|
On January 04 2013 17:28 iMAniaC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:09 StarStruck wrote:On January 04 2013 11:59 Josh111 wrote:On November 20 2012 04:34 Grumbels wrote: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. 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. 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..... Heh and then you would have those people out there saying how they aren't legit because they aren't playing against the toughest competition and history repeats itself. There are women's leagues for practically everything. Heck, even MBC had a women's league for BW and once the ratings came in that was it. No more. On January 04 2013 05:23 NotRandoMNamE wrote:
I believe KESPA had an all female tournament before in BW, which tossgirl won every time but I'm not sure what happened to it now. ^ This guy alluded to it and everyone knew she was the heavy favorite. Anyway, it was only one time and the ratings were terrible. Actually, it ran for 4 iterations. And there may have been another set of female tournaments that ran for two iterations. I don't know if GameTV and GhemTV have been confused and are really the same tournament or not. (See  Tossgirl). However, my point is that it was more than a one time thing. Although, admittedly, not much more than one time...
I only remember the MBC one being televised.
|
Eh, we don't really need the tournaments televised. We just need active tournaments to increase participation.
|
On January 04 2013 08:37 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:33 Dubsy wrote:On January 04 2013 08:24 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 04 2013 07:40 Dubsy wrote:On January 04 2013 07:14 Torte de Lini wrote:I'm convinced, however, that the skill level of female tournaments being lower is a result of the sample group being lower. Bingo yes. That's why comparison between two genders is just wrong. I can't say I agree with that. There are plenty of women Soccer/basketball/tennis players and the best players are always going to be men. On a more comparable level there are lots of women Poker/Pool/Golf/Chess players and the elite of the elite are still always men. It's not about women being the BEST at something. The LPGA can support itself and is plenty entertaining but that doesn't mean we need women playing in the US open or its gonna be considered sexist. They're just not at the same level. (Looking at you Michelle Wie) You too Manon Rheaume. Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have women's leagues to not find out. Uhhh... Yeah that's why I said I'm in favor of them if they can support themselves financially. If they're just siphoning funds from the real money makers and burning it because it turns out female tourneys are unsustainable, then I do not support them at all. So then E-Sports shouldn't have been started either then? I can see your point because it is logical, but at the same time, it has its flaws that I want to hear your view on.
Can you please be more transparent in what I hold be responding to? You want to hear my views on some alleged flaws, but I'm not sure if you've pointed them out yet or not.
If you are saying that investing in Girls only tournaments is beneficial to SC2 (one guy even said there is no negative side effects, Hahahahah!) then I don't know if I agree. It absolutely is an enormous potential growth market, but we've been down that road already and it didn't catch on. Female only tourneys had few competitors, low interest from fans and boring competition. SC2 is in a super fragile state and this isn't the time to start putting the extremely limited available capital towards a project that has failed time and time again. Video games have been around for decades now and the demographic hasn't changed all that much.
And frankly there is absolutely zero barriers to entry for girls that haven't been bashed wide open already. They would almost certainly (ok 100% certainly) land on a pro team before an equally skilled male. It's a great time to be a girl gamer, there just aren't many good ones out there.
|
On January 04 2013 17:39 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 17:37 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:32 Torte de Lini wrote:
Girl only tournaments are demanded to increase female participation.
Doing so has 0 negative side-effects. Except the side effect of excluding a bunch of males solely for their sex? I don't see any reason why moving towards equality in terms of representation rather than opportunity has any remote sense of value. Why again is it better for the community to bring in 5 new female gamers as opposed to five new male gamers? I can tell you didn't read the article.
Well, I read the first 25%, then skimmed the rest, didn't actually "skip" any actual portion, but it was quite a long article. Maybe it's because I went in with an unopened mindset? I read your points, I just didn't think there was any explanation for the value, but I'll read a little more in depth later tonight if you did address these issues with actual reasons >_<.
EDIT: Nope, reread instead of skimmed, you never addressed where the actual value is derived with having an additional woman involved instead of a man. I see zero value added.
This was the closest you got, from what I found.
Females should be praised for their own separate achievements; different standards and expectations for different types of people. Aren’t we then setting a lower standard for females over males? No, that is a comparison; we are actually just setting a system or scale for female E-sports. Females should have female tournaments and the reason for these events is that you want to expose all sectors of an E-Sport. As one user said on the topic of female-only tournaments:
You fail to make even a marginally convincing argument here really on why females should be praised for their own separate achievements.
|
On January 05 2013 06:23 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 17:39 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 04 2013 17:37 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:32 Torte de Lini wrote:
Girl only tournaments are demanded to increase female participation.
Doing so has 0 negative side-effects. Except the side effect of excluding a bunch of males solely for their sex? I don't see any reason why moving towards equality in terms of representation rather than opportunity has any remote sense of value. Why again is it better for the community to bring in 5 new female gamers as opposed to five new male gamers? I can tell you didn't read the article. Well, I read the first 25%, then skimmed the rest, didn't actually "skip" any actual portion, but it was quite a long article. Maybe it's because I went in with an unopened mindset? I read your points, I just didn't think there was any explanation for the value, but I'll read a little more in depth later tonight if you did address these issues with actual reasons >_<. EDIT: Nope, reread instead of skimmed, you never addressed where the actual value is derived with having an additional woman involved instead of a man. I see zero value added. This was the closest you got, from what I found. Show nested quote +Females should be praised for their own separate achievements; different standards and expectations for different types of people. Aren’t we then setting a lower standard for females over males? No, that is a comparison; we are actually just setting a system or scale for female E-sports. Females should have female tournaments and the reason for these events is that you want to expose all sectors of an E-Sport. As one user said on the topic of female-only tournaments:
You fail to make even a marginally convincing argument here really on why females should be praised for their own separate achievements.
The ultimate problem with your original argument is the comparison. You compare two separate genders that are not opposing, but just different. Their differences within the E-Sports context are supported by different circumstances, they cannot be compared. But you try to anyway by stating that because there are more women-only events, men suffer. Which is false and in fact, there has never been a feeling or worry of that kind thus far (even in established women's leagues such as CS & ESL)
That's why I said you didn't read the article, because it directly contradicts your view. Because 5 new female gamers are brought in does not necessarily mean 5 men are hindered in coming in. It doesn't work that way for teams who are looking to acquire female progamers, it doesn't work that way for tournament organizers and their aimed marketability and it doesn't work that way for spectators (in part).
Women should be praised for their separate achievements similar to why champions of NA in WCS. Because it emphasizes context, adds value to what should be valued (just because you didn't beat a Code S player doesn't necessarily mean your success cannot be celebrated or highlighted - similar to if you didn't beat someone MLG, doesn't make your IPL achievement any less redeeming).
Context and circumstances are important, but you chose to ignore those to make a weak comparison. The value of adding women is to better shape an E-Sport for all sectors. There is no comparative value of having more women than men in that regard, there is value in bringing more sectors and areas of an E-Sport to further garner diverse interests.
|
On January 05 2013 03:18 Torte de Lini wrote:
Eh, we don't really need the tournaments televised. We just need active tournaments to increase participation.
We were talking about a specific case Torte and I already commented on that idea a few posts ago so no need for me to talk about that further.
|
On January 05 2013 06:53 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:18 Torte de Lini wrote:
Eh, we don't really need the tournaments televised. We just need active tournaments to increase participation.
We were talking about a specific case Torte and I already commented on that idea a few posts ago so no need for me to talk about that further.
my bad :B
|
On January 04 2013 04:15 iMAniaC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 03:14 Ender985 wrote:Also to add something to the discussion, I think female-only leagues are a good thing and should continue to get more exposure. Imagine if a female-specific GSL was held; we would probably see far better fermale players develop just to try and beat Scarlett for the price money. You don't have to think female-only leagues are a good thing, you can pretty much know. I distinctly remember seeing Flo and Maddelisk both say that they got competitive because they played in some female-only tournament for fun and then got encouraged to become competitive when they realized how much fun it actually was (or something along those lines. I'm writing from memory). Considering the small number of public female SC2 gamers, we could already say that the female-only tournaments have done a considerable impact in drawing women to competitive SC2. Also, at the end of 2011, there were lots of female-only tournaments and at the same time, several teams added at least one woman to their rosters. I'm willing to think that the correlation is not random.
This is an important point that I think addresses some of the concerns about female-only tournaments that other people have raised in this thread. Rather than think of them like this:
On January 04 2013 17:37 FabledIntegral wrote:
excluding a bunch of males solely for their sex
we can look at it as a way to increase the participation in the scene of a currently underrepresented group (women). If the post I quoted earlier is accurate, then female-only tournaments would seem to be effective for this purpose.
The above concern also brings up a contrast between an ideal world in which all things are actually equal and none of this would be necessary and the messy, troublesome world we inhabit, in which we sometimes have to make accommodations to get ourselves closer to what we ultimately hope to see---in this case, greater and more widespread participation in the Starcraft II scene.
|
The above concern also brings up a contrast between an ideal world in which all things are actually equal and none of this would be necessary and the messy, troublesome world we inhabit, in which we sometimes have to make accommodations to get ourselves closer to what we ultimately hope to see---in this case, greater and more widespread participation in the Starcraft II scene.
bingo, great point :B
|
On November 20 2012 09:43 phuzi0n wrote:
... .... Are there any genetic differences that really hinder females playing esports that warrants separate leagues?
This is the first question. When that has been explored the discussion can continue in a informed and consious manner.
We cant (or rather shouldnt) take into account enviroment. I can illustrate this with the following: "I want a seperate league for those of us who didnt have access to internet at home till 2005 because we are at an disadvantage." It just doesnt work.
|
On January 05 2013 08:46 Mooneyes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:43 phuzi0n wrote:
... .... Are there any genetic differences that really hinder females playing esports that warrants separate leagues? This is the first question. When that has been explored the discussion can continue in a informed and consious manner. We cant (or rather shouldnt) take into account enviroment. I can illustrate this with the following: "I want a seperate league for those of us who didnt have access to internet at home till 2005 because we are at an disadvantage." It just doesnt work.
It's been explored and we stated that it isn't relevant.
There is no associated feeling with people who have no internet at home til 2005. That's a very bad comparison to gender. Yours is technology based, our's is cultural and biological base.
If you wanted a separate league for those who in North-America, then you have connections on society, cultural, skill level (arguably) and language.
|
On January 05 2013 08:52 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 08:46 Mooneyes wrote:On November 20 2012 09:43 phuzi0n wrote:
... .... Are there any genetic differences that really hinder females playing esports that warrants separate leagues? This is the first question. When that has been explored the discussion can continue in a informed and consious manner. We cant (or rather shouldnt) take into account enviroment. I can illustrate this with the following: "I want a seperate league for those of us who didnt have access to internet at home till 2005 because we are at an disadvantage." It just doesnt work. It's been explored and we stated that it isn't relevant. There is no associated feeling with people who have no internet at home til 2005. That's a very bad comparison to gender. Yours is technology based, our's is cultural and biological base. If you wanted a separate league for those who in North-America, then you have connections on society, cultural, skill level (arguably) and language.
Im not saying we shouldnt have women only tournaments im saying that we should properly explore the issue wich includes any genetic disadvantage. If your saying genetics doesnt matter i really dont see the diffrence beetween Women and other groups that could be considered minorities.
As any genetic disadvantage would be factual if they exist i really do think that should be the first thing to explore.
|
On January 05 2013 09:06 Mooneyes wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 08:52 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 05 2013 08:46 Mooneyes wrote:On November 20 2012 09:43 phuzi0n wrote:
... .... Are there any genetic differences that really hinder females playing esports that warrants separate leagues? This is the first question. When that has been explored the discussion can continue in a informed and consious manner. We cant (or rather shouldnt) take into account enviroment. I can illustrate this with the following: "I want a seperate league for those of us who didnt have access to internet at home till 2005 because we are at an disadvantage." It just doesnt work. It's been explored and we stated that it isn't relevant. There is no associated feeling with people who have no internet at home til 2005. That's a very bad comparison to gender. Yours is technology based, our's is cultural and biological base. If you wanted a separate league for those who in North-America, then you have connections on society, cultural, skill level (arguably) and language. Im not saying we shouldnt have women only tournaments im saying that we should properly explore the issue wich includes any genetic disadvantage. If your saying genetics doesnt matter i really dont see the diffrence beetween Women and other groups that could be considered minorities. As any genetic disadvantage would be factual if they exist i really do think that should be the first thing to explore.
There are no genetic disadvantages. This isn't about offering genetic disadvantages, but rather promoting smaller, less popular groups to further generate interest from all facets of cultural and ethnic groups.
|
On January 05 2013 06:52 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 06:23 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 04 2013 17:39 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 04 2013 17:37 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:32 Torte de Lini wrote:
Girl only tournaments are demanded to increase female participation.
Doing so has 0 negative side-effects. Except the side effect of excluding a bunch of males solely for their sex? I don't see any reason why moving towards equality in terms of representation rather than opportunity has any remote sense of value. Why again is it better for the community to bring in 5 new female gamers as opposed to five new male gamers? I can tell you didn't read the article. Well, I read the first 25%, then skimmed the rest, didn't actually "skip" any actual portion, but it was quite a long article. Maybe it's because I went in with an unopened mindset? I read your points, I just didn't think there was any explanation for the value, but I'll read a little more in depth later tonight if you did address these issues with actual reasons >_<. EDIT: Nope, reread instead of skimmed, you never addressed where the actual value is derived with having an additional woman involved instead of a man. I see zero value added. This was the closest you got, from what I found. Females should be praised for their own separate achievements; different standards and expectations for different types of people. Aren’t we then setting a lower standard for females over males? No, that is a comparison; we are actually just setting a system or scale for female E-sports. Females should have female tournaments and the reason for these events is that you want to expose all sectors of an E-Sport. As one user said on the topic of female-only tournaments:
You fail to make even a marginally convincing argument here really on why females should be praised for their own separate achievements. The ultimate problem with your original argument is the comparison. You compare two separate genders that are not opposing, but just different. Their differences within the E-Sports context are supported by different circumstances, they cannot be compared. But you try to anyway by stating that because there are more women-only events, men suffer. Which is false and in fact, there has never been a feeling or worry of that kind thus far (even in established women's leagues such as CS & ESL) That's why I said you didn't read the article, because it directly contradicts your view. Because 5 new female gamers are brought in does not necessarily mean 5 men are hindered in coming in. It doesn't work that way for teams who are looking to acquire female progamers, it doesn't work that way for tournament organizers and their aimed marketability and it doesn't work that way for spectators (in part). Women should be praised for their separate achievements similar to why champions of NA in WCS. Because it emphasizes context, adds value to what should be valued (just because you didn't beat a Code S player doesn't necessarily mean your success cannot be celebrated or highlighted - similar to if you didn't beat someone MLG, doesn't make your IPL achievement any less redeeming). Context and circumstances are important, but you chose to ignore those to make a weak comparison. The value of adding women is to better shape an E-Sport for all sectors. There is no comparative value of having more women than men in that regard, there is value in bringing more sectors and areas of an E-Sport to further garner diverse interests.
The point is rather that the difference in gender is highly irrelevant. There is no benefit to be gained from actively devoting resources to reducing the disparity.
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.
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.
Honestly speaking, the only value I see in adding females to the scene is so that every time I go to an event, it isn't a sausage fest. But the value I see there is no longer related to the game, but rather sex appeal, which is entirely what we are trying to avoid - the presence of women in the community for the reason of sex appeal, right?
On January 05 2013 09:51 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 09:06 Mooneyes wrote:On January 05 2013 08:52 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 05 2013 08:46 Mooneyes wrote:On November 20 2012 09:43 phuzi0n wrote:
... .... Are there any genetic differences that really hinder females playing esports that warrants separate leagues? This is the first question. When that has been explored the discussion can continue in a informed and consious manner. We cant (or rather shouldnt) take into account enviroment. I can illustrate this with the following: "I want a seperate league for those of us who didnt have access to internet at home till 2005 because we are at an disadvantage." It just doesnt work. It's been explored and we stated that it isn't relevant. There is no associated feeling with people who have no internet at home til 2005. That's a very bad comparison to gender. Yours is technology based, our's is cultural and biological base. If you wanted a separate league for those who in North-America, then you have connections on society, cultural, skill level (arguably) and language. Im not saying we shouldn't have women only tournaments im saying that we should properly explore the issue wich includes any genetic disadvantage. If your saying genetics doesnt matter i really dont see the diffrence beetween Women and other groups that could be considered minorities. As any genetic disadvantage would be factual if they exist i really do think that should be the first thing to explore. There are no genetic disadvantages. This isn't about offering genetic disadvantages, but rather promoting smaller, less popular groups to further generate interest from all facets of cultural and ethnic groups.
This is what I'm struggling with. There is no reason to promote smaller, less popular groups. A similar argument (and please spare me the "it's a strawman" argument that plagues TL.net) is how an Asian male is less likely to be accepted to a UC in California for the sole reason he is Asian. Somehow, because of the external environment, he is individually being selected against despite his qualifications, which is ridiculous. A Black person is seen to hold some sort of higher value to the University due to the color of his skin, regardless of the actual (arbitrary) value he has.
Of course, the difference is where you're focusing your resources in acquiring new members of the community as opposed to admitting a limited amount of people to an institution. Regardless of the difference, it does not invalidate the argument (because, according to TL.net, minor differences in arguments means the entire point is invalidated, which is utter absurdity).
|
The point is rather that the difference in gender is highly irrelevant. There is no benefit to be gained from actively devoting resources to reducing the disparity.
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.
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.
Honestly speaking, the only value I see in adding females to the scene is so that every time I go to an event, it isn't a sausage fest. But the value I see there is no longer related to the game, but rather sex appeal, which is entirely what we are trying to avoid - the presence of women in the community for the reason of sex appeal, right?
Gender isn't irrelevant, it just depends in what regard are we focusing on. If you're looking to grow a subculture, it needs to involve as many facets of people as possible for it to propel to popularity. This is why certain music thrives and others don't (along with other factors, some scientific).
What resources are we devoting here necessarily and what is the end-goal? You might be overlapping with someone who said they were fine with female-only leagues, so long as it doesn't require much finances, resources and doesn't gain any return (in which case, most of E-Sports in general should have fallen a long time ago).
"The article fails to mention the benefit of targeting females in particular - why 5 more female gamers is superior to simply 5 more gamers." There is no failure because the article accounts for the idea that we can do both. Since there is no loss or hindrance of gamers in general finding opportunities in E-Sports, we can also center in on specific ethnics or genders to better shape the industry. It's not one pipe of opportunity selectively choosing which flavor of water we will feed the scene with, it's multiple pipes targeting specific types of flavours to better blend and sell a subculture. It's not one or the other, it's both. This is why nationalized leagues are a completely acceptable idea because we have leagues like the GSL (mainly for Koreans) and DreamHack (mainly for Europeans), both are providing opportunities with necessarily hurting the other.
This is what I'm struggling with. There is no reason to promote smaller, less popular groups. A similar argument (and please spare me the "it's a strawman" argument that plagues TL.net) is how an Asian male is less likely to be accepted to a UC in California for the sole reason he is Asian. Somehow, because of the external environment, he is individually being selected against despite his qualifications, which is ridiculous. A Black person is seen to hold some sort of higher value to the University due to the color of his skin, regardless of the actual (arbitrary) value he has.
Of course, the difference is where you're focusing your resources in acquiring new members of the community as opposed to admitting a limited amount of people to an institution. Regardless of the difference, it does not invalidate the argument (because, according to TL.net, minor differences in arguments means the entire point is invalidated, which is utter absurdity).
Round 2:
You're doing it again, you're looking at it with a black and white vision instead of the understanding that all growth can continue without infringing on the other.
Yes, details that fault an argument ultimately discredit you, this is why I back all my articles up with credible and knowledgeable insiders of the scene.
|
I'd like to state that these past few pages have been 100% thrilling to talk and discuss (: Very exciting for me, I get so giddy.
|
On January 05 2013 10:21 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +The point is rather that the difference in gender is highly irrelevant. There is no benefit to be gained from actively devoting resources to reducing the disparity.
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.
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.
Honestly speaking, the only value I see in adding females to the scene is so that every time I go to an event, it isn't a sausage fest. But the value I see there is no longer related to the game, but rather sex appeal, which is entirely what we are trying to avoid - the presence of women in the community for the reason of sex appeal, right?
Gender isn't irrelevant, it just depends in what regard are we focusing on. If you're looking to grow a subculture, it needs to involve as many facets of people as possible for it to propel to popularity. This is why certain music thrives and others don't (along with other factors, some scientific). What resources are we devoting here necessarily and what is the end-goal? You might be overlapping with someone who said they were fine with female-only leagues, so long as it doesn't require much finances, resources and doesn't gain any return (in which case, most of E-Sports in general should have fallen a long time ago). " The article fails to mention the benefit of targeting females in particular - why 5 more female gamers is superior to simply 5 more gamers." There is no failure because the article accounts for the idea that we can do both. Since there is no loss or hindrance of gamers in general finding opportunities in E-Sports, we can also center in on specific ethnics or genders to better shape the industry. It's not one pipe of opportunity selectively choosing which flavor of water we will feed the scene with, it's multiple pipes targeting specific types of flavours to better blend and sell a subculture. It's not one or the other, it's both. This is why nationalized leagues are a completely acceptable idea because we have leagues like the GSL (mainly for Koreans) and DreamHack (mainly for Europeans), both are providing opportunities with necessarily hurting the other. Show nested quote +This is what I'm struggling with. There is no reason to promote smaller, less popular groups. A similar argument (and please spare me the "it's a strawman" argument that plagues TL.net) is how an Asian male is less likely to be accepted to a UC in California for the sole reason he is Asian. Somehow, because of the external environment, he is individually being selected against despite his qualifications, which is ridiculous. A Black person is seen to hold some sort of higher value to the University due to the color of his skin, regardless of the actual (arbitrary) value he has.
Of course, the difference is where you're focusing your resources in acquiring new members of the community as opposed to admitting a limited amount of people to an institution. Regardless of the difference, it does not invalidate the argument (because, according to TL.net, minor differences in arguments means the entire point is invalidated, which is utter absurdity). Round 2: You're doing it again, you're looking at it with a black and white vision instead of the understanding that all growth can continue without infringing on the other. Yes, details that fault an argument ultimately discredit you, this is why I back all my articles up with credible and knowledgeable insiders of the scene.
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 [/i]stop[/i] 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.
|
On January 05 2013 09:55 FabledIntegral wrote:
This is what I'm struggling with. There is no reason to promote smaller, less popular groups. A similar argument (and please spare me the "it's a strawman" argument that plagues TL.net) is how an Asian male is less likely to be accepted to a UC in California for the sole reason he is Asian. Somehow, because of the external environment, he is individually being selected against despite his qualifications, which is ridiculous. A Black person is seen to hold some sort of higher value to the University due to the color of his skin, regardless of the actual (arbitrary) value he has.
Of course, the difference is where you're focusing your resources in acquiring new members of the community as opposed to admitting a limited amount of people to an institution. Regardless of the difference, it does not invalidate the argument (because, according to TL.net, minor differences in arguments means the entire point is invalidated, which is utter absurdity).
It isn't a question of valuing one over the other, although that's a common misunderstanding. In both the case of SC2/esports and the case of university acceptance, what's going on is an attempt to correct a problematic situation. To elaborate:
In SC2/esports, there is a clear deficit of female players. No one is arguing this point. Many people want to correct this deficit. To achieve this, many have suggested female-only tournaments, and many female gamers testify that these tournaments have deepened their interest in the scene and encouraged them to improve. Thus we see that the problem (a deficit in female players) is at least partly corrected by female-only tournaments.
In the case of college admissions, many would argue that certain groups are statistically underrepresented at the college level. This problem, perhaps unlike the SC2/esports issue I've just discussed, tends to be self-perpetuating---getting to college is, for various social, economic, and cultural reasons, more difficult for young people whose parents did not attend college. Thus to help correct this problem---the under-representation of certain groups at the college level---people from those groups are in some cases given priority.
Note that in both cases, the institution that is being criticized is there to correct a problem that statistics and testimonies show actually exist. Also note that concepts of "valuing" one group over another are irrelevant.
Now, one might say that "valuing" one group over another is an unintended consequence of these institutions. While I can't just disprove that right here, consider that the groups that benefit from these institutions are already at some sort of disadvantage (hence the presence of the institution in the first place). These institutions are to restore the balance, not to disrupt it. Furthermore, I doubt that too many male SC2 pros would feel undervalued by the presence of female-only tournaments. Meanwhile we have evidence that female-only tournaments help to expand the scene, which is again what our original aim in all of this was.
|
On January 05 2013 11:01 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 09:55 FabledIntegral wrote:
This is what I'm struggling with. There is no reason to promote smaller, less popular groups. A similar argument (and please spare me the "it's a strawman" argument that plagues TL.net) is how an Asian male is less likely to be accepted to a UC in California for the sole reason he is Asian. Somehow, because of the external environment, he is individually being selected against despite his qualifications, which is ridiculous. A Black person is seen to hold some sort of higher value to the University due to the color of his skin, regardless of the actual (arbitrary) value he has.
Of course, the difference is where you're focusing your resources in acquiring new members of the community as opposed to admitting a limited amount of people to an institution. Regardless of the difference, it does not invalidate the argument (because, according to TL.net, minor differences in arguments means the entire point is invalidated, which is utter absurdity). It isn't a question of valuing one over the other, although that's a common misunderstanding. In both the case of SC2/esports and the case of university acceptance, what's going on is an attempt to correct a problematic situation. To elaborate: In SC2/esports, there is a clear deficit of female players. No one is arguing this point. Many people want to correct this deficit. To achieve this, many have suggested female-only tournaments, and many female gamers testify that these tournaments have deepened their interest in the scene and encouraged them to improve. Thus we see that the problem (a deficit in female players) is at least partly corrected by female-only tournaments. In the case of college admissions, many would argue that certain groups are statistically underrepresented at the college level. This problem, perhaps unlike the SC2/esports issue I've just discussed, tends to be self-perpetuating---getting to college is, for various social, economic, and cultural reasons, more difficult for young people whose parents did not attend college. Thus to help correct this problem---the under-representation of certain groups at the college level---people from those groups are in some cases given priority. Note that in both cases, the institution that is being criticized is there to correct a problem that statistics and testimonies show actually exist. Also note that concepts of "valuing" one group over another are irrelevant. Now, one might say that "valuing" one group over another is an unintended consequence of these institutions. While I can't just disprove that right here, consider that the groups that benefit from these institutions are already at some sort of disadvantage (hence the presence of the institution in the first place). These institutions are to restore the balance, not to disrupt it. Furthermore, I doubt that too many male SC2 pros would feel undervalued by the presence of female-only tournaments. Meanwhile we have evidence that female-only tournaments help to expand the scene, which is again what our original aim in all of this was.
The point I'm making (and clearly I'm not the only one) is that there is no problem with a female deficit, and thus there needs to be no expended amount of effort to fix this problem. I do not view it any different than if there were a "black only" tournament, a "homosexual only" tournament, or some other arbitrary facet that does not pertain to Starcraft itself.
It becomes an entirely different matter when the issue of under representation stems from barriers to entry, economic reasons, etc. which is the argument generally made concerning college. The difference here is that these variables are not independent of likelihood to attend college, as you have suggested. In there, the criteria for selection becomes based on extremely relevant factors, rather than something entirely arbitrary and wholly irrelevant.
Accepting a black student because he is black is stupid - he might come from an extremely wealthy background and had an amazing upbringing, while you just denied a Caucasian that grew up in poverty and had to fight against the odds. That is silly, because the skin color is not a relevant factor in ability to get into college all else equal. If the premise is that black people are under represented because an overwhelming amount come from poverty - then you give preference to the relevant factor of poverty. In this way, the poor black people still receive an advantage, but it is not because they are black, it is because they've lived in poverty. Consequently, you increase the number of blacks indirectly, not because of skin color, but because of relevant environmental/socioeconomic factors.
tl;dr Overall, it is stupid to categorize people into groups (gender, race, etc.). You need to look at the individual, that is what is relevant. Your "group" being under represented in anything anywhere should not play any role in giving preference to anything, really.
|
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.
[/i][/i]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
