EPTDiscussing the lack of top female starcraft gamers - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
stormchaser
Canada1009 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On January 27 2011 07:17 SPACETIME wrote: What are you talking about? What do you mean "women are taught to behave like men"? I honestly don't know what you are referring to, unless you mean that women are taught to be more ambitious and believe in themselves. I for one was never "taught to behave like a man", that is completely ridiculous and based on nothing. And your second thing there...are you saying that the struggle for equal rights is a myth? That "some hippies" put out a myth to cover up the fact that....no it doesn't even make sense enough to be a conspiracy, I can't even conceive what they'd be trying to cover up. Therefore nothing needs to be "cooked up" and the arbitrary use of "1968" is laughable considering what I'm referencing is still occurring and has been occurring well since after the 60s. I never implied that men have every privilege possible, or that guys don't have their own struggles. Of course they do, life in general is a struggle. What I'm trying to say is that the level on which girls and boys are put on and their differences in society (yes by "society" I mean people) were a lot bigger and much more contrasting in the past, and they are slowly coming closer together. Also I don't support the decision that there must be a quota to fill to create equality. I don't support that 50% of staff have to be women. If there are better and more skilled male candidates than girls, then there should be more males in the role. That doesn't mean that we can't teach girls to become better and give them more power in the future, though. The basic question you have to ask yourself is: Do I think that men and women think and feel the same way about things or are they different regardless of society? If the answer is "they are different" then your last sentence kinda explains what I mean with "women are taught to behave like men". You are saing that women should be taught "better" to "give them more power". Chasing after "power" is something men do, because they come from the competing and war side of society and have always struggled with nature and each other to survive. Is that really a good thing to teach every human being as the core thing or do our societies need a counterweight for peace and cooperation? For the answer to that question I would like to remind you that in the history of humanity peaceful societies have always been killed of by more aggressive ones(*1), BUT can we still allow this kind of aggression in the days of biological weapons, terrorism, easily constructed bombs and such? Isnt todays greed - excellently displayed by Halliburton and BP by sacrificing safety for some more money and an oil spill in the gulf of mexico or those bank managers who caused the financial crisis two years ago - just an extreme way of "getting more power" (at the cost of everything else)? Wisdom and Altruism is what we need to be taught more in these dangerous times and if we look at equal rights for women it isnt the women who need to be taught to behave differently, but the men to respect the "female side of society" more and to give up their power and domination. (*1) This also explains why men have more power ... they just took what they wanted from the women because they were stronger. I think women are different from men and no one should wonder too much about there not being many females around in SC2 or eSport in general. It is good to have other people be interested in other things but those females which are around should compete in the same tournaments the men do and not be separated from them. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 27 2011 09:55 redpandas wrote: For the record, I'm a girl that graduated from a top engineering college, and half my graduating class was women, and we are all capable and smart and working top professional engineering jobs now. My women friends work at Google, Microsoft, consulting firms, etc. I'm in grad school for CS now, and there are still more men in grad school, it will take time for the % of women to even out as my generation grows up, moves up, and the next one comes in. That's cute and all. In my CS classes we're usually 20-30 guys and 0-1 girls. Anecdots to rule them all. On January 27 2011 09:55 redpandas wrote: Even if girls have the skill/talent, it is still highly likely they don't have a supportive family/culture/resources in that many parents discourage girls from gaming and give them dolls and makeup to play with, movies/magazines/internet says women are supposed to do makeup/shopping for clothes and spend all their time on that, they will get 10,000 hours experience in makeup application and making friends, and resources wise they will not get random gameboys etc. as presents lying around the house thus not allowing them to get their 10,000 hours gaming experience, while boys will probably get some game system as a present as a young child and begin putting in that 10,000 hours probably before they are even in college. As a counterpoint I had a friend that had a gameboy, always wanted one as a kid but parents no game system; when I had a younger brother they couldn't fight us both and we were finally able to get a N64 and I was able to start gaming. Compared to my bf now, who never played video games growing up, he would have to play a lot of catch up to just basic mario kart/super smash bros/"move around and not fall off cliffs" skills. Do you believe my parents encouraged me to play starcraft 2? Do you believe they encouraged most people here? No! Quite the opposite! You just use cultural acceptance and imagined societal barriers as comforting explanations. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 27 2011 05:22 fush wrote: Your answer to the question is that men have higher variance in a measurement of success in some areas... Okay. I'm down with that if you've done the research. How does that distinguish between cultural or biological influences at all? You use iq tests or "most" other fields as an example, but you can't account for developmental impact on these measurements at all with a variance. So how can you exactly disregard cultural impact as irrelevant? I haven't really done the research but... the argument goes that their is a higher evolutionary selection pressure on males due to the fact that "successfull" women can rear say 0-20 children (tops) while men can easily have thousands of offspring. I'm not 100% sure how everything fits together but it's the only plausible explanation I've heard. There's no reasonable cultural explanation to explain variance in e.g. IQ scores. That's why I don't believe it's the key issue. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 27 2011 07:23 Millitron wrote: What about Native Americans? The Iroquois and Algonquins were both matriarchies at one point or another. Or do you mean currently? Because then you'd be right. Some sources: 1.^ Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, (William Morrow & Company, 1973). 2.^ Joan Bamberger,'The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society', in M Rosaldo and L Lamphere, Women, Culture, and Society, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 263-280. 3.^ Donald E. Brown, Human Universals (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 1991. 4.^ Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001). 5.^ Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11. 6.^ Encyclopaedia Britannica describes this view as "consensus", listing matriarchy as a hypothetical social system. 'Matriarchy' Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007." There may well be societies where women have certain privileges but that's no different from how it is today in any western society. How often have you heard: "save the women and children first!". It's not a joke you know. And who gets custody of children in parental disputes? But there's no matriarchy as there is and has been patriarchies. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
And arguing that females are genetically less fit to play games? -_-' I thought we were past those times. | ||
|
nerrr
Australia47 Posts
sorely disappointed... | ||
|
kirbynator
Canada503 Posts
Not hating, it's life | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
On January 27 2011 17:08 Saechiis wrote: I think it's pretty obvious there are less females at the eSports top because there are way less females actually playing games than there are men, let alone competetively. I also think it's safe to say that girl gaming isn't really the norm in most societies since it isn't considered a "girly" thing to do. And arguing that females are genetically less fit to play games? -_-' I thought we were past those times. Ding ding ding ding. Pretty much this seems like explanation number 1. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 20 2010 04:21 Peanutsc wrote: Here are my thoughts, as a gamer, female, member of the StarCraft community, gaming industry professional, and as someone who has studied cognitive neuroscience and evolution of human behavior in college: Observation: 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. Causes: Biology and environment/society interact to make men feel more personally validated by some objective or subjective measure of dominance ("I scored x points" or "I'm better than you in x") than by social approval. If a typical guy had a choice between winning a basketball match against his sibling/friend/co-worker and losing on purpose so that the other party wouldn't lose face and/or get his/her feelings hurt, I think most Western men would take the former. On the other hand, biology and environment/society interact to make women feel more personally validated by behaving in ways that support social stability and overall well being than by achieving dominance. Given the same hypothetical situation, your average woman would probably opt for losing on purpose or would say "it would depend on who I was playing against." Women are generally taught (and are generally biologically predisposed) to consider their role in the context of a group (couple, family, clique, etc.) and as dependent on or interdependent with the social whims of others. Women are - by and large - not islands. Women judge themselves by how they are perceived by others - it's a relational standard for self-approval or disapproval. Hahaha how bias. Seriously, modern way of thinking is like dressing false and easy judgement with smooth, clean and very polished language and "logic". The use of "biology" is somehow very clear that it is an ideology / a judgement of value that is behind your reasonning. Like having mamal and vagina is pushing you to be "kind" to others and less attracted by competition. It's my penis that make me wanting to win a SC2 game. Plus, just read some history, like for exemple the history of the anarchist movement in early twentith century in France, Spane or Russia and explain us how is it possible that so many guys actually suicide themselves, give their life away at 20 for some kind of friendship / community. They must have mamal. You are confonding what the society teach us to be feminine or masculine (being frail for exemple is more feminine, despite the fact that there is a lot of frail male) and what is actually masculine and feminine in terms of biology (different physiologies, maybe a different biological link with their children, even if I think it's not true). + Show Spoiler + After reading many post, I have to say that this topic is full of shit. I will had that most of you already live in a world that is already dead | ||
|
rainincelery
8 Posts
Playing Starcraft does not make anyone less kind/caring/friendly/feminine. Just saying. Maybe female priorities are different though because although I used to secretly want to be a pro WC3-er back in high school, I would never ever abandon my current career path to do that. | ||
|
WTL
47 Posts
"Men are better than women at literally everything." | ||
|
xrebelx
Canada24 Posts
and this is simple. girls are different the guys. they dont enjoy the same things. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
Men are ugly naturally and therefor excel! | ||
|
Touch
Canada475 Posts
2. Were horny. End of story. Just my opinion  . | ||
|
redpandas
United States4 Posts
On January 27 2011 16:44 ParasitJonte wrote: All right, I was giving an example that if given encouragement and support growing up there's no reason girls are not capable of being high achievers. But it has only been the last 40 years or so where SOME and now more and more girls are given those same conditions growing up. Most grad and even undergrad colleges didn't even allow women to apply until the 60s. Princeton for example had its first women undergrads start in 1969, that is only 40 years ago! How can you say that is an "imaginary" social barrier, women were not ALLOWED to get college educations until 40 years ago??? And you think that is not accompanied by social expectations, you think people change that quickly and completely discard their gender biases from 40 years ago? You say I'm quick to look for social reasons, why are you so quick to dismiss them, when there were clearly laws holding women back, and it has been only a generation since women were completely expected to stay home and only raise children? Do you believe my parents encouraged me to play starcraft 2? Do you believe they encouraged most people here? No! Quite the opposite! You just use cultural acceptance and imagined societal barriers as comforting explanations. Right, and whenever you go on the internet for any of your interests, you have tons of people saying you shouldn't play games/go into x field because you're a guy right, and aren't physically/neurologically capable? Just because they aren't legal barriers now, doesn't mean the same sentiments (that caused the legal barriers in the first place) don't largely hinder people's tendencies. Look at people's hobbies, they don't randomly choose hobbies that they don't have friends already doing, or see lots of people like them doing. People are very normative- there are lots of things they don't make conscious decisions about, they just do what is expected and what they see everyone else doing. If you grow up in a small town, and everyone you know works blue collar jobs, it is highly unlikely you out of the blue decide to be a wall street analyst or work in the tech sector. And yes, there is additional negative pressure where some hobbies get you made fun of growing up, and why do you think it would be the same level of pressure for boys and girls for a given hobby? Do you think boys wouldn't be negatively pressured not to play with easy-bake oven/barbies, and comparatively for girls and video games that are traditionally seen as boys' games? | ||
|
redpandas
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
Sueco
Sweden283 Posts
On November 25 2010 18:58 Sueco wrote: 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, physical differences at birth are minimal for both sexes. A newborn's brain structure looks the same on both sexes, unfinished. Male and female brain patterns only differentiate and appear after external input. Genes code for things like muscle mass and metabolism. What makes us who we are, our brain, is not a preset stored anywhere in our genes. The brain forms itself from a series of simple and repetitive cell instructions. Complex neurological structures, concepts such as "competitiveness" are not coded in DNA, they emerge as the brain adapts to external input post-birth. There are 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 complicated to explain, but it probably has to do with making efficient use of men's more 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. | ||
|
barkles
United States285 Posts
On February 15 2011 04:58 Sueco wrote: I'm risking a Necro here, but this really needs to be restated. Everything I said was ignored in further posts. It usually means you've made a good point. Discuss. If you're trying to argue that men and women think the same way except for the psychological affects of society than your argument leaves much to be desired. From a scientific standpoint, your statement that men and women only display different brain patterns after "external input" is pure bullshit. The only way we would know for sure if the brain patterns of men and women remained identical throughout their lives is to observe them in complete isolation from other human beings after reaching maturation. This is impossible, so it cannot be known whether or not men and women would display differences in brain function without society's influence. Also, one function of DNA (which essentially governs all of the body's functions) that you conveniently omitted was the production of hormones and other chemicals that are unique to one's sex. These have a very clear and documented impact on the way people think. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems very possible that the differences in hormones could lead to a more competitive nature in men, particularly when engaged in contests with other men. In nature, for example, it is common for males to fight over particular females with whom they would like to mate. Therefore, your statement that competitiveness is developed exclusively after birth and solely as a result of human society is questionable at best and plain wrong at worst. I will not argue that society does have a large part to play in the way we are made/taught to behave, but I have a very hard time believing that it is responsible for all of it. And for the record, you say that the brain "forms itself from series of simple and repetitive cell instructions." And where do you think those instructions come from? Oh that's right, from DNA, the stuff that tells EVERY cell in your body what it becomes and what it does. | ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On February 17 2011 17:52 barkles wrote: If you're trying to argue that men and women think the same way except for the psychological affects of society than your argument leaves much to be desired. From a scientific standpoint, your statement that men and women only display different brain patterns after "external input" is pure bullshit. The only way we would know for sure if the brain patterns of men and women remained identical throughout their lives is to observe them in complete isolation from other human beings after reaching maturation. This is impossible, so it cannot be known whether or not men and women would display differences in brain function without society's influence. so based on this, how can you conclusively say that external factors have no influence on anything? you've essentially only pointed out that it's impossible to conduct the ideal experiment to test this out. On February 17 2011 17:52 barkles wrote:Also, one function of DNA (which essentially governs all of the body's functions) that you conveniently omitted was the production of hormones and other chemicals that are unique to one's sex. These have a very clear and documented impact on the way people think. we all have genes coding for the same hormones. DNA only facilitates differentiation of sexual organs in gestation, it has little to no role in determining level of hormonal production past that point. On February 17 2011 17:52 barkles wrote:I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems very possible that the differences in hormones could lead to a more competitive nature in men, particularly when engaged in contests with other men. In nature, for example, it is common for males to fight over particular females with whom they would like to mate. Therefore, your statement that competitiveness is developed exclusively after birth and solely as a result of human society is questionable at best and plain wrong at worst. testosterone hasn't been linked with competition. "competitiveness" is a complex behavior that isn't so easily modelled or explained, so not sure where you got that idea. association by a few observations as to male sexual "competition" (which is just a coined term btw, not necessarily directly related to "competitiveness" in this sense) doesn't justify causation by testosterone. hence, your last conclusion in this quote is wrong - or at least completely unjustified with current data. On February 17 2011 17:52 barkles wrote: I will not argue that society does have a large part to play in the way we are made/taught to behave, but I have a very hard time believing that it is responsible for all of it. And for the record, you say that the brain "forms itself from series of simple and repetitive cell instructions." And where do you think those instructions come from? Oh that's right, from DNA, the stuff that tells EVERY cell in your body what it becomes and what it does. DNA isn't the end all. that line of thought ended maybe 20 years ago. fact of the matter is DNA gives you the blueprint for all the structures you need to build a "city" (ie. your body), but the actual building depends heavily on other factors (ie. maternal condition in gestation, plastic learning in youth). you won't find anyone today in developmental science that will contend that. | ||
| ||
