On November 21 2010 03:56 phant wrote: Of course men are more competitive, it's genetic (anyone who doesn't believe this is a fool).
In practically EVERY species (mammals at least). There are always males trying to be the dominant "alpha" male and females following whoever is in charge. Males are way more aggressive, females are way more passive, it's a fact of life that has evolved over millions of years. This has been true in humanity for THOUSANDS of years, it's just how it is. Granted now with more enlightened people there are tons of women who try to fight their natural tendencies and cross the lines (some with great success, the majority not so much).
That's just how it is, no sexism, just facts. Of course there are always exceptions to every rule, but for the majority this holds true. Not to mention that most girls do not like video games beyond farmville, the sims, and nintendogs, further skewing things.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The typical "alpha males" I see are those I see who date rape and roofie women at college parties.
Going along with your logic, if I was a guy and I wasn't competitive, does that mean I'm not a "real man". That's fucking stupid. Stop using evolution as a way to justify modern social behavior. If you've taken any real discussion courses, you would know that these arguments are just stupid. We are not cavemen.
There is no gender binary. Men are not all competitive. Women don't just follow whoever is in charge because it's in their biological. Get a grip.
I just call it as I see it. We are hardly any different evolutionary then we were 5,000 years ago. Where did I say not being competitive made you "not a real man"?. Also, yes, there are exceptions to every rule, not all men are competitive, not all women are passive, exactly as I mentioned in my post which I'm assuming you ignored half of. HOWEVER go find a random man and a random women, anywhere on the planet, I will bet my life savings (and my life)that a vast majority of the time the man is more competitive, we're different, period. Men and women ARE NOT equal, don't let society fool you (note i'm not saying which of these two is smarter, I firmly believe both to be perfectly equal in that regard).
If a woman REALLY wanted to be a progamer, there is nothing holding them back in the slightest. However, why are there no women in progaming? because there is an incredibly small percentage who REALLY want to get good at a game, goes back to what I said in my first post, women (in general) lack the same kind competitive drive men do. I know what you are going to say next "I bet it's because women just don't like video games!" Yes this is true, why is it true? obviously there are some clear differences in the sexes as far as their taste for video games, but that's not only it, this is behavior seen EVERYWHERE in the world not just video games. Look at any job position in the world that requires a huge competitive edge to get on top, the majority are men. In my engineering classes I haven't seen a woman in 4 years. I go over to the liberal arts building and I don't see a single guy, our tastes are different.In fact it was so bad that now they will purposely hire someone just because they are a woman (or some ethnicity) just so they don't have a predominantly male staff. This isn't because women are dumber, far from it, this isn't because employers are sexist, far from it, it all comes down to the drive.
They told me way back in high school that everybody was equal, nobody is smarter than anyone else, everybody has an equal chance to follow their dream, everybody was a blank slate starting at the same point. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are individuals who are smart, individuals who aren't so much, people who are amazingly talented with art, some who are amazingly good at math. If I wanted to be an artist, no matter how hard I tried I could not reach the level of those who are even somewhat talented, my brain doesn't think that way, am I dumb? no, but there are differences.
Men and women are different, period, no discussion. Men think differently than women, anyone can tell you this.
first...i think i might go slightly off topic and if so i'm sorry for that...but i think it's definitely part of this here second...i mostly agree with you!
On November 22 2010 08:06 phant wrote: They told me way back in high school that everybody was equal, nobody is smarter than anyone else, everybody has an equal chance to follow their dream, everybody was a blank slate starting at the same point. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are individuals who are smart, individuals who aren't so much, people who are amazingly talented with art, some who are amazingly good at math. If I wanted to be an artist, no matter how hard I tried I could not reach the level of those who are even somewhat talented, my brain doesn't think that way, am I dumb? no, but there are differences.
but i don't see what this has to do with...
On November 22 2010 08:06 phant wrote: Men and women are different, period, no discussion. Men think differently than women, anyone can tell you this.
..this! not that it's completely wrong but i mean you said, and i'm totally on your side
There are individuals who are smart, individuals who aren't so much, people who are amazingly talented with art, some who are amazingly good at math
as you said...it's a individual thing, and not a gender thing! the different sex may be reinforcing some individual advantages and disadvantages but the gender is not the reason for talents and abilities!
because there is an incredibly small percentage who REALLY want to get good at a game, goes back to what I said in my first post, women (in general) lack the same kind competitive drive men do.
Background: I'm a biology PhD student who has spent many years studying genetics.
While there may be marginal gender differences in competitiveness, I do not find that these can in any way come close to accounting for the lack of female progamers.
The most obvious, blatant, and logical reason why there are so few female progamers is because females in general are vastly underepresented in RTS games -- for social reasons. Gaming started out, culturally, as a male-dominated activity, and intense computer gaming (like FPSs and RTSs) have still not been established as standard female activities in any society I know of. There are plenty of extremely hyper-competitive females who participate in many other realms of life, so to use this argument is to ignore the evidence all around you and make a mockery of the actual genetic differences between males and females (which could account for a slim percent of variance, if any at all).
If a young female is trying to decide what to do with her time, even if she likes video games, why would she look at a male-dominated SC2 tournament and have any desire to want to be good at that? There is no societal drive among females to be really good at videogames as there is among males, do not try to explain this with genetics.
On November 21 2010 03:56 phant wrote: Of course men are more competitive, it's genetic (anyone who doesn't believe this is a fool).
In practically EVERY species (mammals at least). There are always males trying to be the dominant "alpha" male and females following whoever is in charge. Males are way more aggressive, females are way more passive, it's a fact of life that has evolved over millions of years. This has been true in humanity for THOUSANDS of years, it's just how it is. Granted now with more enlightened people there are tons of women who try to fight their natural tendencies and cross the lines (some with great success, the majority not so much).
That's just how it is, no sexism, just facts. Of course there are always exceptions to every rule, but for the majority this holds true. Not to mention that most girls do not like video games beyond farmville, the sims, and nintendogs, further skewing things.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The typical "alpha males" I see are those I see who date rape and roofie women at college parties.
Going along with your logic, if I was a guy and I wasn't competitive, does that mean I'm not a "real man". That's fucking stupid. Stop using evolution as a way to justify modern social behavior. If you've taken any real discussion courses, you would know that these arguments are just stupid. We are not cavemen.
There is no gender binary. Men are not all competitive. Women don't just follow whoever is in charge because it's in their biological. Get a grip.
perfectly said. i honestly hate how people try and use biology and social darwinism to try and shoehorn humans and human behavior into black or white. life is full of greys there is very little universal truths that apply cross culturally across all human societies. some people need to open their eyes and see that life is pretty confusing and there is no real answer other then that people are truly capable of doing ANYTHING that they put their mind to regardless of sex, gender, and race.
and btw sexuality and human behaviors within society are social constructs meaning that they are created by people for people. there is no natural law or god that dictates this to us. we have created our own laws, acceptable behaviors, sexuality, etc.
Please, no more of this social construct nonsense, especially when it comes to sexuality. There are so few pure social constructs that it is not even funny. Nearly anything in human societies has biological boundaries. The question in most of those things is how much is social and how much biological, you should use your own advice and not paint things in black and white. Also 90% of people would not be able to prove Fermats theorem(already proven) even if they spent all their lives on it. Person with IQ 70 also won't contribute to theoretical physics. There are limits for each of us in every field. This PC nonsense that everyone can do everything and the only limit is time spent is the biggest bs that circles western world.
On November 22 2010 09:41 mcc wrote: Person with IQ 70 also won't contribute to theoretical physics. There are limits for each of us in every field. This PC nonsense that everyone can do everything and the only limit is time spent is the biggest bs that circles western world.
agreed on that
but it's not because of your sexuality, it's because of your individuality
And a very sad and important point is, that a lot of male players don't accept female players at competitive level. When you see such a girl playing, be sure every third comment will be b*tch or 8===D---.
there will be many many more in the future im pretty sure of that! we've just seen a few girls, and one girl who just won a tournament? if im not mistaken btw i heard that QXC's girlfriend plays and shes nearly diamond player atm so
I know a lot of girls who game don't like to give away the fact they are a girl. A lot of guys are very immature on the internet and treat girls pretty dam poorly.
I think everyone in this thread fails to realize that there are a lot of surface issues as well as underlying issues that are present that separates males and females.
Competitiveness is one of them; evolutionarily speaking women had no necessary need to compete with me throughout the ages. They stayed up in the trees while men down below, protected, hunted and wooed those in the trees above. While overall this may only be minutely related as it's clear that there are a multitude of competitive females these days (e.g., see college) we can't blame the lack of starcraft girl gamers on the lack of competitive females while even though there's evidence to suggest that females have LESS of a reason to compete not that they are unwilling or aren't competitive.
Next you have biology: men have larger bodies, thus they have larger hands. Larger hands make it easier to reach keys, easier to hit buttons more accurately if less stretching needs to be done. Also with the larger hands comes more muscle definition which allows for more room to have precise and dexterous digits placed more accurately to execute proper button commands. Obviously this isn't entirely true across the board either as there are clearly girls with incredibly dexterous hand moments (see any famous female musician). Even still there are a minority of females with the proper biology to support their hand habits.
Finally the social aspect that has been beaten to death in this thread already. Since the 80s when games started becoming more "violent" it was frowned upon for girls who were parented in an attempt to remain "dainty" were steered away from this. If your grandparents taught your parents these things you can expect them to enact the same parenting dynamic on women of our generation. There's a stigma that comes when girls play video games, although that stigma has been slowly lifting over the past decade.
Obviously a lot more can be said about the overall above topics as I attempted to just touch on each one and avoid getting into too much depth although I'd be more than willing to expand on them if people are interested.
You can expect girls to become more and more involved as time goes along and video gaming becomes more and more accepted. I see people in this thread that still consider video gaming a waste of time; if there's still a stigma with guys wasting their lives how can we expect girls to jump on the boat (especially after the recent future where women are becoming more modernized and thus more is expected from them society wise)? I'm not sure what things aren't a waste of time other than assuring yourself a degree from whatever level of college you're in. Some people like watching football, I like watching starcraft.
Just to add : There are some wow female players, and most of them either : 1) have their boyfriend who bring them into the game 2)) are attention whore
It's purely a matter of no female gamers are at the same level. There was a female gamer at the GSL3 qualifiers. Nothing stopping them (aside from an ignorant and narrow-minded society).
That's not biological at any part but rather a social phenonomon I would say.
The whole "Sims" game thing isn't neccerly true either, I loved Manhunt/Painkiller with both are mindless and brutal, whilst I also enjoy Sims 3. Ofcourse most girls will play games like Sims 3, but I do not think this is because they are genetically programmed to be wussies who are dependant on their surroundings: New research suggest that the whole "caveman hunter" is bullshit and that humanity as a species would never had managed if only half our popelous would help out with the hunting and gathering whilst the other tended the children... women were badass aswell, just not as strong as men.
To frame what I mean in an example; Woman are almost always underpayed in regards to men, and people defend this by saying "Yeah but girls are worse at debating their salery with their bosses, it's a proven fact" I do not disagree here, but my point is; Why are they worse? Not because they're programmed so, that's as retarded as saying males are programmed to be more violent and thus make better wife beaters.
Also this topic and how godamn backwards some guys are is the reason girls don't find games as a medium attractive... oh and the fact that any girl in games is a retard and/or a whore because most developers are male and make games/characters they think males would like. Why would anyone want to identify with that.
Prime example otherwise; Bioware who has a female lead designer for Mass Effect... what do we get? Believable women, great storyline and characters/romances you can relate to.
because there is an incredibly small percentage who REALLY want to get good at a game, goes back to what I said in my first post, women (in general) lack the same kind competitive drive men do.
Background: I'm a biology PhD student who has spent many years studying genetics.
While there may be marginal gender differences in competitiveness, I do not find that these can in any way come close to accounting for the lack of female progamers.
The most obvious, blatant, and logical reason why there are so few female progamers is because females in general are vastly underepresented in RTS games -- for social reasons. Gaming started out, culturally, as a male-dominated activity, and intense computer gaming (like FPSs and RTSs) have still not been established as standard female activities in any society I know of. There are plenty of extremely hyper-competitive females who participate in many other realms of life, so to use this argument is to ignore the evidence all around you and make a mockery of the actual genetic differences between males and females (which could account for a slim percent of variance, if any at all).
If a young female is trying to decide what to do with her time, even if she likes video games, why would she look at a male-dominated SC2 tournament and have any desire to want to be good at that? There is no societal drive among females to be really good at videogames as there is among males, do not try to explain this with genetics.
I like the biology student act of trying not to sound like a biologist, because we all know biologists are all behaviorists and geneticists that leave no place to the social, nurturing aspects of child development. That's probably why Dawkins invented the concept of memes... wait, no!
But anyway for a PhD student you seem awfully daft. The question is not why there are so few female progamers but rather why there are so few top female progamers that can compete with men even in Korea where there was a budding female progaming scene. You are right though on the competitive aspect. Some females can be just as competitive as males, but it doesn't give them any advantage over them, only over uncompetitive females. So it still doesn't explain why those hyper-competitive females can't cut it when they try competing with men. In some sports the reason is obvious: they just don't have the physical abilities to do so (i.e. the testosterone). Of course that doesn't mean they can't compete with males at all, only that they will never beat the best males. For example, if Venus Williams would play tennis on the men's circuit she would of course beat some of them, maybe even make it into the top 100. But just like TossGirl she would never win anything because she doesn't have the matching strength/stamina/recovery ability that the top male athletes have. Same thing with the Polgar sisters in Chess, but I would argue that with chess it could be possible one day to have a female champion on the men's circuit if you teach them chess in a more stimulating manner for their brain.
So I do believe like Lazlo Polgar that geniuses are made, though I would argue that not everyone can be a genius at everything or anything, but that everyone can be a genius at something or many similar things, and that a small minority can be geniuses at many different things (like polymaths of old). The potential to be a genius exists in almost everyone, and education has a role in bringing it out and orientating it. But education certainly is not a panacea that can transcend every biological differences, especially between the sexes.
For example, even a man castrated before he was five and brought up like a girl still acted like a boy in girl's clothing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300 Imagine if he still had his testosterone producing testicles at puberty!
Long-time silent TL browser here - I created an account just to add my 2c.
Some comments here are fruity, some sad, and others on point. I may be the minority exception, but I'm posting to add my name to the list.
- I am female. - I started playing warcraft 2 as a kid. - I introduced sc2 to my man, not vice versa. - I don't ever lose purposely. If you're not playing to win, don't play. - I don't play farmville or sims3.
"Girls play to socialize, guys play to win" has not been my experience, whether in sc1/2 or wc2/3. For ex., my man often plays team with my gaming friends while I'm playing my own sc2 games. I'll join in later. I introduced the guys to each other, and they play together whenever they can. All mention wanting more sc2 friends.
Re: Memento's original questions - I do think it's the lack of player pool more than lack of interest. Most people I know - male & female gamers - started young, being introduced to various games by friends or older relatives. The guy gamers I know are more likely to spawn new players in teen boys than teen girls - for sheer comfort level with teen boys vs girls, rather than for any specifically sexist reasons against women.
To get more women to play? Introduce it to more girls. I know a 10-year old who watches her 22-yo sister (who beats *her* boyfriend) play sc2 avidly, and will make a great gamer. She relishes giving commentary about her sister's gameplay.
Re: Peanutsc's post, I also have a degree in cognitive science and studied neuroscience, and I don't see anything that I have ever personally studied - in the study of cognitive neuroscience - that supports Peanutsc's opinions about biological predisposition - whatever truths about environmental socialization are present. I also strongly disagree with her prediction about what it would take to get more women into the game - social bonds and increasing general happiness.
Also, personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in a female cup. It implies special treatment women don't need. It would be nice to see the sexist hostility in the community toned down though - that's just common decency, and should be inappropriate anywhere.
Its surprising how many people here are going for the biological determinism cop-out. Eg "genes tell men to play more games than women" "men are genetically better at playing games"
False. Beyond a certain physical limit for raw muscle mass, differences at birth are minimal for both sexes. A newborn's brain structure is unfinished and male and female brain patterns only differentiate and appear after external input.
Genes code for things like muscle mass or metabolism. Complex neurological structures such as "competitiveness" are not coded in DNA, they emerge as the brain adapts to external input post-birth. There are several documented societies where men sit at home combing their hair because "they are too fragile" while women do most physical work.
Why most societies went the other way is always difficult to explain, but it probably had more to do with making efficient use of men's abundant muscular resources. Modern machinery has of course made that argument irrelevant, but cultural steroptypes are remarkably long-lived.
If anyone, we here at TL know how damaging negative sterotypes are, so I was really surprised to see that so many people actually believe in those 18th century misinterpretations of darwinism.
EPT
