Yeah. Is there anyone left in the thread who needs the difference between "all the characters in this show are male and white because it's a Seattle law firm for the tobacco industry" and "all the characters in this show are male and white because I'm male and white and didn't think about putting in someone different from the way I picture people in my head" explained?
A token minority character is better than no minority character. y/n?
:P
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm trying to find the actual link, but one of the articles discussing the 1 reason to be panel and GDC just has a couple of lines from one of the speakers about how destructive "crunch time" is, how things like restful sleep and recreation make for a richer creative environment and how the idea that someone who spends 80+ hours at work must naturally be more productive is an illusion. Someone upthread mentioned it too; the grueling, no-life environment is only appealing to the immature, once the workers mature they move on to industries that treat them better.
The really poor way the industry treats it's workers has got to be one of the causes of some of the really flat-footed sexist design decisions that get made.
Another reason why "profits are the only good in business" is a stupid policy.
I'm trying to find the actual link, but one of the articles discussing the 1 reason to be panel and GDC just has a couple of lines from one of the speakers about how destructive "crunch time" is, how things like restful sleep and recreation make for a richer creative environment and how the idea that someone who spends 80+ hours at work must naturally be more productive is an illusion. Someone upthread mentioned it too; the grueling, no-life environment is only appealing to the immature, once the workers mature they move on to industries that treat them better.
The really poor way the industry treats it's workers has got to be one of the causes of some of the really flat-footed sexist design decisions that get made.
Another reason why "profits are the only good in business" is a stupid policy.
That was linked a little earlier in the thread but the moment passed but now that it has been linked again - I like how the URL truncation makes it look like a stud is going to fix the problem. Like, some young stud is going to show up and whip all those childless 31 year old white dudes into shape with the power of his sexy stud body or something.
That was linked a little earlier in the thread but the moment passed but now that it has been linked again - I like how the URL truncation makes it look like a stud is going to fix the problem. Like, some young stud is going to show up and whip all those childless 31 year old white dudes into shape with the power of his sexy stud body or something.
How else are we going to attract more female developers?
That is a great article and illustrates that the fastest change comes from the smallest players.
However this quote:
Nine Dots needs to release a successful game to prove its point; their last game made $6,000 in sales and gathered $16,000 in crowd-funding. At the moment, Boucher-Vidal is working long hours, wearing many hats, and taking part in the system he wants to shut down. Until the studio is profitable there won't be much money to go around, and any failure will be seen as more evidence that change to the status quo is dangerous.
Illustrates the point that even though this guy is trying to make the change, he still finds himself having to conform to the rule set of the established hierarchy.
Until he succeeds using their rules (and thus changes the patriarchal meta-narrative), he is still an active participant in the "crunch time" work structure which reinforces that which he is fighting against, even if such participation is unwilling.
Man is it just me or do all these threads always regress hard from the first couple of pages?
The way I entered the last one of these threads was "well I've read the first 3 pages and we're all on the same page here. So my question is, where the fuck did the last 61 pages come from?" and I have the same question here, even though I've skimmed through the whole thread. And let me tell you it's a really depressing read. Seeing a larger conversation that gets mired because some guy sees one detail he can argue against for 5 pages, or some other person bringing this devils advocate argument that rests on a million assumptions which were challenged in the very first pages. And now we're back to "so you dont want ANY SEX IN GAMES NOW NOT EVEN ONE BOOB?"
And man as depressing it was to read it must have been far worse to live through. Kudos to you guys
Yeah. Is there anyone left in the thread who needs the difference between "all the characters in this show are male and white because it's a Seattle law firm for the tobacco industry" and "all the characters in this show are male and white because I'm male and white and didn't think about putting in someone different from the way I picture people in my head" explained?
A token minority character is better than no minority character. y/n?
:P
There is a school of thought on subjects like this that can be summed up as "visibility at any cost"
Man is it just me or do all these threads always regress hard from the first couple of pages?
The way I entered the last one of these threads was "well I've read the first 3 pages and we're all on the same page here. So my question is, where the fuck did the last 61 pages come from?" and I have the same question here, even though I've skimmed through the whole thread. And let me tell you it's a really depressing read. Seeing a larger conversation that gets mired because some guy sees one detail he can argue against for 5 pages, or some other person bringing this devils advocate argument that rests on a million assumptions which were challenged in the very first pages. And now we're back to "so you dont want ANY SEX IN GAMES NOW NOT EVEN ONE BOOB?"
And man as depressing it was to read it must have been far worse to live through. Kudos to you guys
I don't know, I think this thread has actually been pretty great; I mean, have you seen how these threads normally go, on other sites?
Man is it just me or do all these threads always regress hard from the first couple of pages?
The way I entered the last one of these threads was "well I've read the first 3 pages and we're all on the same page here. So my question is, where the fuck did the last 61 pages come from?" and I have the same question here, even though I've skimmed through the whole thread. And let me tell you it's a really depressing read. Seeing a larger conversation that gets mired because some guy sees one detail he can argue against for 5 pages, or some other person bringing this devils advocate argument that rests on a million assumptions which were challenged in the very first pages. And now we're back to "so you dont want ANY SEX IN GAMES NOW NOT EVEN ONE BOOB?"
And man as depressing it was to read it must have been far worse to live through. Kudos to you guys
I don't know, I think this thread has actually been pretty great; I mean, have you seen how these threads normally go, on other sites?
Cesspit doesn't even begin to describe it...
yeah I waste wayyy too much of my time on feminism threads attempting to point out sexism to MRAs
Dude for a mostly European forum the Paradox Interactive On-Topic forums are the worst place to have this kind of conversation on. Imagine 20 pages of "but MEN EXPERIENCE X AND EVEN IF ITS NOT EVEN VAGUELY AS MUCH YOURE A HORRIBLE PERSON FOR SAYING ITS NOT AS BAD FOR MEN". I had a guy who was a socialist, who believed in racism, but who thought that the patriarchy was a made up concept so it shouldn't be used ever.
Like DUDE
YOU BELIEVE IN 2 'MADE UP' CONCEPTS ALREADY IS IT THAT BIG A LEAP
Ethan Smith on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The problem with eliminating crunch time is that it assumes that the end point is a fixed product, a specific amount of "game" they are working towards. The actual truth is that they are basically adding as much as they can, right up to the wire, so while it isn't necessarily healthy or advisable to work 80+ hour weeks, it is understandable.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
80 hour weeks are excessive.
Let's take a small-ish developer - 25 staff.
If it takes that company 100,000 salaried man-hours to make a game, then it doesn't really matter whether they each do 80 hr weeks for a year to complete it, or do 40 hour weeks for two years.
In fact, unless they are not paid overtime bonuses, it may cost less, and because of less tiredness you get more game out of them.
If it takes that company 100,000 salaried man-hours to make a game, then it doesn't really matter whether they each do 80 hr weeks for a year to complete it, or do 40 hour weeks for two years.
In fact, unless they are not paid overtime bonuses, it may cost less, and because of less tiredness you get more game out of them.
You hear a lot of stories about people who don't get overtime bonuses.
The problem with eliminating crunch time is that it assumes that the end point is a fixed product, a specific amount of "game" they are working towards. The actual truth is that they are basically adding as much as they can, right up to the wire, so while it isn't necessarily healthy or advisable to work 80+ hour weeks, it is understandable.
IIRC, there are actually studies that show that you actually become far less productive by staying at work for long hours. Let me see if I can google something.
Paradoxically, the best way to get more done may be to spend more time doing less. A new and growing body of multidisciplinary research shows that strategic renewal — including daytime workouts, short afternoon naps, longer sleep hours, more time away from the office and longer, more frequent vacations — boosts productivity, job performance and, of course, health.
...
Although many of us can’t increase the working hours in the day, we can measurably increase our energy. Science supplies a useful way to understand the forces at play here. Physicists understand energy as the capacity to do work. Like time, energy is finite; but unlike time, it is renewable. Taking more time off is counterintuitive for most of us. The idea is also at odds with the prevailing work ethic in most companies, where downtime is typically viewed as time wasted. More than one-third of employees, for example, eat lunch at their desks on a regular basis. More than 50 percent assume they’ll work during their vacations.
In most workplaces, rewards still accrue to those who push the hardest and most continuously over time. But that doesn’t mean they’re the most productive.
Spending more hours at work often leads to less time for sleep and insufficient sleep takes a substantial toll on performance. In a study of nearly 400 employees, published last year, researchers found that sleeping too little — defined as less than six hours each night — was one of the best predictors of on-the-job burn-out. A recent Harvard study estimated that sleep deprivation costs American companies $63.2 billion a year in lost productivity.
Evan Robinson, a software engineer with a long interest in programmer productivity (full disclosure: our shared last name is not a coincidence) summarized this history in a white paper he wrote for the International Game Developers’ Association in 2005. The original paper contains a wealth of links to studies conducted by businesses, universities, industry associations and the military that supported early-20th-century leaders as they embraced the short week. 'Throughout the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, these studies were apparently conducted by the hundreds,' writes Robinson; 'and by the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week were accepted almost beyond question in corporate America. In 1962, the Chamber of Commerce even published a pamphlet extolling the productivity gains of reduced hours.'
What these studies showed, over and over, was that industrial workers have eight good, reliable hours a day in them. On average, you get no more widgets out of a 10-hour day than you do out of an eight-hour day.
Robinson does acknowledge that working overtime isn't always a bad idea. "Research by the Business Roundtable in the 1980s found that you could get short-term gains by going to 60- or 70-hour weeks very briefly — for example, pushing extra hard for a few weeks to meet a critical production deadline," she wrote. But Robinson stressed that "increasing a team’s hours in the office by 50 percent (from 40 to 60 hours) does not result in 50 percent more output...In fact, the numbers may typically be something closer to 25-30 percent more work in 50 percent more time."
Man is it just me or do all these threads always regress hard from the first couple of pages?
The way I entered the last one of these threads was "well I've read the first 3 pages and we're all on the same page here. So my question is, where the fuck did the last 61 pages come from?" and I have the same question here, even though I've skimmed through the whole thread. And let me tell you it's a really depressing read. Seeing a larger conversation that gets mired because some guy sees one detail he can argue against for 5 pages, or some other person bringing this devils advocate argument that rests on a million assumptions which were challenged in the very first pages. And now we're back to "so you dont want ANY SEX IN GAMES NOW NOT EVEN ONE BOOB?"
And man as depressing it was to read it must have been far worse to live through. Kudos to you guys
I actually find these threads interesting and they further my understanding of a very complex subject. I think ideas like the use of sexuality in media, gender issues in fiction, and the working conditions in the game industry are all big complicated topics that merit a lot of discussion. I do agree that it tends to get sidetracked by bullshit a lot, but that's what happens when you have an issue that people feel strongly about. It comes with the territory.
On the crunch time thing - its a tough question. The thing to understand is that it's very often something that doesn't come from the top down, the EA_Spouse thing happens at some companies, but its not been my experience as yet. Usually crunch happens because you have a lot of passionate motivated people becoming increasingly invested in a project they care about, and they'll work themselves to the bone because they want to see it succeed. It can also be a very gradual thing: you're working on a difficult problem, everyone orders pizza, and before you know it the people at the office have become your friends and you're staying until 2 AM every night.
I actually think we'll see some advancements in the future that will make building games less labor intensive, in particular the Unity plug-and-play model for certain kinds of assets and systems. There's a lot of labor duplication happening right now that really doesn't need to be there. Whether that will help solve the problem or just push people to use those crunch time development hours in other ways I'm honestly not sure.
Evan Robinson, a software engineer with a long interest in programmer productivity (full disclosure: our shared last name is not a coincidence) summarized this history in a white paper he wrote for the International Game Developers’ Association in 2005. The original paper contains a wealth of links to studies conducted by businesses, universities, industry associations and the military that supported early-20th-century leaders as they embraced the short week. 'Throughout the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, these studies were apparently conducted by the hundreds,' writes Robinson; 'and by the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week were accepted almost beyond question in corporate America. In 1962, the Chamber of Commerce even published a pamphlet extolling the productivity gains of reduced hours.'
What these studies showed, over and over, was that industrial workers have eight good, reliable hours a day in them. On average, you get no more widgets out of a 10-hour day than you do out of an eight-hour day.
Robinson does acknowledge that working overtime isn't always a bad idea. "Research by the Business Roundtable in the 1980s found that you could get short-term gains by going to 60- or 70-hour weeks very briefly — for example, pushing extra hard for a few weeks to meet a critical production deadline," she wrote. But Robinson stressed that "increasing a team’s hours in the office by 50 percent (from 40 to 60 hours) does not result in 50 percent more output...In fact, the numbers may typically be something closer to 25-30 percent more work in 50 percent more time."
Even if you beat them over the head with this fact, as with other fields with similar work ethics they may still just end up missing the point entirely.
After a few horror stories of botched medical care that were the product over overworked, sleep-deprived residents, a number of programs cut back on how many hours these residents were allowed to work each week. And, as a result, they're apparently making more mistakes than they did while being on-duty for 72-hour shifts. A survey of residents shows that, while they're working fewer hours, they're being expected to get the same amount done—just faster.
Someone mentioned recently that a possible reason there aren't more female characters in video games is because critics might object to how female characters are implemented in a story (people complain if there are few or no female characters, but people also complain if they feel a female character isn't written well or is basically just a reskinned male character).
I feel like this article about the female companions of the current Doctor Who series is an example of this sort of possible backlash (though in this case it appears to be a minority opinion): Where are the Feminist Doctor Who Companions. In this article, the author several times describes the Doctor as a man imposing what he believes is the right course of action on a woman, despite the show explicitly meaning to portray a supposedly superior being imposing what he believes to be right on a supposedly lesser human. The author also laments the fact that the female companions are often damsels in distress, ignoring the fact that pretty much anyone, male or female, who travels with the Doctor is going to get in distress.
In our society an interaction between a male character and a female character is likely to be more closely analyzed and criticized than an interaction between two male characters, even if the content of those interactions are identical. I can see why creators (especially male creators) might be hesitant to employ many female characters if their attempts at gender-inclusiveness are instead interpreted as sexist.
IMO, the world is ready for Dr Who to regenerate and come back as a woman. If that would not be possible under the current rules, then first apply Space Magic.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I feel like this article about the female companions of the current Doctor Who series is an example of this sort of possible backlash (though in this case it appears to be a minority opinion): Where are the Feminist Doctor Who Companions. In this article, the author several times describes the Doctor as a man imposing what he believes is the right course of action on a woman, despite the show explicitly meaning to portray a supposedly superior being imposing what he believes to be right on a supposedly lesser human. The author also laments the fact that the female companions are often damsels in distress, ignoring the fact that pretty much anyone, male or female, who travels with the Doctor is going to get in distress.
I think the problem with that article is that it's written by a crazy person. She pretty much describes any bad or uncontrolled thing that happens to any female character on the show as an example of misogyny on the part of the writer.
Doctor Who isn't even a difficult show to find misogyny in, so I'm surprised she was able to botch it so bad.
So a friend of mine with some Xbox Live season passes for tv shows has been having frequent problems with them and has started calling Live Customer Service this weekend. She's called twice and both times, after getting a real person (which apparently is taking upwards of 2 hours to do) and they've spent more time commenting on her decidedly feminine screen name, making fun of girls who are gamers, asking how often she gets hit on, asking if her boyfriend is intimidated by her (without even asking if she has one), and saying how cool it is that she plays "games for guys". One guy brought up her viewing history and commented about various programs she had been watching over the past few months and saying he should find a girl to date like her. Another implied that her issue had to be technical on her end and she needed to get a guy in there to look at it. The weird thing is all she's trying to get is the 240 points back for the episode that isn't coming up in the queue and she's spent 6 hours NOT getting that.
Overall, she was pretty creeped out. I won't even go into the complete lack of service she's getting because that's a complete other story that's almost as depressing.
Magic Pink on
+2
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Okay yeah, that is some pretty creepy stuff - i apologize for my doubt earlier.
So a friend of mine with some Xbox Live season passes for tv shows has been having frequent problems with them and has started calling Live Customer Service this weekend. She's called twice and both times, after getting a real person (which apparently is taking upwards of 2 hours to do) and they've spent more time commenting on her decidedly feminine screen name, making fun of girls who are gamers, asking how often she gets hit on, asking if her boyfriend is intimidated by her (without even asking if she has one), and saying how cool it is that she plays "games for guys". One guy brought up her viewing history and commented about various programs she had been watching over the past few months and saying he should find a girl to date like her. Another implied that her issue had to be technical on her end and she needed to get a guy in there to look at it. The weird thing is all she's trying to get is the 240 points back for the episode that isn't coming up in the queue and she's spent 6 hours NOT getting that.
Overall, she was pretty creeped out. I won't even go into the complete lack of service she's getting because that's a complete other story that's almost as depressing.
The only thing that pops into mind, and it is in noway an excuse, is that I know Sony has this thing where if you call them they try and act all buddy buddy, like you're just some gamers talking. It might be some phenomenally inept way of them trying to do something similar.
I found the whole thing a little creepy. That was without any "girl gamer" stuff.
Oh, absolutely. That's very obviously what they were doing which is fine really. The distressing thing is the content of what they thought "buddy buddy" constituted as soon as they knew the customer was female.
I mean hell I've called them too and they never even tried to do the buddy thing but my phone voice screams HUGE ANGRY ASSHOLE or so I've been told.
Magic Pink on
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The problem with eliminating crunch time is that it assumes that the end point is a fixed product, a specific amount of "game" they are working towards. The actual truth is that they are basically adding as much as they can, right up to the wire, so while it isn't necessarily healthy or advisable to work 80+ hour weeks, it is understandable.
IIRC, there are actually studies that show that you actually become far less productive by staying at work for long hours. Let me see if I can google something.
Paradoxically, the best way to get more done may be to spend more time doing less. A new and growing body of multidisciplinary research shows that strategic renewal — including daytime workouts, short afternoon naps, longer sleep hours, more time away from the office and longer, more frequent vacations — boosts productivity, job performance and, of course, health.
...
Although many of us can’t increase the working hours in the day, we can measurably increase our energy. Science supplies a useful way to understand the forces at play here. Physicists understand energy as the capacity to do work. Like time, energy is finite; but unlike time, it is renewable. Taking more time off is counterintuitive for most of us. The idea is also at odds with the prevailing work ethic in most companies, where downtime is typically viewed as time wasted. More than one-third of employees, for example, eat lunch at their desks on a regular basis. More than 50 percent assume they’ll work during their vacations.
In most workplaces, rewards still accrue to those who push the hardest and most continuously over time. But that doesn’t mean they’re the most productive.
Spending more hours at work often leads to less time for sleep and insufficient sleep takes a substantial toll on performance. In a study of nearly 400 employees, published last year, researchers found that sleeping too little — defined as less than six hours each night — was one of the best predictors of on-the-job burn-out. A recent Harvard study estimated that sleep deprivation costs American companies $63.2 billion a year in lost productivity.
Oh, I am absolutely aware of that, but a lot of these people are extremely passionate about what they do, and they aren't going to go home unless they are told to.
So a friend of mine with some Xbox Live season passes for tv shows has been having frequent problems with them and has started calling Live Customer Service this weekend. She's called twice and both times, after getting a real person (which apparently is taking upwards of 2 hours to do) and they've spent more time commenting on her decidedly feminine screen name, making fun of girls who are gamers, asking how often she gets hit on, asking if her boyfriend is intimidated by her (without even asking if she has one), and saying how cool it is that she plays "games for guys". One guy brought up her viewing history and commented about various programs she had been watching over the past few months and saying he should find a girl to date like her. Another implied that her issue had to be technical on her end and she needed to get a guy in there to look at it. The weird thing is all she's trying to get is the 240 points back for the episode that isn't coming up in the queue and she's spent 6 hours NOT getting that.
Overall, she was pretty creeped out. I won't even go into the complete lack of service she's getting because that's a complete other story that's almost as depressing.
Reminds me of when a friend of a friend picked up some drugs at a pharmacy, and later got a phone call from the guy at the counter, asking about if was working ok, and such ...
Do I have to mention that she's a good looking woman?
Or that she's not paying them nearly enough to get personal phone calls from the pharmacy?
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
The saddest part?
I agree with DevoutlyApathetic in that this is probably “just” due to some messed up opinions of what is OK casual boy-girl conversation.
But I think I’m drifting into “is it possible to tech men to not be rapists?” territory…
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
I think it's pretty easy to teach men not to be rapists, dude.
There are a wealth of success stories.
Step 1 is "Do not teach your sons to be on the offensive when courting women, because what the fuck is even up with that this isn't a romantic comedy"
Edit: Also the US needs mandated vacation time, and a focus on working to capacity rather than over. We pride ourselves on schedules that hurt us for so little gain it would be funny if it weren't horrible.
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
What the hell? Since when?
I think he means that generally the males are expected to show interest if they want to date someone in our society. I agree though that the level described in that story sounds really creepy, and can probably be filed under harassment
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
What the hell? Since when?
I think he means that generally the males are expected to show interest if they want to date someone in our society. I agree though that the level described in that story sounds really creepy, and can probably be filed under harassment
uh ANYONE needs to show interest if they want to date someone. It doesn't matter what gender they are.
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
What the hell? Since when?
I think he means that generally the males are expected to show interest if they want to date someone in our society. I agree though that the level described in that story sounds really creepy, and can probably be filed under harassment
I have very little experience dating and have anxiety issues, so when I went out with a lady a few months ago who initially seemed interested in a second date but didn't reciprocate on it I asked for advice both from family and on the Help & Advice forum here.
My dad's girlfriend recommended that I surprise her at work, saying it would be sweet. When I mentioned the idea on the Help & Advice thread, though, the response I got was "NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT SHOW UP AT HER WORK NEVER EVER NOT EVER". So I didn't, and followed the advice that the ball was in her court now.
I haven't heard from her since, and I don't know if she wasn't really interested in me or if she's thinking "How come he hasn't contacted me again? Does he not like me?"
On a related note, I've seen feminists say multiple times that things like holding a door open for a woman, pulling out a chair for her, insisting on paying for a movie, etc are sexist, whereas my dad and his girlfriend told me to do all those things when I went out with the aforementioned person. It's difficult to know if such things are appropriate or not when some women expect chivalry and will be put-off if a date doesn't do those things while others will be gravely offended and think a man who does those things is sexist.
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
What the hell? Since when?
I think he means that generally the males are expected to show interest if they want to date someone in our society. I agree though that the level described in that story sounds really creepy, and can probably be filed under harassment
I have very little experience dating and have anxiety issues, so when I went out with a lady a few months ago who initially seemed interested in a second date but didn't reciprocate on it I asked for advice both from family and on the Help & Advice forum here.
My dad's girlfriend recommended that I surprise her at work, saying it would be sweet. When I mentioned the idea on the Help & Advice thread, though, the response I got was "NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT SHOW UP AT HER WORK NEVER EVER NOT EVER". So I didn't, and followed the advice that the ball was in her court now.
I haven't heard from her since, and I don't know if she wasn't really interested in me or if she's thinking "How come he hasn't contacted me again? Does he not like me?"
On a related note, I've seen feminists say multiple times that things like holding a door open for a woman, pulling out a chair for her, insisting on paying for a movie, etc are sexist, whereas my dad and his girlfriend told me to do all those things when I went out with the aforementioned person. It's difficult to know if such things are appropriate or not when some women expect chivalry and will be put-off if a date doesn't do those things while others will be gravely offended and think a man who does those things is sexist.
They absolutely are sexist, they just aren't negatively sexist. Chivalry is pretty much 100% sexism. That doesn't mean the person doing it is a bad person or a sexist or misogynistic. They're just holding onto some traditional values that in the very long run hurt more then help but on the scale of sexist problems they barely register.
This is a classic example of 'established gender roles can hurt everyone.' By way of a related example, if a guy is interested in a woman, but lacks the confidence to ask her out, why would she bother with a guy too chicken to ask her out? And from the opposite side, a woman approaching a guy to ask him out can and will be seen be seen by some as slutty or desperate, among many other negative connotations.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I have very little experience dating and have anxiety issues, so when I went out with a lady a few months ago who initially seemed interested in a second date but didn't reciprocate on it I asked for advice both from family and on the Help & Advice forum here.
My dad's girlfriend recommended that I surprise her at work, saying it would be sweet. When I mentioned the idea on the Help & Advice thread, though, the response I got was "NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT SHOW UP AT HER WORK NEVER EVER NOT EVER". So I didn't, and followed the advice that the ball was in her court now.
I haven't heard from her since, and I don't know if she wasn't really interested in me or if she's thinking "How come he hasn't contacted me again? Does he not like me?"
At the risk of this becoming H&A Thread 2 on the matter, there are grey areas.
Ignoring someone entirely versus showing up unannounced at their place of work are worlds apart, but between them are simple things like calling them up and asking if they'd like to grab dinner/drinks/go do something fun.
The point being that there are options open aside from the extremes. Like many things in life, our actions and responses are not binary, but on a spectrum.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
A token minority character is better than no minority character. y/n?
The really poor way the industry treats it's workers has got to be one of the causes of some of the really flat-footed sexist design decisions that get made.
Another reason why "profits are the only good in business" is a stupid policy.
What timing from PAR.
How else are we going to attract more female developers?
However this quote:
Illustrates the point that even though this guy is trying to make the change, he still finds himself having to conform to the rule set of the established hierarchy.
Until he succeeds using their rules (and thus changes the patriarchal meta-narrative), he is still an active participant in the "crunch time" work structure which reinforces that which he is fighting against, even if such participation is unwilling.
The way I entered the last one of these threads was "well I've read the first 3 pages and we're all on the same page here. So my question is, where the fuck did the last 61 pages come from?" and I have the same question here, even though I've skimmed through the whole thread. And let me tell you it's a really depressing read. Seeing a larger conversation that gets mired because some guy sees one detail he can argue against for 5 pages, or some other person bringing this devils advocate argument that rests on a million assumptions which were challenged in the very first pages. And now we're back to "so you dont want ANY SEX IN GAMES NOW NOT EVEN ONE BOOB?"
And man as depressing it was to read it must have been far worse to live through. Kudos to you guys
There is a school of thought on subjects like this that can be summed up as "visibility at any cost"
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I don't know, I think this thread has actually been pretty great; I mean, have you seen how these threads normally go, on other sites?
Cesspit doesn't even begin to describe it...
yeah I waste wayyy too much of my time on feminism threads attempting to point out sexism to MRAs
Dude for a mostly European forum the Paradox Interactive On-Topic forums are the worst place to have this kind of conversation on. Imagine 20 pages of "but MEN EXPERIENCE X AND EVEN IF ITS NOT EVEN VAGUELY AS MUCH YOURE A HORRIBLE PERSON FOR SAYING ITS NOT AS BAD FOR MEN". I had a guy who was a socialist, who believed in racism, but who thought that the patriarchy was a made up concept so it shouldn't be used ever.
Like DUDE
YOU BELIEVE IN 2 'MADE UP' CONCEPTS ALREADY IS IT THAT BIG A LEAP
Let's take a small-ish developer - 25 staff.
If it takes that company 100,000 salaried man-hours to make a game, then it doesn't really matter whether they each do 80 hr weeks for a year to complete it, or do 40 hour weeks for two years.
In fact, unless they are not paid overtime bonuses, it may cost less, and because of less tiredness you get more game out of them.
You hear a lot of stories about people who don't get overtime bonuses.
Steam // Secret Satan
IIRC, there are actually studies that show that you actually become far less productive by staying at work for long hours. Let me see if I can google something.
Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/relax-youll-be-more-productive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I actually find these threads interesting and they further my understanding of a very complex subject. I think ideas like the use of sexuality in media, gender issues in fiction, and the working conditions in the game industry are all big complicated topics that merit a lot of discussion. I do agree that it tends to get sidetracked by bullshit a lot, but that's what happens when you have an issue that people feel strongly about. It comes with the territory.
On the crunch time thing - its a tough question. The thing to understand is that it's very often something that doesn't come from the top down, the EA_Spouse thing happens at some companies, but its not been my experience as yet. Usually crunch happens because you have a lot of passionate motivated people becoming increasingly invested in a project they care about, and they'll work themselves to the bone because they want to see it succeed. It can also be a very gradual thing: you're working on a difficult problem, everyone orders pizza, and before you know it the people at the office have become your friends and you're staying until 2 AM every night.
I actually think we'll see some advancements in the future that will make building games less labor intensive, in particular the Unity plug-and-play model for certain kinds of assets and systems. There's a lot of labor duplication happening right now that really doesn't need to be there. Whether that will help solve the problem or just push people to use those crunch time development hours in other ways I'm honestly not sure.
Even if you beat them over the head with this fact, as with other fields with similar work ethics they may still just end up missing the point entirely.
Sorry, I heard we needed a substitute SKFM in here and I came as fast as I could.
I feel like this article about the female companions of the current Doctor Who series is an example of this sort of possible backlash (though in this case it appears to be a minority opinion): Where are the Feminist Doctor Who Companions. In this article, the author several times describes the Doctor as a man imposing what he believes is the right course of action on a woman, despite the show explicitly meaning to portray a supposedly superior being imposing what he believes to be right on a supposedly lesser human. The author also laments the fact that the female companions are often damsels in distress, ignoring the fact that pretty much anyone, male or female, who travels with the Doctor is going to get in distress.
In our society an interaction between a male character and a female character is likely to be more closely analyzed and criticized than an interaction between two male characters, even if the content of those interactions are identical. I can see why creators (especially male creators) might be hesitant to employ many female characters if their attempts at gender-inclusiveness are instead interpreted as sexist.
I think the problem with that article is that it's written by a crazy person. She pretty much describes any bad or uncontrolled thing that happens to any female character on the show as an example of misogyny on the part of the writer.
Doctor Who isn't even a difficult show to find misogyny in, so I'm surprised she was able to botch it so bad.
Overall, she was pretty creeped out. I won't even go into the complete lack of service she's getting because that's a complete other story that's almost as depressing.
I wouldn't want to believe it either.
Then again, I have a pretty androgynous-sounding gamer tag. So make of that what you will.
The only thing that pops into mind, and it is in noway an excuse, is that I know Sony has this thing where if you call them they try and act all buddy buddy, like you're just some gamers talking. It might be some phenomenally inept way of them trying to do something similar.
I found the whole thing a little creepy. That was without any "girl gamer" stuff.
I mean hell I've called them too and they never even tried to do the buddy thing but my phone voice screams HUGE ANGRY ASSHOLE or so I've been told.
Oh, I am absolutely aware of that, but a lot of these people are extremely passionate about what they do, and they aren't going to go home unless they are told to.
Reminds me of when a friend of a friend picked up some drugs at a pharmacy, and later got a phone call from the guy at the counter, asking about if was working ok, and such ...
Do I have to mention that she's a good looking woman?
Or that she's not paying them nearly enough to get personal phone calls from the pharmacy?
I know we are supposed to teach boys/men to be aggressive on the offensive when it comes to courting girls/women, but this level of stalking creeps me the fuck out.
The saddest part?
I agree with DevoutlyApathetic in that this is probably “just” due to some messed up opinions of what is OK casual boy-girl conversation.
But I think I’m drifting into “is it possible to tech men to not be rapists?” territory…
What the hell? Since when?
There are a wealth of success stories.
Step 1 is "Do not teach your sons to be on the offensive when courting women, because what the fuck is even up with that this isn't a romantic comedy"
Edit: Also the US needs mandated vacation time, and a focus on working to capacity rather than over. We pride ourselves on schedules that hurt us for so little gain it would be funny if it weren't horrible.
I think he means that generally the males are expected to show interest if they want to date someone in our society. I agree though that the level described in that story sounds really creepy, and can probably be filed under harassment
uh ANYONE needs to show interest if they want to date someone. It doesn't matter what gender they are.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Trying not to make posts too big since I'm posting from my phone, but yeah that's what I meant.
I have very little experience dating and have anxiety issues, so when I went out with a lady a few months ago who initially seemed interested in a second date but didn't reciprocate on it I asked for advice both from family and on the Help & Advice forum here.
My dad's girlfriend recommended that I surprise her at work, saying it would be sweet. When I mentioned the idea on the Help & Advice thread, though, the response I got was "NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT SHOW UP AT HER WORK NEVER EVER NOT EVER". So I didn't, and followed the advice that the ball was in her court now.
I haven't heard from her since, and I don't know if she wasn't really interested in me or if she's thinking "How come he hasn't contacted me again? Does he not like me?"
On a related note, I've seen feminists say multiple times that things like holding a door open for a woman, pulling out a chair for her, insisting on paying for a movie, etc are sexist, whereas my dad and his girlfriend told me to do all those things when I went out with the aforementioned person. It's difficult to know if such things are appropriate or not when some women expect chivalry and will be put-off if a date doesn't do those things while others will be gravely offended and think a man who does those things is sexist.
They absolutely are sexist, they just aren't negatively sexist. Chivalry is pretty much 100% sexism. That doesn't mean the person doing it is a bad person or a sexist or misogynistic. They're just holding onto some traditional values that in the very long run hurt more then help but on the scale of sexist problems they barely register.
At the risk of this becoming H&A Thread 2 on the matter, there are grey areas.
Ignoring someone entirely versus showing up unannounced at their place of work are worlds apart, but between them are simple things like calling them up and asking if they'd like to grab dinner/drinks/go do something fun.
The point being that there are options open aside from the extremes. Like many things in life, our actions and responses are not binary, but on a spectrum.