|
How about just discussing the lack of top female gamers. Yeah. Nothing to do with Starcraft.
|
On November 20 2010 05:36 JoeSchmoe wrote:
Good point except the example is irrelevant because it relies on the assumption that being good at Starcraft requires higher intelligence/cognition. It doesn't.
Get a down syndrome kid online and see who wins.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 20 2010 05:36 JoeSchmoe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:28 Shinkugami wrote:On November 20 2010 05:04 LolnoobInsanity wrote:
You say that there's no inherent disadvantage "like chess" yet there are male and female chess leagues, and the top male chess player is always better than the top female chess player.
That statement can be backed up pretty heavily by most researches and statistics. By design, males are better are pattern-recognition and logical thinking; Add to that the globally demonstrated statistic that males have an average IQ 9 points higher than females and you get the picture. Good point except the example is irrelevant because it relies on the assumption that being good at Starcraft requires higher intelligence/cognition. It doesn't.
To get to a top level it kind of does.
|
Lack of female gamers in male dominated games are probably because there is a complete lack of sensibility over the internet. The men act like men on the internet, and dont really restrain themselves like when it comes to conversing with women in the real world. Fact is, every man is a horny dog at heart.The internet just removes the need for a barrier. In the past the internet was almost solely used by males, and they kept up the behaviour they have when they're with the boys.
So the internet is a pretty vile place for a woman to openly pronounce themselves, and probably why they dont come out so much for starcraft.
|
On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented.
True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign.
|
Wow, reading this thread is like listening to army grunts discussing avant garde fashion...
Maybe you should pay attention in a non-science/maths based class before you voice your opinion on gender issues.. or just.. be friends with normal people who realize Disney movies aren't exactly politically correct and listen to what they have to say.
Just because you're booksmart doesn't mean you know sh*t about life and peoples potential.
Edit: to make this abundantly clear: the people who argue "men are born better at chess" are the same retards who are gonna raise their daughters to be little princesses and thus ensure the survival of these [nonsense] ideas for another generation.
|
On November 20 2010 05:14 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it. i think natural selection pretty much covers men being biologically more competitive.
Yea...no. Sexual selection would seem to go both ways in homo sapiens.
On November 20 2010 04:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:
Ok, I will split my answer.
1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive.
2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women.
What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? No you asked for sources that prove that men are innately(I hope by that we both mean biologically) more competitive than women. And in point two I agreed with you there is no research that can solve it, so. In lack of direct data, I pointed some arguments for this to be true. If you are asking for sources that men are more competitive than women then for example : http://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Gneezy and Rustichini_Gender and Competition at a Young Age.pdf . There are few societies that do not follow this, but they are so few that we can ignore it.
I like how you say things with such conviction, it's a good trait to have 
The paper you've provided is an interesting piece of work, but the methodology is a bit weird. My big problem with it is that the children are not naïve to this procedure, and it’s plainly stated in the methods but not elaborated on. If they’ve been through these races before and are aware of the faster/slower children, you can’t argue that the effects seen are based on intrinsic motivation or competitiveness. For example, you can argue that there is no motivation for the girl to run faster against another boy or girl in the absence of any offered compensation if they may have known from previous experience that the other kid will always come out ahead.
|
On November 20 2010 04:21 Peanutsc wrote:
Generally speaking, I think men and women have different goals when they play games - they are satisfied by different outcomes, respectively. Men are focused on winning, while women are focused on increasing general happiness and enriching social bonds. Both tendencies obviously have great value in the maintenance of modern human civilization.
I knew I am closer than women than men!!
+ Show Spoiler +
I guess I am the minority in men's group. I prefer co-op games over anything else, especially against AIs.
Even though I am the best gamer among my friends, I like to put myself in minor role such as a resource or support guy. It actually makes me happy if my friends enjoyed the game, and winning isn't important to me.
I also prefer games that are designed around team role elements, where every player is specialized, and only by working together the team will win. Arma2 is a good example.
|
On November 20 2010 05:31 Zyphen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 04:36 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:27 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 01:20 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:14 hmunkey wrote:
It's more socially unacceptable for women to play video games than for men. the same applies to children -- girls don't grow up wanting to play games like boys do.
That's it. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or anything else. And you have anything to prove that other than I said so. There is a lot of research, mechanisms to explain why it is a biological thing, is there anything that really points to it being because it is socially unacceptable ? In many countries in a lot of social groups it is not unacceptable any more, yet girls still do not play games competitively as much as boys. Problem is the rate of emancipation highly exceeds the rate of increase in women's competitiveness. There's research on there being more innate competitiveness in males than females? Please give your sources on these research and mechanisms. I CAN tell you that you're probably 99% wrong regarding biological coding for competition behaviour, but maybe I've missed something Ok, I will split my answer. 1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive. 2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women. What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? On November 20 2010 03:25 Zyphen wrote:
You guys talking about nature/nurture are really getting into a tangential debate. Women, as a group, are just less competitive period. That's the reason why there aren't more top female gamers, chess masters, race car drivers, etc (basically anything that doesn't require being physically gifted).
The few women that do make it don't prove anything about the rest. It's called anecdotal evidence. Sure, a woman COULD do it, but that's not the question. The lack of female gamers, as a whole, is because they lack competitiveness in games involving direct confrontation. Whether the few that do well possess an extra chromosome or were raised as tomboys seems superfluous to the argument. Women as a group are less competitive... interesting conclusion based on what? Your examples are all full of crap because they're all fields that have been typically male dominated and not encouraged for women to do in society. I'm not denying there's differences biologically between genders... it's what I study for a living. But the wannabe scientists here saying how females "don't have" testosterone (which they do) probably don't even know its effects in cognition, because guess what... no one does. So how about a suggestion, before you pull out some hair-brained idea of how you think females are less innately "competitive" or whatever, get a clue. Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how I don't CARE whether it's nature or nurture that's the culprit for any behavorial differences. The facts are that they exist. And you're asking me for proof? Really? It's already accepted fact that women are under-represented in starcraft 2 and just about every other competitive event listed in this thread. I think your position is the one that's more indefensible. The burden should lie with you. How about this. Find me a single instance of a direct competitive game/sport where women are equally represented at the top tier as men (i.e. they don't form their own separate league, actually play with and BEAT the boys, you look at a tournament bracket - half are women, half the time they even win it, etc.). It'll take me longer to list all the things men dominate than for you to squeeze out that one exception (which, honestly, I'm dying to know). Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how you simply stated that women were less competitive, not about whether other biological differences exist. If you bothered to read on, it also mentioned that WHILE these biological differences exist, they haven’t been shown to have anything to do with better performance in a game like SC2. Why don’t you look in gender differences in attention, visual/spatial cognition, motor control and see if you can come up with an answer to that. But I can save you some time now and tell you that there is no evidence that would point one way or another. Asking for proof was to the poster I quoted above, he has given me a draft of a paper and I’ll read it when I’m off work. As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia? And I've posted twice stating that I don't really give a rat's ass as to the explanation of why females are less competitive. Would it be less offensive to your sensiblities if I instead stated that males are more competitive? How is academia a direct competition? I don't really care about your other arguments with other posters. Stay on point. And I specifically said ANY directly competitive event (as in there's a winner and a loser) with tournaments. Forget sports. The facts are, women are under-represented relative to their population size in virtually all directly competitive events. Sorry the truth offended you. I simply stated it. And then I said the explanation is an entirely separate argument. That might have gotten through your thick head if you didn't jump at my posts like a rabid wolverine.
Getting pretty defensive now aren't we? Let's not forget you're the one throwing insults at me, not the other way around. You don't give a crap why females are less competitive, but you simply state it without any proof? Well that's certainly convincing. What I'm implying here about your argument through sarcasm is also a fact.
Academia is not direct competition? Lol. Seems like you know nothing about it and you probably won't read my explanation anyways.
You also state again that women are under-represented in all competitive events, but yet you challenge me to name them. Hey, I'm not the one stating random "factoids" here, you're the one who needs to back that up with some actual events.
|
A study performed in 2009 by the Entertainment Software Association found that about 40% of gamers are female, including 43-45% of online gamers. This of course doesn't take in to account the "competetiveness" of the games and unfortunately the study didn't contain any information on the genres of games the respondents played. But I still think it's worth pointing out that there really are a lot of female gamers out there. And probably a lot playing sc2.
I wouldn't look into these surveys too much. The main issue is the demographic in either competitive games and RTS games, which is terribly skewed.
Even then, if you were to take the tip top of that demographic (female gamers who are also very competitive at SC2 and that could theoretically compete with the best of the guys) the priorities of such people might be drastically different that might not lend itself to the Pro Scene. (18-30 year old women may have one very specific preoccupation that can come up)
The good news though is that there is litterally nothing that could stop women who are dedicated enough from becoming a top contender. Here's to hoping Esport keeps growing .
|
On November 19 2010 23:35 Roffles wrote:
They're just not that good. TossGirl destroyed the Female league, but couldn't hang with B teamers after the Female league was abolished.
There's really no sense of sexism that goes around, it's just plain and simple that they're just not as good. If along came a female gamer that was insanely good, then they'd be more than welcomed into the community.
you saying, they are just not as good.... is 100% ignorant in every single way. i can guarantee you that there are woman gamers that are better at playing video games than even Fruit-dealer, i am using him as an example. would they be welcomed? yes and no, yes they would be but i highly doubt they would have any semblance of respect from their peers for at least a while till she proved herself. also how many horny nerds would be trying to hump her leg, ask yourself if you would want to deal with that.
|
On November 20 2010 05:40 Woony wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:36 JoeSchmoe wrote:On November 20 2010 05:28 Shinkugami wrote:On November 20 2010 05:04 LolnoobInsanity wrote:
You say that there's no inherent disadvantage "like chess" yet there are male and female chess leagues, and the top male chess player is always better than the top female chess player.
That statement can be backed up pretty heavily by most researches and statistics. By design, males are better are pattern-recognition and logical thinking; Add to that the globally demonstrated statistic that males have an average IQ 9 points higher than females and you get the picture. Good point except the example is irrelevant because it relies on the assumption that being good at Starcraft requires higher intelligence/cognition. It doesn't. To get to a top level it kind of does.
I think this sums up pretty well:
On September 21 2010 15:28 IdrA wrote:
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past.
of course you can't be a complete dunderhead but I don't think there's a tremendous advantage to being "intellectually superior".
|
On November 20 2010 05:35 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:22 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 04:36 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 03:59 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 02:23 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:27 fush wrote:On November 20 2010 01:20 mcc wrote:On November 20 2010 01:14 hmunkey wrote:
It's more socially unacceptable for women to play video games than for men. the same applies to children -- girls don't grow up wanting to play games like boys do.
That's it. It has nothing to do with competitiveness or anything else. And you have anything to prove that other than I said so. There is a lot of research, mechanisms to explain why it is a biological thing, is there anything that really points to it being because it is socially unacceptable ? In many countries in a lot of social groups it is not unacceptable any more, yet girls still do not play games competitively as much as boys. Problem is the rate of emancipation highly exceeds the rate of increase in women's competitiveness. There's research on there being more innate competitiveness in males than females? Please give your sources on these research and mechanisms. I CAN tell you that you're probably 99% wrong regarding biological coding for competition behaviour, but maybe I've missed something Ok, I will split my answer. 1) The original poster said it has nothing about competitiveness, to that the answer is men in big majority of societies are more competitive than women. Research for that exists and is pretty conclusive. 2) I made stronger(in mathematical sense of stronger) statement, which said that this competetiveness difference is biological in nature. That statement is not so conclusive, but there are a lot of indirect indices. As far as I know there has been no direct research that points one way or another. The indirect indices are : There is biological component to competetiveness in general, because males raised in equal environments differ in it, so considering all the other biological differences between males and females and considering evolutionary mechanisms for human species it not big stretch to assume that there is in fact some innate difference between men and women. What I asked for was sources for your statement that men are more competitive than women. You say the research exists and is conclusive. I asked, where? On November 20 2010 03:25 Zyphen wrote:
You guys talking about nature/nurture are really getting into a tangential debate. Women, as a group, are just less competitive period. That's the reason why there aren't more top female gamers, chess masters, race car drivers, etc (basically anything that doesn't require being physically gifted).
The few women that do make it don't prove anything about the rest. It's called anecdotal evidence. Sure, a woman COULD do it, but that's not the question. The lack of female gamers, as a whole, is because they lack competitiveness in games involving direct confrontation. Whether the few that do well possess an extra chromosome or were raised as tomboys seems superfluous to the argument. Women as a group are less competitive... interesting conclusion based on what? Your examples are all full of crap because they're all fields that have been typically male dominated and not encouraged for women to do in society. I'm not denying there's differences biologically between genders... it's what I study for a living. But the wannabe scientists here saying how females "don't have" testosterone (which they do) probably don't even know its effects in cognition, because guess what... no one does. So how about a suggestion, before you pull out some hair-brained idea of how you think females are less innately "competitive" or whatever, get a clue. Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how I don't CARE whether it's nature or nurture that's the culprit for any behavorial differences. The facts are that they exist. And you're asking me for proof? Really? It's already accepted fact that women are under-represented in starcraft 2 and just about every other competitive event listed in this thread. I think your position is the one that's more indefensible. The burden should lie with you. How about this. Find me a single instance of a direct competitive game/sport where women are equally represented at the top tier as men (i.e. they don't form their own separate league, actually play with and BEAT the boys, you look at a tournament bracket - half are women, half the time they even win it, etc.). It'll take me longer to list all the things men dominate than for you to squeeze out that one exception (which, honestly, I'm dying to know). Lol. Some reading comprehension please? My entire post was about how you simply stated that women were less competitive, not about whether other biological differences exist. If you bothered to read on, it also mentioned that WHILE these biological differences exist, they haven’t been shown to have anything to do with better performance in a game like SC2. Why don’t you look in gender differences in attention, visual/spatial cognition, motor control and see if you can come up with an answer to that. But I can save you some time now and tell you that there is no evidence that would point one way or another. Asking for proof was to the poster I quoted above, he has given me a draft of a paper and I’ll read it when I’m off work. As for your obsession in male superiority over women in competitive sport – which in our society seems to be inherently correlated with physical ability, then of course males outperform females. Why don’t you look less in sport and more in a wider scope of activities? Can you honestly tell me that males are outperforming females in academia? while females college graduation rates are far higher than males and females are now a majority of law degree recipients and women have made big strides in equality over the last 20 years, men still dominate the top of almost every field. especially when you look at the more 'nerdy' professions that involve a lot of analysis etc... you'll see that's true. males are the overwhelming recipients of tech degrees and anything related to math & science. females perform better on average, but males have a much wider range and perform on average better in the top %. most games (competitive ones anyways) involve fast reaction time/thinking etc... (mostly war type games), which men are naturally better at.
Oh yea, let's forget that enrollment in these programs is predominantly male. Which goes back to some original argument that there's a mostly social aspect in this rather than it being biological.
Games like SC involve reaction time, focused attention, multi-tasking ability, motor control, visual feedback, spacial/visual cognition, and a whole slew of other things. Can you say for certain that men are better at those? Don't hold your breath.
|
On November 19 2010 23:48 Liquoid wrote:
What about EllenPage? Saw pics of her wearing a pink hoodie on the GLS3 Qualifiers!
lol exactly.
|
I liked Peanuts post, and LittleAtari's argument about being hot directly correlating to Pikachu's popularity which totally makes sense.
but, peanut, I love winning, I love getting better. I love the feeling of awesome nerdage that happens when I win because I macroed harder, or made the correct unit choice because of a scout.
The social aspect for sc2 is far less appealing for me than it was for rpg based games. It's actually more about intellectual choices and understanding, which is weird, because I am not a very intelligent person, (probably why I find winning gratifying.)
No real argument as to why a pro girl couldnt compete with the guys. Having enough practice time and comprehension should be the biggest factor. Plus, most girls can probably click mice faster if they had to. (girlfap reference.)
is it still sexist if I'm a girl?
|
On November 20 2010 05:34 LittleAtari wrote:
Only 4 pages of comments because Navi, the winner of the NA female cup, doesn't have pictures plastered anywhere her on TL or the ESL sight. All you have to see of her is her games and I love that because she is a good player. Her games were actually interesting to watch and so was Awesome's games. These were players, who knew what they were doing, but go very little attention.
Now I'm not saying that it's bad that the NA female cup winner only got 4 pages of responses. It honestly isn't. What is bad is when you compare that to Pikachu's thread, when Navi is the 100x better player.
[...]
I don't want to upload my photo to a site in which 90% of the people that visit it are male and they would prefer to judge me by my looks instead of my gameplay. I don't want to be a Pikachu. I want to be a Navi. I would rather have 4 pages of quality posts on my games rather than 20+ pages of people just running around being 'ZOMG SC2 GIRL!!'
At this point, I don't even want to be a TossGirl. As a gamer, I want to be judged by my games.
That is why I ask of you guys to stop making a big deal about female SC2 players. If we're treated like regular players, we will become better players. Ultimately, we, women choose our role to play in the SC2 community. If any of us want to be top players, we will get there.
Thank you for your post, and for quoting mine  . I think you expressed yourself very clearly.
The bolded sentences carry a sentiment that supports my recommendation: respect the female gamers who are in the community already so that they can serve as role models for other females who are on the fence about getting involved.
|
On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign.
Re: gametypes, that's a good point, even if the ratio of men:women in SC2 approaches the parity you see in WoW, we might see a similar gap in what gametypes they choose (just based on what we saw happen in WoW PvP).
For both men and women, I think the real difference is that casual players play mostly team games/customs/campaign, and serious players focus on 1v1. Players become more serious when they start finding places like TL and become a real part of the SC community.
Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Next up is for users to stop making sexist jokes (even if you say "j/k" afterwards, they're still hurtful/unhelpful), and just in general, to stop making a big deal out of the presence of women.
We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance.
|
There are a lot of good points in this thread.
I feel like gender stereotypes is probably the best example of one of those points that were made. Woman are valued in today's society (on the whole) to be hot barbie dolls, not gamers. Its an irritating stigma that sets female gamers back. When you see a commercial for a game, unless its some useless work out game for the Wii, where are all the females...not present. It was sort of shocking to see women in that Call of Duty commercial.
|
On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud.
Not really, the surge of sc2 has made moderators less stringent than they were.
We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance.
I don't understand how ignoring gender makes progress. I think it warrants notice if a woman performs well at MLG or GSL; it's similar to pointing out foreigners when competing in Korea.
But yeah, it really hurts the female community and gaming in general when men are like "hurr iz dat a gurl? omgz!"
|
On November 20 2010 06:06 Thunderflesh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 05:43 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:25 Thunderflesh wrote:On November 20 2010 05:20 Zyphen wrote:On November 20 2010 05:16 EnderPR wrote:
The answer is FAR simpler than most make it.
You might think of the skill of SC players to follow a Gaussian Curve with the pros being at the top end. If we assume that the Gaussian probability plot looks about the same for female and male (basically, a determined female has the same chance of succeeding as a similar male), then the only variable in changing the number of high level players is the number of players to begin with
As is generally accepted, there are less female gamers so there for there are less female progamers. It is the same deal with why big school sports teams generally are much better than small school teams. Big schools have a larger pool from which to select its best players.
So the question is, how can we get more females interested in SC? You would think so, but WoW doesn't have the problem of severe under-representation in the female player base. Yet, in competitive WoW 3v3 tournaments, there are little to no female participants. That doesn't say anything about skill, it just means that female players aren't playing PvP, they're playing PvE. So, in the pool of players that we're considering, they are severely underrepresented. True. But, wouldn't that mean getting more females interested in Starcraft wouldn't necessarily help all that much? They're more likely to just play campaign or custom. It's not all that simple a problem after all because the numbers game would mean a very diluted pool. I think a better question would be, "how do we get the current female gamers to actually compete in some SC2 tournaments?". They're probably around but just not visible and a chunk of them probably moved on to the next game by now after beating the campaign. Good point, even if the ratio of men:women in SC2 approaches the parity you see in WoW, we might see a similar gap in what gametypes they choose. For both men and women, I think the real difference is that casual players play mostly team games/customs/campaign, and serious players focus on 1v1. Players become more serious when they start finding places like TL and become a real part of the SC community. Therefore, I think making places like TL.net more welcoming towards women will do a lot. It seems like the mods have been really cracking down on sexism lately, which I applaud. Next up is for users to stop making sexist jokes (even if you say "j/k" afterwards, they're still hurtful/unhelpful), and just in general, to stop making a big deal out of the presence of women. We'll know we've made progress when a woman competes at an event like MLG or the GSL and no one mentions her gender or something crass about her appearance.
there is no way that is ever going to happen. with the anonymity of the internet and the fact that the SC/SC2 community is mostly male dominated, any female ANYTHING will be instantly sexualized. Take the MLG map vids, I did voiceovers for shits and giggles and the first thing people post is that my voice sounds hot? I could look like a cave troll guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
