|
RuiBarbO, I like you. -----------------------------
I never quite understod why people argue against... yeah, what exactly? That you should treat women as actual persons? I once had a discussion with a Holocaust denier. He wanted to convince me that there were less Jews, disabled, Roma and Sinti etc murdered than the official numbers make believe. I could only tell him, that I didn't care if it was six million or four or eight or whatever. What I really wondered was: why would you ask such a question? Why would you concern yourself with the degree of inhumanity? I don't understand.
Similar, in debates about sexism there are always men who dash foward telling everybody that there is no problem. Who will tell you, that they know this shouldn't concern anybody. How this happens to men as well. How women just need to learn to deal with it. Why?
Why do you do this? I really don't understand. Can't you just stfu and listen for a second. And maybe - maybe - adjust your behaviour to accommodate the new information. That is: Female players are often insulted for being female. As a man you are not insulted for being a man. Female players are often judged by their appearance instead of their skill. As a man you can be ugly as sh*t, as long as you play decently.
Why do you feel the need to argue against that? What's your motive?
I mean a possible behavioral change could be as small as speaking up when someone does a sexist remark. And - of course - do so as well, when someone flames "russian" in chat.
That's not a lot to ask and I'd be glad if you did.
"~isms" are a problem and if just some people would consider standing up to whatever-ists.... oh, what a day... what a day!
|
On March 17 2015 02:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote: And I love how criticism is code for "I want to act like a total ass to a victim of a horrible crime because it makes me feel smart." I think your id is the one talking here because that's not what Millitron said or implied. Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote:And its not like women online don't use the mute button. Clearly you did not read the article because it's main focus is on live events, abusive voice mails, emails and other forms of harassment.
Why are you commenting on an article you clearly only read the title? The discussion has clearly extended beyond the single article as most people here noticed in the last 50 pages. I don't think many people have actually watched the documentary, shouldn't you chastise them for that first? The documentary has not been released to the public at large, first off. It is being screened and its as festivals. And second of all, Millitron ended his post with the this quote:
On March 17 2015 01:51 Millitron wrote:
Likewise, if female gamers are getting harassed online, is it really victim blaming to suggest they use the mute function?
So he brought the topic back to the idea that the women being harassed in gaming and made the claim that the mute button would fix the problem. And I pointed out that it would not address the majority of the harassment cited in the article. So not, the topic has not moved on from the facts that some people want to ignore.
|
On March 17 2015 02:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 02:32 oBlade wrote:On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote: And I love how criticism is code for "I want to act like a total ass to a victim of a horrible crime because it makes me feel smart." I think your id is the one talking here because that's not what Millitron said or implied. On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote:And its not like women online don't use the mute button. Clearly you did not read the article because it's main focus is on live events, abusive voice mails, emails and other forms of harassment.
Why are you commenting on an article you clearly only read the title? The discussion has clearly extended beyond the single article as most people here noticed in the last 50 pages. I don't think many people have actually watched the documentary, shouldn't you chastise them for that first? The documentary has not been released to the public at large, first off. It is being screened and its as festivals. And second of all, Millitron ended his post with the this quote: Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:51 Millitron wrote:
Likewise, if female gamers are getting harassed online, is it really victim blaming to suggest they use the mute function? So he brought the topic back to the idea that the women being harassed in gaming and made the claim that the mute button would fix the problem. And I pointed out that it would not address the majority of the harassment cited in the article. So not, the topic has not moved on from the facts that some people want to ignore. There ARE systems in place though already. Not just the mute button either. If women are being harassed at live events, they need to talk to the event's organizers. Making a documentary about it solves nothing. The people who cause these problems are the exact kind of people who will ignore any documentary you can show them.
|
On March 17 2015 02:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 02:32 oBlade wrote:On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote: And I love how criticism is code for "I want to act like a total ass to a victim of a horrible crime because it makes me feel smart." I think your id is the one talking here because that's not what Millitron said or implied. On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote:And its not like women online don't use the mute button. Clearly you did not read the article because it's main focus is on live events, abusive voice mails, emails and other forms of harassment.
Why are you commenting on an article you clearly only read the title? The discussion has clearly extended beyond the single article as most people here noticed in the last 50 pages. I don't think many people have actually watched the documentary, shouldn't you chastise them for that first? The documentary has not been released to the public at large, first off. It is being screened and its as festivals. And second of all, Millitron ended his post with the this quote: Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:51 Millitron wrote:
Likewise, if female gamers are getting harassed online, is it really victim blaming to suggest they use the mute function? So he brought the topic back to the idea that the women being harassed in gaming and made the claim that the mute button would fix the problem. And I pointed out that it would not address the majority of the harassment cited in the article. So not, the topic has not moved on from the facts that some people want to ignore.
I can't believe people still don't get this. Telling people to take preventive measures is not saying that there's no problem. It's just fucking logical. If there are ways to protect yourself, you should use those ways. That doesn't stop you from also attacking the problem. I don't know how this is so hard to understand.
|
On March 17 2015 02:48 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 02:38 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2015 02:32 oBlade wrote:On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote: And I love how criticism is code for "I want to act like a total ass to a victim of a horrible crime because it makes me feel smart." I think your id is the one talking here because that's not what Millitron said or implied. On March 17 2015 01:58 Plansix wrote:And its not like women online don't use the mute button. Clearly you did not read the article because it's main focus is on live events, abusive voice mails, emails and other forms of harassment.
Why are you commenting on an article you clearly only read the title? The discussion has clearly extended beyond the single article as most people here noticed in the last 50 pages. I don't think many people have actually watched the documentary, shouldn't you chastise them for that first? The documentary has not been released to the public at large, first off. It is being screened and its as festivals. And second of all, Millitron ended his post with the this quote: On March 17 2015 01:51 Millitron wrote:
Likewise, if female gamers are getting harassed online, is it really victim blaming to suggest they use the mute function? So he brought the topic back to the idea that the women being harassed in gaming and made the claim that the mute button would fix the problem. And I pointed out that it would not address the majority of the harassment cited in the article. So not, the topic has not moved on from the facts that some people want to ignore. There ARE systems in place though already. Not just the mute button either. If women are being harassed at live events, they need to talk to the event's organizers. Making a documentary about it solves nothing. The people who cause these problems are the exact kind of people who will ignore any documentary you can show them. Once again, one of the women was harassed by a guy live on camera where he asked her bra size and telling her to take her shirt off. He is still part of the gaming community and she dropped out of the event. I think the guy did a couple of interviews where he said it was part of gaming and he didn't want the harassment to go away. That was 2012.
That is what the article and documentary are telling you. No one gives a fuck and nothing is done about it. And currently we are in this thread arguing the merits of the documentary because no one cares and would rather not hear about it. And the harassers are getting worse because the people who are getting abused are not being quite about it any more.
|
I must admit I would prefer it if people would behave themselves better in online gaming as a whole. Luckily I do not really participate much in team based FPS and MOBAs where it is very toxic in my experience. It really is not that nice being told to kill yourself and having rude things said about your mother on a fairly regular basis. I have to say I think it has got worse in PC gaming in recent years and would totally support any move to try and clean things up a little, as long as it is not some sort of mangina gender specific crusade.
|
On March 17 2015 00:30 lastpuritan wrote:I wont jump into your lynch bait so anyone who calls me troll, ignorant etc can feel free to keep such derogatory attitudes. Apart from that, can we skip dealing with my post count and focus on what i have written instead? Have you read the daily mail article? No? Here, take a look. + Show Spoiler +Instead, he went with what the science is clearly telling us - that at the really top level in maths and science, when we're not dealing with average intelligence but near genius, there are simply more men around who can do the job. For that simple statement of truth, he was eventually forced out of his post.I take some comfort from the fact that Lawrence Summers' hormonally-driven male competitive instincts kicked in and he has now bounced back to become a senior economic adviser to President Obama. Of course, in normal daily life, there's not much real difference between a man with an IQ of 105 and a woman with an IQ of 100. The real difference only emerges as we rise up the IQ scale to the sort of level that the really top jobs require and as we drop lower down the scale - because men, as it turns out, have a much wider range of intelligence than women. As a result, there are not only far more men with high IQs than there are women, but there are also, as I'm sure any woman would tell you, far more stupid men around than there are stupid women. There is, as yet, no simple or, indeed, totally convincing explanation as to why this is, but while the abundance of stupid men has always caused social problems, it is the relative abundance of highly intelligent men that has caused problems for several generations of emancipated, liberated, ambitious women. As a result, when these women get close to the top, they are simply out-numbered by highly intelligent and often ruthlessly ambitious men. As our hunter-gatherer example has already suggested, men and women have also evolved different kinds of intelligence. The demands of hunting - devising tactics and strategies, anticipating likely outcomes - favoured the development of reasoning, together with mathematical and spatial abilities, which is why, thousands of years later, men continue to be overrepresented in fields such as maths and physics. However, when it comes to verbal intelligence, women match men because, in our hunter-gatherer past, women needed verbal abilities to negotiate their relationships with both men and women and to teach and socialise their children. This explains why they are every bit as successful as men at writing novels, say, or even newspaper columns. Their superior foreign language skills explain why if you walk into a university language lecture theatre, you won't find many men. But there's another reason why, at the very highest and most demanding of levels in society, men have a natural advantage - and it's one we've seen in countless natural history TV documentaries. Take, for example, the case of rutting stags or fighting chimps and you get the generally aggressive idea. Thanks to high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, men are far more competitive and motivated for success than women. For a man - at least as far as his hormone system is concerned - succeeding, competing and beating his rivals is very much still a matter of life and death. Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 17:49 Yoav wrote: What the fuck is this? You cite an MRA website and a tabloid and say that men are smarter than women? There's lots of literature on this and the fact is its a lot more complicated than that, and many of your observations are flat out wrong, nevermind the fact that any difference in ability is a matter of large demographic groups that cannot be individualized. For starters, evidence is pretty clear that women are substantially more motivated than men, generally working harder, getting into college more, etc. Ambitious, probably less so. But you would be a fool to take that general observation and say that the likes of Sandberg or Whinfrey lack ambition. My observations, hell no. Former Harvard President's observations and researches, yes. It does not give us any solid clue about intelligence if women are hard-working to enter college. And since when entering college requires hard-working or intelligence, decent amount of study and repetition is way more enough to enter, i cringe when people say men outnumber women on nobel prizes - chest masters and i see this from you. It is not an observation but a fact, man has larger parietal cortex, Howard Gardner defines what is spatial intelligence, not me. And if you think this largeness does not prove us anything, that is another unproven debate going on, which is why i put encephalization quotient in my post. Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 18:49 Slaughter wrote: Wait that post by lastpuritan wasn't satire? That's a pretty hopelessly ignorant view on human biology right there. I don't think he said a single thing correct in the whole post lol. If you cant prove whole post is wrong, then why did you write this? There is no difference in math aptitude before age 7. Starting in adolescence, some differences appear (boys score approximately 30-35 points higher than girls on the math portion of the SAT). But, scores on different subcategories of math vary tremendously (often with girls outperforming boys consistently). Researchers -Martha Bridge Denckla, PhD, a research scientist at Kennedy Krieger Institute) says that on math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. Conversely, areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills (e.g handwriting) mature about six years earlier in girls than in boys Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. This is where my opinion kicks in, if we dont name all features as intelligence, then what? ps: this has very little to do with "gtfo" and topic. we can keep on via private messages. i would be honored to receive them. edit: i felt i should be clearer where i stand after second reading, as article states, i dont think all of these apply our daily life or they are important. i can bet there are thousands of females who plan their lives better than mine. i just believe evolution and conservative human-race gave men a slight advantage by keeping woman inside and letting man wonder, however, this will soon be perished: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/women-getting-smarter-than-men-study_n_5629841.html
Your a moron who knows a little and thinks he knows a lot. You are simply ignorant and you really aren't worth it. You have no actual idea about the nuances of human biology and its plasticity, nor do you have any clue what different growth and developmental curves for males and females actually say in the context of our species life history. You are taking the lowest common denominator and justifying your stupidity. This is why they say a little knowledge can be dangerous.
This right here is what is wrong with science + media. The media always latches on to whatever seems sexy and ignores if it is bad science or not. There has been almost limitless literature that touch on the Nature v Nurture in relation to differences between the sexes. Guess what ones get most of the play? The bad science that makes tantalizing claims.
|
On March 17 2015 02:48 Millitron wrote: There ARE systems in place though already. Not just the mute button either. If women are being harassed at live events, they need to talk to the event's organizers. Making a documentary about it solves nothing. The people who cause these problems are the exact kind of people who will ignore any documentary you can show them.
Of course! Making a documentary makes people aware of a problem they could otherwise dismiss. Public pressure can make the difference of an organisation positioning themselves against sexism. And if you wanna make the point of: Well, why not just write an article. Answer: Well, why not just make a documentary.
Aris Bakhtanians: "This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20 years old, and the sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community—it's StarCraft,"
TwitchTV community manager Jared Rea: "(....) the fighting game community is home to many players and spectators who have created an environment that "is just not friendly towards women." He recalled a number of instances where players and spectators hurled misogynistic or homophobic comments in a crowded tournament hall, at one point forcing Rea's girlfriend to leave the one and only tournament she'd ever attended."
I mean, come on!? How do take actions against a crowd? What systems are you thinking of?
You have to start by telling people that this is bad. They have to learn that this is bad behavior. Opposing this effort is just... I don't know. I really do not comprehend why someone would invest energy against that.
edit to add to Slaughters post:
Hunter - gatherer ? You really haven't paid attention in your archeology class, have you? Do you also think there weren't any female fighters? This whole notion came into being with the presumption that women stay at home. It's like saying dinosaur could hide themselves in the forest, because their skin was green. How do you know their skin was green? You don't! How do you know women were not hunters / fighters? Well, there have been graves found with women and weapons. Earlier, scientists just thought of them as men, because of the weapons. You get the drift?
edit2: sry for being rude in my edit
|
On March 17 2015 01:13 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 00:34 Sandvich wrote:On March 16 2015 23:41 Hryul wrote:On March 16 2015 12:22 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 10:11 Hryul wrote:On March 16 2015 08:37 kwizach wrote: I explicitly said that yes, biology obviously has an impact on what people[..] choose as a career etc.
Saying that biology has such an impact is however not the same thing as saying that there are innate biological differences between men and women that lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths i honestly don't understand how this isn't a case of severe doublethink. men and women are generally different on a hormonal level. The effects of hormones and their impact on possible differences between genders are widely discussed in neuroscience, and in recent years there have been many contributions highlighting that the role of hormones should not be overemphasized with regards to cognitive development and differentiation in behaviors between males and females. This is looked at extensively in Jordan-Young, RM (2011), Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, which presents an analysis of the literature on the topic. To quote a rather lengthy passage of the final chapter (p. 288 onwards): Very few developmental endpoints are truly “final”; instead, they are interim states, with the possibility of growth and change until death. This is the meaning of plasticity. In this ongoing process, the interaction of physiological and experiential variables is iterative, meaning that the current state of the organism interacts with each subsequent input—whether that input is experiential or physical (including biochemical). [...] As early as 1969 it was known that many of the “organizing” effects of hormones are not permanent, but are easily modifiable by experience. In a little-cited study by researchers at UCLA, for example, scientists found that allowing an androgenized female rat to have just two hours to adapt to a stud male completely eliminated the behavioral effects of prenatal testosterone injections (Clemens, Hiroi, and Gorski 1969). Money and Ehrhardt (1972, 85) suggested that “neonatal androgen may have rendered the females more sensitive to the copulatory environment, possibly to olfactory cues, in the manner that is usually typical of males. Once adapted to the environment, they became disinhibited. The behavior that was then released was not masculine in type, but the feminine response of lordosis” (emphasis added). Subsequent experiments have shown that a great many of the sex-typed behaviors that are supposedly permanently organized by prenatal hormones can be dramatically modified or even reversed by simple and relatively short-term behavioral interventions such as neonatal handling (Wakshlak and Weinstock 1990), early exposure to pups (in rats) (Leboucher 1989), and sexual experience (Hendricks, Lehman, and Oswalt 1982), to cite just a few examples. A recent very exciting example of plasticity in humans concerns dyslexia, a cognitive trait that has been theoretically linked to early testosterone and has even been examined in some brain organization studies as a marker of “masculinization” (for example, Götestam, Coates, and Ekstrand 1992). Simos and colleagues (2002) studied children with dyslexia before and after eighty hours of intensive remedial reading instruction. At the beginning of the study, magnetic source imaging showed that the children with dyslexia had a different pattern of brain activation compared with normal children with no reading problems. In particular, they showed very low signals associated with an area that is normally involved in phonological processing. Remarkably, after the intensive intervention the children not only made substantial improvement in their reading skills but also showed much larger signals associated with the phonological processing area that formerly showed low signals.
Another powerful example concerns spatial cognition—one of the hallmarks of psychosexual differences. Feng, Spence, and Pratt (2007) identified a basic information-processing capacity that underlies spatial cognition and showed that differences in this capacity (the distribution of spatial attention) are related to differences in the higher-level process of mental rotation ability. They then showed that a remarkably brief intervention— just ten hours of practice with an action video game—caused “substantial gains in both spatial attention and mental rotation, with women benefiting more than men” (850). The ten-hour training did not completely eliminate the sex difference, but it came extraordinarily close— the mean scores after training were no longer statistically distinguishable between males and females.
Thus, even though early hormones affect neural development, the language of “hardwiring,” “blueprints,” “latency,” “permanent organization,” and so on clearly conveys an inaccurate picture of the nature of early hormone effects on behavior. As Doell and Longino (1988) noted two decades ago, these metaphors fail to accurately capture how development really works. Even in rats, early hormone exposures do not create a solid foundation on which behavior must forever stand. At first glance the true process might seem to be captured by the notion of developmental “cascades,” which several organization theory researchers raised in their interviews with me. The notion of developmental cascades suggests that hormones don’t directly determine behavior, but create a small push in one direction, which is then amplified by experiences and other inputs that in turn trigger additional inputs, such that a tiny push at the front end can end up in a sizable difference in outcome. But this is only half the story— one in which the small initial differences almost inevitably grow larger as additional effects accumulate. But an early push in a certain direction can be either enhanced or entirely eliminated by subsequent experience, such that development from that point forward would proceed as though the early hormone exposure had never happened. I'm not saying that there are no differences whatsoever on average between men and women on the cognitive level, but the small initial differences that have been identified (for example with regards to certain limited aspects of spatial recognition) are way smaller than people like GoTuNk make them out to be. These differences can in addition very well be bridged as people and brains develop, and they also only exist as averages, with both groups exhibiting greater variance within themselves than the difference in averages between the two groups. To quote Jordan-Young again (pp. 290-291): - Steroid hormones are important, but they aren’t best conceptualized as “sex hormones.” They do lots of things; “sex hormones” was the original conceptualization that drove the research and classification on hormones, but it doesn’t fit the data on what hormones do any better than other possible schemes. And the “sex hormone” framework demonstrably blocks recognition of complex and accurate information (Oudshoorn 1994; Fausto-Sterling 2000; Nehm and Young 2008). - Personality traits and predispositions are not identical in individuals, but they are also not well captured by the binary system of gender (Witelson 1991)—even in spite of pervasive cognitive schemas that exert pressures toward this pattern. We aren’t blank slates, but we also aren’t pink and blue notepads. - Brains develop only in interaction; input from the external world, as well as from one’s own sensory apparatus, is as critical to development of the brain as food and water are to the entire organism. - Brains change and develop over the lifetime. Few inputs are irreversible. Even the animal experiments on brain organization showed that the “permanent” effects of early steroid hormone exposures could be eliminated or even reversed by fairly brief interventions in the physical and/or social environment. - Gender relations change, and these are demonstrably related to changes in psychosexual outcomes. For example, structural-level shifts in education (removing barriers to admission for women to colleges and graduate programs, barring gender discrimination in funding, and so on) have quickly reshaped the landscape in terms of the proportion of college graduates who are female, as well as the sex composition of particular programs of study (accounting, law, medicine, biology, and so forth). The kind of male and female essentialization explaining different career paths that some have pushed here is simply not supported by the science so far. Meanwhile, and like I've said repeatedly, it is well documented that cultural factors have a huge impact on career choices. And hey, even if you believe that we'll one day discover fundamental biological differences between men and women on the cognitive level, how exactly does this mean that we should not fight against socially constructed sexist cultural norms that we already know have a negative impact? so your TLDR is that there do indeed exist differences (that most likely can be attributed to sexes) but they can be overwritten by out side stimuli. and I'm not joining your fight against "sexist cultural norms" because I feel like there is a tension to personal freedom which gives me an uneasy feeling. I don't like being told what and what not to do. Neither do I like to tell others. If you really think about it accepting these sexist cultural norms is limiting your freedom. Society has established roles that it deems acceptable for men and women to play, and if you stray outside of these norms, you face stigma and potential harassment. These norms apply to professions, hobbies, and even the clothes you wear. If you truly didn't like being told what to do then you would help break down these societal norms, so that any individual would be free to act however they saw fit without reprisal or judgement by their peers. that's not what I was pointing at. It's more that I'm concerned about the measures some people are willing to take to achieve "equality" (like the 30% rate for women @supervisory board at top german businesses). And If I want to change my lifestyle, I don't demand that "society", that is: my friends follow that uncritical. If it's really unbearable, I simply change friends. But in all honesty: Since I finished high school people generally stopped acting like dicks. I'm not familiar with the measures you're talking about, would you care to elaborate? And it's easy to say that people stopped acting like dicks since highschool, especially if you adhere to society's norms. When people break those norms they are often harshly criticized or unwelcome, like women in videogames or women who don't shave.
|
On March 17 2015 03:07 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 00:30 lastpuritan wrote:I wont jump into your lynch bait so anyone who calls me troll, ignorant etc can feel free to keep such derogatory attitudes. Apart from that, can we skip dealing with my post count and focus on what i have written instead? Have you read the daily mail article? No? Here, take a look. + Show Spoiler +Instead, he went with what the science is clearly telling us - that at the really top level in maths and science, when we're not dealing with average intelligence but near genius, there are simply more men around who can do the job. For that simple statement of truth, he was eventually forced out of his post.I take some comfort from the fact that Lawrence Summers' hormonally-driven male competitive instincts kicked in and he has now bounced back to become a senior economic adviser to President Obama. Of course, in normal daily life, there's not much real difference between a man with an IQ of 105 and a woman with an IQ of 100. The real difference only emerges as we rise up the IQ scale to the sort of level that the really top jobs require and as we drop lower down the scale - because men, as it turns out, have a much wider range of intelligence than women. As a result, there are not only far more men with high IQs than there are women, but there are also, as I'm sure any woman would tell you, far more stupid men around than there are stupid women. There is, as yet, no simple or, indeed, totally convincing explanation as to why this is, but while the abundance of stupid men has always caused social problems, it is the relative abundance of highly intelligent men that has caused problems for several generations of emancipated, liberated, ambitious women. As a result, when these women get close to the top, they are simply out-numbered by highly intelligent and often ruthlessly ambitious men. As our hunter-gatherer example has already suggested, men and women have also evolved different kinds of intelligence. The demands of hunting - devising tactics and strategies, anticipating likely outcomes - favoured the development of reasoning, together with mathematical and spatial abilities, which is why, thousands of years later, men continue to be overrepresented in fields such as maths and physics. However, when it comes to verbal intelligence, women match men because, in our hunter-gatherer past, women needed verbal abilities to negotiate their relationships with both men and women and to teach and socialise their children. This explains why they are every bit as successful as men at writing novels, say, or even newspaper columns. Their superior foreign language skills explain why if you walk into a university language lecture theatre, you won't find many men. But there's another reason why, at the very highest and most demanding of levels in society, men have a natural advantage - and it's one we've seen in countless natural history TV documentaries. Take, for example, the case of rutting stags or fighting chimps and you get the generally aggressive idea. Thanks to high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, men are far more competitive and motivated for success than women. For a man - at least as far as his hormone system is concerned - succeeding, competing and beating his rivals is very much still a matter of life and death. On March 16 2015 17:49 Yoav wrote: What the fuck is this? You cite an MRA website and a tabloid and say that men are smarter than women? There's lots of literature on this and the fact is its a lot more complicated than that, and many of your observations are flat out wrong, nevermind the fact that any difference in ability is a matter of large demographic groups that cannot be individualized. For starters, evidence is pretty clear that women are substantially more motivated than men, generally working harder, getting into college more, etc. Ambitious, probably less so. But you would be a fool to take that general observation and say that the likes of Sandberg or Whinfrey lack ambition. My observations, hell no. Former Harvard President's observations and researches, yes. It does not give us any solid clue about intelligence if women are hard-working to enter college. And since when entering college requires hard-working or intelligence, decent amount of study and repetition is way more enough to enter, i cringe when people say men outnumber women on nobel prizes - chest masters and i see this from you. It is not an observation but a fact, man has larger parietal cortex, Howard Gardner defines what is spatial intelligence, not me. And if you think this largeness does not prove us anything, that is another unproven debate going on, which is why i put encephalization quotient in my post. On March 16 2015 18:49 Slaughter wrote: Wait that post by lastpuritan wasn't satire? That's a pretty hopelessly ignorant view on human biology right there. I don't think he said a single thing correct in the whole post lol. If you cant prove whole post is wrong, then why did you write this? There is no difference in math aptitude before age 7. Starting in adolescence, some differences appear (boys score approximately 30-35 points higher than girls on the math portion of the SAT). But, scores on different subcategories of math vary tremendously (often with girls outperforming boys consistently). Researchers -Martha Bridge Denckla, PhD, a research scientist at Kennedy Krieger Institute) says that on math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. Conversely, areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills (e.g handwriting) mature about six years earlier in girls than in boys Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. This is where my opinion kicks in, if we dont name all features as intelligence, then what? ps: this has very little to do with "gtfo" and topic. we can keep on via private messages. i would be honored to receive them. edit: i felt i should be clearer where i stand after second reading, as article states, i dont think all of these apply our daily life or they are important. i can bet there are thousands of females who plan their lives better than mine. i just believe evolution and conservative human-race gave men a slight advantage by keeping woman inside and letting man wonder, however, this will soon be perished: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/women-getting-smarter-than-men-study_n_5629841.html Your a moron who knows a little and thinks he knows a lot. You are simply ignorant and you really aren't worth it. You have no actual idea about the nuances of human biology and its plasticity, nor do you have any clue what different growth and developmental curves for males and females actually say in the context of our species life history. You are taking the lowest common denominator and justifying your stupidity. This is why they say a little knowledge can be dangerous. This right here is what is wrong with science + media. The media always latches on to whatever seems sexy and ignores if it is bad science or not. There has been almost limitless literature that touch on the Nature v Nurture in relation to differences between the sexes. Guess what ones get most of the play? The bad science that makes tantalizing claims. You and him both are the problem imo. You show perfectly how it's impossible to talk about those matter with reason, because it goes from one extreme to another.
|
On March 17 2015 03:10 Jelissei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 02:48 Millitron wrote: There ARE systems in place though already. Not just the mute button either. If women are being harassed at live events, they need to talk to the event's organizers. Making a documentary about it solves nothing. The people who cause these problems are the exact kind of people who will ignore any documentary you can show them. Of course! Making a documentary makes people aware of a problem they could otherwise dismiss. Public pressure can make the difference of an organisation positioning themselves against sexism. And if you wanna make the point of: Well, why not just write an article. Answer: Well, why not just make a documentary. Aris Bakhtanians: "This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20 years old, and the sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community—it's StarCraft," TwitchTV community manager Jared Rea: "(....) the fighting game community is home to many players and spectators who have created an environment that "is just not friendly towards women." He recalled a number of instances where players and spectators hurled misogynistic or homophobic comments in a crowded tournament hall, at one point forcing Rea's girlfriend to leave the one and only tournament she'd ever attended." I mean, come on!? How do take actions against a crowd? What systems are you thinking of? You have to start by telling people that this is bad. They have to learn that this is bad behavior. Opposing this effort is just... I don't know. I really do not comprehend why someone would invest energy against that. And lets not forget the amazing Scarlet fan club thread on TL. And TL is one of the most closely moderated sites I have been to. I wonder what it is like on other sites. And people wonder why she doesn't stream a lot. And the other female SC2 player from Sweeden who catches endless abuse for no good reason(I forget her handle).
Its a problem in every competitive community, from fighting games all the way to hearthstone and every time its brought up you get waves of apologist who say "its just the way games are."
|
What happened with the Scarlett fanclub ? Someone said she was beautiful ?
|
Bunch of bullshit about her gender and typical stuff. Was tamped down pretty quick by the mods. They started a second fan club, but I am not sure why. I think someone else wanted control of the OP. Scarlett is one of the better stories in gaming, but she keeps a very low profile. Other women players are much more visible and they catch a lot harassment.
|
On March 17 2015 02:37 Jelissei wrote: RuiBarbO, I like you. -----------------------------
I never quite understod why people argue against... yeah, what exactly? That you should treat women as actual persons? I once had a discussion with a Holocaust denier. He wanted to convince me that there were less Jews, disabled, Roma and Sinti etc murdered than the official numbers make believe. I could only tell him, that I didn't care if it was six million or four or eight or whatever. What I really wondered was: why would you ask such a question? Why would you concern yourself with the degree of inhumanity? I don't understand.
Similar, in debates about sexism there are always men who dash foward telling everybody that there is no problem. Who will tell you, that they know this shouldn't concern anybody. How this happens to men as well. How women just need to learn to deal with it. Why?
Why do you do this? I really don't understand. Can't you just stfu and listen for a second. And maybe - maybe - adjust your behaviour to accommodate the new information. That is: Female players are often insulted for being female. As a man you are not insulted for being a man. Female players are often judged by their appearance instead of their skill. As a man you can be ugly as sh*t, as long as you play decently.
Why do you feel the need to argue against that? What's your motive?
I mean a possible behavioral change could be as small as speaking up when someone does a sexist remark. And - of course - do so as well, when someone flames "russian" in chat.
That's not a lot to ask and I'd be glad if you did.
"~isms" are a problem and if just some people would consider standing up to whatever-ists.... oh, what a day... what a day!
I'm also called ugly quite often @csgo competetive and I'm a guy. I use my own picture as my avatar. Just to point out its not just girls who are judged by their appearance. (I could fix this by taking down my picture but i don't care enough and i'd like more people to play with their own face like the pro teams.)
|
On March 17 2015 03:10 Jelissei wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 02:48 Millitron wrote: There ARE systems in place though already. Not just the mute button either. If women are being harassed at live events, they need to talk to the event's organizers. Making a documentary about it solves nothing. The people who cause these problems are the exact kind of people who will ignore any documentary you can show them. Of course! Making a documentary makes people aware of a problem they could otherwise dismiss. Public pressure can make the difference of an organisation positioning themselves against sexism. And if you wanna make the point of: Well, why not just write an article. Answer: Well, why not just make a documentary. Aris Bakhtanians: "This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20 years old, and the sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community—it's StarCraft," TwitchTV community manager Jared Rea: "(....) the fighting game community is home to many players and spectators who have created an environment that "is just not friendly towards women." He recalled a number of instances where players and spectators hurled misogynistic or homophobic comments in a crowded tournament hall, at one point forcing Rea's girlfriend to leave the one and only tournament she'd ever attended." I mean, come on!? How do take actions against a crowd? What systems are you thinking of? You have to start by telling people that this is bad. They have to learn that this is bad behavior. Opposing this effort is just... I don't know. I really do not comprehend why someone would invest energy against that. edit to add to Slaughters post: Hunter - gatherer ? You really haven't paid attention in your archeology class, have you? Do you also think there weren't any female fighters? This whole notion came into being with the presumption that women stay at home. It's like saying dinosaur could hide themselves in the forest, because their skin was green. How do you know their skin was green? You don't! How do you know women were not hunters / fighters? Well, there have been graves found with women and weapons. Earlier, scientists just thought of them as men, because of the weapons. You get the drift?edit2: sry for being rude in my edit There are far more men found buried with weapons than women. Yes, there were some rare occasions of female warriors, but it was nowhere near a 50/50 split. The reason the ancient Greeks talked so much about Amazons was that having any female soldiers was mindblowing to them, and they exaggerated the shit out of it until we have the current version of the Amazon myth. If women really did fight very often, it would've been no big deal to them and they never would've mythologized it.
This isn't to say women had no power, quite the opposite. In day-to-day affairs women had a great deal of power. Because they were at home more often than the men, they often ran the household. Women hired and fired servants, women handled the household budget, women managed the house's food supply, and most importantly, they gossiped. Gossip gave them a great deal of power even outside the home. They had a great deal of influence over the government in that they were basically an ancient version of CNN. They spread news and rumors.
Here's a few videos on the topic by an archaeologist and a generally cool dude:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The FGC is in it! We eSportS!
|
On March 17 2015 04:23 tshi wrote: The FGC is in it! We eSportS! The FGC is probably the biggest offender of the esports genre's for this kind of behavior, but I think it sort of gets a slight pass because people in the FGC do this shit in person, due to the nature of the game.
|
On March 17 2015 03:14 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:13 Hryul wrote:On March 17 2015 00:34 Sandvich wrote:On March 16 2015 23:41 Hryul wrote:On March 16 2015 12:22 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 10:11 Hryul wrote:On March 16 2015 08:37 kwizach wrote: I explicitly said that yes, biology obviously has an impact on what people[..] choose as a career etc.
Saying that biology has such an impact is however not the same thing as saying that there are innate biological differences between men and women that lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths i honestly don't understand how this isn't a case of severe doublethink. men and women are generally different on a hormonal level. The effects of hormones and their impact on possible differences between genders are widely discussed in neuroscience, and in recent years there have been many contributions highlighting that the role of hormones should not be overemphasized with regards to cognitive development and differentiation in behaviors between males and females. This is looked at extensively in Jordan-Young, RM (2011), Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, which presents an analysis of the literature on the topic. To quote a rather lengthy passage of the final chapter (p. 288 onwards): Very few developmental endpoints are truly “final”; instead, they are interim states, with the possibility of growth and change until death. This is the meaning of plasticity. In this ongoing process, the interaction of physiological and experiential variables is iterative, meaning that the current state of the organism interacts with each subsequent input—whether that input is experiential or physical (including biochemical). [...] As early as 1969 it was known that many of the “organizing” effects of hormones are not permanent, but are easily modifiable by experience. In a little-cited study by researchers at UCLA, for example, scientists found that allowing an androgenized female rat to have just two hours to adapt to a stud male completely eliminated the behavioral effects of prenatal testosterone injections (Clemens, Hiroi, and Gorski 1969). Money and Ehrhardt (1972, 85) suggested that “neonatal androgen may have rendered the females more sensitive to the copulatory environment, possibly to olfactory cues, in the manner that is usually typical of males. Once adapted to the environment, they became disinhibited. The behavior that was then released was not masculine in type, but the feminine response of lordosis” (emphasis added). Subsequent experiments have shown that a great many of the sex-typed behaviors that are supposedly permanently organized by prenatal hormones can be dramatically modified or even reversed by simple and relatively short-term behavioral interventions such as neonatal handling (Wakshlak and Weinstock 1990), early exposure to pups (in rats) (Leboucher 1989), and sexual experience (Hendricks, Lehman, and Oswalt 1982), to cite just a few examples. A recent very exciting example of plasticity in humans concerns dyslexia, a cognitive trait that has been theoretically linked to early testosterone and has even been examined in some brain organization studies as a marker of “masculinization” (for example, Götestam, Coates, and Ekstrand 1992). Simos and colleagues (2002) studied children with dyslexia before and after eighty hours of intensive remedial reading instruction. At the beginning of the study, magnetic source imaging showed that the children with dyslexia had a different pattern of brain activation compared with normal children with no reading problems. In particular, they showed very low signals associated with an area that is normally involved in phonological processing. Remarkably, after the intensive intervention the children not only made substantial improvement in their reading skills but also showed much larger signals associated with the phonological processing area that formerly showed low signals.
Another powerful example concerns spatial cognition—one of the hallmarks of psychosexual differences. Feng, Spence, and Pratt (2007) identified a basic information-processing capacity that underlies spatial cognition and showed that differences in this capacity (the distribution of spatial attention) are related to differences in the higher-level process of mental rotation ability. They then showed that a remarkably brief intervention— just ten hours of practice with an action video game—caused “substantial gains in both spatial attention and mental rotation, with women benefiting more than men” (850). The ten-hour training did not completely eliminate the sex difference, but it came extraordinarily close— the mean scores after training were no longer statistically distinguishable between males and females.
Thus, even though early hormones affect neural development, the language of “hardwiring,” “blueprints,” “latency,” “permanent organization,” and so on clearly conveys an inaccurate picture of the nature of early hormone effects on behavior. As Doell and Longino (1988) noted two decades ago, these metaphors fail to accurately capture how development really works. Even in rats, early hormone exposures do not create a solid foundation on which behavior must forever stand. At first glance the true process might seem to be captured by the notion of developmental “cascades,” which several organization theory researchers raised in their interviews with me. The notion of developmental cascades suggests that hormones don’t directly determine behavior, but create a small push in one direction, which is then amplified by experiences and other inputs that in turn trigger additional inputs, such that a tiny push at the front end can end up in a sizable difference in outcome. But this is only half the story— one in which the small initial differences almost inevitably grow larger as additional effects accumulate. But an early push in a certain direction can be either enhanced or entirely eliminated by subsequent experience, such that development from that point forward would proceed as though the early hormone exposure had never happened. I'm not saying that there are no differences whatsoever on average between men and women on the cognitive level, but the small initial differences that have been identified (for example with regards to certain limited aspects of spatial recognition) are way smaller than people like GoTuNk make them out to be. These differences can in addition very well be bridged as people and brains develop, and they also only exist as averages, with both groups exhibiting greater variance within themselves than the difference in averages between the two groups. To quote Jordan-Young again (pp. 290-291): - Steroid hormones are important, but they aren’t best conceptualized as “sex hormones.” They do lots of things; “sex hormones” was the original conceptualization that drove the research and classification on hormones, but it doesn’t fit the data on what hormones do any better than other possible schemes. And the “sex hormone” framework demonstrably blocks recognition of complex and accurate information (Oudshoorn 1994; Fausto-Sterling 2000; Nehm and Young 2008). - Personality traits and predispositions are not identical in individuals, but they are also not well captured by the binary system of gender (Witelson 1991)—even in spite of pervasive cognitive schemas that exert pressures toward this pattern. We aren’t blank slates, but we also aren’t pink and blue notepads. - Brains develop only in interaction; input from the external world, as well as from one’s own sensory apparatus, is as critical to development of the brain as food and water are to the entire organism. - Brains change and develop over the lifetime. Few inputs are irreversible. Even the animal experiments on brain organization showed that the “permanent” effects of early steroid hormone exposures could be eliminated or even reversed by fairly brief interventions in the physical and/or social environment. - Gender relations change, and these are demonstrably related to changes in psychosexual outcomes. For example, structural-level shifts in education (removing barriers to admission for women to colleges and graduate programs, barring gender discrimination in funding, and so on) have quickly reshaped the landscape in terms of the proportion of college graduates who are female, as well as the sex composition of particular programs of study (accounting, law, medicine, biology, and so forth). The kind of male and female essentialization explaining different career paths that some have pushed here is simply not supported by the science so far. Meanwhile, and like I've said repeatedly, it is well documented that cultural factors have a huge impact on career choices. And hey, even if you believe that we'll one day discover fundamental biological differences between men and women on the cognitive level, how exactly does this mean that we should not fight against socially constructed sexist cultural norms that we already know have a negative impact? so your TLDR is that there do indeed exist differences (that most likely can be attributed to sexes) but they can be overwritten by out side stimuli. and I'm not joining your fight against "sexist cultural norms" because I feel like there is a tension to personal freedom which gives me an uneasy feeling. I don't like being told what and what not to do. Neither do I like to tell others. If you really think about it accepting these sexist cultural norms is limiting your freedom. Society has established roles that it deems acceptable for men and women to play, and if you stray outside of these norms, you face stigma and potential harassment. These norms apply to professions, hobbies, and even the clothes you wear. If you truly didn't like being told what to do then you would help break down these societal norms, so that any individual would be free to act however they saw fit without reprisal or judgement by their peers. that's not what I was pointing at. It's more that I'm concerned about the measures some people are willing to take to achieve "equality" (like the 30% rate for women @supervisory board at top german businesses). And If I want to change my lifestyle, I don't demand that "society", that is: my friends follow that uncritical. If it's really unbearable, I simply change friends. But in all honesty: Since I finished high school people generally stopped acting like dicks. I'm not familiar with the measures you're talking about, would you care to elaborate? And it's easy to say that people stopped acting like dicks since highschool, especially if you adhere to society's norms. When people break those norms they are often harshly criticized or unwelcome, like women in videogames or women who don't shave. german bundestag passed a bill that requires certain (read: a selection of germany's biggest) companies to have a rate of 30% for their supervisory board. If they are unable (or unwilling) to find the appropriate number of women, the positions have to remain unfilled.
my problem with this is that it doesn't solve any problems of an "everyday" woman, but only benefits a very tiny minority (of women). second, it's easy to surpass: you simply expand your board, but leave the additional positions unfilled. third it is a violation of the "right to property" in the name of the greater good.
I'm also not sold on "society's norms" because in my experience "society" is highly fragmented. The board game crowd is vastly different from the rave scene (usually). My dancing partner didn't shave and she found a bf in her 3rd year of university. So in my experience even if you deviate from society's norm, there are enough people out there who are as special as you or like you the way you are. you just have to find them. But again: these are my experiences and "statistically" speaking there may be bigger problems. these are just my reasons not to join the holy crusade against inequality.
I just wrote here because I wanted to understand kwizach's logic better.
|
On March 17 2015 01:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:17 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 22:41 bardtown wrote:On March 16 2015 21:49 Joan_of_Arc wrote: The general level of discourse in this thread is deplorable, containing everything from victim blaming ('You shouldn't reveal that you're female then; it's asking for it') to false equivocation of experience ('Men get harassed too! If we can deal with it, obviously they should be able to') when the fact is that, overwhelmingly, the perspectives supplied in this thread and the criticisms of the documentary are presented by people with no experience with being a female, or being a female who experiences harassment online.
While it is true that men and women both experience harassment online, the harassment could hardly be said to be equal in scope or depth. How often do men get harassed throughout a game because of their voice, or have their play derided due to their gender? How often do male progamers have their fanclubs filled with vitriol and rape threats? We don't even need to look far afield to see that the level of harassment experienced is far from equal - if anyone else was around for the first days of Scalett's fanclub, I'm sure you remember it well enough.
You are deplorable, for wholesale buying into a paradigm of nonsense. When somebody blurts out 'victim blaming' and 'false equivocation' their feminist indoctrination is beyond blatant. There is nothing deplorable about rational discussion that doesn't fit with your bigotry, and there is nothing deplorable about people who think women are not so frail as to need special treatment at all times. You are deplorable, for ignoring the actual evidence and going with your own bias. Did you see the study somebody posted about how men are much more likely to receive abuse on twitter? That's not unique. Incontrol probably got more abuse than any other progamer in the scene, and we're not just talking about cholesterol jokes (you're using an anecdote, right?). We have a deepset biological disposition to care more about women than men. But women can handle themselves. This documentary is not a representation of women in gaming, because actually most women do just get on with it, like men do, through abuse and trolling and all of it. This documentary is a representation of entitlement in modern western feminists, because they have a platform so why not? I do not have experience being a female, but I have a lot of experience of playing with females (and also with males who pretend to be females because they know it gets them special treatment) and I have experience being male. I have (and you can too!) compared experiences across the divide, and realised that there's not a lot in it. It's not victim blaming to tell somebody to use the mute function. Is there anybody here who isn't forced to use it sometimes? Also the amount of times I have seen young boys getting bullied for the pitch of their voice by much older boys is beyond counting. They either shut up or they deal with it. Having your 'play derided because of your gender' is not a very serious offense, sorry. Certainly no more serious than a male being called a retard for being bad at a game. Isn't it a bit problematic to say you support "rational discussion" while dismissing feminist social theory as "indoctrination" and "a paradigm of nonsense" in virtually the same breath? I think I understand where you're coming from---here we're having a "rational discussion" and then someone comes in and starts calling people "deplorable"---but is that really an excuse to do the exact same thing to them? The mere fact that they called the discourse in the thread "deplorable" does not mean that their points are not worthy of any consideration, even if the manner in which they brought them up is a bit combative. If you dismiss people (and their theoretical backgrounds) off the bat for getting incensed, how can you ever have a discussion about an emotionally charged subject? Also, "false equivocation" is not a feminist term, it's a kind of logical fallacy. The appearance of "false equivocation" is not evidence that someone is a feminist, or that they are just always wrong. "Victim blaming" is also a more useful term than I think you give it credit for being. It refers to a situation in which someone suffers abuse and is criticized harshly when they bring it up. If you agree that people suffering abuse should be allowed to bring it up, then "victim blaming" should seem problematic. And if the documentary is an example of people suffering abuse bringing it up, shouldn't we then be hesitant to attack the makers of the documentary for being "indoctrinated" or sensationalist, etc? I agree that it's important to try to "compare experiences across the divide," although I'm not so sure that it's fair to use your own observations in this regard to dismiss the documentary off the bat. If the documentary and your observations conflict, is it really helpful to assume that "there's not a lot to it?" Or is it more helpful to think carefully about why these differences are present? Moreover, you can't dismiss the documentary's conclusion (which, incidentally, is hard to know without actually watching it) just by claiming that it's false, which you seem to do in your post. You have to show how the premises that led to that conclusion are flawed, which again no one can really do if they haven't watched it. The problem with cries of "Victim blaming" is that basically no criticism of victim's is ever ok to feminists. If I live in a neighborhood controlled by the Crips, and I wear a blue shirt (the color of their rivals), and I get beat up for it, is it victim blaming if someone says I was pretty stupid to wear that blue shirt? I don't think so. Clearly the Crips are the ones at fault, but it also wasn't exactly smart of me to wear that blue shirt either. I'm also at least partially to blame. I practically set myself up to get attacked. Likewise, if female gamers are getting harassed online, is it really victim blaming to suggest they use the mute function?
Not trying to be a dick but Crip's color is blue, red is the Blood's?
As for Puritan, holy shit. I thought it was serious. Couldn't help but have it remind me of stuff like this from places like stormfront.
"Mentally the Negro is inferior to the White ... While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone."
It was bullshit then and this stuff from puritan is bullshit now.
|
On March 17 2015 04:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 03:10 Jelissei wrote:On March 17 2015 02:48 Millitron wrote: There ARE systems in place though already. Not just the mute button either. If women are being harassed at live events, they need to talk to the event's organizers. Making a documentary about it solves nothing. The people who cause these problems are the exact kind of people who will ignore any documentary you can show them. Of course! Making a documentary makes people aware of a problem they could otherwise dismiss. Public pressure can make the difference of an organisation positioning themselves against sexism. And if you wanna make the point of: Well, why not just write an article. Answer: Well, why not just make a documentary. Aris Bakhtanians: "This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20 years old, and the sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community—it's StarCraft," TwitchTV community manager Jared Rea: "(....) the fighting game community is home to many players and spectators who have created an environment that "is just not friendly towards women." He recalled a number of instances where players and spectators hurled misogynistic or homophobic comments in a crowded tournament hall, at one point forcing Rea's girlfriend to leave the one and only tournament she'd ever attended." I mean, come on!? How do take actions against a crowd? What systems are you thinking of? You have to start by telling people that this is bad. They have to learn that this is bad behavior. Opposing this effort is just... I don't know. I really do not comprehend why someone would invest energy against that. edit to add to Slaughters post: Hunter - gatherer ? You really haven't paid attention in your archeology class, have you? Do you also think there weren't any female fighters? This whole notion came into being with the presumption that women stay at home. It's like saying dinosaur could hide themselves in the forest, because their skin was green. How do you know their skin was green? You don't! How do you know women were not hunters / fighters? Well, there have been graves found with women and weapons. Earlier, scientists just thought of them as men, because of the weapons. You get the drift?edit2: sry for being rude in my edit There are far more men found buried with weapons than women. Yes, there were some rare occasions of female warriors, but it was nowhere near a 50/50 split. The reason the ancient Greeks talked so much about Amazons was that having any female soldiers was mindblowing to them, and they exaggerated the shit out of it until we have the current version of the Amazon myth. If women really did fight very often, it would've been no big deal to them and they never would've mythologized it. This isn't to say women had no power, quite the opposite. In day-to-day affairs women had a great deal of power. Because they were at home more often than the men, they often ran the household. Women hired and fired servants, women handled the household budget, women managed the house's food supply, and most importantly, they gossiped. Gossip gave them a great deal of power even outside the home. They had a great deal of influence over the government in that they were basically an ancient version of CNN. They spread news and rumors. Here's a few videos on the topic by an archaeologist and a generally cool dude: + Show Spoiler +
I wouldn't exactly say that guy is considered too credible after doing a quick search on him credential wise but *shrug* I will watch the videos when I get home.
But archaeology has been moving away from the "man the hunter, woman the gatherer" narrative for decades now. They actually keep finding more and more evidence of women being actively involved in fighting. (not just from mortuary offerings because those have been found to be often misrepresentative of the status of the dead). Early hunter-gatherer societies are now thought to have gotten the bulk of their nutrition from women/children gathering then from hunting. It really depends on what part of the world you look at though, but females being invested and engaged in war efforts is not uncommon at all despite the fact that generally difference in body size could lead men to be more common in such things. But our sexual dimorphism compared to other primates is pretty low.
|
|
|
|