|
United States22883 Posts
On December 07 2010 01:51 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 23:59 Jibba wrote:
It's called learned helplessness. It's the primary reason boys hit the extremes on math scores while girls stay in the middle. When boys succeed, they usually believe it's because they're naturally talented at math, and when they do poorly, it's because they didn't try hard. When girls succeed, it's because they believe they worked hard to earn it, and when they do poorly, it's because they simply "can't do math." It's a type of arrogance that the elites of any field usually possess that protects them during failure. The 'primary' reason you say? How can you even show this is a reason, let alone the 'primary' reason? A column written by someone, what am I to make of this? I not felt discrimated, objectified, nor offended by it. It was a reasonable position, maybe I don't see the obvious here? if science can demonstrate such bizarre things that for instance Jews all have some magic gene that makes people lazy, no matter how controversial this may be, it will still be the truth and people who defend this research then are not per se anti-Semitic, (though quite possibly they are) Bold words for one who's been theorycrafting a lot so far with little evidence to back it up. Show nested quote +Because before 1960, the education system in every E. Asian and SE. Asian country was terrible, and they couldn't manufacture things or conduct scientific research to save their lives. That's probably why 80% of the most basic principles and technologies we nowadays use for warfare originate from China and they there already had complex architecture and mathematical results in number theory and astronomy that maths students still learn to this day at universities. All the while germanic people were practically still living in caves. Also, some would by your own logic interpret that comment from you above as 'obviously racist and offensive' Apart from that, this graph here: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png) Lists IQ versus locus, purple is the highest. Show nested quote +So please, explain how the evolutionary superior brain of an Asian somehow lapsed for the thousands of years that the Japanese lived in the stone age. I can't remember I ever claimed asians have an 'evolutionary superior' brain, there is more in the brain than intelligence. Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 18:49 Jibba wrote:
He made an evolutionary psychology argument, and there were civilizations where women did hunting. Give me an example, I'm not saying that they don't exist, I'm saying I don't know of any and the burden of proof is yours. Show nested quote +I also fail to see why discussing another animal is irrelevant when the nature of his point is that males are naturally more talented because their predecessors hunt. Because the discussion is about human beings and you can't extend that from other species. In some other animals, females hunt, in some males, in some both, in some neither (herbivores eh). That still doesn't factor on how the animals hunt, which is also significant, a lot of animals hunt solitary. Humans did not, humans actually have developed a lot of intricate ways to communicate and coordinate without using sounds. Ever noticed that humans are the only apes with white in their eyes? You immediately notice what another person is looking at. Other apes thus far have not been shown to realize immediately to what other members of their species are looking, unlike human beings. Show nested quote +http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070413212142.htm
Women may recover from strokes more easily because they use their entire brain to do those tasks. Maybe you shouldn't misquote articles. The article at no point says that women use 'more parts' of their brain, it says they use both hemispheres.. A completely different thing, if nothing else, it implies that women are less specialized and more broadly-oriented. Which is by the way nothing new, it's known that females are sooner to be ambidextrous and have less dominance in brain hemispheres. Whereas males more often have one dominant hemisphere. Please, you do not honestly believe that this study completely disproves established thought by the experiment conducted? There could be multiple explanations for the obtained results. Saying that it's about status, or that aggression is tantamount to being a bad negotiator is just one of the many. This study may be quite interesting, but the conclusions linked to it are overstated. Show nested quote +As opposed to biology, and especially evolutionary explanations for the way things are in 2010?
I would not call myself a fan of biology in this respect either, as well as evolutionary psychology which comes down too much to 'anything goes, logic'. I favour the rigour of physics. Regardless, one study does not a fact make in sociology, the results of the study above could have multiple explanations to it other than status and competition.
You do realize the post you're referring to contains this, right?
edit: no sexist part here, just a simple fact. Now if we were to go into cooking or doing laundry..
And your argument boils down to science = objective and provable therefore it should be believed, except that science is also used to reinforce myths and create oppressive forces. Science is not just a series of fields, it's rooted in its method and part of the method includes acknowledging faults such as selection bias. Even in physics, there's a whole lot of uncertainty and you're working through inferences, not deductions. The science of Asians being naturally smarter or Africans being naturally less intelligent is exactly that (by the way, are you really trying to argue intelligence based on IQ? That argument is peeled straight from The Bell Curve >.>)
Your argument of China and scientific advancement is akin to arguing Koreans are naturally superior at Starcraft, and as proof there have been 19 Korean OSL winners and only 1 foreigner. That last part is a completely true, objective fact but it does nothing to show why Koreans are better at Starcraft. We know the answer is their environment, which is the exact same reason women do worse in gaming or why China (as well as the Greeks, Romans, Arab, Ottoman and European) empires excelled and then stalled.
|
On November 19 2010 23:44 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 23:40 masterbreti wrote:
silver hit the nail on the head there. males gaming is much more socially accpetable then women, who are sterotypically into makeup and gossip and all thos eother things. men are supposed to be into sports and video games.
just gender sterotypes tbh So why are there many successful female athletes in "other" sports then? And give me a break, when women are stereotypically into makeup and gossip then men are into cars and bodybuilding....gender stereotypes go both ways, there's not really a stereotype that includes playing sc2 competitively. I don't really get it either, why competitive gaming seems not to be appealing to women at all.
Women compete against other women. However, when you put women up against men, invariably they fall short. For example, the world-record 100 meter sprint time for women wouldn't even qualify for the men's 100 meter sprint. You can literally go down the list of elite athletes and find that men's events showcase far superior talent than women's event. When it comes to the elite of the elite, men dominate this end of the spectrum for reasons of biology. On most tasks, most men and women are relatively equal. However, we aren't talking about most men/women, we are talking about the best of the best. That's why there are very few women progamers (f any). Shaving off 2/10ths of a second in a sprint will do nothing for me in a race against my peers, but 2/10ths is the difference between 1st place and going home a loser in the Olympics.
|
On December 07 2010 01:51 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Apart from that, this graph here: Lists IQ versus locus, purple is the highest.
Interpreting graphs fail. Your graph is about the relation of GDP with IQ, which explains China doing so well, it has a massive GDP. Here is the correct graph of national IQ estimates. (From the same study.) This graph makes a lot more sense, you will see that people are about equally "intelligent" and by "intelligent" I mean "good at doing IQ tests" everywhere where there is a good standard of education and literacy.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/InvertedIQbyCountry.png/800px-InvertedIQbyCountry.png)
Please no arguments about one race being more intelligent than another, aside from being completely off topic (and racist) it just makes you look ignorant and stupid to anyone with a clue.
|
On December 07 2010 02:10 Defacer wrote:
If anyone took the time to hang out in the real world the answer would be plain as day.
Believe it or not, outside this online community, anyone that is outside the 18 to 25 year old male demographic for this game have absolutely no social or financial incentive to spend 8+ hours on this game.
I'm a 30 year-old male, and trust me, whenever I bring up Starcraft with anyone in my social sphere people look at me cross-eyed.
This is basicly the answer folks no need to go any deeper than that. This thread is attracting so many filthy commentents that its tarnishing my good image of the TL community. Can we please have this closed?
There is to many "Women is less intelligent" shit going on in here its quite sad
|
Also all these arguments about hunting and stone age are just stupid.
Just because main literatur is filled with stupid books like "Why men don't listen and women can't drive" which just try to explain every detail of modern life with the stone age (and having no proofs or studies for most of the arguments made in the books) everybody thinks he knows exactly whats going on...
Look i can make these arguments too:
---
Men are more intelligent than women because it required new ideas and tactics to be successfull at hunting for the family.
Women are more intelligent than men because they had to farm food. Also they had to care and teach the children about life. Men only needed strength and endurance to bring meat to the family.
---
Men are better at starcraft because they competed against each other in stone age to feed their families. Also men had to learn strategies and tactics for hunting, so naturally they are better at strategy games
Women are better at starcraft because they competed each other for men (while men did team work at hunting). Also women are better at multitasking because they had to care for the family while men can only focus at one thing at a time.
You can argue what you want, you can always "prove" it with stone age stuff. its just stupid
|
On December 07 2010 05:22 Mente wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:17 eggs wrote:On December 07 2010 04:07 Defacer wrote:On December 07 2010 02:14 LittleeD wrote:
Im absolutely baffled by the amount of Sexism going in this thread.
Think it might be time to close it now ... I think this thread is dumb overall to be honest. The sexism is depressing, and even the people trying to intellectualize the lack of female SC2 players are strawman arguments. Believe it or not, it's not just women that find SC2 frustrating, anti-social, over-difficult and boring. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO. And some of the sexist comments on this thread are indicative of how far removed the average SC2 nerd-alpha-male is from the understanding the thoughts and opinions of the majority of society. statements like this are what's ruining the thread. you don't even understand what the question is. it's not about the majority of society; it's not even about the majority of the SC2 player base. it's about the absolute minority, the top 0.1% of the people who play the game. it doesn't matter what the average IQ of someone in China vs the average IQ of someone in Africa is, when the top SC2 progamers aren't your average Chinese or African. it doesn't matter what the average person finds anti-social/over-difficult/boring about SC2 when we're discussing SC2 pros. Thank you for setting him straight. His direct insult to us and this thread was obnoxious and snide at best.
I'm glad you found my response obnoxious. And you've set nothing straight.
I too, find the majority of the arguments on this thread so laffably sophmoric and overwrought with pseudo-science and racist/sexist research that they are offensive.
Sometimes the answer is dead simple. The reason why there are not that many SC2 female pros is not that many women, or people in general play SC2.
WHY, YOU ASK?
It is not a casual game, or even a game that is accessible to most people.
It's a highly stressful strategy game, designed for e-sport enthusiasts and highly competitive nerds, that requires an abnormal amount of motor skills and a huge investment to even be competitive.
It is about as easy and straight-forward as playing Spanish Guitar with your left hand while playing Chess with your right.
The story, lore and design of the game itself is meant to appeal directly to young men, and young men only, borrowing heavily from Starship Troopers and James Cameron movies.
Unlike other contemporary games, such as Rock Band, Mario Party or even World of Warcraft -- which are responsible for the rising popularity of gaming among women -- it is comparitively anti-social, and you are forced to play the game on it's own terms. It is not "a sandbox game" that people can customize, and has one of the most counter-intuitive interfaces/controls of any mainstream game.
SC2 is a game designed specifically for male, OCD nerds. There is no incentive for women, or most people, to play it unless they really want to hang out with these OCD nerds. Luckily for Blizzard, there's about ten million of us in the world.
I see no reason why there needs to be a more complicated sociological, anthropological or historical reason.
Long live Starcraft 2.
|
On December 07 2010 03:33 RoboBob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 18:37 TIgerjaw wrote:
The biggest reason for girls not getting into games is societal pressure. I feel constantly pressured to not mention my gaming habits to friends, for fear that I'll be looked down upon. Yes, I have a few friends that are girls that play videogames, like most people, but we are few and far between.
First of all, playing competitive video games is considered masculine. If you play those types of video games, your femininity gets questioned, without a doubt.
This is because women care about how they are perceived by men a lot. We have been conditioned to accept that even though we have the freedom to do whatever a man can do, we have to accept that we are the "weaker" sex, and that its just not "right" if we're dominating males in any sort of competitive hobby or game. Traditionally, if we beat a guy at a game, we understand that we're seen as less sexually desirable, and that is a huge no-no in the world of women. We know that being attractive is what matters to most men, so normally, women do less than okay to impress you. We don't intentionally lose at Super Smash Bros to give you an ego boost, we do it so we are still seen as desirable to you.
This baffles me. I find the complete opposite, that women defeat gamer guys in videogames are found to be more sexually attractive than those who cannot. Of course it's not the whole picture, as body type and personality still play a big role, but it's still there. I will agree 100% that the level of sexual harassment in the gaming community sucks. However the sexual harassment would not exist if gamer guys found gamer girls unattractive. It's quite the opposite actually, Im sure there's thousands of gamer guys out there who wish their significant other were a gamer as well. Gaming, in general, is not a sexually attractive hobby, and that means that the gaming community has a higher-than-average level of sexual frustration. (and thus, higher-than-average douchebags) Even if there isn't any women around there's still plenty of sexual harassment being thrown around the gaming community; the language simply switches from misogynistic to homophobic. I've dated non-gamers who were very beatiful physically, and every single one has 10+ sexual harassment stories. But Ive also dated gamer girls who were not as attractive physically, and while they had fewer "real life" harassment stories, if you added online encounters then they easily doubled, if not tripled, that of the more physically attractive women. That level of harassment could easily turn anyone away from gaming. But again, I am baffled that you believe gaming will make you less attractive. To non-gamer guys, perhaps, as gamer girls suffer many of the stereotypes gamers guy do. However to most gamer guys the "gorgeous gamer girl" is the holy grail of sexual success.
Hey RoboBob, thanks for your reply.
When I was mentioning being "sexually desirable" I didn't mean to say that gaming "makes" you physically less attractive in the eyes of a man. I meant to say that competing against them, rather than playing the traditionally submissive role that is both conditioned and associated with femininity, risks making you seem less feminine. And for most men, less feminine=less sexually desirable. I don't know any guys that would prefer to date a girl who seemed butch, lol.
I definitely agree that there are exceptions to this rule, especially among the TL hardcore gaming community. I know my fiancee, who is a hardcore competitive gamer in every respect, definitely thinks he found the holy grail when he met me at a Go club ;] We love competing against each other, and he loves that I'm great at what we play. There is no doubt in my mind that many of you would love to have a gamer girlfriend, but I think what I mentioned relates more towards men unfamiliar with competitive gaming, as they're more likely to view competitive women as abnormal and "unladylike".
While playing SC doesn't necessarily correlate to being less feminine, the fostering of competition among females from a young age doesn't exist like it does for males, because being competitive is frowned upon in society for women, as the article I posted says. It is conditioned out of us, but there are some exceptions to the rule, as Tossgirl and many other amazing female amateur and pro players show. Us girls love to compete just as much as the boys, if only society didn't tell us that displaying aggression and showing drive to succeed were meant to be the "man's job".
|
On December 07 2010 06:20 Jibba wrote:
You do realize the post you're referring to contains this, right? Contains what?
edit: no sexist part here, just a simple fact. Now if we were to go into cooking or doing laundry.. This quote wasn't mine by the way , no idea what it's doing here.
And your argument boils down to science = objective and provable therefore it should be believed, except that science is also used to reinforce myths and create oppressive forces. Except that then it's not science.
The beautiful thing about science is transparency, you have to also publish the methods you use to obtain your results, such as in the case of the money-negotiation, then anyone can review those methods and asses their correctness.
Science is not just a series of fields, it's rooted in its method and part of the method includes acknowledging faults such as selection bias.
Even in physics, there's a whole lot of uncertainty and you're working through inferences, not deductions. Actually physics is purely mathematical deduction. Physics is mathematics, physics is a bunch of soulless formulae. All other things around it is just some nice interpretation in popular media to translate it into something that people can grasp more easily than tensor calculus and Hilbert spaces.
The science of Asians being naturally smarter or Africans being naturally less intelligent is exactly that (by the way, are you really trying to argue intelligence based on IQ? That argument is peeled straight from The Bell Curve >.>) Where did I ever used the word 'natural', I said 'averagely'.
I never read that book by the way, you've seen the chart, note that it also holds for immigrants, Asians immigrating to other countries are on average more intelligent than natives of that country.
Your argument of China and scientific advancement is akin to arguing Koreans are naturally superior at Starcraft I never made an argument of China, I was producing counter-examples to your (some would say racist) claim that China had no scientific advancement.
and as proof there have been 19 Korean OSL winners and only 1 foreigner. That last part is a completely true, objective fact but it does nothing to show why Koreans are better at Starcraft. We know the answer is their environment, which is the exact same reason women do worse in gaming or why China (as well as the Greeks, Romans, Arab, Ottoman and European) empires excelled and then stalled. That is simply theorycrafting and neither verifiable nor falsifiable at this point. There is no way you can prove or even investigate that this is the 'exact reason'.
Like I said, look a little bit more to the available evidence and don't be afraid to accept that the world isn't an ideal paradise and a little less to what you want to be true. Given the evidence, saying that Africans have more stamina, Europeans more bloodthirst, Austronesians higher reflexes and Asians more intelligence is a reasonable positional.
|
Given the evidence, saying that Africans have more stamina, Europeans more bloodthirst, Austronesians higher reflexes and Asians more intelligence is a reasonable positional.
Dude read my post above, your graph doesn't show what you think it does. In no way are asians more intelligent than any other race. Asia has an equal national IQ to the West, e.g. Europe, America and any other country where there is a decent standard of education. In many African countries a lot of people don't get a chance to go to school, hence why most countries in Africa have a lower "national IQ". Europeans have more bloodthirst? I... I don't even... I hope you are trolling.
|
This is a fascinating question. I've experienced the same lack of females in another field: breakdancing.
In that field there are distinct differences between the two genders, typically running along the less strength more flexibility line which changes the way they _should_ approach the art form. The interesting thing about breaking is that girls tend not to play to their strengths and instead copy the males in this field resulting in targeting "strength moves" but not having the sufficient strength to hit the same heights as the males. This results in the females effectively just being a "worse" version of the males. It's sad, but true.
This is probably because the "strength techniques" are much more developed as the art form has typically been male in the past. So there are many more "resources" out there documenting the way to adopt strength moves.
However females that apply their own take on breakdancing and utilise their flexibility and underplay the values of strength can be phenomenal. Unfortunately there have been few examples of this due to the fact that females more or less have to pioneer these styles themselves and the rigid framework that most breakdancing religious zealots adopt usually look unfavourably toward people trying different and new styles.
With this in mind I was absolutely astonished to see such a divide in e-sports. I think we all should appreciate that gaming IS becoming a more gender equal interest. As a 29 year old I can already see the huge difference between the girls nearer my age or nearer their early twenties in their approach towards games. More girls are growing up with games (and not The Sims, proper ones  ) and I hope this trend will continue in the future.
Men have a VERY big role to play in this transformation. We must NOT and we must RALLY AGAINST those that attempt to sexualise their involvement, bear prejudices and deal in stereotypes.
Furthermore we should _not_ segregate. E-Sports are _not_ physical sports. Female tennis and female football exist due to to the PHYSICAL differences between the genders. E-Sports should _not_ copy this pattern as it makes NO SENSE in gaming.
Introducing female only competitions LOWERS the bar for the entrants and provides a false sense of achievement on both sides. It makes people think that its good for female gamers (it's worth noting that the GSL is _not_ men only) and it makes the female gamers believe they have "made it" which can reduce their desire to improve further.
Instead we should be looking at creating more tournaments for those at a lower skill bracket which overtime will provide new blood into the community of both the male and female kind.
Finally: NO EASY PROPS
Remind yourself that it is insulting to provide a compliment to a female that a male would not be given in the same scenario. One of the main things females have to battle with in the breaking scene is that ANYTHING they do will result in the crowd going wild. These easy props are very harmful to the ego and being able to gauge your own skill level.
EDIT: WTF is up with the eugenics in this thread? That's pretty scary stuff. You should back off that stuff as it is rarely helpful. The physical and genetic differences between the various races of humans are so small and the diversity between people within the same race so very vast that its a nonsense to speak in such generalisations.
EDIT 2: IQ is also a terrible gauge to use. I've met super high IQ people that lack volition, will, independence and determination. Essentially smart retards.
Additionally I think we can all agree that in terms of becoming a pro gamer determination and effort are probably much more important than IQ.
|
On December 08 2010 00:42 Koneko wrote:Show nested quote +Given the evidence, saying that Africans have more stamina, Europeans more bloodthirst, Austronesians higher reflexes and Asians more intelligence is a reasonable positional.
Dude read my post above, your graph doesn't show what you think it does. In no way are asians more intelligent than any other race. Asia has an equal national IQ to the West, e.g. Europe, America and any other country where there is a decent standard of education. Even if it doesn't (which the context I found the graph in doesn't say that, I'm also not sure what 'intelligence in relation to GDP would mean'. I drew a line for you to make it clearer, the colour differences are quire subtle, one of the reasons they often don't use mono-hue but shift hues:
![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/scrg/junkdump/e35a91de.jpg)
As you can see more clearly now the CJK countries are of lighter shade.
I also, again, never said 'natural', I never said that they were born smarter, though it's a possibility.
In many African countries a lot of people don't get a chance to go to school, hence why most countries in Africa have a lower "national IQ". Maybe, maybe not, how can you know this? All we know their national IQ is lower.
A good IQ test by the way is designed to ignore education, though this is a theoretical ideal.
Europeans have more bloodthirst? I... I don't even... I hope you are trolling. As long as we're going on the axiom that testosterone -> aggression. Indeed European males have been shown to have more testosterone than males of other ethnicities. Let us not forget for instance that many ethnicities have less facial hair, and of some the males do not grow facial hair at all.
However throughout history, no ethno-linguistic group seems to have shown the same lust for conquest as Indo-Europeans.
I'm just saying that it's a reasonable position, the only reason people are cautious about such positions is that they are 'politically incorrect'.
Please no arguments about one race being more intelligent than another, aside from being completely off topic (and racist) it just makes you look ignorant and stupid to anyone with a clue. This though highlights your slavery to the vaunt of political correctness, what if it's simply true? Have you ever once in your life seen a proof that all races are exactly on the same aptitude in intelligence?
Like I said, I'm a socialist, I'm a woman, I'm a blend of European, native American and North African, but I don't deny stuff I don't want to be true.
It would be completely unlikely anyway if all races had the exact same genetic intelligence. Races adapt to their climate, some climates would require more intelligence than others to survive in, races have differently formed bones, skin tone, blood composition, finger length, strength, all to adapt to the climate they grew up in. Races that live high in the mountains have evolved to be able to make due with less oxygen, races that have evolved in drought actually pee less as to preserve more water. There are simple differences in qualities that are undeniable, you've already made up your mind before you reviewed the evidence.
Defacer
I too, find the majority of the arguments on this thread so laffably sophmoric and overwrought with pseudo-science and racist/sexist research that they are offensive.
I fail to see what the offensiveness of some idea has to do with the veracity thereof, after all, offensive is a subjective quality.
Sometimes the answer is dead simple. The reason why there are not that many SC2 female pros is not that many women, or people in general play SC2.
WHY, YOU ASK?
It is not a casual game, or even a game that is accessible to most people.
It's a highly stressful strategy game, designed for e-sport enthusiasts and highly competitive nerds, that requires an abnormal amount of motor skills and a huge investment to even be competitive.
It is about as easy and straight-forward as playing Spanish Guitar with your left hand while playing Chess with your right.
The story, lore and design of the game itself is meant to appeal directly to young men, and young men only, borrowing heavily from Starship Troopers and James Cameron movies.
Unlike other contemporary games, such as Rock Band, Mario Party or even World of Warcraft -- which are responsible for the rising popularity of gaming among women -- it is comparitively anti-social, and you are forced to play the game on it's own terms. It is not "a sandbox game" that people can customize, and has one of the most counter-intuitive interfaces/controls of any mainstream game.
SC2 is a game designed specifically for male, OCD nerds. There is no incentive for women, or most people, to play it unless they really want to hang out with these OCD nerds. Luckily for Blizzard, there's about ten million of us in the world.
I see no reason why there needs to be a more complicated sociological, anthropological or historical reason. The 'reason' is that your explanation here is theorycrafting and 'aesthetic reasoning' but without any backing of why this would be the one true explanation.
Of course, it's an explanation that you want to be true because it's not 'offensive'.
|
I'm sure that the common use of terms like rape and baller in the discussion of Starcraft really makes female gamers feel welcome.
|
How many posts about female players are there going to be on TL? Seriously?
Every time, it's the same.
I'll sum up every single post that could possibly occur in this thread:
a) I welcome female gamers and female leagues.
b) Girls just don't like games/aren't strategic
c) LOL I THROW SCIENCE AT YOU
d) LOL GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN/DO MY LAUNDRY/MAKE ME A SAMMICH LOL
Seriously. Every. Single. Time.
There are plenty of females on TL, covering all divisions.
As a female, here's what I wish would happen:
That we stopped talking about it, looked around, realise there are females everywhere on TL, and let it go. And stfu with the stupid kitchen jokes.
There will be female progamers, mark my words.
Let's just let it go and play some freakin' SC2.
edit: for the record, I don't mind the word 'baller'. I actually like it. As for 'rape', it doesn't bother me as such, but doesn't make me feel good either. I don't think that's because I'm female though.
|
On December 08 2010 11:01 SunriseSEA wrote:
How many posts about female players are there going to be on TL? Seriously?
Every time, it's the same.
I'll sum up every single post that could possibly occur in this thread:
a) I welcome female gamers and female leagues.
b) Girls just don't like games/aren't strategic
c) LOL I THROW SCIENCE AT YOU
d) LOL GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN/DO MY LAUNDRY/MAKE ME A SAMMICH LOL
Seriously. Every. Single. Time.
There are plenty of females on TL, covering all divisions.
As a female, here's what I wish would happen:
That we stopped talking about it, looked around, realise there are females everywhere on TL, and let it go. And stfu with the stupid kitchen jokes.
There will be female progamers, mark my words.
Let's just let it go and play some freakin' SC2.
edit: for the record, I don't mind the word 'baller'. I actually like it. As for 'rape', it doesn't bother me as such, but doesn't make me feel good either. I don't think that's because I'm female though.
While I respect that this topic might be beating a dead horse, I don't feel it is because (although the thread has not evolved in totally the same way) the original intent of the thread was to discuss the lack of females at the highest levels of the game and also a perceived gap between the top women and the top men. I do understand the fact there are many ladies here on team liquid, but however many there are doesn't change the original question of the thread.
I didn't make this thread to discuss whether or not there are less female gamers in general in SC! Like someone else pointed out here:
On December 07 2010 00:33 Bluetea wrote:
The OP is inquiring as to why "they're just not as good."
Therefore it is not "plain and simple."
The point is, people like TossGirl and others did put in relatively equal time and effort as the top men did. Yet she herself mentioned the perceived gap between the top men and women which I quoted in the OP. The question is really why does that gap exist? Because I don't see any great reasons why it should/does.
There really have actually been quite a few insightful posts buried in here and I've enjoyed reading everybody's opinion.
|
On November 19 2010 23:54 Achilles wrote:
My girlfriend hates Starcraft but fucking loves the Sims, but if I were to play it as much as her I'd get 5 babies and a 6 fig salary in no time.
This is the answer to why women are bad at competitive games. They play for fun to a much larger extent, while men are more driven towards "beating the game", which in a competitive game such as Starcraft means to compete with others.
|
On December 08 2010 11:01 SunriseSEA wrote:
How many posts about female players are there going to be on TL? Seriously?
Every time, it's the same.
I'll sum up every single post that could possibly occur in this thread:
a) I welcome female gamers and female leagues.
b) Girls just don't like games/aren't strategic
c) LOL I THROW SCIENCE AT YOU
d) LOL GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN/DO MY LAUNDRY/MAKE ME A SAMMICH LOL
Seriously. Every. Single. Time.
There are plenty of females on TL, covering all divisions.
As a female, here's what I wish would happen:
That we stopped talking about it, looked around, realise there are females everywhere on TL, and let it go. And stfu with the stupid kitchen jokes.
There will be female progamers, mark my words.
Let's just let it go and play some freakin' SC2.
edit: for the record, I don't mind the word 'baller'. I actually like it. As for 'rape', it doesn't bother me as such, but doesn't make me feel good either. I don't think that's because I'm female though.
I like this post. Tell it like it is, lady.
Instead of asking why there are so few women (relatively) in the SC2 scene -- as if womankind somehow has a problem -- we should be asking ourselves why we, on TL, are investing so much time playing and obsessing over such a masochistic, stressful, and challenging game.
The answer: WE'RE NERDS.
|
As much as I hate to tangent so wildly I find it difficult to let some of the information in this post stand without effective rebuke.
This section:
Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
However throughout history, no ethno-linguistic group seems to have shown the same lust for conquest as Indo-Europeans.
I'm just saying that it's a reasonable position, the only reason people are cautious about such positions is that they are 'politically incorrect'.
is a complete bastardisation of the rich tapestry of the history of our species crowbarred into a forum sized sound bite to fulfill your "political correctness gone mad" stance.
You mis-represent history to serve your point and in doing so perform a complete dis-service to the history of our ancestors. Frankly, it's a disgrace.
The Lord's Resistance Army, Columbian drug wars, Manchuria, The Mongols, The Hittites, The Aztecs. Hell why not even throw a blood-thirsty chap such as Paul Pot into the mix. These are examples of non Indo-Europeans who are about as blood-thirsty as they get.
It is _not_ a reasonable position. It is a ridiculous position that bizarrely ignores the vast majority of human history to only focus on the colonisation efforts of the europeans during the past 200 years.
Empire building is a very long and complex topic but the short of it is that it requires certain technologies to be in certain hands at certain times. For example, Africa was not conquered by the europeans until the nineteenth centuary. This was not because Europe lacked sufficient testosterone at that time but because they lacked quinnine. Without this drug the entirety of West Africa was off limits due to yellow fever and malaria.
Warships, advanced firearms (specifically: repeating rifles), China's absurd isolationist policy at that time. All of these are factors as to why the Europeans sailed around the globe gobbling up all the countries they desired through the medium of warfare.
Are we to assume that if these technologies were, for example in Indonesian hands they would have not done the same due their testosterone deficiencies?
I personally would place more credence for colonisation in "The Enlightenment" and how that enabled Europe to break free of the shackles of religious thought and develop new and powerful technologies. It's an interesting subject that demonstrates how, despite war, the Indo-Europeans were able to share, accumulate and improve their knowledge from the Greeks to the Arab Empire and then back into Europe via Southern Spain (the Moors).
|
On December 08 2010 20:01 DustyShelf wrote:As much as I hate to tangent so wildly I find it difficult to let some of the information in this post stand without effective rebuke. This section: Show nested quote +Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
However throughout history, no ethno-linguistic group seems to have shown the same lust for conquest as Indo-Europeans.
I'm just saying that it's a reasonable position, the only reason people are cautious about such positions is that they are 'politically incorrect'.
is a complete bastardisation of the rich tapestry of the history of our species crowbarred into a forum sized sound bite to fulfill your "political correctness gone mad" stance. You mis-represent history to serve your point and in doing so perform a complete dis-service to the history of our ancestors. Frankly, it's a disgrace. The Lord's Resistance Army, Columbian drug wars, Manchuria, The Mongols, The Hittites, The Aztecs. Hell why not even throw a blood-thirsty chap such as Paul Pot into the mix. These are examples of non Indo-Europeans who are about as blood-thirsty as they get. Except the Mongels and the Aztecs, all those people were Indo-European.
Do you know what Indo-European means?
It is _not_ a reasonable position. It is a ridiculous position that bizarrely ignores the vast majority of human history to only focus on the colonisation efforts of the europeans during the past 200 years. No, it focusses on the Romans, the Greeks, the plundering of the Vikings, the conflicts between the celts and neighbouring tribes, the vast Persian empire, the wars fought by the Hittites (who are Indo-European, I suggest you look up the term, Hittites are a prominent example of Indo-Europeans), the Avestan, Russian and Indian conquest.
Empire building is a very long and complex topic but the short of it is that it requires certain technologies to be in certain hands at certain times. For example, Africa was not conquered by the europeans until the nineteenth centuary. This was not because Europe lacked sufficient testosterone at that time but because they lacked quinnine. Without this drug the entirety of West Africa was off limits due to yellow fever and malaria.
Warships, advanced firearms (specifically: repeating rifles), China's absurd isolationist policy at that time. All of these are factors as to why the Europeans sailed around the globe gobbling up all the countries they desired through the medium of warfare.
Are we to assume that if these technologies were, for example in Indonesian hands they would have not done the same due their testosterone deficiencies?
I personally would place more credence for colonisation in "The Enlightenment" and how that enabled Europe to break free of the shackles of religious thought and develop new and powerful technologies. It's an interesting subject that demonstrates how, despite war, the Indo-Europeans were able to share, accumulate and improve their knowledge from the Greeks to the Arab Empire and then back into Europe via Southern Spain (the Moors). You know what, I'm going to ignore all this until you read up on the term 'indo-european', it isn't what you seem to think it is. For instances Hittites fall under it, but Fins do not, Spanish do, but Basques do not, so do the Iranians (Persians) and the Afghans (Pashtuns) by the way.
|
it has just nothing to do with intelligence.... there are just less women in sc2. there are just less women who try to play competetive.
look at games like wow, there are a lot more women than in sc2.. rts games just seem not to attract a lot of women. and among men, there are just a lot more who want to compete vs other men. most women dont give a shit, if they can play better than someone else... they just play for their own fun.
thats also the main reason why men are genereally more interested in sports. the thought about being the best in something is just not that popular among women.
|
Yes Hittites were Indo-European my bad.
Mongols weren't, Aztecs weren't, Lords Resistance Army isn't (Uganda, although I guess one could debate that), Manchuria was all about the Japans, Columbians are again debatable depending on the ethnic make up post Spanish colonisation. Paul Pot was Cambodian.
So I misplaced one at least one. Apologies.
So the ravenging of Europe and Asia by the Mongols.... that's not important right? Cause I mentioned one example that was accidentally Indo-European. So therefore the Mongols don't exist anymore?
If we're going to debate then please do so properly.
If we're just going to argue and split hairs over minor details of each others text as opposed to answering the assertions then I would suggest we move this over to PMs.
I would also be fascinated to hear about your knowledge of the incredibly peaceful period of time for the non Indo-Europeans between the years 0 AD - Present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
