl wants to compete then whatever, she wants to compete. If she wins she wins, if she fails she fails. We don't have to act like it's a big deal because it isn't.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I completely agree with not enough females in E-sports is an issue. Now the reason for this is pretty obvious according to me. Take League of Legends for instance where all female champions are big breasted with cleavage, clearly in purpose of targeting a male audience. I wouldn't say this is the game developers fault though since this is what the community wants. Maybe if the community makes an effort to mature we can see a change, I hope we're at least going in the right direction.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways. That's just one example, but it applies everywhere. If you see a hot girl carrying something, don't you offer your help?
On July 16 2011 01:59 NorthernRiver wrote: I completely agree with not enough females in E-sports is an issue. Now the reason for this is pretty obvious according to me. Take League of Legends for instance where all female champions are big breasted with cleavage, clearly in purpose of targeting a male audience. I wouldn't say this is the game developers fault though since this is what the community wants. Maybe if the community makes an effort to mature we can see a change, I hope we're at least going in the right direction.
On the subject of enormous cleavage, you'd be surprised how many women get breast implants, not to attract males, but to antagonize other women. Female culture has this ongoing battle between other females that is largely revealed in if you read a typical magazine targetted at a female audience. Everything in there is designed to make the reader feel self-conscious, inferior to the beautiful women they're looking at and give them ways to compete through advertisements for purchased products.
Women love competition no less than men do. They just tend to have a completely different target.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males.
Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like:
"When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor.
I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males.
Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like:
"When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor.
I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment.
How do you think you can deserve a fanclub? By doing stuff for the community or by appealing to the community and having fans? The only requirement I can think of for getting a fanpage is having fans but that's apparently not true. Lindsey got fans because she is attractive, positive, funny and likable in general. In short she appeals to people and therefor she got fans. Those fans are not saying she is better, more important or deserve a fanpage more than people like day9 etc. Those fans are saying they are a fan of Lindsey and support her. Is there something wrong with that?
btw. Most of the pages on Lindsey's fanclub are people like you whining that she doesn't deserve a fanclub or only has fans because she is hot. I think that's really immature. People like her and want to support her in the hopes she becomes part of our community and becomes another SC2 player just like us. Is that wrong? Basically I think this thread is just a dumb whine about females getting more attention. Who cares?
Edit: and yes there is no gender equality because they are plainly not equal and not equally represented. That's just the way it is and I personally don't see the problem (in this case, females getting payed less for the same work isn't ok imo). Does it hurt you that she gets attention? Does it hurt the community? Personally I just think it's funny and hope she becomes part of the community so she can provide us with more comedy in the future.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males.
Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like:
"When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor.
I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment.
bullshit
There are less female street cleaners because it is a physical job and men have superior physics. There are far more female room cleaners than male room cleaners and male street cleaners combined for example. And women aren't drafted (in those countries I know) to the military because they already lose career years because of pregnancy.
On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote: Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
Could you please show me some studies that actually show results that links women's lack of competitive drive to their genetics? It seems to me that you're jumping to the conclusion that "genetics did it!" while it may as well be environmental factors. We all know it's extremely different to grow up as a girl compared to as a boy and some of us know that environmental differences causes psychological differences.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males.
Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like:
"When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor.
I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment.
bullshit
There are less female street cleaners because it is a physical job and men have superior physics. There are far more female room cleaners than male room cleaners and male street cleaners combined for example. And women aren't drafted (in those countries I know) to the military because they already lose career years because of pregnancy.
pushing a wheely-bin along and using a litter picker isn't exactly physical work in the same sense that male dominated competition/military/sports is, which women seem to want to be part of!
We could bring bin men into it too, but its superfluous! It's quite obvious the goal of modern feminism is not equality. It's to make sure girls are getting the absolute best treatment, and it doesn't seem to matter what the expense is on males (im specifically thinking about the education system)
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males.
Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like:
"When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor.
I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment.
bullshit
There are less female street cleaners because it is a physical job and men have superior physics. There are far more female room cleaners than male room cleaners and male street cleaners combined for example. And women aren't drafted (in those countries I know) to the military because they already lose career years because of pregnancy.
I referred specifically to the glass ceiling/floor comment for a reason. The point is simply that there are benefits to being a woman that men don't get, women hardly complain about them in their fight for "equality". It's essentially give us all the good but none of the bad.
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned a fireman's test, a male has a higher weight lifting requirement than a woman. It's a physical job, why would the woman be given a consideration unless she can perform at the same level physically? No one is going to drop 50 pounds because their rescuer is a woman, this isn't really equality. Also, I don't really see how a street cleaner is a more physical job than room cleaners unless you're referring specifically to a garbage man.
Taking this example back to Starcraft, a women won't complain about all the positive attention that comes from being a girl in the scene, but when the criticism rolls in, it's absolutely unacceptable. It goes both ways, you get more positive attention for being a girl, you get more negative attention for being a girl, particularly if you're getting more positive attention than males in your position would have.
On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote: Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
Could you please show me some studies that actually show results that links women's lack of competitive drive to their genetics? It seems to me that you're jumping to the conclusion that "genetics did it!" while it may as well be environmental factors. We all know it's extremely different to grow up as a girl compared to as a boy and some of us know that environmental differences causes psychological differences.
There are no statistics on this. They would have a hard time explaining the professional
- Tennis - swimming - ice skating - skying - basketball - insert any other sport
On July 16 2011 02:04 slappy wrote: its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways.
OH GOD this is Vegas in spades. If you're a man in Vegas don't ever expect to get girls unless you have hundreds of dollars to spend on them and a nice sharp suit to look the part of a man with money.
The clubs all offer free admission to women, but men have to pay exorbitant covers. You don't hear any girls complain at all. Welcome to post-feminism.
On July 16 2011 02:04 slappy wrote: its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways.
OH GOD this is Vegas in spades. If you're a man in Vegas don't ever expect to get girls unless you have hundreds of dollars to spend on them and a nice sharp suit to look the part of a man with money.
The clubs all offer free admission to women, but men have to pay exorbitant covers. You don't hear any girls complain at all. Welcome to post-feminism.
That's not feminism at work, that's women's independence and the realization that they've got the goods that men are willing to pay a lot of money for.
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about equality in their social, economic and political rights (whereas Women's Rights is about having some in the first place!). Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
So with such an objective advantage (money basically solves every single problem at a basic human needs level (food/water/shelter/heat) how is that equality? Just seems like "yo, let us keep the advantages, but also we want an equal shot at everything you get too"
'Whats mine is mine, what's yours is mine' as they say.
@Fenrax
The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else. A lot of third wave feminists would accept the strip club example.
EDIT: To be fair, I doubt most women know that much about feminism either.
@Jibba The trouble with trying to define feminism is that there are so many branches, each with overlapping or conflicting goals. I presume the version we're talking about is the white middle class version, which has a complete different set of goals and "guidelines" compared to say the femnist movement in india, which seeks to eradicate the links between gender + race discrimination.
Until we actually define what we're discussing i fear we'll just go in circles
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
On July 16 2011 02:37 Eleaven wrote: @Jibba The trouble with trying to define feminism is that there are so many branches, each with overlapping or conflicting goals. I presume the version we're talking about is the white middle class version, which has a complete different set of goals and "guidelines" compared to say the femnist movement in india, which seeks to eradicate the links between gender + race discrimination.
Until we actually define what we're discussing i fear we'll just go in circles
I agree, I'm just defending the term from being used that way.
Being open about sexuality and objectifying people isn't such a bad thing.
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
Completely agree. That's the exact problem i have with the whole thing, the apparent disregarding of male issues in their venture for gains
Again @jibba completely agree with that too, there's really nothing wrong with it at all, in fact id go as to as to say "its the most normal thing in the world"
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
What movement? How many feminists do you know and what do they actually do in their movement? It's not like a lot of it is some crazy new idea, lots of people have read Foucault, feminists and non-feminists alike.
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
Completely agree. That's the exact problem i have with the whole thing, the apparent disregarding of male issues in their venture for gains
Both sexes do it, women are just playing catch up at this point.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: Do you think things like the relatively quick fan clubs are hurting or helping the problem?
What problem are you talking about exactly ?
Does anyone really care about the percentage of women playing games ? If more women enjoyed gaming in general, then we would have more female gamers. If they don't, so be it and I don't see any reason why anyone should ecourage more chicks to compete in "e-sports" or try to promote them in any special way. They have the same possibilities like any other male out there, so I just fail to see the point of this topic.
e-staring ? Srsly ? Geezus, if a person - whatever the gender - can't get over the fact that the internet is full of idiots and feels offended by something along the lines of "lol, ur a gurl - tits or gtfo" then he/she really has some issues.
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
Completely agree. That's the exact problem i have with the whole thing, the apparent disregarding of male issues in their venture for gains
Both sexes do it, women are just playing catch up at this point.
You believe they are still only catching up? I guess that's where we differ. Being a young (under 30) male, feels like some form of negative state as if you're of less value, especially when compared to the treatment of under 30 females. From education to employment prospects, regardless of academic merit females seem to get a lot of preferential treatment behind the guise of equality.
Perhaps i just had an isolated experience with a sexist head of education in the area i grew up, but it was blatantly apparent that the success of the girls was of more importance than the boys.
On July 16 2011 02:04 slappy wrote: its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways. That's just one example, but it applies everywhere. If you see a hot girl carrying something, don't you offer your help?
I don't offer people help just because they are hot. I offer them help if I think they need it. I fucking hate the idea of giving good looking women special treatment.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
From living in the Toronto city and this is this from the Toronto/Canadian society perspective alone (not sure about any other countries) but there are 4 reasons why women are participate in video gaming related things: 1. They seek attentions from men (dysphemism term: attention whores): the majority of the male population are video gaming so by playing video games, men would most likely to find them..."hot". For example, I've seen guys drooling over this one girl since she chose to play CoD just because she knows a lot of male gender varieties plays it. Verdict: Fakers 2. They are ambitious and have an aggressive nature (dysphemism term: bitches): yes those people are the ones that plays Facebook games such as Who has the Biggest Brain, Farmville and IPod games like Angry Birds. It is their way of showing off "Look how much I am better than you to the rest of the world" and became very obsessive. Verdict: Mostly competitive nerds (not nerds like us but school nerds) that can only show off their "status" in a different way than simply having high grades but can't perform any othey physical activities (sports) 3. Its their job (for reporting, school research): they are only interested in E-Sport if they get money or received topic of Cybergaming in their subject research project. Verdict: Fakers but CAN show real interest if they: a) purposely asked to report on E-Sport news or they themselves chose the topic. 4. They REALLY do enjoy gaming (RARE species, treasure them!): I remembered going into the computer lab at my school, there was this one girl who always sit at the back (she was Korean) while playing Brood War and she was relatively GOOD at it. When I say GOOD, I mean that she is able to defeat 3 AIs on Fighting Spirit in 1 vs 3. I've asked her if she knows Bisu or Jaedong but she responded with a no. I was REALLY surprised since I really thought that she plays because that handsome men plays this. Instead she told me that her big brother introduced to her the game and she found it really challenging and fun! Those people do NOT seek attentions. They are not playing to show others that they are better. They simply enjoy playing. Another good example is the famous progamer Tossgirl, she don't attract attentions to herself. She don't play to get the "image" and on recent interview she says that she is STILL trying to get a spot to play on team! Verdict: dedicated progamer materials.
That being said, those few type 4s are really less than 1% of the whole female population and 1% of the population isn't going to go anywhere to form an "industry".
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote: It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
Completely agree. That's the exact problem i have with the whole thing, the apparent disregarding of male issues in their venture for gains
Both sexes do it, women are just playing catch up at this point.
You believe they are still only catching up? I guess that's where we differ. Being a young (under 30) male, feels like some form of negative state as if you're of less value, especially when compared to the treatment of under 30 females. From education to employment prospects, regardless of academic merit females seem to get a lot of preferential treatment behind the guise of equality.
Perhaps i just had an isolated experience with a sexist head of education in the area i grew up, but it was blatantly apparent that the success of the girls was of more importance than the boys.
The issues are certainly different than they were 20 years ago and the field you're in changes a lot. I will say the 79% salary number some people bring up is a bunch of bullshit, but what is relevant is that women are still steered into education and men are steered into engineering.
Being a white male has still seemed like a pretty advantageous position to me. Being from Michigan, I've seen a lot of cases where there's still a disparity. Is a flirty girl going to be a better waiter/bartender than you are? Probably. But she probably doesn't get to establish a rapport with her professors (even women)or bosses like I do/have.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
the thing that hit me with the lindsey sporrer thing was that Puma had a fan club before he won NASL (i think?) and he had like 15 pages. Lindseys had just been created due to her appearance in NASL and was on 34 pages after the first day.
Puma played amazing and everyone was shocked, and yet he got less then half the pages that she got? Dont get me wrong i like her enthusiasm, but i think shes not genuine enough. She was going on about what race she wanted to play and she was gonna stream her first game and stuff. Id be surprised if she ever played at all, and i think she was just doing it to leapfrog into some other industry or something.
Have a Women's only tournment at major gaming events. See the kind of crowd it attracts over say 2 or 3 MLGs. Offer a persuading prize pool and see who shows up.
Girls go to MLGs, see if this sparks interest from guys gf's, friends of friends, etc. If it doesn't, at least someone tried to double the market for a specific eSport game.
Men are seriously interested in seeing how women perform competitvely at Starcraft. Men will watch, so there is a market ready to participate in spectating the sport. Something most professional women's sports lack.
Where's my paycheck 2 years down the road MLG staff?
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
Exactly
Yeah, people are morons. Or this post won't get so much nodding.
How about boxing and wresling (not the WWE stuff)? Are different weight categories also discrimination? Was Sugar Ray Robinson just an uncompetive fluke without any skill who was priviledged because of his weight? Were those ~10.000 medicocre heavyweights who would easily knock him out heads-up just discriminated because of their weight?
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
Not true. That is pseudo science that people use to make excuses for being sexist. Girls have the same mental abilities and reflexes as we do. The only difference is the amounts of testosterone in males is higher and the amount of estrogen in females is higher, generally speaking.
The Lindsey Sporrer fan club isn't about the fact she's a girl; It's the fact she is a model who for some reason was intervewing nerds at an event she knew nothing about. People aren't fans of her because she is a girl (although she is pretty, but that doesn't matter) but because she was a horrible interviewer and didn't belong there, except as a spectator.
As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
Exactly
Yeah, people are morons. Or this post won't get so much nodding.
How about boxing and wresling (not the WWE stuff)? Are different weight categories also discrimination? Was Sugar Ray Robinson just an uncompetive fluke without any skill who was priviledged because of his weight? Were those ~10.000 medicocre heavyweights who would easily knock him out heads-up just discriminated because of their weight?
Tennis and swimming don't involve punching each other in the face. 1 on 1 violent competition is only interesting when the opponents are evenly matched. If your arguing that women are evenly matched in things like tennis/football, theres 0 reason for segregation.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
Ladder != real life interaction with professionals
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
Exactly
Yeah, people are morons. Or this post won't get so much nodding.
How about boxing and wresling (not the WWE stuff)? Are different weight categories also discrimination? Was Sugar Ray Robinson just an uncompetive fluke without any skill who was priviledged because of his weight? Were those ~10.000 medicocre heavyweights who would easily knock him out heads-up just discriminated because of their weight?
Tennis and swimming don't involve punching each other in the face. 1 on 1 violent competition is only interesting when the opponents are evenly matched. If your arguing that women are evenly matched in things like tennis/football, theres 0 reason for segregation.
You can't have it both ways =\
Gosh. They are not evenly matched. I never claimed that. Also there are different weight classed in sports that don't involve fighting, too. Like weight lifting.
It is just an example on why you segregate sports because of physical differences that would make the competition unfair. It is so damn basic I feel stupid writing this.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
As long as people see this as a gender difference and not a reason to be sexist, this quote is a very clear and accurate explanation of male dominance in competitive athletic and sporting evironments. Well put.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
Exactly
Yeah, people are morons. Or this post won't get so much nodding.
How about boxing and wresling (not the WWE stuff)? Are different weight categories also discrimination? Was Sugar Ray Robinson just an uncompetive fluke without any skill who was priviledged because of his weight? Were those ~10.000 medicocre heavyweights who would easily knock him out heads-up just discriminated because of their weight?
Tennis and swimming don't involve punching each other in the face. 1 on 1 violent competition is only interesting when the opponents are evenly matched. If your arguing that women are evenly matched in things like tennis/football, theres 0 reason for segregation.
You can't have it both ways =\
Gosh. They are not evenly matched. I never claimed that. Also there are different weight classed in sports that don't involve fighting, too. Like weight lifting.
It is just an example on why you segregate sports because of physical differences that would make the competition unfair. It is so damn basic I feel stupid writing this.
I'm confused as per what you guys are arguing about, whether there should be divisions in real sports? I'm personally fine with having sports segregated by clear physical limitations, there's no "Slow as fuck, football league" because being slow as fuck isn't an identifiable limitation. In things like boxing, weight lifting or anything where your weight gives you a direct advantage, it makes sense to segregate because of the clear limitations on someone who is physically smaller, I can't just gain 100 pounds and be in the same form as someone who is a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier, it just doesn't work.
The question is whether this carries over to eSports which I don't think it does, games like Poker, Chess etc. I see no real reason to segregate based on gender. Once again, if we do, it's disappointing because this effectively means that women can't compete with men in physical sports or mental sports.
On July 16 2011 02:34 Eleaven wrote: @Fenrax The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade. You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
The people I try to persuade? Idiots? Because clearly only idiots think that sports like female tennis or female figure skating are unprofessional, unlike their male counterparts (which was the original claim). The gender segregation in these professional sports is exclusively based on the physical differences between men and women.
Too true. If you suddenly decided to combine men's and women's football (soccer), what would be the result? You're damned right that all of the teams would still be composed of men. Claims of sexism would then crop up and then you'd have a quota system put in place, which is just as ridiculous in the employment world. Nevermind finding the most qualified people for the job. Some people get the job based entirely on their gender/skin colour, which is no better than when they didn't get the job based on their gender/skin colour.
You don't solve discrimination with forced discrimination in the opposite direction.
Exactly
Yeah, people are morons. Or this post won't get so much nodding.
How about boxing and wresling (not the WWE stuff)? Are different weight categories also discrimination? Was Sugar Ray Robinson just an uncompetive fluke without any skill who was priviledged because of his weight? Were those ~10.000 medicocre heavyweights who would easily knock him out heads-up just discriminated because of their weight?
Tennis and swimming don't involve punching each other in the face. 1 on 1 violent competition is only interesting when the opponents are evenly matched. If your arguing that women are evenly matched in things like tennis/football, theres 0 reason for segregation.
You can't have it both ways =\
Gosh. They are not evenly matched. I never claimed that. Also there are different weight classed in sports that don't involve fighting, too. Like weight lifting.
It is just an example on why you segregate sports because of physical differences that would make the competition unfair. It is so damn basic I feel stupid writing this.
I'm confused as per what you guys are arguing about, whether there should be divisions in real sports? I'm personally fine with having sports segregated by clear physical limitations, there's no "Slow as fuck, football league" because being slow as fuck isn't an identifiable limitation. In things like boxing, weight lifting or anything where your weight gives you a direct advantage, it makes sense to segregate because of the clear limitations on someone who is physically smaller, I can't just gain 100 pounds and be in the same form as someone who is a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier, it just doesn't work. The question is whether this carries over to eSports which I don't think it does, games like Poker, Chess etc. I see no real reason to segregate based on gender. Once again, if we do, it's disappointing because this effectively means that women can't compete with men in physical sports or mental sports.
I was wondering how to succinctly put across my point, but you did the job for me rather well! thanks
Honestly if women want equal rights then they shouldn't need "women's" leagues. I'm studying accounting right now and it is a female dominated profession it seems, I've checked the numbers and its always been more females. Nobody complains. Nobody cares if women take part, if you want come along and nobody will shun, if you don't then be that way.
edit: No women's leagues => When there is no physical matter involved, don't a shitton of studies show that women multitask better? then they should kill at RTS.
Thing is 'we' aren't the ones segregating them. It's voluntary on their own part. We arent the ones that create the female-only leagues and say 'you sit in this corner over here'.
On July 16 2011 03:35 Bibdy wrote: Thing is 'we' aren't the ones segregating them. It's voluntary on their own part. We arent the ones that create the female-only leagues and say 'you sit in this corner over here'.
Truth spoken again.
"we" and "them" and "people" get a lot of blame for things. It seems the general feeling in threads about females is "we want you to earn respect the same way we have to, since this is a completely even playing field" and then a couple of misguided guys will start posting: NO WAY MAN SO OUT OF ORDER SHE A FINE GURRL SUM1 SET UP FAN CLUB
That seems to me way more sexist than the first statement of earning respect on equal terms
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
Ladder != real life interaction with professionals
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low.
Why are the excrement low if they call a girl a fag online? Are they also excrement low if they call a guy a fag online? I don't see why you made the distinction.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
Ladder != real life interaction with professionals
ladder = playing with anonymous dumb fuck ragers
ladder != professional
I think the ragers are hilarious. I hate ladder more when it turns ME into one of those profanity-spewing human rejects. Sometimes, when you're on a bad run, you just can't contain the Beast any more.
On July 16 2011 03:35 Bibdy wrote: Thing is 'we' aren't the ones segregating them. It's voluntary on their own part. We arent the ones that create the female-only leagues and say 'you sit in this corner over here'.
It seems the general feeling in threads about females is "we want you to earn respect the same way we have to, since this is a completely even playing field" and then a couple of misguided guys will start posting: NO WAY MAN SO OUT OF ORDER SHE A FINE GURRL SUM1 SET UP FAN CLUB
That's EXACTLY how this thread went. Here a photo of you discussing everyone into the ground:
When the shit hit the fan, the thread her shoot was posted in was immediately bogged down with two kinds of posts: those saying she had no business doing a photo shoot at all and those saying that those that didn't like her photo shoot were sexist - and probably gay.
I'll say it right now: I was disgusted by the shoot. I never posted in that thread, because the whole thing was a cluster-fuck, but I was absolutely appalled. The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality. THAT, friends, is the definition of sexism, and we had every right and reason to run her out of town.
Why in hell would someone like Kelly NOT do a photoshoot. Because maybe some weirdo nerds on the internet think shes not attractive enough or selling out or whatever? Did you ever think that maybe she did it for herself because she liked the pictures and it has nothing to do at all with Starcraft?
On July 15 2011 10:07 Nothingtosay wrote: The primary events that sparked this thread where the creation of two fan clubs that personally view as extremely premature. Namely the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub and the slayers_eve fan club. IN all honesty besides being born female what have either of these people done to warrant a fan club at all? The sporrer fanclub has 53 pages in 3 days, the day9 fan club in comparison has 134 pages and has been active for over one year.
Yeah, I have to agree with it. It's partly how most societies are (a bit sexist) and partly how a lot of people in the gaming/nerd communities are (ie. "omg a girl gamer?!?")
Personally, I don't give a care about gender. That said, I don't care about Sporrer (whoever that is), or Slayers_Eve (whoever that is) because I don't care about their gender. If say however one of them were to do a lot of things like say Artosis or something, then I'd say that's worthy of a fair-sized fan club. Seeing as the reality is quite the opposite, I can't quite see why.
Could someone explain to me why this happens other than my above stated causes? Even with the second one, I don't think most people here are a super hardcore variant of nerd that they have not the slightest of similarities to any girls they have met, that they would become overly ecstatic over (after checking just now) someone who is an interviewer for SC players and someone who is a lower player on Slayers.
Because maybe some weirdo nerds on the internet think shes not attractive enough
Maybe it's because I've been a bit spoiled by some quite fine ladies, but I don't find kelly too attractive. She's attractive 'enough' for a photoshoot, but so are most girls who haven't put on a ton of weight. Just do their make-up fine, and you have a whole different person (you would be extremely surprised what make-up can do, assuming you don't know). Btw, don't be offended that I don't find her too pretty. That's simply my opinion.
As a final note to the people here in general, please don't compare physical sports to competitive video gaming. While females are naturally not as strong or quick as men, their mental faculties and abilities are the same as those of men. That said, a co-gender SC team need not be all-male if there are female players who are outstanding, unlike in competitive physical sports where just the physical disparity would force any proposed co-gender teams to be all-male most of the time.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low.
Why are the excrement low if they call a girl a fag online? Are they also excrement low if they call a guy a fag online? I don't see why you made the distinction.
Well it's cuz a guy can usually come back with some snarky comment about the other's female relatives probably with some actual heart-felt intent involved as well. A girl would be like "i'm a girl? i like guys?" which leads to availability for more verbal attacks.
basically with guys, it's just slander; with girls, it becomes verbal abuse to be twisting things to make her feel bad.
You girls want respect in e-sports? Earn it. If you want equal treatment you better have equal performance, and frankly as far as BW and SC2 goes, that hasn't happened. Also, it's not like guys don't want girls to play games with us. Hell most guys try to get girls to play games with them but most girls' interests just aren't there.Those that do like to play games are just not as good as guys are... I'm not trying to be sexist but as far as gaming goes the girls I have played various games with were good solid and fun players, but were always worse than most of my guyfriends. Girls and better at some things than guys, and vice versa. Why can't gaming be one of those things. In fact, it's rare for guys and girls to be exactly as good as each other in ANYTHING.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
You really have to wonder what happened in the period from 1960-2000 that changed the family unit and the makeup of society so much. For one thing you can blame the free love, pacifist, and third wave feminism movements. Not that any of these movements where wholly bad, but their effects on male/female relationships and family were highly damaging.
Huh, I guess I'm tired of writing these large impassioned posts for today. I agree with everything you said though. Just like a man has a responsibility in a marriage or relationship to satisfy a woman, so does that woman have a responsibility to satisfy a man.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
What the hell was that... Ramblings of a man from the 1800's?
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
What the hell was that... Ramblings of a man from the 1800's?
it was well organized, but we should still try feminism
i think feminism is still very natural as mothers are the ones who carry society by giving birth and guiding the next generation
however, yes, i do think some women should be banned from motherhood. some of them are just yikes! mothers need to find the joys of unconditionally loving her children. they were once part of her for chrissakes!
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
What the hell was that... Ramblings of a man from the 1800's?
it was well organized, but we should still try feminism
i think feminism is still very natural as mothers are the ones who carry society by giving birth and guiding the next generation
however, yes, i do think some women should be banned from motherhood. some of them are just yikes! mothers need to find the joys of unconditionally loving her children. they were once part of her for chrissakes!
And how exactly to you ban a woman from motherhood? Tell her she can't have children? What if she gets pregnant?
Tie her tubes? That's just not a very nice thing to do to someone - unless you're in a totalitarian government.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low.
Why are the excrement low if they call a girl a fag online? Are they also excrement low if they call a guy a fag online? I don't see why you made the distinction.
Well it's cuz a guy can usually come back with some snarky comment about the other's female relatives probably with some actual heart-felt intent involved as well. A girl would be like "i'm a girl? i like guys?" which leads to availability for more verbal attacks.
basically with guys, it's just slander; with girls, it becomes verbal abuse to be twisting things to make her feel bad.
It's neither slander nor verbal abuse for men or women. It's nothing more than an uncovering of the speaker's ignorance or immaturity. And that's leaving aside the entirely fun (for me) conversations that ensue when my opponents tell me to 'go suck c---'...
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
On July 16 2011 04:44 Djzapz wrote: And how exactly to you ban a woman from motherhood? Tell her she can't have children? What if she gets pregnant?
A license should be required to have a child. You should be able to prove that you can financially support that child and also devote time or a caretaker's time towards raising that child. If you have a child without first acquiring a license, you should be subject to a fine. If you cannot pay that fine, then the child's custody should be given to someone you designate to take care of that child. If you can't delegate the custody of that child to someone else, the government will find a home for that child.
Why does this work? It ensures that children are provided for by people who actually can take care of them, and it also punishes people for having children that they cannot support. Accidental pregnancy? You have the option to abort said pregnancy or give the child up for adoption like normal, but if you want to keep the kid you better apply for a damn license.
I'm sick and tired of seeing these loser trash young couples pushing strollers around. I feel nothing but pity for these infants because they are doomed to having a crap childhood with bad parents, and in the end they will grow up to become the problem once again. I feel a little bad for the parents too, they've stricken themselves with a burden that will prevent them from realizing their potential as contributing members of society, and that burden will be with them for life.
Children are supposed to be a joy, and to raise a child in a situation that is anything but is an injustice to everyone including the child. We need controls in place to prevent this from happening, otherwise we'll be stuck with more and more trash to take care of in the future. People who irresponsibly or stupidly bring a child into this world for attention or entertainment or to keep a man are bad people too. A child is important; a child is for life, and most importantly:
CHILDREN ARE NOT PETS
Oh, and to say that a woman's mothering instinct would make her a natural leader in society is hilarious btw; the result of the infuriating logical paradoxes that this would put in a feminist's head would be fun to watch.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
Thankyou
I am a bit ahamed that I have discussed with you. Enormous sexist bullshit, I don't even know what to say.
On July 16 2011 05:08 TheGiz wrote: [b]A license should be required to have a child.
Looks like you were outdone while I was posting. Where am I?
I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue that black people are allowed to vote.
On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote: First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature.
' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing.
The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all.
Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft.
As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.
So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society?
Yes.
If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian?
Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Hmm, basically.
I don't think an egalitarian society is a stable equilibrium, a society can be either patriarchy, matriarchy, or transitioning from one to the other. Right now, we are transitioning to matriarchy, and for reasons given earlier in the thread, and other threads, I think that patriarchy is the better choice.
One of them is that men and women are flat out happier in general under patriarchy. Men because when it works properly, they have a stable family, a wife and children and a pleasant home to return to, in addition to knowing that their wives, sisters and daughters will be well protected and cared for should harm befall him. Women, because despite what feminists will tell you, the majority of women do not want to work full time. In addition, women are happier when paired with attractive, higher status men. Under patriarchy, men are taught to be attractive to women, and have higher status than women by default.
Essentially, patriarchy is the division of labour between the sexes. Men do the dangerous stuff, the hard work, take the risks, and men get the high pay off, while women are protected, sheltered and to an extent restrained, so that they can best raise the children, take care of house and hearth and be protected. I personally believe there is something wrong with a society that demands its women die in battle. To me, it is a good to protect (virtuous**) women. This division of labour and the demands placed upon men by wives and children, forces investment into society, as men will want to improve the society in which their children will grow up. In addition, patriarchy promotes stable families by default. Men and women are expected to stick to their marital vows, under the threat of sanction by law and community.
Needless to say, the reality does not measure up to the ideal, just like all of the -isms, -cracies and -archies.
Anglo-saxon patriarchy had its flaws, and failure to address them helped bring about its end. Essentially, a sizeable of women were miserable, because quite a few women are simply not cut out to be housewives, whether this be because they were some of those with very little maternal instinct*, they were lesbians forced to conceal it or because poor city planning meant that being a housewife meant that they did not have much company, apart from their children. Or they were women who were just plain hated men. One of the other flaws was that city life removed some of the checks and balances on the exercise of male authority over women and children: the wife's father and brothers. This meant that there was often very little recourse against abusive husbands.
A functional form of patriarchy would have to reconcile the needs of these women, as well as homosexual men. (not discriminating against people based on sexuality works fine, i think.) I suspect that in some cases, some people would have to be martyrs for the good of the whole.
*Its a common myth that all women are natural born mothers. Quite a few simply cannot stand their children, even when they are newborns. Yet they try to be "good mothers (tm)", and end up with post natal depression, as the conflicting desires drive them literally crazy. (obviously not the only reason for post natal depression).
**as an aside, the etymology of virtue is so sexist. Originates from the latin "vir" which means "man".
***Feminist rape: to a feminist, its rape when a woman has sex for any reason other than sexual gratification. If a woman decides to have sex with her husband because it would make HIM happy, she was raped because she was a poor oppressed dear. Yes, I consider it one of the duties of married couples, to satisfy each others sexual needs, to the best of their ability.
****Feminism and patriarchy are completely incompatable. The ideals of feminism sound lovely, but so does the siren's song.
All in all, patriarchy is better than matriarchy, egalitarian society makes no bloody sense and cannot exist anyway.
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
Thankyou
I am a bit ahamed that I have discussed with you. Enormous sexist bullshit, I don't even know what to say.
On July 16 2011 05:31 omnic wrote: I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue of letting black people vote.
On July 16 2011 04:44 Djzapz wrote: And how exactly to you ban a woman from motherhood? Tell her she can't have children? What if she gets pregnant?
A license should be required to have a child.
Lots of disgusting stuff has been getting posted over the last page or so. While vetinari did a decent job trying to sound smart despite the obvious sexism, TheGiz certainly takes the cake, as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's pretty sad when people get these ridiculous ideas that they find to be eloquent. "People can't take care of their children, clearly the government knows better." Seriously? Yes, some things could be done to make sure children have better lives, but needing a license to procreate? TheGiz, come on, think things through. How about a license to get raped too?
I'll laugh my ass off when the Government opens up a new backlog for license-less children who can't find homes because there are already too many babies up for adoption and not enough people to take care of them. Throw all that garbage at orphanages because the mother wasn't liquid enough, according to the government.
What a ridiculous idea. Did you just wing it and figured people wouldn't notice how terrible of an idea it is?
So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
On July 16 2011 05:55 Punscho wrote: So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
According to pretty much any study done (please correct me if new evidence counters this point) but since being given all this choice, happiness levels have dropped overwhelmingly amongst women. (and men) Even feminists agree that what has been done long term is overall bad for women in general (usually the older 'original' feminists, i'll find citations etc when i have time, unless ofc this post just gets "lol derrr sexist" replies)
NB. if this seems at all incoherent, its because its 5:30 am here. can't sleep. gotta go to work soon. Going to be hell.
That's a pretty loaded post about patriarchy and feminism without any real historical or geographical context. There is no evidence to suggest women are natural "mothers" because a "mother" is also highly contextual; The "mother ideal" you are referring to is the cookie-cutter 1950s, Leave it To Beaver, model that plagues our concept of the history of the family.
When you say an "egalitarian society makes no bloody sense", what u really seem to be saying is men are naturally smarter and women should submit. There is no logic in favoring patriarchy, only a false sense of superiority.
*Also, feminism is not singular as you suggest. It has a history of 2nd waves, bra burners, communists, 3rd wave entreprenuers, foucoult-philosophers, etc.
This is one of those threads where you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Some of you sound like you came directly from the dark ages. Maybe black people should stick to corporal labour too?
I do sincerely believe that most of this is too stupid to resond to, since responding to these idiotic arguments would mean that you would have to adopt the same invalid presupositions about men, women and society.
On July 16 2011 06:21 Nothingtosay wrote: Vetinari you're the worst kind of oppressor, the one who believes that you're doing a favor for those you're oppressing.
He's not oppressing anyone, he has an opinion. He can't do anything with that opinion other than express and discuss it.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low.
Why are the excrement low if they call a girl a fag online? Are they also excrement low if they call a guy a fag online? I don't see why you made the distinction.
Well it's cuz a guy can usually come back with some snarky comment about the other's female relatives probably with some actual heart-felt intent involved as well. A girl would be like "i'm a girl? i like guys?" which leads to availability for more verbal attacks.
basically with guys, it's just slander; with girls, it becomes verbal abuse to be twisting things to make her feel bad.
It's neither slander nor verbal abuse for men or women. It's nothing more than an uncovering of the speaker's ignorance or immaturity. And that's leaving aside the entirely fun (for me) conversations that ensue when my opponents tell me to 'go suck c---'...
you speak in such puzzles
i wish i had the same patience as yours to find THAT fun
On July 16 2011 05:55 Punscho wrote: So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
According to pretty much any study done (please correct me if new evidence counters this point) but since being given all this choice, happiness levels have dropped overwhelmingly amongst women. (and men) Even feminists agree that what has been done long term is overall bad for women in general (usually the older 'original' feminists, i'll find citations etc when i have time, unless ofc this post just gets "lol derrr sexist" replies)
Can this really be true? I remember news reports about a "Happiness" index and the top ten in the list was full of progressive (regarding the gender equality business of this thread) societies, for example all Scandinavian countries, and no countries with more traditional societies like Saudi Arabia or something in that top ten. Because the age pyramid nowadays looks totally different than what it looked like in 1911, all those European countries do not function without having women working, which makes women automatically independent compared to the past, and it all worked out alright, better than anywhere else and so perhaps better than it would have without feminism?
On July 16 2011 05:55 Punscho wrote: So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
According to pretty much any study done (please correct me if new evidence counters this point) but since being given all this choice, happiness levels have dropped overwhelmingly amongst women. (and men) Even feminists agree that what has been done long term is overall bad for women in general (usually the older 'original' feminists, i'll find citations etc when i have time, unless ofc this post just gets "lol derrr sexist" replies)
Can this really be true? I remember news reports about a "Happiness" index and the top ten in the list was full of progressive (regarding the gender equality business of this thread) societies, for example all Scandinavian countries, and no countries with more traditional societies like Saudi Arabia or something in that top ten. Because the age pyramid nowadays looks totally different than what it looked like in 1911, all those European countries do not function without having women working, which makes women automatically independent compared to the past, and it all worked out alright, better than anywhere else and so perhaps better than it would have without feminism?
I don't think you can rule out the possibility that women only said they were happy back then because their husband was standing in the room at the time.
At any rate, they wanted it. Kind of like that funny quip people keep making about the gay marriage thing. "Gays? Marrying? Go ahead. Now they can be just as miserable as the rest of us!".
I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue that black people are allowed to vote.
This now takes the cake for my favorite post on TL forums for being the most racist and sexist statement yet.
I'll take it as an act of political satire, attempting to invert the power dynamics at play here with some humor... that way I can still have an optimistic view of the gaming community.
NeverGG's point of view sounds very realistic, and despite being sad for her, sheds light on a lot of things. I feel bad for her, but man do I have to say one thing: I respect her for trying to pursue a hobby in which she is discriminated.
Nothing makes it more clear the blatant sexism toward both women and men as the Lindsey Sporrer fanclub, as much as you guys might like to pretend it's not there. Lindsey was, by all accounts, an absolute disaster at the NASL. Knowing absolutely nothing about the game, she brought fake-excitement(You can't be excited about something you know nothing about), and everyone loved it because she was a pretty girl. In fact, a good amount of posts in the fanclub is "oh my god she's so pretty i want to join da fanclub more pretty girls to play SC2 plz XD". When confronted with their own sexism, these men will perpetuate sexism toward males by going "what, do you hate cute chicks? Must be a misogynist/gay/something else that's dumb" without even taking a look at the content of why people are honestly upset about the attention Lindsey is getting.
The point you all need to realize is that she didn't do ANYTHING Sc2 related. She smiled, looked pretty, and blundered on every front related to SC2. That's _IT_. And yet everybody loves her, and those who don't are talked down to. And everybody loves her for it. That is blatantly giving her a pass that she wouldn't get if she was a guy, pretty or not. Nada wouldn't have a "nada's body thread" if he wasn't a progamer, which is the entire point of this being sexist: discriminating based on gender.
You can say it's positive discrimination and that it's good that we have "pretty girls" interested in SC2, but it's still a huge amount of discrimination which is discrediting women with a genuine interest in SC2, because they can't actually measure their accomplishments to the men who compete at the top level. They'll either be told they're peachy perfect because they're pretty, or left in the dust because they're not. And that's the damn problem.
On July 16 2011 03:13 Puzzled wrote: As a female playing this game, I can tell you that I am way more put off by the level of immaturity that I see from fellow players on the ladder boards than anything else. I can also tell you that there are a lot more women playing this game than you think there are; my name's pretty damn girly and I get lot more 'bros' and 'what kind of a guy would name himself tha you must be gay hurr hurr' BECAUSE THAT MUST BE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO THINK GUYS ARE CUTE than 'are you a girl'. It's true that it's pretty clear that I wouldn't enjoy that level of juvenalia in person and I wouldn't enter an in-person tourney for that reason, but I think there are things to address that are a lot more off-putting than a fan club.
truth. the "fag" words seems to be the new GamerBoy trend. A person who calls a girl a fag online is very low, like excrement low.
Why are the excrement low if they call a girl a fag online? Are they also excrement low if they call a guy a fag online? I don't see why you made the distinction.
Well it's cuz a guy can usually come back with some snarky comment about the other's female relatives probably with some actual heart-felt intent involved as well. A girl would be like "i'm a girl? i like guys?" which leads to availability for more verbal attacks.
basically with guys, it's just slander; with girls, it becomes verbal abuse to be twisting things to make her feel bad.
It's neither slander nor verbal abuse for men or women. It's nothing more than an uncovering of the speaker's ignorance or immaturity. And that's leaving aside the entirely fun (for me) conversations that ensue when my opponents tell me to 'go suck c---'...
I feel like this calls for a "douchebag woman gamer" meme, although I am too lazy to make one. If I would, it would go something like this
COMPLAIN ABOUT NOT BEING TREATED THE SAME AS MEN <picture of a woman wearing the douchebag hat> GO ONTO THE LADDER WHERE EVERYONE IS TREATED THE SAME AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT, TOO
I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue that black people are allowed to vote.
This now takes the cake for my favorite post on TL forums for being the most racist and sexist statement yet.
I'll take it as an act of political satire, attempting to invert the power dynamics at play here with some humor... that way I can still have an optimistic view of the gaming community.
thegiz is right though on the part of "children not being pets"... sure it's the woman's body and hers to do whatever she wants, but does that mean her offspring should be condemned to a shitty life?
maybe his method of licensure is too extreme... but you haven't seen how kids get treated though by uneducated parents, it's pretty close to late abortion if you ask me or the Delta upbringing if one refers to The Brave New World.
This is a prevalent problem of kids being born equal but then everything after is unequal....even walking down some streets, it may be possible to behold some parent slapping her kid to the street
how is a black kid in a ghetto going to get the fair treatment of a white kid in an affluent neighborhood with better family/friend support and everything?
I don't think it's too hard to understand why there should be women-only leagues. Take the BW scene. Why are there very few foreign pros in BW? It's not that Koreans are genetically superior to other races; it's that the Korean infrastructure for BW gamers is so ahead it’s hard for foreigners to catch up. The bar is too high for foreigners who are not sure they can make it and so talented foreigners become discouraged and leave the scene.
It's the same idea for women in gaming. The infrastructure and community for males is so far ahead that something must be done to make competitive SC2 more welcoming to women gamers. These women-only leagues provide comradeship and a more welcoming community. They encourage girls to try competitive gaming as a bigger part of their lives.
I'm a girl and I'm not insulted by women-only leagues. I don't delude myself into thinking that the winner of an Ironlady event is as good as a major SC2 event champion. I see these women-only events as a generous effort on the part of sponsors to increase the talent pool. It's just a stepping stone for brave and awesome women gamers who will one day, with enough encouragement and support, be competitive against any person regardless of race or gender.
I agree with thegiz. Once we fix the problem of allowing women to do what they want with their bodies we can move on to bigger problems like the troubling issue that black people are allowed to vote.
This now takes the cake for my favorite post on TL forums for being the most racist and sexist statement yet.
I'll take it as an act of political satire, attempting to invert the power dynamics at play here with some humor... that way I can still have an optimistic view of the gaming community.
That was sarcasm.
On the topic of women in e-sports: all they need to do is start training 12 hours a day and start dedicating themselves to the game. There are some obstacles in the way, that's true. I remember when Tossgirl was part of the STX A-team, it was revealed she never trained in the actual gamer house with the rest of the guys. So really, it all goes back to my first point about training.
If you want a real inspiration for women in a male dominated "sport," just look at chess. Judit Polgar is a woman who has won matches against top players including Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chess player ever.
On July 16 2011 07:01 Aeruru wrote: I don't think it's too hard to understand why there should be women-only leagues. Take the BW scene. Why are there very few foreign pros in BW? It's not that Koreans are genetically superior to other races; it's that the Korean infrastructure for BW gamers is so ahead it’s hard for foreigners to catch up. The bar is too high for foreigners who are not sure they can make it and so talented foreigners become discouraged and leave the scene.
It's the same idea for women in gaming. The infrastructure and community for males is so far ahead that something must be done to make competitive SC2 more welcoming to women gamers. These women-only leagues provide comradeship and a more welcoming community. They encourage girls to try competitive gaming as a bigger part of their lives.
I'm a girl and I'm not insulted by women-only leagues. I don't delude myself into thinking that the winner of an Ironlady event is as good as a major SC2 event champion. I see these women-only events as a generous effort on the part of sponsors to increase the talent pool. It's just a stepping stone for brave and awesome women gamers who will one day, with enough encouragement and support, be competitive against any person regardless of race or gender.
I'm not sure how you draw the comparison between geographical and cultural differences to sexual differences. Try to elaborate, please, why it's different from your point of view as a girl to enter the scene. It's online, technically anonymous(Although your realID might give you away, which is a stupid forced addition in the first place, but you don't need to add people if you don't want them to find out), so no one need even know you're a girl.
As opposed to speaking a different language, growing up in a different culture, and living in a different timezone and country entirely. I'm certain I'm not entirely right, but I'd like a bit more explanation from you, if you could.
On July 15 2011 11:02 Trajan98 wrote: Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters.
On July 16 2011 07:14 HoldenR wrote: I'm not sure how you draw the comparison between geographical and cultural differences to sexual differences. Try to elaborate, please, why it's different from your point of view as a girl to enter the scene. It's online, technically anonymous(Although your realID might give you away, which is a stupid forced addition in the first place, but you don't need to add people if you don't want them to find out), so no one need even know you're a girl.
As opposed to speaking a different language, growing up in a different culture, and living in a different timezone and country entirely. I'm certain I'm not entirely right, but I'd like a bit more explanation from you, if you could.
I wasn't trying to be so literal in my comparison Going to Korea is a much much bigger commitment than a girl entering a regular tournament. I'm just trying to say that women-only tournaments help women create a support network that allow them to overcome the challenges that prevent more women from getting into competitive gaming.
Imagine if there was a generous sponsor who was willing to fund decent sized BW tournaments in the US. The winners from these would be further sponsored to go to Korea as a team to compete there. This would generate excitement among US gamers and make them more willing to take the step to overcome the challenging language and cultural barriers. Sure people would ask "why should we watch a tournament of amateurs" but you can't deny that such a tournament would help build a US BW scene. So anyone who wants there to a US BW scene should support such a move even if the Korean pros are excluded.
You ask why women gamers would feel odd going into online tournaments since they are anonymous. I think that women are fine entering online tournaments. Women-only tournaments aren't about giving women gamers an alternative to male tournaments. It's an addition to help build the community and increase the talent pool. We all want a day to come when we don't need women-only tournaments, a day when there are so many girls interested in gaming that a girl joining the Slayers team won't prompt a mocking fanclub thread filled with derogatory comments. In that future, the only difference between a girl gamer and a boy gamer will be gender, which hopefully will prove to be an insignificant difference.
I don't think its possible to have gender bias in e-sports. Nobody really cares how big your fan club is or any of that. All that matters is results and evidence of skill. Like Day9 said in Daily #100:
"If you lose, because its a game, it's not because 'Oh the Russian judge was just feeling angry' today." It's not because 'Oh there's this subjective rating system.' It's not 'agree to disagree'. You lost, straight-up, purely, truly and only because you did something wrong and he had superior mental strength and defeated you that way. But that also only means that when you win it's not because you got some cheap oppurtunity, it's not because your mommy and daddy had a lot of money and payed for you to do it, it's not because you had the right connections or because you were cheap or cheating. It is YOUR fault that you got that good at something that hard. And I think that has been the most instrumental thing that has made me appreciate ALL starcraft players as just incredible, incredible people"
In Starcraft it doesn't matter who you are. Man, women, rich, poor. Doesn't matter. "Starcraft: The Great Equalizer". lol.
On July 16 2011 07:14 craz3d wrote: If you want a real inspiration for women in a male dominated "sport," just look at chess. Judit Polgar is a woman who has won matches against top players including Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chess player ever.
She was also the youngest grandmaster in history when she reached the rank.
Go read five posts about IdrA's girlfriend in his fan thread and you'll understand why there's a gender disparity in e-sports. Nerds still can't create an atmosphere most girls find attractive (or comfortable come to that). Not the pros, but the wider community.
On July 16 2011 07:14 HoldenR wrote: I'm not sure how you draw the comparison between geographical and cultural differences to sexual differences. Try to elaborate, please, why it's different from your point of view as a girl to enter the scene. It's online, technically anonymous(Although your realID might give you away, which is a stupid forced addition in the first place, but you don't need to add people if you don't want them to find out), so no one need even know you're a girl.
As opposed to speaking a different language, growing up in a different culture, and living in a different timezone and country entirely. I'm certain I'm not entirely right, but I'd like a bit more explanation from you, if you could.
I wasn't trying to be so literal in my comparison Going to Korea is a much much bigger commitment than a girl entering a regular tournament. I'm just trying to say that women-only tournaments help women create a support network that allow them to overcome the challenges that prevent more women from getting into competitive gaming.
Imagine if there was a generous sponsor who was willing to fund decent sized BW tournaments in the US. The winners from these would be further sponsored to go to Korea as a team to compete there. This would generate excitement among US gamers and make them more willing to take the step to overcome the challenging language and cultural barriers. Sure people would ask "why should we watch a tournament of amateurs" but you can't deny that such a tournament would help build a US BW scene. So anyone who wants there to a US BW scene should support such a move even if the Korean pros are excluded.
You ask why women gamers would feel odd going into online tournaments since they are anonymous. I think that women are fine entering online tournaments. Women-only tournaments aren't about giving women gamers an alternative to male tournaments. It's an addition to help build the community and increase the talent pool. We all want a day to come when we don't need women-only tournaments, a day when there are so many girls interested in gaming that a girl joining the Slayers team won't prompt a mocking fanclub thread filled with derogatory comments. In that future, the only difference between a girl gamer and a boy gamer will be gender, which hopefully will prove to be an insignificant difference.
You shouldn't need incentives to want to do something for fun, you should want to do it for fun. We don't exclude Koreans because it's the antithesis of the spirit of competition. Again you draw the false comparison of the financial backing required to move to korea, and the language/culture barrier, and compare it to female only tournaments, in an anonymous online arena. I know you don't intend it literally, but i just can't grasp this illusory hurdle that seems entirely self imposed.
If female wants to play sc2, she plays sc2? Same for a guy, there's absolutely nothing to do with "support groups" or "networks" when your new to something, nobody expects other people to make it easier for them when they are starting out. And if somebody does want to make it easier for new people to start out, why does it have to be gender biased? Does there have to be some 50-50 gender participation? Should we be handing out easy financial incentives to bring in more girls? Doesn't seem requisite to a healthy scene at all.
I agree with you Eleaven in that Sc2 is a great game, and there's no need to provide incentives or to dumb the game down to encourage people to play. I disagree that nobody expects other people to make it easier for them when they're starting out. Isn't that what Day[9] is all about?
I work in software so I have some experience being in a male-dominated environment. I've found that women-only events are a nice way for me to meet people who are more likely to share some of my more womanly interests. It helps make up for the times when I feel left out from a discussion about sports or beer >_< Maybe girls are just more socially oriented but my honest feeling is that these tournaments will help get more girls interested in competing. I think the people at Intel agree with me.
On July 16 2011 11:41 Aeruru wrote: I agree with you Eleaven in that Sc2 is a great game, and there's no need to provide incentives or to dumb the game down to encourage people to play. I disagree that nobody expects other people to make it easier for them when they're starting out. Isn't that what Day[9] is all about?
I work in software so I have some experience being in a male-dominated environment. I've found that women-only events are a nice way for me to meet people who are more likely to share some of my more womanly interests. It helps make up for the times when I feel left out from a discussion about sports or beer >_< Maybe girls are just more socially oriented but my honest feeling is that these tournaments will help get more girls interested in competing. I think the people at Intel agree with me.
edit:
I left a long-winded reply as to why day9 isn't an expected service for a new player, it's a nice extra, but i didn't know who day9 was before i bought starcraft, i wasn't expecting gender exclusive services.
I also addressed a bunch of other points on why excluding men in a equal playing field can lead to friction. At the end of the day, i realised i'll never convince anyone of anything on the internet(so i backspaced everything), and if you want to go ahead thinking that segregation is acceptable, let alone good in a scenario where everyone is completely equal. Well that's your opinion! gl with it!
I'd love it if female sc2 communities didn't actively shun males though, You'll never see a competitive sc2 event that says "sorry ladies, men only"
On July 16 2011 12:26 IzieBoy wrote: i'm just going to buy a Day9 fan shirt and then wear that a lot when I'm with my chick friends. I'm going to work out more too so it stands out.
Meh, just eat healthy and u'll be fine. I like the Day9 shirt idea though. Keep spreading the word.
I like nyan nyan, i also think pink is cute and fun, but that's just my opinion.
Isnt having fun with Starcraft, spending time playing vs friends, having the inside backdoor joke, wacthing a gsl with a beer and chilllin on the TL threads - really what it is all about?
i missed the memo with the lets name and shame all the sc chicks... =P people what have you become...
Just my own personal opinion here about the "Gender disparity" in sc2:
I.Don't.Care.
Simple, really. I believe it was Idra that said that this was a strategy game - not a dating show(or something along those lines). I truly couldn't care less if Incontrol looked like Lindsey Sporrer or rather like Bruce Wayne(though we all know he's much cooler then either of them). I don't care for it because in order to become his fan, first and foremost deciding factor - is the way he plays.
If there were an incredibly good sc2 female player out-there, competing in tournaments, she'll have fans. Until then we can just stop talking about - if women want to play, then let them play. If they don't, then don't. I see no reason to try and force this issue with special events and threads on TL.
I see no point in trying to get more women to play sc, just for the sake of having more women playing sc.
On July 16 2011 05:55 Punscho wrote: So some people here actually think women should stick with and have sex with the their husbands because it's their duty, not out of love? The men should provide for their family to make their lives stable and safe, but why can't this be the duty of both the father and mother of the family (or the father/father or mother/mother or whatever family you have)? In your world, if the woman does not want to live with the man anymore (for whatever reason), she has no job or no education to create income so she _cannot_ leave because that would be hurtful for her children and herself. She is trapped by the social construct. I don't think that is fair and I am quite happy that the society I live in have left those ideals behind. Feminism, at the core, is about women having the freedom of that choice.
But this thread has not surprisingly derailed a while ago.
Yes, women have the duty to maintain the integrity of their families and to fulfil the needs of their family members, at the expense of their personal happiness, if necessary. Men have the same duty. I cannot condone women tearing apart families, harming her own children by denying them a father, for the sake of an infatuation.
"for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse; in sickness and in health, as long as we shall live"
Any society that regards marital vows as empty platitudes is morally bankrupt.
I have not read all comments here so bear with me if someone already made my point!
There are several reasons why girls dont play videogames. One is that it is often frowned at when a girl plays, like she should have better things to do.
Another is that wherever you go as a female games, alot of guys will treat you in i aweful way. I have been called so manny sexist things, people have ignored me and shut me out just cus im a girl, and that kind of attitude turns girls of and evetually we stay away from gaming communitys. Nowdays i play mostly with my only with my girlfirends. In sweden we have Team Geek Girl, a group for girls that wanna play StarCraft but dont know where to start och just have been treated badly when they tried to play multiplayer. I dont mean there have been trolls, but people how just seems to disslike girl gamers.
Next thing is that the few girls that do get attention are usually very pretty but dont always know that much about games. That feeds the idea that girls dont play videogames, they just have to be pretty. Its is for an example very sad that Kellymilkies did those fotoshoots, because now she just another girl that proves that girls just have to look good, not be good at what they do. Im not saying that Kelly is bad, just that she gets more attention from her fotos than her shoutcasting.
alos, mind you guys of TL, you can bee mighty sexist sometimes, saying this and that about "how girls are and are not". that does indeed turn girls away.
however the biggest reason is that alot of gamedesign turn girls of. Im not saying make pink games. Just avoid gamedesign that will put girls of. Example, in the campain of Starcraft2. There are three major rolls for women. two who has some sort of realtion to the male lead. Why do women have to be justified by having a loverelation to a male? if blizzard where to feature a woman who was as much of a troll as Tychus, gamergirls would love it. Alow female characters to be more that just pretty, cus that does not give of much emotion. Girls wanna have big guns, kill zombies and be gritty, funny and ugly. That would make the female characters belivable. Today women in games are mostly there to be pretty. i would love to she female spacemarines for and example. (not damn medics!)
I did and interview with Sam Didier, the lead art designer of StarCraft at the releaseparty of Starcraft2 and i asked him why there where so few female characters in the game. He answered that; We dont want to make females just cus they are females, the have to have a purpose. he pretty much put his finger on their problem. Women in games have to have a purpose for beeing women, whilst men just are the norm.
On July 16 2011 23:43 Magenta wrote: I have not read all comments here so bear with me if someone already made my point!
There are several reasons why girls dont play videogames. One is that it is often frowned at when a girl plays, like she should have better things to do.
Another is that wherever you go as a female games, alot of guys will treat you in i aweful way. I have been called so manny sexist things, people have ignored me and shut me out just cus im a girl, and that kind of attitude turns girls of and evetually we stay away from gaming communitys. Nowdays i play mostly with my only with my girlfirends. In sweden we have Team Geek Girl, a group for girls that wanna play StarCraft but dont know where to start och just have been treated badly when they tried to play multiplayer. I dont mean there have been trolls, but people how just seems to disslike girl gamers.
Next thing is that the few girls that do get attention are usually very pretty but dont always know that much about games. That feeds the idea that girls dont play videogames, they just have to be pretty. Its is for an example very sad that Kellymilkies did those fotoshoots, because now she just another girl that proves that girls just have to look good, not be good at what they do. Im not saying that Kelly is bad, just that she gets more attention from her fotos than her shoutcasting.
alos, mind you guys of TL, you can bee mighty sexist sometimes, saying this and that about "how girls are and are not". that does indeed turn girls away.
however the biggest reason is that alot of gamedesign turn girls of. Im not saying make pink games. Just avoid gamedesign that will put girls of. Example, in the campain of Starcraft2. There are three major rolls for women. two who has some sort of realtion to the male lead. Why do women have to be justified by having a loverelation to a male? if blizzard where to feature a woman who was as much of a troll as Tychus, gamergirls would love it. Alow female characters to be more that just pretty, cus that does not give of much emotion. Girls wanna have big guns, kill zombies and be gritty, funny and ugly. That would make the female characters belivable. Today women in games are mostly there to be pretty. i would love to she female spacemarines for and example. (not damn medics!)
I did and interview with Sam Didier, the lead art designer of StarCraft at the releaseparty of Starcraft2 and i asked him why there where so few female characters in the game. He answered that; We dont want to make females just cus they are females, the have to have a purpose. he pretty much put his finger on their problem. Women in games have to have a purpose for beeing women, whilst men just are the norm.
Starcraft is pretty much space smurf wars in that regard.
But I disagree that Kellies shoot was a mistake. Why should she have a responsibility for fighting sexism? Take what you can and don't give anything back, she just maximizes her odds within the rules like any good gamer should. And those rules are everyone's own rules.
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
Shame to hear you say you get treated badly by everyone and now can only play with a select few people, i've only seen evidence to the contrary within starcraft.. I guess maybe if you go into a chat channel with the name FEMALEGAMURRRR and type "hey guys xD i am such a nerd lol any1 want to help me??" it would give a negative reaction.. but i presume you're not being as ridiculous as that? 0_o
Anyway good luck to you!
@ fenrax
This trope can also be justified by its accuracy in certain contexts. It is realistic for armies, police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male. For the most part, though, the main theory behind this trope is that Most Writers Are Male.
So males write about things from a male perspective?? hmmm.. something sexist going on there!
This trope can also be justified by its accuracy in certain contexts. It is realistic for armies, police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male. For the most part, though, the main theory behind this trope is that Most Writers Are Male.
So males write about things from a male perspective?? hmmm.. something sexist going on there!
On July 15 2011 10:56 scur2d2 wrote: Theres womens only soccer, volleyball and basketball leagues because theres a difference in PHYSICAL attributes.
There should be absolutely no segregation of womens leagues from male starcraft leagues. it makes no sense, because there is no physicality involved in video games.
Yeah, this guy's nailed it. The only difference between men and women is how fast they can run and how much they can bench press.
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
Shame to hear you say you get treated badly by everyone and now can only play with a select few people, i've only seen evidence to the contrary within starcraft.. I guess maybe if you go into a chat channel with the name FEMALEGAMURRRR and type "hey guys xD i am such a nerd lol any1 want to help me??" it would give a negative reaction.. but i presume you're not being as ridiculous as that? 0_o
Anyway good luck to you!
yes it matters alot what the norms are. Maybe as a guy you dont feel that as much since there are often more guys. My point was also that they was of portraiting women are also problematic, since they are very onesided and their greates feature is not their personality or interesting history, but looks.
Sure there are more males in the military. And more aliens. wait. no, no aliens. So that not really a valid point.
haha no i dont, im neither 12 nor ignorant ^^ And not everyone there are obviously a lot of nice guys out there, but quite a few very loud rude ones as well.
This trope can also be justified by its accuracy in certain contexts. It is realistic for armies, police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male. For the most part, though, the main theory behind this trope is that Most Writers Are Male.
So males write about things from a male perspective?? hmmm.. something sexist going on there!
idiot
Nice rebuttal?
I took that quote from the very argument you linked.
Do you have a problem with the facts in your own citation? Maybe you should more carefully groom your articles to get your point across in an even more biased sense.
Why am I an idiot for using your very own reference to justify something that is perfectly plain to everyone other than you?
On July 17 2011 00:08 Fenrax wrote: But I disagree that Kellies shoot was a mistake. Why should she have a responsibility for fighting sexism? Take what you can and don't give anything back, she just maximizes her odds within the rules like any good gamer should. And those rules are everyone's own rules.
Isn't TL and everything we do here around building a starcraft community? I know I'd be pissed if Day[9] suddenly "took what he could and didn't give anything back." He'd get way more shit than Kelly did if people thought he was being selfish all of a sudden.
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
Shame to hear you say you get treated badly by everyone and now can only play with a select few people, i've only seen evidence to the contrary within starcraft.. I guess maybe if you go into a chat channel with the name FEMALEGAMURRRR and type "hey guys xD i am such a nerd lol any1 want to help me??" it would give a negative reaction.. but i presume you're not being as ridiculous as that? 0_o
Anyway good luck to you!
yes it matters alot what the norms are. Maybe as a guy you dont feel that as much since there are often more guys. My point was also that they was of portraiting women are also problematic, since they are very onesided and their greates feature is not their personality or interesting history, but looks.
Sure there are more males in the military. And more aliens. wait. no, no aliens. So that not really a valid point.
haha no i dont, im neither 12 nor ignorant ^^ And not everyone there are obviously a lot of nice guys out there, but quite a few very loud rude ones as well.
It's a twisted society however we look at it, false ideals of women in magazines for men to look at, Caricatures of women in my opinion, all the photo shopping etc. It's very bad. But at the same time female media outlets such as female targeted and staffed magazines are constantly reinforcing this principle of competing with other females based on looks. One glance at a female targeted magazine is enough to make a well adjusted person feel sick thanks to the messages they portray.
"beauty is only skin deep" and yet 99% of the content of the magazine will be on skin creams, and then other 1% is "how to get more from your man in bed"
Women get portrayed in a bad way in the general media that's for sure, but it's only given fuel to the fire when people like the NASL interviewer are granted so much fame just for how they look. That she was given a job is simply unjustifiable by any other measure. Relying on looks is a negative gender stereotype, but it hurts so much when it's women perpetuating it by taking off their clothes at the first sign of popularity and a couple of hundred dollars.
On July 17 2011 00:08 Fenrax wrote: But I disagree that Kellies shoot was a mistake. Why should she have a responsibility for fighting sexism? Take what you can and don't give anything back, she just maximizes her odds within the rules like any good gamer should. And those rules are everyone's own rules.
Isn't TL and everything we do here around building a starcraft community? I know I'd be pissed if Day[9] suddenly "took what he could and didn't give anything back." He'd get way more shit than Kelly did if people thought he was being selfish all of a sudden.
Good reason to not be selfish, huh? Anyway, that doesn't matter because Day9 has an awesome no-selfish character and that's why he is so popular in the first place. But if he wants to do a naked shoot, why not? And isn't the best way for a streamer to help build up the SC community to recruit viewers for his or her SC stream? Im sure Kelly did good for the community with that shoot by being selfish in best Adam Smith tradition.
I also wish for a world in which women are judged less by their appearance but that is not Kellies problem.
The reason why some people (including myself) are pissed off about Kelly is the fact she is shameless about using her sex to sell herself. How the heck you think she got where she is today? Other than schmoozing I don't know what she's really good at. She's always in your face and those kind of women are the most distracting and annoying.
On July 17 2011 00:49 StarStruck wrote: The reason why some people (including myself) are pissed off about Kelly is the fact she is shameless about using her sex to sell herself. How the heck you think she got where she is today? Other than schmoozing I don't know what she's really good at. She's always in your face and those kind of women are the most distracting and annoying.
I like kelly because she's a breath of fresh air, does that make me a libido driven douche?
On July 17 2011 00:49 StarStruck wrote: The reason why some people (including myself) are pissed off about Kelly is the fact she is shameless about using her sex to sell herself. How the heck you think she got where she is today? Other than schmoozing I don't know what she's really good at. She's always in your face and those kind of women are the most distracting and annoying.
I like kelly because she's a breath of fresh air, does that make me a libido driven douche?
I don't think the poster your quoting was implying anything negative about her viewers at all
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
I'm not going to stop playing a game just because I don't like the character choices available to me, but for me, it matters quite a bit too. Kerrigan is a kick-ass strong character but my god, the other 'main' female character in SC2 needs a bullet to the whiny brain. And there's zero reason to throw the token female into the medic instead of into a battle unit like the banshee, the battlecruiser, etc. It's not going to keep me out but it is something I consciously noticed and that annoyed me, both in the campaign and on battlenet. I guess it's like a subliminal suggestion that I shouldn't be here, shootin' shit up.
On July 17 2011 00:49 StarStruck wrote: The reason why some people (including myself) are pissed off about Kelly is the fact she is shameless about using her sex to sell herself. How the heck you think she got where she is today? Other than schmoozing I don't know what she's really good at. She's always in your face and those kind of women are the most distracting and annoying.
It's because she doesn't have the looks to naturally pull attraction, so has to resort to sexualization to get attention. It's like the slutwalk theory:
Why is it that the chicks who most loudly proclaim their sluttiness are ugly fatsos? For example, here are a couple pics from a Canadian (natch) protest by sluts who are offended that some policeman had the gall to suggest women bear some responsibility for not dressing in whorish outfits if they want to avoid catching the attention of potential rapists:
Sez it all, really. Girls who are least attractive to men are the ones most eager to put out, and to advertise their efficiency of putting out. When you don’t have a pretty face or a nice figure, all you’ve got to snag some male attention is the wet hole smothered between your thunder thighs.
Ostensibly, this march was about giving women the right to dress like sluts even though bad men with rape-y intentions roam the world. There’s no need to invoke blaming-the-victim like a kneejerk wind-up cuntbot every time someone notes the obvious connection between action and reaction. Young women dressed in revealing clothing walking around late at night in shady hoods are more likely to get raped than old women dressed conservatively who are at home after 10pm. While rapists are to blame for their crime and should be strung up by their balls, women bear some responsibility for minimizing the odds that they will inspire a rapist to do the dirty deed. But of course women, paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in ‘As Good As It Gets’, wish to be blessedly free of the fun-killing constraints of reason and accountability.
As we all know by now from reading this blog, rape is about sex primarily, and only secondarily about power, if it is about the latter at all. The boner doesn’t lie. A man has to be sexually aroused to commit rape. If it were about power, as the feminists like to claim, Donald Trump would pop wood every time he closed a deal, and Warren Buffett would jizz in his pants when his portfolio fattened. Judging by Buffett’s success, that would be a lot of jizz. As far as I can tell, no photos of Buffett exist with telltale jizz stains on his crotch.
Women do need to be aware of their surroundings and the danger that men (particularly men of a certain caste), with their higher propensity to violence and sexual aggression, pose. This used to be common sense among womanhood for centuries. It is only in the past two generations that a bunch of put-upon dyke-lite broads in academia and the media have inculcated the opposite message in young women that they can do no wrong, have no obligation of personal responsibility, and should live in a world that caters to their need to behave however they see fit, free of consequence.
Since it is a guarantee that some egregiously dumbass readers here will misinterpret the very clear line of thought laid out above, an analogy should help fix their muddled thinking. I make it a point to not blithely walk around at 2am in majority black, Latino, or otherwise poverty-stricken neighborhoods of whatever color, even if it would inconvenience me to practice this avoidance. I know, from simple observation and the collected wisdom of the masses, that doing so would increase my odds of getting mugged or killed. If I were mugged or killed, the perpetrators would bear full responsibility for their crime. I would hope they got the chair, pronto. Better still, bullets to the knees, followed by execution to the back of the head. And yet, I recognize that I can make smart or stupid decisions with regards to my safety, and that these decisions are solely within my power to effect.
Women, you, too, need to reaffirm the wisdom of your ancestors, your grandmothers, and your great-grandmothers. Men are different from you. They do not think like you on some important matters, they do not feel like you when the throb of sexual urgency pulses, and they do not behave like you when their emotions gear up for action. You need to act accordingly. This is not “blaming the victim”. This is a call to accept reality for what it is. Denying reality means reality will automatically work against you. And when that happens, no street march in the world is gonna save you.
***
On a related note to the slut march for freedom to pursue ridiculously easy feats of derring-do, here is an article in the New York Beta Times (All the beta that’s fit to cringe) which bolsters the Chateau maxim that women, not men, are the biggest misogynists.
One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend.
Both were in eighth grade.
They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite’s. Around 11 o’clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it.
“Ho Alert!” she typed. “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” Then she clicked open the long list of contacts on her phone and pressed “send.”
In less than 24 hours, the effect was as if Margarite, 14, had sauntered naked down the hallways of the four middle schools in this racially and economically diverse suburb of the state capital, Olympia. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of students had received her photo and forwarded it.
Poor Margarite enshrined her love in a jpeg, and what was her punishment? The torments of her fellow sisters. A fusillade of female slut-shaming so cruel and unrelenting, Margarite was driven to living like a recluse. A quote from the Chateau post linked just above:
Who deploys these words in vengeful anger and spiteful slander? Not men. For example, when men use the word “slut” it’s usually with their male buddies as an exercise in identifying the women most likely to put out on the first date. Men will almost never call a woman a slut to her face unless it’s a bitter, jilted ex-boyfriend looking to score points, nor will they tell the woman’s girlfriends that she is a slut. Why kill the loose goose that lays the golden lays?
Women use them against other women. It’s women whispering gossip and innuendo in the ears of whatever female node on their social network is willing to listen, subconsciously calculating that the souldiss will find its way to the intended target. Why do they do this? Because sluts, whores, and skanks make it harder for other girls to use sex as a bargaining chip to extract commitment from quality men and keep it once it is made. Sluts are traitors to the sisterhood, undermining the prime directive and making it more difficult for the commitment whores to get what they want.
The butt-ugly sluts in the Canadian march for slut rights should take heed: your worst traitors to the cause aren’t sensible policemen or those engaged in so-called anarchic thinking. It’s other women. Some of them even feminists.
The beauties are back strutting their stuff on the slut walk. Yeah, they do their thunderous waddle on the slut walk:
I have news for this deluded bog creature. Sexy fattie is an oxymoron (emphasis on both the ox and moron). Interestingly, slutty fattie is not.
Don’t bother trying to do pickup at a slut walk. You will rarely see a hot babe at one of these parades of misfits, and that’s not because she gets lost amongst the pillars of heaving blubber. You see, hot chicks, having high sexual market value, work hard to avoid being labeled a slut. The last thing they would want to do is associate their hottie hotness with a bunch of self-proclaimed sluts. A hot chick has no trouble getting the attention of alpha males, so she doesn’t need to advertise her sexual openness to lure men. In fact, she prefers to do just the opposite: play coy and project an aura of discriminating prudery so that the man who lands her feels she is a worthwhile long term investment.
Fatties, cougars and fuglies, in contrast, take the opposite tack. They know that they won’t be turning men’s heads, so they rely on signaling their sexual promiscuity to capture some horny man with no other options. Advertising that they are an easy lay is a strategy that enables them to compete with better looking girls. Of course, it’s a myopic strategy, because most men who aren’t total losers will bolt as soon as they bust their nuts in the bloated vagina vortex of one of these wildebeests. But in the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptation), an ugly broad needed to get sperm, and fertilization took priority over pair bonding.
There is also the self-soothing psychological angle at work here. Beasts who love to brag about their sluttiness aren’t convincing others so much as they are convincing themselves of their imaginary desirability. A grrlpower slut walk is just the medicine for a lonely loser girl who’s spent one too many nights with her purple saguaro, which now vibrates in fear. She can bellow at the top of her lungs along with the rest of the sideshow freaks what a DYNAMIC and MAGNETIC piece of ass she is, and for that brief moment — that sweet afternoon escape on the streets of the city — she believes it, and her happiness swells as she fondly misremembers all those depressing, sloppy one night stands as some sort of twisted proof of her femininity and sexiness.
This is the key to defeating feminism: separate the hotties from the uglies. Make it known in no uncertain terms that feminists are ugly, inside and out, and men are repulsed by them, and the hot chicks will feel burning shame and embarrassment to be connected with the dykes, rejects, careerist shrikes and spinsters who fuel the rancid ideology.
There’s nothing like a threat to the ol’ SMV to get a person to sit up and take notice.
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
I'm not going to stop playing a game just because I don't like the character choices available to me, but for me, it matters quite a bit too. Kerrigan is a kick-ass strong character but my god, the other 'main' female character in SC2 needs a bullet to the whiny brain. And there's zero reason to throw the token female into the medic instead of into a battle unit like the banshee, the battlecruiser, etc. It's not going to keep me out but it is something I consciously noticed and that annoyed me, both in the campaign and on battlenet. I guess it's like a subliminal suggestion that I shouldn't be here, shootin' shit up.
On July 16 2011 23:43 Magenta wrote: I have not read all comments here so bear with me if someone already made my point!
There are several reasons why girls dont play videogames. One is that it is often frowned at when a girl plays, like she should have better things to do.
Another is that wherever you go as a female games, alot of guys will treat you in i aweful way. I have been called so manny sexist things, people have ignored me and shut me out just cus im a girl, and that kind of attitude turns girls of and evetually we stay away from gaming communitys. Nowdays i play mostly with my only with my girlfirends. In sweden we have Team Geek Girl, a group for girls that wanna play StarCraft but dont know where to start och just have been treated badly when they tried to play multiplayer. I dont mean there have been trolls, but people how just seems to disslike girl gamers.
Next thing is that the few girls that do get attention are usually very pretty but dont always know that much about games. That feeds the idea that girls dont play videogames, they just have to be pretty. Its is for an example very sad that Kellymilkies did those fotoshoots, because now she just another girl that proves that girls just have to look good, not be good at what they do. Im not saying that Kelly is bad, just that she gets more attention from her fotos than her shoutcasting.
alos, mind you guys of TL, you can bee mighty sexist sometimes, saying this and that about "how girls are and are not". that does indeed turn girls away.
however the biggest reason is that alot of gamedesign turn girls of. Im not saying make pink games. Just avoid gamedesign that will put girls of. Example, in the campain of Starcraft2. There are three major rolls for women. two who has some sort of realtion to the male lead. Why do women have to be justified by having a loverelation to a male? if blizzard where to feature a woman who was as much of a troll as Tychus, gamergirls would love it. Alow female characters to be more that just pretty, cus that does not give of much emotion. Girls wanna have big guns, kill zombies and be gritty, funny and ugly. That would make the female characters belivable. Today women in games are mostly there to be pretty. i would love to she female spacemarines for and example. (not damn medics!)
I did and interview with Sam Didier, the lead art designer of StarCraft at the releaseparty of Starcraft2 and i asked him why there where so few female characters in the game. He answered that; We dont want to make females just cus they are females, the have to have a purpose. he pretty much put his finger on their problem. Women in games have to have a purpose for beeing women, whilst men just are the norm.
Maybe this is a huge shock and jolt to you but: Men are the norm in the military. Women arent even allowed legally in any kind of frontline infantry role in a single military in the western world. Female spacemarine? Utterly implausible and would actually irritate me, because it would be blatant shmoozing [for a largely non existent demographic].
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
I'm not going to stop playing a game just because I don't like the character choices available to me, but for me, it matters quite a bit too. Kerrigan is a kick-ass strong character but my god, the other 'main' female character in SC2 needs a bullet to the whiny brain. And there's zero reason to throw the token female into the medic instead of into a battle unit like the banshee, the battlecruiser, etc. It's not going to keep me out but it is something I consciously noticed and that annoyed me, both in the campaign and on battlenet. I guess it's like a subliminal suggestion that I shouldn't be here, shootin' shit up.
Err, not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I don't see anything wrong with Ariel Hanson. If anything, she's a fairly realistic portrayal of a person with character flaws, opinions and personality. It's a breath of fresh air to have a female video game character who isn't wearing a form fitting suit and sharing sarcastic, witty banter with the male protagonist (which is the media's idea of a 'strong' female character.)
On July 16 2011 23:43 Magenta wrote: I have not read all comments here so bear with me if someone already made my point!
There are several reasons why girls dont play videogames. One is that it is often frowned at when a girl plays, like she should have better things to do.
Another is that wherever you go as a female games, alot of guys will treat you in i aweful way. I have been called so manny sexist things, people have ignored me and shut me out just cus im a girl, and that kind of attitude turns girls of and evetually we stay away from gaming communitys. Nowdays i play mostly with my only with my girlfirends. In sweden we have Team Geek Girl, a group for girls that wanna play StarCraft but dont know where to start och just have been treated badly when they tried to play multiplayer. I dont mean there have been trolls, but people how just seems to disslike girl gamers.
Next thing is that the few girls that do get attention are usually very pretty but dont always know that much about games. That feeds the idea that girls dont play videogames, they just have to be pretty. Its is for an example very sad that Kellymilkies did those fotoshoots, because now she just another girl that proves that girls just have to look good, not be good at what they do. Im not saying that Kelly is bad, just that she gets more attention from her fotos than her shoutcasting.
alos, mind you guys of TL, you can bee mighty sexist sometimes, saying this and that about "how girls are and are not". that does indeed turn girls away.
however the biggest reason is that alot of gamedesign turn girls of. Im not saying make pink games. Just avoid gamedesign that will put girls of. Example, in the campain of Starcraft2. There are three major rolls for women. two who has some sort of realtion to the male lead. Why do women have to be justified by having a loverelation to a male? if blizzard where to feature a woman who was as much of a troll as Tychus, gamergirls would love it. Alow female characters to be more that just pretty, cus that does not give of much emotion. Girls wanna have big guns, kill zombies and be gritty, funny and ugly. That would make the female characters belivable. Today women in games are mostly there to be pretty. i would love to she female spacemarines for and example. (not damn medics!)
I did and interview with Sam Didier, the lead art designer of StarCraft at the releaseparty of Starcraft2 and i asked him why there where so few female characters in the game. He answered that; We dont want to make females just cus they are females, the have to have a purpose. he pretty much put his finger on their problem. Women in games have to have a purpose for beeing women, whilst men just are the norm.
Maybe this is a huge shock and jolt to you but: Men are the norm in the military. Women arent even allowed legally in any kind of frontline infantry role in a single military in the western world. Female spacemarine? Utterly implausible and would actually irritate me, because it would be blatant shmoozing [for a largely non existent demographic].
This may be a huge shock to you, but StarCraft takes place in the future and things change in a lot in the future. Starship Troopers, which clearly influenced the Terran campaign of Brood War, had females fighting as infantry and showed women soldiers getting killed by the bugs in equally horrific ways as the men.
Yes, which was an equally implausible movie. I havent heard anything in the lore in starcraft about how the terran marine suit makes physical restrictions unimportant. Quite the contrary the marines are constantly portrayed as not only the insane and the degenerates of society, but as physically badass. Unless you want she-males leading the charge of the "fairer" gender, its not going to happen outside of cheesy B movies.
edit: Nor is blizzard under some moral constraint to manipulate reality with pseudo excuses just to throw a chick in a suit. Its a ridiculous criticism.
On July 17 2011 10:39 lizzard_warish wrote: Yes, which was an equally implausible movie. I havent heard anything in the lore in starcraft about how the terran marine suit makes physical restrictions unimportant. Quite the contrary the marines are constantly portrayed as not only the insane and the degenerates of society, but as physically badass. Unless you want she-males leading the charge of the "fairer" gender, its not going to happen outside of cheesy B movies.
edit: Nor is blizzard under some moral constraint to manipulate reality with pseudo excuses just to throw a chick in a suit. Its a ridiculous criticism.
Yes because in the distant future it would just be unheard of for women to see combat, if soldiers were desperately needed they would still be clinging on to 21st century values that women are too fragile to see fighting.
There are roles that aren't being on the frontlines. Is there any real reason a woman could not drive a Thor, Siege Tank or command a Battlecruiser? I mean, seriously, you just said Terrans employs convicts and degenerates in its army, but letting women fight would be just TOO out there.
Lastly, you're forgetting the most important aspect which is that it's a fucking sci-fi game. Somehow you're bringing in modern day military issues into a game about fighting space aliens.
Also note that I don't particularly care whether the game has females in what roles, but your reasoning for why women 'don't belong in the front lines' is stupid.
On July 17 2011 10:30 lizzard_warish wrote:Maybe this is a huge shock and jolt to you but: Men are the norm in the military. Women arent even allowed legally in any kind of frontline infantry role in a single military in the western world. Female spacemarine? Utterly implausible and would actually irritate me, because it would be blatant shmoozing [for a largely non existent demographic].
I imagine that its illegality would be a huge shock to New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland as well.
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
I'm not going to stop playing a game just because I don't like the character choices available to me, but for me, it matters quite a bit too. Kerrigan is a kick-ass strong character but my god, the other 'main' female character in SC2 needs a bullet to the whiny brain. And there's zero reason to throw the token female into the medic instead of into a battle unit like the banshee, the battlecruiser, etc. It's not going to keep me out but it is something I consciously noticed and that annoyed me, both in the campaign and on battlenet. I guess it's like a subliminal suggestion that I shouldn't be here, shootin' shit up.
the banshee flyer is a woman... her helicopter is pretty awesome
On July 17 2011 10:48 Ocedic wrote: Yes because in the distant future it would just be unheard of for women to see combat, if soldiers were desperately needed they would still be clinging on to 21st century values that women are too fragile to see fighting.
they have to be pure, chaste, domesticated, submissive, and stay away from the sphere of manliness. It's the Cult of True Womanhood. oh, they also have to feed our kids, clothe them, take them to school, work a second job so that we can go back to school, um and and have sex with us on a daily basis. god, it's great being a man. i think that covers it. PM me if i missed some. haha
Hm, now that I think about Puzzled's comments on lack of female characters, I think she does have a point on accessibility to games. I just remembered an article done by Shamus Young on the topic. (Creater of the webcomic DM of the Rings, but he often is very insightful on nonsense video game logic, DRM etc.)
His article as found on Escapist regarding lack of games:
I didn't see you at PAX East this year, so I guess you didn't make it. Well, you managed to miss out on two-hour lines, paying three dollars for a fun-size bag of chips, and dudes dressed as Chun-Li. You also missed out on a panel run by our own Susan Arendt, Females on Female Characters, where a panel of prominent female gamers talked about female videogame characters.
One surprise for me was that they didn't mind sexual pandering nearly as much as I expected. Their take on female characters was that it was fine for female characters to be obviously sexualized - as long as they have something else going for them. It turns out that I'm more bothered by sexual pandering than they are.
It's not that I'm averse to the female form and its particular configuration of curves. (Big fan, actually.) It's just that I hate being treated like an idiot. It's like a toothpaste commercial that shows a guy attracting hot young women because he switched to the advertised brand. The message I get from the advertiser isn't, "Buy a tube of our tooth-cleansing goop," but, "We think you're stupid enough to believe that strange women will be dry-humping you on the subway if you buy this product." It's hard to enjoy something if you're left with the impression that the creator thinks you're a knuckle-dragging simpleton.
Instead of being upset at sexual pandering, what seemed to really annoy the panelists was the general lack of female characters, particularly lead characters. As an experiment, my wife had a conversation with our daughters (ages 11 and 13) about this, going over the same topics that Susan covered in the panel. And the results were nearly identical. They wanted to play as a girl more often. They wanted female support characters to be more interesting and capable. They wouldn't be so irritated by the likes of Princess Peach and Princess Zelda if they could kick a little ass now and again. To paraphrase: If games are escapism, why do we always have to escape to a world where we're helpless, clueless, and witless?
I ran though a list of titles and franchises I've played, bought, read about or ridiculed in the last couple of years. Observe:
Alan Wake, Alpha Protocol, Assassin's Creed series, Bad Company series, Batman: Arkham Asylum, BioShock series, Bulletstorm, Call of Duty, Dante's Inferno, Dead Rising series, Dead Space Series, Dead to Rights series, Deus Ex Series, Duke Nukem series, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, Gears of War, God of War Series, Grand Theft Auto Series, Half-Life Series, Halo Series, Homefront, InFamous, Kane & Lynch series, Killzone Series, Madworld, Max Payne Series, Mindjack, Modern Warfare Series, Nier, Painkiller, Prince of Persia Series, Prototype, Quake series, Red Dead Redemption, Red Faction series, Red Steel series, Resident Evil 4 and 5, Riddick series, Serious Sam series, Splatterhouse, Splinter Cell series, STALKER, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed series, the last 4 Silent Hill titles, Two Worlds Series, Unreal Tournament 3, The Witcher series...
You get the idea. This is nowhere near a complete list. I basically came up with games until I got sick of it. All of the above are big-budget, high-profile games where you play as a guy. Sure, we have the occasional Lara Croft or Samus Aran, but they are tiny drops in the ocean of testosterone that is modern AAA gaming.
Oh but Shamus! Most gamers are guys so doesn't it make sense that most main characters are guys? I'm sure that's the same justification used by game designers, and it's silly. At the panel, the room was packed, the audience was predominantly female, and it was clear from their applause and cheering that these women were hungry for an experience that let them behave in a heroic way without requiring them to change genders. And if they did have to play as a man, they would at least prefer to not be humiliated by having the female support character be a useless doormat while all of the heroics and witty one-liners go to the man. If it really is too much to ask for a game to pander to women once in a while, can we at least get the games to stop actively alienating them?
Yes, my list of games is full of male leads, but look at it again. It's not just that the main characters are men. It's that the main characters are young, white, American men. (Or at least, guys with American accents.) Even characters that should hail from the dark side (like the Persian Prince) end up in the "would be played by Ethan Hawke in the movie adaptation" part of the pigmentation spectrum. Take away the costumes, and the only thing that differentiates these characters is their haircuts.
This is foolish. Even if you care nothing about diversity, even if you don't care about female gamers, even if you think that young white American males are the only force of good in the universe, you're still sabotaging your game by refusing to consider one of the many other sorts of human beings to be your protagonist.
Publishers are always reminding us how important it is to come up with strong intellectual property. They want recognizable names and iconic characters to set themselves apart, but then they give their game yet another hero off the Doom Marine conveyor belt. BioWare gets points for letting us choose the appearance and gender of our protagonist in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but then they lose those points by making the default box-cover characters a couple of generic white dudes. If nothing else, it would make sense to try and make a dude that didn't look like all the other box-cover dudes on the shelf.
I know that the AAA games industry isn't considered a font of originality, but surely we can do better than this.
The long and short of it is I would agree that games need not be 'turned pink,' but I would agree with Puzzled that there are far too few female characters and the ones that are present are often cardboard cutouts. And leaving aside the issue of whether females should be in the army, there are more places for characters than simply the marines. There was only ever one character shown as a marine- Tychus. Partially there weren't that many fleshed out characters to begin with...
But this is a far bigger problem than simply StarCraft. The whole gaming industry and even the movie industry has remained pretty stuck in their ways with few notable exceptions (Alien is a very good example of a female character done right.)
Yeah, please let's do it the same way as in real life! Let's bring in a quota! At least 40% of all players in E-sports teams has to be female. Not matter the skill level but for the sake of equality and gender mainstreaming women CANNOT be worse than men in any aspect.
"Women can compete equally in things such as politics but in gaming and sports they are at a disadvantage. Anything that involves reaction times, physical speed and strength men will excel at over women because men have evolved over millions of years as hunters."
What he said at the beginning of this discussion. And luckily most women I talked to don't wanna go down that road for the next million years to become hunters as well. Because someone of us has to take the burden of giving birth in the end and I doubt that after a million years of switching positions men will be able to do so.
You’ve probably read my thoughts about not listening to a woman about dating or relationships, but now I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t listen to a woman about anything. I’ve observed almost no cases where a man’s status or position has been increased from following a woman’s advice or opinions, and it’s much more likely for him to be harmed from it.
Within any topic a person’s level of expertise will likely fall within three categories:
1. Expert Status 2. Familiarity 3. Unqualified
If I were to pick the topics that I’m an “expert” on, it would be game, American dating culture, and South American travel and dating culture. A conversation in any of those topics may have me teaching my audience some things since few others possess deeper experiences that match mine.
I’m familiar in a handful of other topics, but with those it’s not uncommon for someone to know substantially more than me. I would gladly defer to another man’s more superior grasp of the subject matter by expressing humility and an open mind.
I’m wholly unqualified to discuss things like monogamous relationships, maintaining a marriage, or sports. If those topics come up I completely shut my mouth and nod my head.
The problem with Western women is they pretend they’re an expert on topics that they’re unqualified to talk about. Think for a minute about what the average American woman has expert status on. If she graduated from a regular university and works in the Human Resources department, for example, her expertise would be shuffling papers, conducting job interviews, talking on the telephone for long periods of time, flaking, text messaging, Kim Kardashian, and primetime television. She is probably familiar with dieting, fashion, and whatever subject she majored in college, and then she’s unqualified on everything else. Therefore if she’s trying to assert herself on those other topics, you can safely ignore every word that comes out of her mouth.
A woman thinks after reading a couple articles on Huffington Post she’s qualified to jam public policy down your throat, or that she can competently discuss statecraft. She’ll go to Thailand or Argentina for a week, glance at the abject poverty, hear about a new microlending organization, and then all of a sudden think she’s an expert on geopolitical concerns. She’ll watch some news report on the environment and buy “green” products, urging you to do the same because she thinks she’s saving the world. She’ll read health articles in the New York Times and start making comments as if she’s a trained nutritionist. She’ll go on about the importance of feminism even though you may actually know more about the history of the movement than she does. The epitome of this overreach is your 35-year-old lonely spinster giving relationship advice when we all know the only relationships she’s qualified to discuss are those with felines.
Even a girl’s opinions on friendship, a basic element of humanity, are completely useless. Just about all female friendships are poisoned with jealousy, envy, drama, frequent abandonment, and a neverending series of petty fights and backstabbing that leave the average man scratching his head about where all that anger and disloyalty is coming from. Personal attacks that would stun grown men are weekly occurences in female friendships.
So what’s left? Well, if I’m on a date with a girl I will happily listen to her stories, observational comments, or experiences with a committed hobby she has worked hard on, but the moment she starts trying to preach or educate me on matters she has little true understanding on, I know she has gotten too big for her britches. Too many guys before me allowed her to ramble on about nonsense without telling her to shut the fuck up, and because of that she actually believes that she possesses wisdom or knows how to solve problems like men have done for centuries.
If you peel back the layers of a modern woman, you’ll find that her life’s total education has little real-world application. It’s filled with liberal idealism and pop culture nonsense that has no positive bearing to you or any other man. Never ask a woman for advice on anything besides maybe fashion, and never let a woman influence you with her flawed and shockingly incomplete body of knowledge. Seek out a woman for her beauty, femininity, sexuality, and pleasing, low-maintenance personality, but not for her intelligence. The more of it she thinks she has, the more pompous bullshit you’ll have to put up with.
Can't read the entire thread, but if women want to be involved in e-sports, they absolutely can. The problem is, being a pro gamer is hard, and if you want to be a pro gamer you have got to earn it. If there are no women that are up to the task of playing 14 hours a day, then tough chance, you're not going to become a pro gamer. Period. Is that sexist? No, it's the complete opposite, anything but this would be sexist. The requirements are equal for both sexes, if you want to parttake you have to put in an equal amount of work. Why would we lower the bar for them? That would be sexism.
On July 17 2011 18:45 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Can't read the entire thread, but if women want to be involved in e-sports, they absolutely can. The problem is, being a pro gamer is hard, and if you want to be a pro gamer you have got to earn it. If there are no women that are up to the task of playing 14 hours a day, then tough chance, you're not going to become a pro gamer. Period. Is that sexist? No, it's the complete opposite, anything but this would be sexist. The requirements are equal for both sexes, if you want to parttake you have to put in an equal amount of work. Why would we lower the bar for them? That would be sexism.
i dont think lowering the bar would be usefull at all, but the thread is more about "why" girls dont play. There are several reasons to why its harder for manny girl to get into the esportscommunity. And of course, not as manny girls as guys want to play sc2, bu there are quite a few that wants to.
Maybe this is a huge shock and jolt to you but: Men are the norm in the military. Women arent even allowed legally in any kind of frontline infantry role in a single military in the western world. Female spacemarine? Utterly implausible and would actually irritate me, because it would be blatant shmoozing [for a largely non existent demographic].
This is incredibly untrue.
1) Israel (which is considered Western) put women on the frontlines. 2) The United States put women on the frontlines in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/world/americas/26iht-women.html) (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13961298&ps=rs) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/23/us-military-women-in-combat)
So, sorry... fact check yourself before posting please... or give a cite for your inaccurate information instead of just asserting.
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
Shame to hear you say you get treated badly by everyone and now can only play with a select few people, i've only seen evidence to the contrary within starcraft.. I guess maybe if you go into a chat channel with the name FEMALEGAMURRRR and type "hey guys xD i am such a nerd lol any1 want to help me??" it would give a negative reaction.. but i presume you're not being as ridiculous as that? 0_o
Anyway good luck to you!
yes it matters alot what the norms are. Maybe as a guy you dont feel that as much since there are often more guys. My point was also that they was of portraiting women are also problematic, since they are very onesided and their greates feature is not their personality or interesting history, but looks.
Sure there are more males in the military. And more aliens. wait. no, no aliens. So that not really a valid point.
haha no i dont, im neither 12 nor ignorant ^^ And not everyone there are obviously a lot of nice guys out there, but quite a few very loud rude ones as well.
It's a twisted society however we look at it, false ideals of women in magazines for men to look at, Caricatures of women in my opinion, all the photo shopping etc. It's very bad. But at the same time female media outlets such as female targeted and staffed magazines are constantly reinforcing this principle of competing with other females based on looks. One glance at a female targeted magazine is enough to make a well adjusted person feel sick thanks to the messages they portray.
"beauty is only skin deep" and yet 99% of the content of the magazine will be on skin creams, and then other 1% is "how to get more from your man in bed"
Women get portrayed in a bad way in the general media that's for sure, but it's only given fuel to the fire when people like the NASL interviewer are granted so much fame just for how they look. That she was given a job is simply unjustifiable by any other measure. Relying on looks is a negative gender stereotype, but it hurts so much when it's women perpetuating it by taking off their clothes at the first sign of popularity and a couple of hundred dollars.
also: Esports.
I argree. Its a circular problem that feeds itself. Girls have to be strong enough to not use their looks just to get attention if they wanna be respected and noticed more for their talents. I guys have not listen more and try to understand cus as it is not there are a lot of judgning going on.
On July 16 2011 23:43 Magenta wrote: I have not read all comments here so bear with me if someone already made my point!
There are several reasons why girls dont play videogames. One is that it is often frowned at when a girl plays, like she should have better things to do.
Another is that wherever you go as a female games, alot of guys will treat you in i aweful way. I have been called so manny sexist things, people have ignored me and shut me out just cus im a girl, and that kind of attitude turns girls of and evetually we stay away from gaming communitys. Nowdays i play mostly with my only with my girlfirends. In sweden we have Team Geek Girl, a group for girls that wanna play StarCraft but dont know where to start och just have been treated badly when they tried to play multiplayer. I dont mean there have been trolls, but people how just seems to disslike girl gamers.
Next thing is that the few girls that do get attention are usually very pretty but dont always know that much about games. That feeds the idea that girls dont play videogames, they just have to be pretty. Its is for an example very sad that Kellymilkies did those fotoshoots, because now she just another girl that proves that girls just have to look good, not be good at what they do. Im not saying that Kelly is bad, just that she gets more attention from her fotos than her shoutcasting.
alos, mind you guys of TL, you can bee mighty sexist sometimes, saying this and that about "how girls are and are not". that does indeed turn girls away.
however the biggest reason is that alot of gamedesign turn girls of. Im not saying make pink games. Just avoid gamedesign that will put girls of. Example, in the campain of Starcraft2. There are three major rolls for women. two who has some sort of realtion to the male lead. Why do women have to be justified by having a loverelation to a male? if blizzard where to feature a woman who was as much of a troll as Tychus, gamergirls would love it. Alow female characters to be more that just pretty, cus that does not give of much emotion. Girls wanna have big guns, kill zombies and be gritty, funny and ugly. That would make the female characters belivable. Today women in games are mostly there to be pretty. i would love to she female spacemarines for and example. (not damn medics!)
I did and interview with Sam Didier, the lead art designer of StarCraft at the releaseparty of Starcraft2 and i asked him why there where so few female characters in the game. He answered that; We dont want to make females just cus they are females, the have to have a purpose. he pretty much put his finger on their problem. Women in games have to have a purpose for beeing women, whilst men just are the norm.
Maybe this is a huge shock and jolt to you but: Men are the norm in the military. Women arent even allowed legally in any kind of frontline infantry role in a single military in the western world. Female spacemarine? Utterly implausible and would actually irritate me, because it would be blatant shmoozing [for a largely non existent demographic].
What world do you live in? Women are allowed in a lot of armies. You are just have not read alot about this have you?
On July 17 2011 18:45 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Can't read the entire thread, but if women want to be involved in e-sports, they absolutely can. The problem is, being a pro gamer is hard, and if you want to be a pro gamer you have got to earn it. If there are no women that are up to the task of playing 14 hours a day, then tough chance, you're not going to become a pro gamer. Period. Is that sexist? No, it's the complete opposite, anything but this would be sexist. The requirements are equal for both sexes, if you want to parttake you have to put in an equal amount of work. Why would we lower the bar for them? That would be sexism.
Try telling that to a team like SlayerS.
This has gone on long enough.
Question: do any of you think people like NeverGG, lilsusie or mnm had many problems within our community because of their sex?
The short answer is no.
Did they sell themselves to us based on their gender.
Once again, the answer is no.
They know how to handle themselves in a mature fashion. There is no need to play the gender card.
It's easier for a guy to devote his life to gaming than for a girl. I'm quite certain that it's a lot easier for a guy to convince his parents (and friends etc) to spend all day playing games than it is for a girl (in general).
On July 17 2011 18:45 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Can't read the entire thread, but if women want to be involved in e-sports, they absolutely can. The problem is, being a pro gamer is hard, and if you want to be a pro gamer you have got to earn it. If there are no women that are up to the task of playing 14 hours a day, then tough chance, you're not going to become a pro gamer. Period. Is that sexist? No, it's the complete opposite, anything but this would be sexist. The requirements are equal for both sexes, if you want to parttake you have to put in an equal amount of work. Why would we lower the bar for them? That would be sexism.
Try telling that to a team like SlayerS.
This has gone on long enough.
Question: do any of you think people like NeverGG, lilsusie or mnm had many problems within our community because of their sex?
The short answer is no.
Did they sell themselves to us based on their gender.
Once again, the answer is no.
They know how to handle themselves in a mature fashion. There is no need to play the gender card.
I dont see you point, try explaining? and no one is playing the "Gendercard".
On July 17 2011 18:45 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Can't read the entire thread, but if women want to be involved in e-sports, they absolutely can. The problem is, being a pro gamer is hard, and if you want to be a pro gamer you have got to earn it. If there are no women that are up to the task of playing 14 hours a day, then tough chance, you're not going to become a pro gamer. Period. Is that sexist? No, it's the complete opposite, anything but this would be sexist. The requirements are equal for both sexes, if you want to parttake you have to put in an equal amount of work. Why would we lower the bar for them? That would be sexism.
Try telling that to a team like SlayerS.
This has gone on long enough.
Question: do any of you think people like NeverGG, lilsusie or mnm had many problems within our community because of their sex?
The short answer is no.
Did they sell themselves to us based on their gender.
Once again, the answer is no.
They know how to handle themselves in a mature fashion. There is no need to play the gender card.
I dont see you point, try explaining? and no one is playing the "Gendercard".
His point is that every single female in the starcraft community that is widely respected and liked, got there by doing something useful and being good at what they do. Not by saying "im a girl, here's 10 photos of me" I think that's his point anyway, seems on the money too.
On July 17 2011 18:45 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: Can't read the entire thread, but if women want to be involved in e-sports, they absolutely can. The problem is, being a pro gamer is hard, and if you want to be a pro gamer you have got to earn it. If there are no women that are up to the task of playing 14 hours a day, then tough chance, you're not going to become a pro gamer. Period. Is that sexist? No, it's the complete opposite, anything but this would be sexist. The requirements are equal for both sexes, if you want to parttake you have to put in an equal amount of work. Why would we lower the bar for them? That would be sexism.
Try telling that to a team like SlayerS.
This has gone on long enough.
Question: do any of you think people like NeverGG, lilsusie or mnm had many problems within our community because of their sex?
The short answer is no.
Did they sell themselves to us based on their gender.
Once again, the answer is no.
They know how to handle themselves in a mature fashion. There is no need to play the gender card.
"you guys have no idea what i would do to susie.. in short, "i would destroy her" Caplock21 2 years ago"
"shes fugly koreankid1337 3 years ago "
"asumness dam shes kawaii OMFGHIPPO 3 years ago "
Those are just 3 comments, from a video with lilsusie, there are much more crude comments than that about her, and she was a fun caster to watch. (Also the majority of the comments were related to her sex rather than her being a "good commentator."
Female gamers do get the shit end of the stick in games. I've played with a lot of gals, and have gal friends who played games online, they usually pretend to be guys online, the moment they are a girl they get shit for it, and the sandwich jokes never stop.
Sorry, but this isn't as simple as a lot of people think it is, marry a female gamer, date them. Play on their accounts experience the harassment they get from people on a daily basis if they know there isn't a penis on the other end.
You have to read between the lines. I said many for a reason. It was never a hot issue before. No pun intended.
Of course there will always be a few bad apples. Furthermore, the examples you gave are nothing more than outbursts by random juveniles. You will get those type of responses regardless of where you are. I've been around these parts for a really long time and I find it funny that this shit is only coming to the forefront now.
On July 17 2011 21:37 StarStruck wrote: You have to read between the lines. I said many for a reason. It was never a hot issue before. No pun intended.
Of course there will always be a few bad apples. Furthermore, the examples you gave are nothing more than outbursts by random juveniles. You will get those type of responses regardless of where you are. I've been around these parts for a really long time and I find it funny that this shit is only coming to the forefront now.
Have you seriously never played on your girlfriends account? This is quite a lot of people who act like that. Go on youtube, go check all these female gamers out, Milkies, Megumi, Cheekyduck, Lilsusie, TosSGirl(Any female gamer.)
Any female gamers at all. I'm just stating something I know from experience from other games not just SC2.
It's more the guys who are at fault in the majority not the gals, guys sometimes try to look good too, but you don't see the difference?
This has been going on for a while now.
Guy sleeps with 3 girls in a week, he's a player.
Girl sleeps with 3 guys, she's a slut.
Instead of thinking like this. It's time to change your way of thinking.
My preference is let them do whatever they want. I watch the Iron Lady tournament, I believe everything has to start somewhere, and having their own tournaments is a good way to get them started, less pressure for one, and it's a stepping stone for them to try other online tournaments.
What we as a community should do is welcome them like we do any other guy, let their numbers grow, let them be who they want to be. =/
Does it really matter what gender the characters are in a story? i don't care that lara croft is female, and all her male companions are blithering idiots, it's just standard western storytelling at it's cheesiest. And that's what game storyline are, cheese clichés because games are about game play, and all the good story writers are being paid more money for writing films and books.
Of course men are the norm in a military sci-fi game ;o statistically men outweight women in military roles by an absurd ratio.
Shame to hear you say you get treated badly by everyone and now can only play with a select few people, i've only seen evidence to the contrary within starcraft.. I guess maybe if you go into a chat channel with the name FEMALEGAMURRRR and type "hey guys xD i am such a nerd lol any1 want to help me??" it would give a negative reaction.. but i presume you're not being as ridiculous as that? 0_o
Anyway good luck to you!
yes it matters alot what the norms are. Maybe as a guy you dont feel that as much since there are often more guys. My point was also that they was of portraiting women are also problematic, since they are very onesided and their greates feature is not their personality or interesting history, but looks.
Sure there are more males in the military. And more aliens. wait. no, no aliens. So that not really a valid point.
haha no i dont, im neither 12 nor ignorant ^^ And not everyone there are obviously a lot of nice guys out there, but quite a few very loud rude ones as well.
It's a twisted society however we look at it, false ideals of women in magazines for men to look at, Caricatures of women in my opinion, all the photo shopping etc. It's very bad. But at the same time female media outlets such as female targeted and staffed magazines are constantly reinforcing this principle of competing with other females based on looks. One glance at a female targeted magazine is enough to make a well adjusted person feel sick thanks to the messages they portray.
"beauty is only skin deep" and yet 99% of the content of the magazine will be on skin creams, and then other 1% is "how to get more from your man in bed"
Women get portrayed in a bad way in the general media that's for sure, but it's only given fuel to the fire when people like the NASL interviewer are granted so much fame just for how they look. That she was given a job is simply unjustifiable by any other measure. Relying on looks is a negative gender stereotype, but it hurts so much when it's women perpetuating it by taking off their clothes at the first sign of popularity and a couple of hundred dollars.
also: Esports.
I argree. Its a circular problem that feeds itself. Girls have to be strong enough to not use their looks just to get attention if they wanna be respected and noticed more for their talents. I guys have not listen more and try to understand cus as it is not there are a lot of judgning going on.
Sadly we live in a shallow world, but isnt there more important issues in this world to discuss?
even if there isnt, does it matter that there are girl tournaments, pretty players, cute casters, sexy interview ladies that ask questions like "zvg" ?
does it harm the fabrics of this complex male/female stereotype expectation, that is deemed absolutely necessary to live up to in order to be respected and graced with your approval?
Have you seriously never played on your girlfriends account? This is quite a lot of people who act like that. Go on youtube, go check all these female gamers out, Milkies, Megumi, Cheekyduck, Lilsusie, TosSGirl(Any female gamer.)
Any female gamers at all. I'm just stating something I know from experience from other games not just SC2.
I know exactly how this community reacts to the women I've been with. I put one of them on cam and the boys go nuts: "Show us your breasts!"; "I'd do your girlfriend!"; etc.
They laugh it off just like me. What do you expect from horny teenagers, which makes up a big part of this demographic? Many of them are only kids and it's the Internet. People will do and say anything. The rules of engagement are different.
It's more the guys who are at fault in the majority not the gals, guys sometimes try to look good too, but you don't see the difference?
Let's not play the blame game. My girlfriends embrace it and like the attention to a certain degree. When it gets over excessive they will tell those guys to stop or give me the this isn't fun anymore look, so I snip it in the butt.
Lindsey Sporre's success rests solely on her looks. Why else would she get the job over someone who is more qualified?
When someone says they are victim of their sex I cannot help but laugh because in many circumstances they embraced it, or they chose to ignore all the facts presented to them. It's not hard to pull the sexiest card and some people handle constructive criticism better than others.
The women I spoke about earlier never had to use their sex to sell themselves to this community. They did it through good contributions. I've already said this. Lindsey was unprepared and the responsibility lies on the person who contracted her.
The TL vets are used to high quality. As a result, we have very high standards and expectations from any contributor regardless of their sex. I must admit people like lilsusie, mnm and NeverGG set the bar pretty high.
You say men try to look good too. We either are or aren't. It's not any different from women. Look, if your good looking, your good looking. How you choose to embrace it is a totally different story. Our community is very open about the men we find attractive in E-Sports.
Did players like NaDa go out of his way to sell his sex appeal? No, most pros are totally oblivious to it. Once you make them aware of it they laugh it off. It's all in good fun. It's what we project on them. Here are a few outstanding cases... Bisu got signed to MBC because the manager thought he had a nice look. At the same time, Bisu was one of the top players in [Shield] along with Sea. Once again, this had nothing to do with Bisu. It was part of the manager's selection process. Then you have players like Kal who got the tuck and now we have Puma saying he'll use some of the 50k to get skin treatment for his face.
To wrap this thought up. It's a lot easier for women to get accepted into gaming circles because they are sparse. Hell, we even had a guy pretend he was a chick for years just to play with the studs of our community. All of this was well before SC2. Once again, the women I mentioned earlier never had to play this card. Instead it was a guy pretending to be a girl who did!
The biggest difference is the sparsity. How you decide to sell yourself to this community is up to you, but remember this: the TL staff, other veterans and myself don't take kindly to people who make poor contributions and lack character.
This is why people used to rag on Riku quite a bit and still do. In many cases we're unaware of the messages we're sending to others. Whether it be intentional or unintentional. More often than not it's unintentional. The only way to solve this mystery is for someone to tell you directly.
For example, I might come across as being an ass but that wasn't my initial intention.
This has been going on for a while now.
Guy sleeps with 3 girls in a week, he's a player.
Girl sleeps with 3 guys, she's a slut.
Instead of thinking like this time to change your way of thinking.
Great, now we're going into societal conventions that go far beyond the world of gaming. I'm not going to argue because I find it hocus pocus myself. I've worked in the nightlife industry for years, so I know how it works. Players aren't any different from male whores.
My preference is let them do whatever they want. I watch the Iron Lady tournament, I believe everything has to start somewhere, and having their own tournaments is a good way to get them started, less pressure for one, and it's a stepping stone for them to try other online tournaments.
Like I said before, this community has high standards and expectations. If you churn out crap, the community will pounce on you regardless of your sex.
What we as a community should do is welcome them like we do any other guy, let their numbers grow, let them be who they want to be. =/
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen as I already pointed out. The good women contributors are sparse in this community. They will continue to receive preferential treatment from the people who don't know any better regardless of what you think of their contributions. Likewise, they will have to deal with more shit. It comes with the territory of being the opposite sex on these forums. How you deal with it is another story.
I think the problem is with guy gamers also, recently 2 fan clubs for Lyndsey sporrer and slayers eve have been getting pages and pages of posts ... but for what? slayers eve has yet to do anything and lyndsey did a few interviews? i think if we give so much attention to them it only hurts in the long run because it sets the bar so low for skill level etc.
but like others i just dont think the interest in esports is there for the vast majority or girls/gamer.
Thank you OP, these were my thoughts. More equality, less raging nerd fandom.
Edit: After going back and reading the entire thread I've realized this discussion is all over the place :O
Children aren't pets, feminism, 50 repeats of the OP, other women's sports.
I wonder if it's entirely inappropriate to say a portion of team liquid.. is a little awkward when it comes to women and it manifests in their posts or as the OP put it "e-staring"
I honestly gave up reading at page 3. All I wanted to say is if a woman actually had the skill to win some tournaments I wouldn't give a shit about the fact she's a woman... people who think otherwise just need to get laid so hard...
my opinion is that theres no reason for hosting videogame-related (esport) events that involve only females. Females should feel free to sing up and play in all the competitions: starcraft 2 is fun for everyone at every level and the amount of practice and the mindset one decides to use is completely unrelated to the gender.
Again, everyone is free to host whatever even with whatever rules... just saying that we are doing E-sports here and no actual sports.
the point of female only tourneys is to raise awareness that there are girls who do enjoy this game. It is also a way to help connect more girls to each other since it is hard to find one another. It creates a community. In addition to all this, these tournaments did start off with lower level play but now we are starting to see more and more master girls sign up. Flo, who participates and has won a few of these tourneys now competes at MLG. She probably would've never gotten noticed by a team if she didnt do these female tourneys and wouldnt have had the opportunity to play at MLG.
The female tourneys are a good thing. I mean CatZ is calling for foreigner only tourneys to help develop the foreign esports scene and the same thing applies to women. Having female tourneys, gets more girls involved. A community has developed around it and so has tighter competition.
Well, women just don't really play videogames. It's just one of those things that evolve into being dominated by men, just like writing good (classic) literature, practicing philosophy or penis modelling.
Women in turn have nursing, cooking,gossip,fashion and a host of other things we men just don't bother getting into. Thus is life :D
On August 14 2011 08:59 PiRate647 wrote: Well, women just don't really play videogames. It's just one of those things that evolve into being dominated by men, just like writing good (classic) literature, practicing philosophy or penis modelling.
Women in turn have nursing, cooking,gossip,fashion and a host of other things we men just don't bother getting into. Thus is life :D
The reasons why women never had the chance to do those things (even though women did right good classic literature ever heard of Frankenstein or machinal?) is because they were oppressed by men not because they are incapable.
EDIT: except for penis modeling of course, why would you even list that one?
In my experiences being friends with girl gamers it's not that they lack competitive drive, or simply don't like video games as much as guys do. It's more that the male community of gamers feature a vast amount (or extremely vocal minority) of players who are sexist assholes. Female gamers have to put up with so much more bullshit than guys do, and its bad enough that many never mention their gender in game because they know they'll get harassed.
I'm been sitting by my friends while they get a PM or in-game whisper and the disgusting shit that people say to them for no reason is appalling. They shrug it off because they're used it to it. Not every girl is willing to put up with that abuse just to play games. I would have never been an online gamer if I had to put up with the same.
Then I watch streamers like Megumixbear and they get the same treatment. Whether its disgusting sexual comments, kitchen trolls, or persistent lonely guys it's a constant wave of harassment, and I understand why protecting your gender identity becomes important to some. If you want an idea of how amazingly kind Megumi is she made CombatEX manner on her stream last night. Yet, someone like that still has to put up with harassment.
To me it seems that competitive gaming is a male dominated, because female players get chased away before they're able to fall in love with a game and push their skill to that level.
Well, I've had this little rant stored up for a while. Ever since the KellyMilkies thing, to be honest.
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
This isn't to say by any means that we (as men OR women) can't overcome these genetic predispositions; after all, we're rational, self-aware beings, right? If it were impossible to overcome genetic wiring, then I would have to agree with certain radical feminists who say men should pay higher taxes because a disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by men. Bust THAT one out at your next dinner party and see how well it goes over. The point of this is that we can't really blame sexism in the scene for keeping women out of it. The more we try to tell ourselves as a society that men and women are exactly the same, the more evidence to the contrary we seem to find. Women generally have less interest in competition than men. Simple as that.
That being said, is the scene sexist? God yes. I've never met a bigger group of pigs than a bunch of highly competitive men gathered together specifically for the benefit of whatever they're competing in. In some ways, it's natural. To be competitive at anything that requires the amount of skill that Starcraft (or rugby, or chess) does, one usually has to possess certain traits that make him a dominant force in social situations. The problem is that these traits, especially in YOUNG men, often manifest as borderline sociopathy. Frankly, the way men my age treat women is often pretty appalling. If women are deemed nominally attractive (I believe "hot" is the colloquial here) then they're allowed to do pretty much whatever they want (this is not a good thing, as I'll explain in a moment) as long as they do it with the understanding that they're not ACTUALLY one of the guys, they're just there for eye-candy and hopefully a fuck later. If they're not deemed attractive, they often fight an uphill battle altogether; the link between the anonymity of the internet and rampant douchebaggery is well-documented, and nowhere is it more evident than when men get together to judge a woman's physical appearance instead of her contribution to the community.
That brings me to my next point, which is that women have JUST AS MUCH responsibility as men for changing the perception of the scene. Take the KellyMilkies fiasco:
For those that don't know, KellyMilkies is a middling Starcraft player that did some casting for GSL a few seasons back. And that just about sums up her entire SC career. From there, she did a photo shoot in her underwear for a men's magazine and proceeded to plaster it all over the internet.
When the shit hit the fan, the thread her shoot was posted in was immediately bogged down with two kinds of posts: those saying she had no business doing a photo shoot at all and those saying that those that didn't like her photo shoot were sexist - and probably gay.
I'll say it right now: I was disgusted by the shoot. I never posted in that thread, because the whole thing was a cluster-fuck, but I was absolutely appalled. The problem is that 99% of her detractors were posting ad hominem insults about her physical appearance, instead of the deeper underlying issue with the shoot: this woman, who has barely if at all done ANYTHING for our scene, is now trying to buy her way into it using her sexuality. THAT, friends, is the definition of sexism, and we had every right and reason to run her out of town.
The problem with this is that if Kelly had been percieved as more physically attractive, I'm almost certain that a lot of those negative posts wouldn't exist. And holy SHIT if that doesn't smack of patriarchy (a word I'm really, REALLY loathe to use, by the way) I don't know what does. So women that do jack shit for the community get a free pass, as long as they're deemed by a group of oversexed 20-somethings as "hot" enough to fuck? (Sporrer, I'm looking at you.)
Women need to stop using their sexuality as an "easy-in" to what's percieved as a boys-only club. This goes for any male dominated scene (heavy metal music particularly comes to mind). Women have just as much of a responsibility to contribute to the community they want to be a part of, and if the only way they can think of to gain acceptance is to show their tits, then they shouldn't be surprised when they get treated like sex objects.
I realize this ran kind of long, so let me sum it up:
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
This post really sums up everything I could have said. I am a psychology/Counseling major and yeah women generally are not as interested in competition, why, because that is what society taught them as well as the genetic predisposition to more nurturing. The societal teaching may be changing somewhat but the genetic predisposition is still there. Also, I briefly forgot what Lindsey Sporrer looked liked so I googled her, and yeah this guy is right on the money with his comment as well.
Another thing to bring up is that Video games and Esports still very much cater to guys more than women. All competitive games involve killing or at least grinding your opponent into the ground, which frankly probably does not appeal to a lot of women.
On July 15 2011 12:47 Herculix wrote: but somebody like Lindsey Sporrer is doing good for our community by being connected to a different culture in our world but embracing esports and not being shy to tell people about it. ok, she's hot, so what? she's basically a professional hot girl, she's a model/actress.
She's eye candy which is one of the core issues of sexism. Esports does not need eye candy.
On July 15 2011 12:47 Herculix wrote: but somebody like Lindsey Sporrer is doing good for our community by being connected to a different culture in our world but embracing esports and not being shy to tell people about it. ok, she's hot, so what? she's basically a professional hot girl, she's a model/actress.
She's eye candy which is one of the core issues of sexism. Esports does not need eye candy.
Thank you, agreed completely. That the community collectively resists women who perpetuate negative stereotypes like this really goes to show how committed the majority of the men here are to including women in esports. All you have to do to be widely accepted here is just be genuine, and not some contrived stereotype.
On July 15 2011 12:47 Herculix wrote: but somebody like Lindsey Sporrer is doing good for our community by being connected to a different culture in our world but embracing esports and not being shy to tell people about it. ok, she's hot, so what? she's basically a professional hot girl, she's a model/actress.
She's eye candy which is one of the core issues of sexism. Esports does not need eye candy.
Alot of opinions been shared in this thread, I only read the first couple pages and last because it began to hurt my brain. Anyways, yes there is alot of sexism in the starcraft 2 community but nobody has done much to fix these problems... the most that has been done about the sexism is addressing it in the form of a reddit topic or a TL thread. In my opinion we should stop focusing on the differences in the two sex's from a physical/mental standpoint and start looking at it through a cultural standpoint such as this - Do girls play as much as guys do? I don't many female friends and i can already tell you that none of them, though they all play videogames of some sort, don't play anywhere near as much as any guy i know nor do they play the same types of games. The girls i know like fun games like Katamari Damaci or pokemon. Now I'm definately not saying this applies to all girls and i know there are girls who play as much as any guy, I used to be in a guild with 3 very skilled female WoW pve/pvp'ers that played just as much as I did and i was no where near as good as them, I was even scolded in vent about standing in fire or not healing well enough. I remember Catz saying that its a good thing that there are separate girls only divisions and I agree with that. My reasons for liking these divisions are not because it keeps girls away from the "big boys" or anything but that it gives girls a place where they can start off. Its kind of like the kiddie pool at a public pool, you don't throw your kids into the deep end right away you let them get their dog paddle on first. Of course if they felt as if they were ready they could go swim with the sharks, nobody's stopping them.
The best thing for integrating, I guess you can call it, women into the e-sports/sc2 scene is to get women INTO the scene by letting them do it. I'm pretty sure there's no official sign posted everywhere saying "No girls allowed". It's all about time, the more time they play/practice the more they improve just like anyone else regardless of sex/gender/race
With the Sporrer thing i didn't really follow it much but i did know about the kellymelkies thing and that circlejerk was just dumb, there's nothing wrong with good looking people in the esports scene and anyone who says otherwise needs to get their heads out of their asses. Why is it bad for women to look good and know it and show it off when you have Tasteless and Artosis talking about how cute leenock is or how handsome X player is, all of which are male and I'm pretty sure people would be thrilled to see a tasteless or day9 photo shoot. -.-"
In the end there is always gonna be some sort of hate towards some player for some reason the true problem is addressing it and not doing anything about it. If Megumixbear wants to go to MLG she goes and she plays and thats what she did. If we had more females actually going and doing what they want to do in the starcraft2 community it can only lead to progress(unless of course someone does something completely backwards retarded or w/e).
As a female just starting to get into SC2, I would love to see more women in the scene, and it was really cool seeing a fair number of women compete in MLG Anaheim.
My only question is, does every girl who will get attention need to be hot? The three most well-known female players would probably be Eve, Megumixbear and KellyMilkes, who are pretty damn hot, or at the very least, are not unattractive. I would like to think there are more females who can play with the big boys, but it would suck if they weren't getting any attention because they were 'plain-looking' or some shit.
It's quite disheartening, as a girl who is not the shiniest rim on the car.
On August 14 2011 13:10 IronSlayer wrote: As a female just starting to get into SC2, I would love to see more women in the scene, and it was really cool seeing a fair number of women compete in MLG Anaheim.
My only question is, does every girl who will get attention need to be hot? The three most well-known female players would probably be Eve, Megumixbear and KellyMilkes, who are pretty damn hot, or at the very least, are not unattractive. I would like to think there are more females who can play with the big boys, but it would suck if they weren't getting any attention because they were 'plain-looking' or some shit.
It's quite disheartening, as a girl who is not the shiniest rim on the car.
Is it possible for you to play the game to enjoy it and get better, not just get positive attention because you are a female? If you are "hanging with the big boys" you will get closer to the top of the ladder, says the system of winning and losing.
On August 14 2011 13:10 IronSlayer wrote: As a female just starting to get into SC2, I would love to see more women in the scene, and it was really cool seeing a fair number of women compete in MLG Anaheim.
My only question is, does every girl who will get attention need to be hot? The three most well-known female players would probably be Eve, Megumixbear and KellyMilkes, who are pretty damn hot, or at the very least, are not unattractive. I would like to think there are more females who can play with the big boys, but it would suck if they weren't getting any attention because they were 'plain-looking' or some shit.
It's quite disheartening, as a girl who is not the shiniest rim on the car.
Would not happen. If there was a girl who was could 'play with the big boys' she would get a ton of attention regardless of her attractiveness, simply because it'd be so out of the ordinary for a girl to be playing at the highest level.
As a female who plays Starcraft, I'll state my feelings pretty bluntly. "If you can't stand the heat get out of my kitchen."
Anyone who sits here and tries to list one arbitrary reason as fact as to why women do not play SC2 or any other video game as much as men is an idiot. There are a lot of reasons, but just as how women in sports have become more and more common (and gotten closer to being able to keep up with the guys) women in gaming are an up and coming population. They can get there however they want whether it's pretending to be male on the ladder or going on women only teams and tournaments. Anyone with the drive to compete (which some women have in spades just like some men do) will find the means to do it that best suit them. As for the ones who are succeeding based on looks? Well guess what, skill increases over time. Looks degrade. See who's still playing in the SC/esports scene in 10 years and who has moved on to try attention whoring elsewhere.
Now I will be the first to admit that being female in the gaming world will get you a different sort of behavior. My major online gaming experience was WoW (yeah yeah I know, give me a lil credit, I dumped it for Starcraft) and I was one of the best players on the server in my class and a raid leader of one of the most successful runs. I didn't get there by having tits, I got there by working at it and being very good at it. I earned a reputation for being tough, fair, honest, and fun. I also got a lot of crap from it. I got the immature, sexist "show us your tits, girls don't play wow, gamer chicks are all fat, etc." I got people who would hit on me either just because I was a woman or because they thought I would carry them for a little attention. By the same token my very first attempt at a 1v1 in Starcraft even followed the old familiar pattern. I was brand new, the BF was trying to help me learn, I'd done some vs AI matches and was going to play my first game about him and I hit the wrong button. Ended up in a random match and said "Sorry, I didn't mean to do that" and left the game. I am immediately whispered with a barrage of nasty comments from the guy and when I explained "I hit the wrong button, I was trying to start a game against my boyfriend" suddenly the insults turn into "You're a girl and you play starcraft? that's hot. wanna chat?" upon being rejected he tells me "starcraft is a mens game anyway, women all suck at it and you're probably a fatty anyway." Now, if you were a woman and this was your very first experience with the starcraft community, would you really have a positive image of it? Would you want to keep going? Many won't, but some (like me) will. As I said in the beginning, some people (regardless of gender) can take the heat and some can't and gender is irrelevant in that regard. Hell, this thread alone and some of the utter idiocy and misogyny being played off as "fact" would be enough to encourage most women to stay out of SC and sadly the type of women who would be scared off by this are mostly the intelligent ones!
So let me make this very simple for all of you. you want to see the SC2 community expand? You want to see more women playing for skill and not because they know they can get a bunch of men to drool over them? Start treating them as people, not just women. Don't like it if Kelly uses sex appeal to sell herself? Don't comment on her pages or support events she's casting. As for Lindsey Sporrer? My opinion is my own of course, but don't blame her for being hired out by her agency to an event and not being given the preparation/education she was promised. Give her a little credit for wanting to be more than a pretty face and trying to educate herself. If you encounter a woman on the ladder, the forums, or anywhere else? Treat her the way you would like to be treated, because nothing gives a better view of your character than how you treat other people.
And don't be surprised if you act like a jerk when she can dish it out and wipe the floor with you. Karma's fun that way.
The reason why there are few girls in the esports scene is not because of what we do as community but because professional gaming doesn't appeal to women as much. Regarding the fanclubs I agree that they were a bit premature but guys like cute girls, and they will always give them attention.
And since there aren't many (if any?) girls playing this game really seriously there's obviously not going to be any top players that are female and therefore I have no problem with them competing against each other in female only tournaments. These tourneys just prove that you can have fun competing in this game regardless of gender.
I do think that many people are immature about and not exactly supportive of female gamers and should treat them more equally.
if lindsey sporrer, or slayers_eve placed well in big tourneys, no one would give um nearly as much shit, or do something as equivalent in the esports community. So far not a lot of females have, so until they can, they won't be treated as fairly as big shot sc2 players.
On August 15 2011 03:09 Kevan wrote: The reason why there are few girls in the esports scene is not because of what we do as community but because professional gaming doesn't appeal to women as much. Regarding the fanclubs I agree that they were a bit premature but guys like cute girls, and they will always give them attention.
And since there aren't many (if any?) girls playing this game really seriously there's obviously not going to be any top players that are female and therefore I have no problem with them competing against each other in female only tournaments. These tourneys just prove that you can have fun competing in this game regardless of gender.
I do think that many people are immature about and not exactly supportive of female gamers and should treat them more equally.
Honestly, I have to disagree in regards to the female tournaments thing, it's not really equal treatment. While I'm against any prize based tournament in that regard, if it's small and community run, I don't really care. We have all kinds of community tournaments for random groups, with league restrictions etc...
I am however against the idea of tournament segregation and would absolutely be against a larger prize based tournament for women. Even the ones that get above $100-150 dollars is sort of pushing it in terms of just for fun tournaments.
There is really no reason to believe that they're less capable at competing with males in Starcraft, I see no reason to segregate because of this. Being in the minority doesn't really affect your ability to play the game, you can sit behind your keyboard and play your game and improve, teams would be more than willing to pick up a woman who can match their male counterparts in terms of skill, they've shown interest even in those can't at this time. I simply see no reason to segregate.
Also, as for their treatment in the community, certainly you have your fair share of trolls and imbeciles but there aren't that many of them and there are just as many people ready to sing praises for someone simply because they're a woman in Starcraft, it goes both ways and generally balances out. You can avoid it by laying low and trying not to attention whore, and if you want to get your name out there and have no qualms about using your gender to your advantage, that's fine too, but you will get both positive and negative attention because of it. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people playing the victim at this point, particularly when any criticism is labelled as sexist hate.
On August 15 2011 02:39 Petra37 wrote: Now, if you were a woman and this was your very first experience with the starcraft community, would you really have a positive image of it? Would you want to keep going? Many won't, but some (like me) will. As I said in the beginning, some people (regardless of gender) can take the heat and some can't and gender is irrelevant in that regard.
Well I hate to pick that specific part of your post, as the rest of it was mostly reasonable, but it doesn't seem to me like you gave much thought to what you said there.
You can't go around calling people idiots when you make the assertion that everyone can take the heat regardless of their gender. I'm not a psychologist so I don't know, but maybe men can "take the heat" more easily than women, in general.
I don't know why one would assume that we're exactly the same in that regard even though it does seem like we're not.
On August 15 2011 03:27 Mordiford wrote: There is really no reason to believe that they're less capable at competing with males in Starcraft, I see no reason to segregate because of this.
Well you have to admit that women currently don't play at the same level as men, whether or not they're capable of it (and I think they are).
Part of it is probably that they don't practice as much since, like it has been said, they don't have the same desire for excellence in that field (whatever the reason for that may be). Since they can't compete with men, they want their own leagues. We see the same thing happen for US/Euro/etc. people who feel like they can't play at the same level as Koreans so they want MLG and Dreamhack to exclude Koreans.
true some people joined their fanclubs for their looks, but also joining female fanclubs promotes the female esport scene, if you don't like it get off, inb4 warning inb4 ban inb4 full retard etc.
On August 15 2011 03:37 popdawg wrote: true some people joined their fanclubs for their looks, but also joining female fanclubs promotes the female esport scene, if you don't like it get off, inb4 warning inb4 ban
This last part will likely earn you a ban, I recommend editing it out immediately and not martyring in future posts.
The community could really do with a female role model that isn't a commentator, interviewer or wife/girlfriend/sister of a well known male player. A genuine "I want to be the best Sc2 player in the world bar none" women.
If a female gamer turned up with great mechanics and finished 3rd at the next dreamhack having fallen to some Korean pro and when interviewed about there performance said in Naniwa fashion "I'm disappointed with the result, I should of won the whole thing". Meanwhile between games strutting around with even more confidence than MC himself, it would go along, long, long way to ending a lot of negative perceptions of women in competitve gaming.
Unfortunately there does not appear to be any candidates for that on the immediate horizon. One can hope.
I personally don't see the big deal, this is what happens when beautiful women get involved in anything in life.
About the mmo thing, personally in my experience, all the women I've met that play WoW flaunt it at any opportunity. Most women love to be in the limelight and most men love to put them there. And the world keeps turning.
End of the day, you want players to actually be good. When people get large followings without being good, it hurts the general sense of fairness. I'd be happy with more diversity in esports, but certainly not at the expense of player ability. I'd expect any woman who is given entry to a team or event to be just as good as any man given the same opportunity.
You can't go around calling people idiots when you make the assertion that everyone can take the heat regardless of their gender. I'm not a psychologist so I don't know, but maybe men can "take the heat" more easily than women, in general.
I don't know why one would assume that we're exactly the same in that regard even though it does seem like we're not.
I am actually not saying that at all. I said that some people can and some people cannot but gender is not the dividing line. I have met plenty of women who are more competitive than I am and plenty of men who are less so. Also people are competitive in different ways. I happen to be an excellent cook, you say you can do anything in the kitchen better than me, it's a challenge and you had better be able to back it up. By the same token as I have always lived in large cities I never learned how to drive so if someone brags that they're a kickass driver it doesn't kick my competitive drives into gear.
I'm not at all saying we're all the same, I'm actually saying in this regard we're all more different than anything that can be as easily divided as male and female.
On August 15 2011 03:44 ICarrotU wrote: I personally don't see the big deal, this is what happens when beautiful women get involved in anything in life.
About the mmo thing, personally in my experience, all the women I've met that play WoW flaunt it at any opportunity. Most women love to be in the limelight and most men love to put them there. And the world keeps turning.
The saddest thing about women in MMOs is the number of them that perpetuate all of the bad female gamer stereotypes. I got so fed up with women who didn't know jack about how to play but would flirt with guys to get better gear and stuff. I had women try to flirt with me to get raid slots! Only thing worse than the misogynist pigs in gaming culture are these dolt women who make the decent ones look bad. I actually went off on a woman on another site because she complained about people being mean to her in dungeons. She had played a hunter to 60, but somehow still didn't understand even the basics of her class when she started a new hunter (rolled on int/spirit leather or took cloth gear just because it had a higher armor value than what she was wearing), but she was "too busy" to go google her class and learn the proper ways to gear her toons. Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I detest women like that. I will say this much about SC2, it's a lot harder for women to behave that way in this game and it makes me happy. I can simply work hard, play better, have fun, and earn the rewards I get and it will never be because I have a vagina.
I think it's probably a dividing line to a certain extent. I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm dumb for considering it.
Men are stronger than women but some women can destroy me at arm wrestling. Obviously, men are stronger than women in general anyway. Just because you met women who are more competitive than men doesn't completely break the correlation - it just means that some people are off the charts.
not surprising, women are severely underrepresented in all hard sciences, mathematical sciences, and the higher up you go, this figure only rings more true. even in cultures where there is not significant stigma against women joining these fields, they still don't perform as well as guys do (at the top echelon anyways).
yet on the other hand women perform better on average than men academically as a whole (higher mean/median) K-12, have higher graduation rates from college, and way more represented in other fields (law, medicine, etc...)
probably something to do with behavior moreso than intelligence -- women are less obsessive about one particular thing (to the exclusion of everything else), which is a really important factor in these types of things.
it's pretty ridiculous to expect identical outcomes in all areas of life between genders, there are differences between the two (not huge, but even small differences can have big consequences).
On August 15 2011 04:43 Djzapz wrote: I think it's probably a dividing line to a certain extent. I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm dumb for considering it.
Men are stronger than women but some women can destroy me at arm wrestling. Obviously, men are stronger than women in general anyway. Just because you met women who are more competitive than men doesn't completely break the correlation - it just means that some people are off the charts.
By the way I didn't say anyone who believed there was a disparity in competitive drives was an idiots, I said anybody who thinks there is one singular reason there are more men than women in esports is an idiot. As far as that correlation, I'm still waiting on anybody to offer real data to support that. Until then, it's all a lot of assumptions and we all build our own opinions and assumptions based on our own experiences.
edited to fix a typo. I can't help it, WhiteRa is on so I'm distracted,