|
On January 06 2013 04:39 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. The concept isn't flawed, in fact, it's often used in qualifiers for major tournaments to add proportional promotion and value in all other regions. What's flawed is your understanding that you think women's leagues are to establish equal achievements to that of major leagues when in reality, it is a league to help display and promote female players and aspiring female progamers. That's why your current and original statements are wrong and silly, because I clearly state the purpose of female leagues to bolster and promote minor leagues and areas, similar to other regions that are not as prominent as, say, Korean. This is my last response to you because it's clear that when it comes to reading, you're selective.
And now I know you are not reading nor understanding my post in their entirety. Let me make it easier for you.
I at no time think that womens leagues are to establish equal achievement.
It is a falicy to think they do so.
This is what womens leagues are attempting to do. Promote themselves, and using an artificial gauge to show their performance.
It is a failed system because the gauge is not level.
So, the result is players who have good resumes and exposure but have poor knowledge of the game they profess to be an expert of.
I'm done with you in this thread. It is obvious that you lack the comprehension of what people are telling you, and you cannot grasp the complex theories therein contained.
Good luck with your next thread, maybe it will be founded on fact.
|
On January 06 2013 04:39 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. The concept isn't flawed, in fact, it's often used in qualifiers for major tournaments to add proportional promotion and value in all other regions. What's flawed is your understanding that you think women's leagues are to establish equal achievements to that of major leagues when in reality, it is a league to help display and promote female players and aspiring female progamers. That's why your current and original statements are wrong and silly, because I clearly state the purpose of female leagues to bolster and promote minor leagues and areas, similar to other regions that are not as prominent as, say, Korean. This is my last response to you because it's clear that when it comes to reading, you're selective. Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. Just because you have 25k+ post doesnt mean your opinion is better than someone elses... that is easily acheived by posting 30 times a day. relevance? No one is making that claim. Personal attacks only hinder your credibility.
What personal attack? however, you calling me silly is a personal attack.
Im done here. you can have the last word, but it will be the last word to a brick wall.
|
This is what womens leagues are attempting to do. Promote themselves, and using an artificial gauge to show their performance.
Which ones? Because the ones I know, don't do that and as far as I know, no one ever made that claim.
What personal attack? however, you calling me silly is a personal attack.
Im done here. you can have the last word, but it will be the last word to a brick wall.
Making points at my post count, as if that mattered lol
|
It's straight up ridiculous to claim women have less opportunities than men in StarCraft 2. They have at least as many and I'd say there's a strong case to be made that they have more. The reason there are no female pros is that there are no good female players.
The reason there are no good female players is manifold, but mostly because females don't play very much. If we want female pros then we need female players. One way of encouraging them is by giving them their own tournaments and thus giving exposure to those who otherwise don't have the ability to succeed and then hopefully enticing more talent and encouraging any that already exists. I think anyone who has an issue with this is just straight up strange, to be honest. That said, I would have no interest in watching it myself - I don't even watch most foreigners play because the level of play is too low to satisfy me. I also don't think we're ever going to see a large amount of female players regardless of how good the community gets - ultimately, some things interest men more than women, and StarCraft ticks a lot of boxes for the males over the females.
Side point: I wonder if competitive knitting (or real world equivalent) forums have discussions about how to get males interested and have people vehemently arguing for or against male knitters only tournaments.
|
On January 06 2013 02:54 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 05 2013 16:04 Torte de Lini wrote: Why grow a subculture? My point is that you still aren't portraying why there is more value in specifically targeting female gamers in particular.
Whatever time, effort, and resources are devoted to developing and supporting a women's league is just that - time, effort, and resources. It's fairly self-explanatory. If someone finds particular value in doing it, I guess it's indeed their prerogative to do so. However, I may have misinterpreted the point of the article, which I was under the assumption of trying to convince the community that we need to develop and nurture a female community because of the value it will bring in the first place. What I'm saying is that you failed to produce an argument which shows why value is added and thus have provided no incentive for us to hop on a bandwagon and support a women's league. At the same time, I'm not necessarily going to expend effort to stop someone from doing one, even if I think it's completely and utterly stupid.
All you've insinuated is that women should be prioritized because they have the potential to offer a culture that the current community lacks. What I'm stating is that there is no inherent value in the diversity you are arguing for. "Promoting diversity" is little more than a sugar coated term for promoting discrimination.
You're stating that catering to one group doesn't necessarily infringe upon the other groups, but that's intrinsically untrue. Of course it does. If you're giving select privileges or advantages to a specific group, it is directly preventing others from capitalizing on those privileges or advantages. If you do a $500 tournament for women only, you are directly denying all men in the community an opportunity to win $500 in prize money by default. It is far, far more black and white than you suggest.
And no, when concerning analogies, the minor details that fault it do not discredit the user, which is such a silly and stupid thing that plagues these forums. Analogies are meant to get a point across using similarities, not identical scenarios, with the same underlying fundamental point set about by different scenarios. The affirmative action analogy is incredibly valid despite clear differences, as the underlying point is that it is promoting discrimination.
What is the point of growing the E-Sports subculture, or better yet; what is the point of creating further appeal and interest for women and women competitors? Are we really going down this line of basic marketing, sales and importance to appeal to many and larger varied crowds? We want women's leagues because more competitors and more diversification in types of competitors, areas of a scene and growth of variety is good. Is expending resources worth it? That's up for interpretation and obviously not everyone makes it a priority. Though, I can slap that statement on E-Sports and game developers and you'd see a mirror image of what I'm pushing here. If you're giving select privileges or advantages to a specific group, it is directly preventing others from capitalizing on those privileges or advantages. If you do a $500 tournament for women only, you are directly denying all men in the community an opportunity to win $500 in prize money by default. It is far, far more black and white than you suggest. This is wrong and I told you why comparing and attaching the two together is wrong. Zowie Divinia did a 500$ tournament for a Women's only tournament. The money was specifically for that tournament and not an arbitrary prize of 500$ allocated to it through decision. You're assuming that we have a bank full of money and thus decide what options we want to spend it on which is untrue. It's actually more: Which areas do we want to promote and further development in: Women leagues, okay, how much money do we want to put towards it? 500$. If they didn't do Zowie Divinia, that doesn't mean they'd put that 500$ in a different tournament or idea. That's how decisions, resources and companies work necessarily. I think that's a huge misinterpretation. It is much less black and white than you suggest. And no, when concerning analogies, the minor details that fault it do not discredit the user, which is such a silly and stupid thing that plagues these forums
If you say so, but I heavily feel like I'm less at fault than you right now. Yes. We are going down that line, no question. And you're talking to someone with a BA in Business Economics, specializing in International Economics and Concepts. You're not selling whatsoever on the value here, nor is it intuitive when it comes to the video game industry. More competitors is good, yes. However, achieving more male competitors is substantially easier than achieving more female competitors. At best you have a niche sponsor argument, but even that is ridiculous, considering that if anything what the scene needs is an absolute growth in viewers overall. Which, as mentioned, is easier to achieve on the male side. You didn't say anything remotely on why it's wrong. You continually just post stupid things like "I addressed this earlier" or "it was in the article" when your points in the article are even good ones. You do little more than say things like "some people think along this mentality, but it's a bad mentality, you need to think of it differently and have a good mentality." It's getting old. And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all? Regardless of what would have been done otherwise, the point is that as soon as the restaurants open, it is actively denying service to minorities. If you have the female $500 tournament, that's a tournament relating to a particular skillset that men possess, but are being denied entry for the sole reason they have a penis. Ridiculous. Your article has absolutely no substantive points in it, yet you continually reference it. Beyond annoying. I really thought I vanquished you with that last point, but let's go again! You don't have to cite your degree lol, we all have university degrees (at least I do as well). More competitors is good, having your game appeal to a better variety is also just as good. If I can get a huge appeal towards men, that's great. If I can get women interested as well as men, then I don't see why you would disagree as you do now. Show nested quote + And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all?
This sounds a bit desperate of a comparison. Your goals for your restaurant are both detrimental to your business as well as local reputation. It doesn't make sense on any level besides irrationality to open a white-only restaurant. How is this similar to female-leagues that help bolster a product and niche scene to a larger, more diverse audience? Does your discriminated restaurant do that? The tournament is for beneficial purposes, how is a white-only restaurant beneficial for tourism? We know why female leagues are beneficial for StarCraft. [/i][/i]
*sigh* Everyone of your posts continues as if you're "winning" some argument. Its really awful to even attempt to have a debate with your posting style. The degree was only an inference of you suggesting that I don't understand basic marketing, sales, etc.
The point is that you are suggesting that we expend extra effort and resources to promote female specific leagues for the sole reason that attracting females in particular will make the scene better. I am challenging this premise, stating that attracting females has no inherent value over attracting males, and I even suggest it has potentially negative value.
The restaurant is not desperate and is wholly pertinent. I find it to be an extremely compelling argument, in fact. There are many people that even have this mindset in certain areas. They find value in white only, as you supposedly find value in variety for the sake of variety. The discriminated restaurant caters to individuals who don't want their dining experiences disrupted by filthy minorities. At the same time, the jobs it creates and services it provides to white people overall enhances the overall economy, benefiting everyone, including minorities, indirectly.
As I've also stated numerous times before, no we don't know how female only leagues are beneficial to StarCraft. You accept the premise as true despite how many times people challenge it. And then you absurdly refer to your OWN ARTICLE as a source for it being true? Ridiculous! As mentioned before, if anything I think your suggestions have the potential to even hurt the scene and cause harm.
Please stop making it out as if your arguments are somehow "winning". Because if anything, I'm only seeing you going in circles with no substance to back your reasons. You just imply they are intrinsically true.
|
On January 06 2013 04:54 FuzzyJAM wrote: It's straight up ridiculous to claim women have less opportunities than men in StarCraft 2. They have at least as many and I'd say there's a strong case to be made that they have more. The reason there are no female pros is that there are no good female players.
The reason there are no good female players is manifold, but mostly because females don't play very much. If we want female pros then we need female players. One way of encouraging them is by giving them their own tournaments and thus giving exposure to those who otherwise don't have the ability to succeed and then hopefully enticing more talent and encouraging any that already exists. I think anyone who has an issue with this is just straight up strange, to be honest. That said, I would have no interest in watching it myself - I don't even watch most foreigners play because the level of play is too low to satisfy me. I also don't think we're ever going to see a large amount of female players regardless of how good the community gets - ultimately, some things interest men more than women, and StarCraft ticks a lot of boxes for the males over the females.
Side point: I wonder if competitive knitting (or real world equivalent) forums have discussions about how to get males interested and have people vehemently arguing for or against male knitters only tournaments.
This is basically the issue. It's not that there are really talented female players out there that are being disenfranchised by a sexist system; that's incredibly unlikely because of the rarity of talent at this game (Millions worldwide play this game but only a couple hundred compete at major tournaments.) multiplied by the relative lack of female Starcraft players. We can talk about the biological, societal, and communal reasons for that, and I think certainly the Starcraft community is not particularly inviting to women, fair enough, but these are problems with gaming culture as a whole, and we're a small (and relatively hostile) slice of that small pie. Koreans dominate the Starcraft scene, yet we don't think it's communal racism that is keeping foreigner players out of their high prizepool winner's circles; that might be part of it, but they also practice a lot, and Starcraft is practically mainstream in South Korea. I'm actually surprised that we don't see more Korean female SC players.
|
If you say so, this is going in circles and the further I reply, the more repetitive you equally get. So I'm going to stop, I've made my points both from the start and in reply to you. I disagree, but anything more I say you dismiss as either without substance or some other banal thing.
So I guess there really is no point in replying. Some agree with me, some agree with you. That's that.
|
On January 06 2013 05:23 Torte de Lini wrote: If you say so, this is going in circles and the further I reply, the more repetitive you equally get. So I'm going to stop, I've made my points both from the start and in reply to you. I disagree, but anything more I say you dismiss as either without substance or some other banal thing.
So I guess there really is no point in replying. Some agree with me, some agree with you. That's that.
Ironically it is I who found you highly repetitive, in the sense I felt you had no actual points or reasoning for why more females is a good thing. But alas, apparently I'm the same in your eyes, as shown. Thus, maybe you're right in that there is no point, and I'll agree to disagree.
|
Canada10959 Posts
On January 06 2013 04:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:39 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. The concept isn't flawed, in fact, it's often used in qualifiers for major tournaments to add proportional promotion and value in all other regions. What's flawed is your understanding that you think women's leagues are to establish equal achievements to that of major leagues when in reality, it is a league to help display and promote female players and aspiring female progamers. That's why your current and original statements are wrong and silly, because I clearly state the purpose of female leagues to bolster and promote minor leagues and areas, similar to other regions that are not as prominent as, say, Korean. This is my last response to you because it's clear that when it comes to reading, you're selective. And now I know you are not reading nor understanding my post in their entirety. Let me make it easier for you. I at no time think that womens leagues are to establish equal achievement. It is a falicy to think they do so. This is what womens leagues are attempting to do. Promote themselves, and using an artificial gauge to show their performance. It is a failed system because the gauge is not level. So, the result is players who have good resumes and exposure but have poor knowledge of the game they profess to be an expert of. I'm done with you in this thread. It is obvious that you lack the comprehension of what people are telling you, and you cannot grasp the complex theories therein contained. Good luck with your next thread, maybe it will be founded on fact. I think you flatter yourself with the supposed complex theories contained herein You say it is a failed system, but what is the measure of your success? Simply by reading a tourney threads participants informs me of the players involved. Player names that I probably otherwise not noticed. That's successful promotion whether it is a female only tournament a iccup D level only Tourney, or a non-China/Korea tourney like TL's Legacy Star League. Artificial gauge or not, it does highlight the players involved in a way that was not done before.
Then after reading a female tourney thread, I see their name again as they are playing in the MLG open brackets (which usually doesn't get much promo.) I pay a little more attention to how they do because I am a little more familiar with the name. Does the existence of female tourneys delegitmize the efforts of Flo in the MLG open brackets? I think not.
players who have good resumes and exposure but have poor knowledge of the game they profess to be an expert of.
That's hardly an issue. There is no rule "Thou shalt have X amount of exposure based on Y level of expertise." The exposure and resume are all relative and female tourneys aren't trying to wrestle with the GSL for top tournament status. They organize the best tourney they can with the player pool they've decided to run with and the exposure it gets is the exposure it gets.
|
On November 20 2012 04:34 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 04:11 Noobity wrote: The only, only problem I have with the discussion is the idea that female-only tournaments aren't sexist, while male only tournaments would be.
That's like saying affirmative action is racist.Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 04:11 Noobity wrote: I don't like the way society is going about this kind of thing in general. Yes, women have it hard in a lot of ways, and I'm not trying to slight that. But men have it hard in a lot of other ways, and this isn't really brought to light ever. As a man who likes to think he's respectful and neutral regarding sex as possible, the rights that I don't have regarding my children, or a failed marriage, or any number of other issues caused by men in the past is pretty frustrating as it is. We have a huge issue of equality, where women have different rights from men everywhere and that's the bigger issue. Allowing tournaments limited to only one sex, be it male or female, while a great idea in theory, can only be a stepping stone in my opinion.
This is ridiculous, one problem society does not have is males being discriminated against. Just look at this community, where maybe some female players get preferential treatment in some ways, but mostly they have to put up with incredible amounts of hostility from the community for their gender. They can't ever achieve anything without constant discussion about it, Scarlett for instance still has to put up with a multitude of trolls on reddit making disgusting comments every time she's mentioned - although her case is slightly different of course. Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 04:22 Uncreative_Troll wrote:Females are a minority receiving the community’s strongest criticisms, but also receiving the least opportunities. I don't agree with that sentence. We don't see male Diamond(?) players getting into a top Korean team or males joining pro teams as a player while having barely touched Sc2 the last months... It's much easier to get noticed (and get opportunities) as a girl in a male dominated scene and I openly admit that I sometimes prefer the stream of a random female player with a webcam over a Progamer. Right now, females suffer from 2 prejudices: ... “Female gamers who are not achieving, don’t deserve to be on a team” That's not actually a prejudice but an oppinion and a question of consistency. I don't think that many disagree with "Gamers who are not achieving, don't deserve to be on a team". I never noticed a discussion where someone asked for a female to be kicked out of a team cause she had no achievements (after the first announcement). Djokovic and Sharapova are both big tennis stars, yet Sharapova would lose without winning any games if they faced off. Stephano is the hero of the foreigner community, yet there are many Korean players that would be highly favored against him, even though he makes more money and has more fame. The WCS celebrated local tournament winners, they received a prize, were spotlighted, interviewed etc. Yet a lot of these players won't go far in a 'legit' tournament. At one point or another you have to realize that when you have divisions in the scene, with separate audiences etc. that then each scene can have its own stars. I honestly think that the best thing for female gaming would be to have more female leagues and more females playing the game. Affirmative action is racist.
Whether or not it's a good thing is different than whether or not it's racist.
|
Unlike in real sports, there is nothing actually stopping females from entering any tournament they want to. I don't see the point in having a female only league. If they want more exposure, if they want to be recognized as competitors, then they need to compete with everyone; not just within their own group. If a female does well in an MLG or something, they will be recognized for their skill just like any male that does well in an MLG.
If a female does well in a female-only tournament, what exactly should they be recognized for? Being better than other women? Ok sure, but what does that even mean? As a competitive player, I want to be able to measure my skill at what I compete at. In order to measure my skill, I need to compare it to a measuring stick. The measuring stick in this case would be the rest of the scene, not just the rest of my gender. I mean, if somebody wins a male-only tournament, it just means they are the best male player. It doesn't mean anything in relation to the entire scene, and I think that true competitive players would want to be measured against everyone in the scene.
To those of you who are not convinced, I would like to propose a compromise. Let's just say for the sake of argument that right now, female-only leagues are necessary. Here's something we can agree on, I think: In the future, female-only leagues should be phased out of existence as more females do well in big tournaments like MLGs and whatnot. If females start winning MLGs and Dreamhacks, then there would be no reason to have female leagues anymore since female heroes would be established. The rest of the females in the scene would have a hero to look up to and aspire to follow, thus, we would no longer need female-only tournaments.
I'm not convinced that we need female-only tournaments even right now, but for those of you that disagree, I'm sure we can at least agree that EVENTUALLY, they should not be necessary.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 06 2013 04:39 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. The concept isn't flawed, in fact, it's often used in qualifiers for major tournaments to add proportional promotion and value in all other regions. What's flawed is your understanding that you think women's leagues are to establish equal achievements to that of major leagues when in reality, it is a league to help display and promote female players and aspiring female progamers. That's why your current and original statements are wrong and silly, because I clearly state the purpose of female leagues to bolster and promote minor leagues and areas, similar to other regions that are not as prominent as, say, Korean. This is my last response to you because it's clear that when it comes to reading, you're selective. Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. Just because you have 25k+ post doesnt mean your opinion is better than someone elses... that is easily acheived by posting 30 times a day.
relevance? No one is making that claim. Personal attacks only hinder your credibility.
I don't see a personal attack. He isn't calling you names. But I think you knew that.
|
After 10 pages i still don't understand why having more females is good or bad.
Counter strike had a quite successful female scene, but it had nothing to do with male players uplifting or promoting their scene, but female players doing so for their own interest, which i think is how it should work. If there isn't a female scene is probably more because of the lack of female gamers interested on sc2, than our community.
|
So I'm quoting from a few pages back, because the discussion was much better back then
On January 05 2013 09:55 FabledIntegral wrote: Also, my point wasn't rather that if 5 new female gamers are introduced, 5 male gamers are hindered from coming in. Rather, it meant, we should just grow the scene regardless by attempting to attract 5 people to the scene, regardless of gender. We should not actively attempt to target 5 female gamers (or 5 male gamers for that matter), but rather work on getting an additional 5 gamers to the scene in general (of course, 5 being a completely arbitrary number). The article fails to mention the benefit of targeting females in particular - why 5 more female gamers is superior to simply 5 more gamers.
Although I do very much appreciate the attempt get at the core values of the problem, just like theoretical physics are often done in a frictionless vacuum, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification in this matter, because the esports community is not a homogenous mass working in unison for the best of esports. I think we need to take into account that people have different interests and different motivations and that we do not deal with the choice of getting either a female tournament/interview/whatever or a male tournament/interview/whatever, but rather getting either a female tournament or no tournament at all. So the question is, is the female tournament/interview detrimental to esports as a whole? If we have the chance of bringing in 5 new female gamers, should we not take chance, just because it could not have brought in 5 new male gamers?
If this is your answer:
On January 06 2013 02:32 FabledIntegral wrote:And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all?
Then, how do you feel about a tournament for certain nationalities only, like just a Dutch tournament, or just a European tournament? Are they equally discriminatory as female-only tournaments? Or what about a tournament among friends or any invitational tournament where not everyone is allowed to compete? Would you object to them? Also, seeing that not all invitational tournaments include only the topmost skilled players of the world, do you object to them because some spots went to less deserving players while the more deserving players were excluded? Or what about the Brood War TSL's, where Koreans, specifically, were not allowed to compete? If you do not object to all of these examples, are you able to pinpoint exactly where the qualitative difference between arbitrary factors like gender, nationality, social network etc is and explain why gender is a worse arbitrary factor to use in discrimination than the others?
The resturant analogy is a good one and I think the difference lies in that a tournament is a competition while a restaurant is entertainment/recreation, and also that a bar is an open establishment with clear guidelines while an internet tournament is not as clearly defined. If you like to have a white supremacist restaurant in your living room, I should think no one would stop you from letting non-whites into your private house (and we'll conveniently disregard the fact that you can't start businesses that are truly private, because that's not the point). So in physical life, the boundaries between private and public are fairly well defined. On the internet, however, the boundaries are not as clearly defined and it's not immediately easy to tell if a certain activity is private or public. However, I think the female-only leagues can easily be described as public because whoever is allowed to watch them, including men. So the female tournaments are public entertainment open for watching by men and women alike.
So, to get back to your analogy, a public restaurant for whites only is just as bad as a public tournament that only women are allowed to watch. Both genders should be able to enjoy the entertainment/recreation and indeed, in female tournaments they do. So what is the entertainment/recreation made up of? That's where we have some freedom of choice. Should your restaurant (which has now been deemed open to people of any skin colour) be compelled to serve both Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola because it is discriminatory to only serve one of them? Should a sports bar be compelled to show curling as well as football, because it is discriminatory not to include all sports in a sports bar? I think the establishment should have some freedom to choose what they're doing. Besides, most female tournaments are usually sub-groups of larger tournament organizing bodies, catering to both males and females.
On January 05 2013 09:55 FabledIntegral wrote:I think it takes more resources to target female gamers than male gamers, which is completely unnecessary. I have zero interest in actively bringing female gamers to the scene, as I see zero benefit or value from doing so. I only see value in bringing people in general to the scene, which I think is easier to do so with males.
Even if the esports community were a homogenous mass working in unison for the best of esports, wouldn't female-only tournaments actually be a very valid thing to do? For one thing, there's a potential to double the market without any additional infrastructure, because women exist alongside men already, so if we could get the women interested, it would mark a huge influx of members to the community. The point I'm trying to make is that the potential in getting female players is possibly larger than the potential of getting more male players and that's why we should try. In essence, I disagree that the resources per player is higher for females and males, because there are so many females and if we could just break the barrier, we'd see a huge influx of players for very little resources. Moreover, since female gamers draw disproportionately more attention than male gamers in respect to their achievements, wouldn't it actually be desirable to hold female tournaments because they would have a statistically higher view count than a mixed-gender tournament of the same level, that is, they have a higher "profit margin" as it were?
This became a much longer post than I though it would...
|
Overall great article highlighting some important topics in regards to female gamers and how the environment could be made better for them, but I also have some critique (below).
On November 20 2012 03:03 Torte de Lini wrote: The game doesn’t distinguish males from females, yet some organizations like to sell females just playing video-games more so than exposing them as a different gender with the same amount of determination and deserved respect.
Females can choose to join an organization that don't see them as objects of attention. I guess it is fairly obvious to see what the teams intentions are when reading an offered contract.
On November 20 2012 03:03 Torte de Lini wrote:Right now, females suffer from 2 prejudices: - “Females gamers are being signed for being a female rather than any real remarkable achievements”
- “Female gamers who are not achieving, don’t deserve to be on a team”
(It’s a vicious circle: Female gets on a team without any achievements, female remains on the team but never sent to any events or actively used in team leagues. Never exposed, she never achieves anything or is a part of any team achievements). I think this critique often stems from females joining organizations who see them as cheap exposure, who they don't really have to commit resources to.4 Secondly it is not a vicious cycle, unless you fucked up. Most teams like winning stuff, so if a female gamer is good enough to win games she will probably be sent to an event or put on a teams lineup for a match. Basically what you're writing is that they should be given opportunities to play in team leagues even though they may not be among the 5 strongest players and they should be sent to tournaments (this is a contract issue, don't sign without a team without some form of event-obligation). While ladder rank is not a perfect measure of skill, it is good enough to let a team coach/manager randomly decide whether or not a player is good enough to be put into the active lineup for a team league. It would be ludicrous to reduce the teams overall chance of winning in favor of using a weaker player because this player deserves(?) exposure in team leagues. If the teams lineup is big enough she could be used for minor leagues alongside B-teamers. A good example of this is Flo, who signed with Quantic and participated in many (all?) MLG's with open brackets under their banner (assuming Quantic helped/paid her get to the events). But at the same time it would have been very poor team management to actively use her in the biggest team leagues, because the lineup of Quantic was filled to the brim with talented players with better chance of winning team leagues games. Finally there are a ton of daily tournaments that are open for all and everybody and the people performing in these are slowly gaining recognition in the community and it would not go unnoticed if a female gamer started consistently started doing well in these (I do realize this is not an easy feat, but it is an option). So to say it's not purely the responsibility of the team to expose a gamer.
|
Honestly, i dont understand why people even care. Thats the great thing about esports.. its not about physical strength or anything like that. If you take it beyond the game into other things, sure.
but lets get this straight, there are NO disadvantages to women playing games. unless you give yourself a retarded name like cupcakeprincess or something in game, no one is going to know what gender you are nor care.
I feel like the problem is with the female gamer culture.. how many times to we need the "o hai im a girl and i play games OMG im such a nerd ^^ kekekeek" There are a lot of serious female gamers that dont even give on that they are female just because it doesnt fucking matter. To suggest women have a disadvantage when it comes to video games, is to suggest they are inferior in some sort of what which is just fucked up.
however, its a male dominated industry. and unless the culture shifts, you are still going to have sexism. I dont think its a flaw in the community, but more a flaw in society. And to be fair, if it was the other way around, it would be the men made fun of.. mostly by their peers however.
|
On January 07 2013 00:16 Destro wrote: I feel like the problem is with the female gamer culture.. how many times to we need the "o hai im a girl and i play games OMG im such a nerd ^^ kekekeek" There are a lot of serious female gamers that dont even give on that they are female just because it doesnt fucking matter. To suggest women have a disadvantage when it comes to video games, is to suggest they are inferior in some sort of what which is just fucked up.
Because those persons in particular are attention-whoring posers. As such it's best to ignore them, or troll them hard or something. However I find those specimens to be far more prevalent in other gaming scenes than in SC2. Either way, I believe this thread is about female players that are actually competitive and into the game, and not XxX1337PR!NC355XxX[GURL GAMER OMG:DDD]
|
On January 07 2013 00:16 Destro wrote: To suggest women have a disadvantage when it comes to video games, is to suggest they are inferior in some sort of what which is just fucked up. To make that suggestion doesn't have to also mean that women are inferior to men. 1. Social explanations where societal differences between a girl and a boy growing up leads to boys being more well-equipped to rock in gaming. This one would also explain why Korean culture excel in gaming compared to more lax western gamers .
2. There are two genders. One of them doesn't have to be inferior because it is slightly less adapted to the important aspects of being a successful gamer (strategy (focus-minded), hand-eye coordination, hand speed, etc.). While this would technically mean women are inferior at gaming, it is most likely counterbalanced by something else meaning they're not inferior to men in a more general sense - Similarly to how women are inferior to men in various physical sports, but not regarded as inferior to men in other aspects of life (atleast by normal non-sexist people). (note: I don't know if there is actually a difference since e-Sport is not comparable to traditional sport on the importance of physique, that's just speculation that there could be one and if there is that it doesn't automatically turn women into second-rank citizens)
|
*From wiki* Occam's Razer - is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. "The simplest solution is usually the best"
Facts on issue w/ out assumption or predisposition: Sports have male and female leagues due to biological differences between genders. Starcraft is a non-physical competitive game. The current professional league of Starcraft is 99.99% male. **Figures on the population of female/male gamer/viewers are not available to me**
My conclusion on the data at hand: Adding a female league would better for the much smaller population of girls. They could gain exposure to promote themselves and attract more female players/viewers. Just like regular sports have male and female leagues it wouldn't be unreasonable for Starcraft to have a separate one. However, given that Starcraft is a non-physical game, we should offer females equal chance and opportunity compete in the regular league and under the same pretenses as males. This means that qualifying or seeding would be exactly the same for them. So in essence, you have the Official Starcraft league, and a female only league to support the smaller population of female players/gamers. Seems simple enough imo.
|
On January 06 2013 22:37 iMAniaC wrote:So I'm quoting from a few pages back, because the discussion was much better back then Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 09:55 FabledIntegral wrote: Also, my point wasn't rather that if 5 new female gamers are introduced, 5 male gamers are hindered from coming in. Rather, it meant, we should just grow the scene regardless by attempting to attract 5 people to the scene, regardless of gender. We should not actively attempt to target 5 female gamers (or 5 male gamers for that matter), but rather work on getting an additional 5 gamers to the scene in general (of course, 5 being a completely arbitrary number). The article fails to mention the benefit of targeting females in particular - why 5 more female gamers is superior to simply 5 more gamers. Although I do very much appreciate the attempt get at the core values of the problem, just like theoretical physics are often done in a frictionless vacuum, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification in this matter, because the esports community is not a homogenous mass working in unison for the best of esports. I think we need to take into account that people have different interests and different motivations and that we do not deal with the choice of getting either a female tournament/interview/whatever or a male tournament/interview/whatever, but rather getting either a female tournament or no tournament at all. So the question is, is the female tournament/interview detrimental to esports as a whole? If we have the chance of bringing in 5 new female gamers, should we not take chance, just because it could not have brought in 5 new male gamers? If this is your answer: Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:32 FabledIntegral wrote:And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all? Then, how do you feel about a tournament for certain nationalities only, like just a Dutch tournament, or just a European tournament? Are they equally discriminatory as female-only tournaments? Or what about a tournament among friends or any invitational tournament where not everyone is allowed to compete? Would you object to them? Also, seeing that not all invitational tournaments include only the topmost skilled players of the world, do you object to them because some spots went to less deserving players while the more deserving players were excluded? Or what about the Brood War TSL's, where Koreans, specifically, were not allowed to compete? If you do not object to all of these examples, are you able to pinpoint exactly where the qualitative difference between arbitrary factors like gender, nationality, social network etc is and explain why gender is a worse arbitrary factor to use in discrimination than the others? The resturant analogy is a good one and I think the difference lies in that a tournament is a competition while a restaurant is entertainment/recreation, and also that a bar is an open establishment with clear guidelines while an internet tournament is not as clearly defined. If you like to have a white supremacist restaurant in your living room, I should think no one would stop you from letting non-whites into your private house (and we'll conveniently disregard the fact that you can't start businesses that are truly private, because that's not the point). So in physical life, the boundaries between private and public are fairly well defined. On the internet, however, the boundaries are not as clearly defined and it's not immediately easy to tell if a certain activity is private or public. However, I think the female-only leagues can easily be described as public because whoever is allowed to watch them, including men. So the female tournaments are public entertainment open for watching by men and women alike. So, to get back to your analogy, a public restaurant for whites only is just as bad as a public tournament that only women are allowed to watch. Both genders should be able to enjoy the entertainment/recreation and indeed, in female tournaments they do. So what is the entertainment/recreation made up of? That's where we have some freedom of choice. Should your restaurant (which has now been deemed open to people of any skin colour) be compelled to serve both Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola because it is discriminatory to only serve one of them? Should a sports bar be compelled to show curling as well as football, because it is discriminatory not to include all sports in a sports bar? I think the establishment should have some freedom to choose what they're doing. Besides, most female tournaments are usually sub-groups of larger tournament organizing bodies, catering to both males and females. Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 09:55 FabledIntegral wrote:I think it takes more resources to target female gamers than male gamers, which is completely unnecessary. I have zero interest in actively bringing female gamers to the scene, as I see zero benefit or value from doing so. I only see value in bringing people in general to the scene, which I think is easier to do so with males. Even if the esports community were a homogenous mass working in unison for the best of esports, wouldn't female-only tournaments actually be a very valid thing to do? For one thing, there's a potential to double the market without any additional infrastructure, because women exist alongside men already, so if we could get the women interested, it would mark a huge influx of members to the community. The point I'm trying to make is that the potential in getting female players is possibly larger than the potential of getting more male players and that's why we should try. In essence, I disagree that the resources per player is higher for females and males, because there are so many females and if we could just break the barrier, we'd see a huge influx of players for very little resources. Moreover, since female gamers draw disproportionately more attention than male gamers in respect to their achievements, wouldn't it actually be desirable to hold female tournaments because they would have a statistically higher view count than a mixed-gender tournament of the same level, that is, they have a higher "profit margin" as it were? This became a much longer post than I though it would...
This is the kind of response I was looking for! Still don't necessarily agree with you, but its awesome to see points actually being addressed, having reasons for why it should be done, etc. And while I would love to take the time to write up a response, unfortunately I'm without a desktop and am using a tablet right now... Would take forever to structure a well put rebuttal or whatnot. Hopefully ASUS stops dicking around with the RMA that's taking 3 weeks now... Seeing as I just left my Acer laptop to be repaired at a shop this weekend too =(.
|
|
|
|