Why Some People Are Upset Over Who's Judging the Game Awards

[Bucknerd]

Friends, lets have a civil discussion! On the internet!

 

I was afraid to start this thread and originally made this my status. However, I believe this is a good topic to talk about and both StrickenBiged and Yadilie have made good points in my status thread (which I shall summarize here so we can continue the conversation).

 

The topic in question is in regards to the "Why Some People Are Upset Over Who's Judging the Game Awards" article on Kotaku.

 

http://kotaku.com/why-people-are-upset-over-whos-judging-the-video-game-a-1745801957

 

My individual stance is that the article is important because it starts dialogue over the fact that the Game Awards "didn't think about" the fact that mostly all the judges were men. However, like StrickenBiged, I am of the opinion that the article did not properly prove why a 50/50 panel would be superior. I don't think that creating a 50/50 panel is the answer. As Yadilie pointed out most of the most well regarded and knowledgeable critics are men. It could be argued that the reason the Game Awards "didn't think about it" is because they went after the "best" critics and they just so happened to mostly be male. That observations starts a whole other issue of women in gaming journalism but we can go down that tangent if the thread decides to.

 

StrickenBiged and I also agreed that, despite her controversy, someone with as large a known bias as Anita Sarkeesian would be a poor judge and doesn't serve as a good example as a woman (or person) that should be allowed on the panel.

 

What are your thoughts, fellow gamers?

[PREDRAG-K]

I agree that it seems like they go for the best critics, as opposed to just picking a mix of men and women. It's kind of the same thing you see when people say "How come only men make video games, there should be more women involved". It's because men are the ones who go into schooling for game development. You can't force something that isn't there.

Video games have been a guy thing for decades. Yes, there have been women involved for a very long time. But it's always been a male dominated career path. It's only recently that so many women want to be included in the culture so much. Like, it's suddenly not "nerdy" anymore, like it was the last 30 years.

So it's going to take awhile for some big name female critics to start showing up. When they do, then they should be chosen for this stuff. But for now, it's still mostly men. I know Kotaku writers love to complain about lack of women in games, and "sexist" games, and all that stuff. So I honestly think this is just them finding another clickbait article title, and complaining about something that can't be changed so easily.

With the large amount of women showing interest in gaming recently, we will see more and more women developers and critics in the next few years. And that's great. But for now, it'll stay the way it is.

[damon8r351]

I don't care either way, I'm sure there's some good game reviewers out there that coincidentally possess lady-parts, they just didn't look hard enough. I'm just tired of this "gaming-is-sexist/social-justice-warriors-are-ruining-gaming" clickbait bullshit. Just another symptom of the culture of victimhood. Everybody wants to blame their problems on someone else. Whether it's the "social justice warriors" being victimized by "microaggressions", or people thinking they're victims for being called on their bullshit by "social justice warriors", everybody wants to blame their shit on someone else. Gaming is incredibly sexist, just like a bunch of other things, but every little thing doesn't need to be the next Rosa Parks refusing to leave her seat.

 

Also, if this thread doesn't end up being a full-bore clusterfuck, I'll be surprised.

Edited December 3, 2015 by damon8r351

[Happy]

I feel like i got stupider with every line that i read.

[Dead Weight]

Who are the judges?

[Arc-Tangent-]

Friends, lets have a civil discussion! On the internet!

 

 

 

A civil discussion? On the internet?! About gaming?! And.... women and gaming?! You crazy!

 

But seriously, I do agree with you guys that a 50/50 panel wouldn't be good either, and the article brings up the bigger point of women in the gaming industry. It's made up of mostly men. We are starting to see women taking their place alongside the men, like the women he brought up in the article. I think we'll start to see more and more women up there with guys like Jeff Gerstmann and Colin Moriarty. 

[Bucknerd]

In truth I agree with what many of you all are saying, almost to the point of embarrassment for creating this thread in the first place. Please do not misinterpret this thread as attempting to justify some sort of women's movement within the gaming industry. Predrag and Damon are both right in the fact that 1) it will be years before more women take an active role within the industry and 2) reality is sexist. This reality exists not only within video games but also IT and STEM related careers. It will improve in time but it can't be forced.

 

Fact of the matter is: most of the better respected and knowledgeable video game voices right now are male. That's not a bad thing. Is it foolish to complain that the Game Awards judges are primarily men given this fact? Most likely. I created this thread and pointed out the article simply because continuous dialogue NOW is what changes things for the future. Should things change? Not necessarily but I think it's important to have a conversation regardless.

 

However, I do look forward to a future where there are more women in the gaming industry. It's slowly changing and I'm glad. I particularly look forward to female voices that enjoy the downright ecchi creepy Japanese games that I love. Maybe the recent influx of otome games on Vita is a good sign?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Bucknerd

[voodoo_eyes]

To me it feels, like the article was simple written to cause some sort of controversy which shouldn't really exist in the 1st place and to some extent to put those game awards back in the news. I had completely forgotten about them, unitl this very moment and I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.

 

As you (Bucknerd) pointed out yourself, most known critics are male. There are a couple good female critics in game journalism, but they aren't as well known yet, maybe in time they'll be on such a panel.

 

It would be a terrible move to put female jurors in that panel, just for the sake of having the 50/50 diversity and what not. While speaking of diversity, they might as well put 1 member of each nation or ethnicity there.

 

The goal should be that the jurors are qualified professionals, have knowledge in the business, and aren't biased. The gender doesn't matter in that regard, nor would ethnicity.

 

Personally I think some people from the panel shouldn't be there for the lack of said professionalism, but that's just my opinion.

[StrickenBiged]

So it's going to take awhile for some big name female critics to start showing up. When they do, then they should be chosen for this stuff. But for now, it's still mostly men. I know Kotaku writers love to complain about lack of women in games, and "sexist" games, and all that stuff. So I honestly think this is just them finding another clickbait article title, and complaining about something that can't be changed so easily.

 

Great point. Writers like whoever it was at Kotaku that wrote this article seem to think that you can force this type of change on an industry overnight. They miss the fact that the current judges have spent years covering the industry. 

 

Women will get there eventually. Those that are interested in doing so that is. 

 

Setting quota's is all about positive discrimination. What people in favour of quotas often miss is the discrimination part - it's just as racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, whatever, to set a quota because you are then discriminating against whoever isn't in the quota's favoured group and you're saying to the favoured group "don't worry, you're special, look, we've made it easier for you". How patronising!

 

[/opinion]

 STEM related careers. 

 

Just on STEM - when you compare how many men vrs women complete a STEM degree, it is many, many more men that go into a STEM degree in the first place. I read somewhere once that, actually, STEM is the opposite of sexist. There are apparently more women working in STEM, proportionately, than the number of women who do a relevant degree. 

 

Now, I admit that I didn't check the numbers for myself, and I can't remember where I read this, but it raises an interesting point. If only, say, 5% of the population even interested in a particular subject or career path are women, is it sexist when the population of people doing that job and who happen to be women is also just 5%?

[Bucknerd]

In hindsight this thread seems like a moot point. We all tend to agree so far. Just reading Stricken's point about the inclusion being patronizing makes my blood boil and it's the last thing anyone or any group needs.

I can see where the piece was written just to inspire controversy and perhaps my original opinion that open dialogue about the article (as click baity as it might be) would be for the general good is false. It's not like our conversation is going to somehow increase awareness of women in gaming and how we all relate to each other. As a whole the posters of PSNP already seem extremely aware.

Admins, please feel free to destroy this thread if you see fit.

Just on STEM - when you compare how many men vrs women complete a STEM degree, it is many, many more men that go into a STEM degree in the first place. I read somewhere once that, actually, STEM is the opposite of sexist. There are apparently more women working in STEM, proportionately, than the number of women who do a relevant degree. 

 

Now, I admit that I didn't check the numbers for myself, and I can't remember where I read this, but it raises an interesting point. If only, say, 5% of the population even interested in a particular subject or career path are women, is it sexist when the population of people doing that job and who happen to be women is also just 5%?

 

My angle concerns the fact that an employer is more likely to hire a man than a woman in that field. However that opinion is biased and I currently have no way to back it up other than having read it somewhere in the past.

STEM itself provide an excellent parallel to the gaming industry in that men dominate the general employable population. The fact that there are simply less women involved in any industry is not in itself sexist. This lends credence to the argument that the Game Awards simply "not thinking about" making a gender distinction falls back on the fact that most knowledgeable and well-known voices in the gaming world are men. That's not sexist at all, it's just fact.

While this thread is a moot point I am personally glad I was able to talk about it with the PSNP Community as many valid points were made. It just seems like we are all agreeing at each other. .... Is the internet broken today?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Bucknerd

[thegirlruka]

I'd just like to chime in by saying that subjective awards in general are pretty meaningless. No matter who the judge is in any kind of subjective award, they're not me. They have different likes and dislikes and there's a very, very, very, very, very, very small chance that they have the same feelings about everything that I do. At the end of the day subjective awards are just like being an executive producer on a tv show, they are meaningless titles that make insecure people feel good about themselves.

 

[Ruliya]

It's Kotaku lol. Ignore it for the shit post it is and move on like most intellectual people.

Also Anita is a fraud and professional victim, so is Briana Wu and Zoe Quinn.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Ruliya

[voodoo_eyes]

In hindsight this thread seems like a moot point. We all tend to agree so far. Just reading Stricken's point about the inclusion being patronizing makes my blood boil and it's the last thing anyone or any group needs.

I can see where the piece was written just to inspire controversy and perhaps my original opinion that open dialogue about the article (as click baity as it might be) would be for the general good is false. It's not like our conversation is going to somehow increase awareness of women in gaming and how we all relate to each other. As a whole the posters of PSNP already seem extremely aware.

Admins, please feel free to destroy this thread if you see fit.

 

I don't think this thread is pointless at all. It's a topic that can be discussed freely, so why not. It's always better to be able to discuss things than not to. There are tons of really pointless threads on the forum, like the dozens "got banned for hacking, but didn't hack" nonsense, this one isn't one of them.

 

It's a healthy discussion after all, it just so happens that so far most of us seem to agree with eachother.

[starcrunch061]

You can ignore my pm, now that I saw the topic.

I personally thought it was a question that was worth asking. Even if most gamers aren't women, and even if including women might be a "token gesture", it's an important one.

[Boooda]

Oh, its a Kotaku article? Then I mean, that says all that needs to be said really. That site has some of the poorest "journalism" in games media and I cant take anything they say seriously. Its the most clickbait controversial nonsense ever.

Sorry couldnt add much to the discussion, but Im pretty much in line with everyone elses thoughts here. 

[starcrunch061]

Just on STEM - when you compare how many men vrs women complete a STEM degree, it is many, many more men that go into a STEM degree in the first place. I read somewhere once that, actually, STEM is the opposite of sexist. There are apparently more women working in STEM, proportionately, than the number of women who do a relevant degree. 

 

Now, I admit that I didn't check the numbers for myself, and I can't remember where I read this, but it raises an interesting point. If only, say, 5% of the population even interested in a particular subject or career path are women, is it sexist when the population of people doing that job and who happen to be women is also just 5%?

In follow up, a relevant question then is,"Why aren't more women interested in such a strong career path?" The fact is, women tend to leave math and science early. Is it a biological aversion to the disciplines? Possibly, but most people think not. Rather, the reason often cited is that women never see other women in the STEM fields, and thus don't associate them with their gender. This is where altering the balance of the field artificially pays huge dividends.

And as for sexism, my wife (a mathematician herself) told me just yesterday that when computer science became an accepted major, there was a much larger proportion of women involved. This declined incredibly after a time. I don't think anyone would say that women in the field were dumber than men, and clearly there was interest there. Prevailing wisdom says they were ultimately runoff by sexism in the field.

And make no mistake - there is a MASSIVE amount of sexism in the sciences. Whether this sexism (which is generally most prevalent in te upper eschelon of the field) is affecting the lower eschelon (i.e. Undrgrad majors) is unclear, but the idea that sexism is actually reversed in the STEM fields is incorrect.

<end boring diatribe>

[StrickenBiged]

You can ignore my pm, now that I saw the topic.

I personally thought it was a question that was worth asking. Even if most gamers aren't women, and even if including women might be a "token gesture", it's an important one.

 

According to some polls, there are actually more female gamers than male gamers in the USA. Granted, that number probably includes "casual" or "mobile" gamers.

 

Isn't a "token gesture" patronising though? 

 

I can only speak for my own, white-ish, male, cis-gendered, completely-able-bodied, 25-34 age ranged self but I think I'd find it insulting to have someone give me something because of the things about me that I had no choice over, rather than what I had worked for and achieved.

[MarsipanRumpan]

I really don't care to much to be honest so I don't have an honest opinion on it. I think that as long as everyone of the judges is in on it, why the hell not why should we care. 

However, off topic but I hate that Ori and the Blind Forest is nominated for Best Indie Game lol? Like what, its not even an indie title... 

[starcrunch061]

According to some polls, there are actually more female gamers than male gamers in the USA. Granted, that number probably includes "casual" or "mobile" gamers.

 

Isn't a "token gesture" patronising though? 

 

I can only speak for my own, white-ish, male, cis-gendered, completely-able-bodied, 25-34 age ranged self but I think I'd find it insulting to have someone give me something because of the things about me that I had no choice over, rather than what I had worked for and achieved.

Well, I can tell you that a great many women in math and science have benefited from artificially changing the balance of practitioners.

I'm an old-school liberal, of course, which means that I believe that it is the duty of those power to help those who can't help themselves. A self-perpetuating cycle of covert sexism should be attacked at its root. In the case of STEM, that means ensuring that women get help in achieving power in the disciplines.

Incidentally, in other fields (such as teaching at the high school level or below), it's the other way around. Efforts should be made to attract more men to the field, rather than treating it as a graveyard for women who can't decide on a major.

[StrickenBiged]

 Rather, the reason often cited is that women never see other women in the STEM fields,

 

Does that really influence women? And does that influence them more than, say, if they enjoy the subjects at school in the first place? It's a bit of chicken and egg. 

 

And it takes all sorts I suppose. One of my highschool girlfriends went to study civil engineering at uni. She was one of 5 women in a class of 300+. The fact that there were so few women in the field was what attracted her to it. She told me something along the lines of "after my degree, I'll get every job I apply for, because I'll be one of the only women applying in the first place."

 

She'd have made a great game designer, playing the system like that. Instead, she now works on the London Underground, where she's the only woman doing night-shifts on the construction jobs, bossing* all the men around. 

 

*By which I mean that she is their boss on site. Not that she is "bossy because she's a woman" whereas a man would be "assertive". 

Edited December 3, 2015 by StrickenBiged

[starcrunch061]

Does that really influence women? And does that influence them more than, say, if they enjoy the subjects at school in the first place? It's a bit of chicken and egg. 

 

And it takes all sorts I suppose. One of my highschool girlfriends went to study civil engineering at uni. She was one of 5 women in a class of 300+. The fact that there were so few women in the field was what attracted her to it. She told me something along the lines of "after my degree, I'll get every job I apply for, because I'll be one of the only women applying in the first place."

 

She'd have made a great game designer, playing the system like that. Instead, she now works on the London Underground, where she's the only woman doing night-shifts on the construction jobs, bossing* all the men around. 

 

*By which I mean that she is their boss on site. Not that she is "bossy because she's a woman" whereas a man would be "assertive".

You should take some time and read up on some of the current research; I'll see if I can find some for you. In fact, the current paradigm says that one of the main rasons women don't enjoy STEM courses have nothing to do with the course, but instead with the social stigma attached to them (for women). And again, I cite teaching (although nursing is another great example) as an example of the reverse - most men seem to avoid these fields because of the stigma attached.

Now, one can take the view here that "sexism is reality - deal with it", but I don't subscribe to that.

[StrickenBiged]

Well, I can tell you that a great many women in math and science have benefited from artificially changing the balance of practitioners.

I'm an old-school liberal, of course, which means that I believe that it is the duty of those power to help those who can't help themselves. A self-perpetuating cycle of covert sexism should be attacked at its root. In the case of STEM, that means ensuring that women get help in achieving power in the disciplines.

Incidentally, in other fields (such as teaching at the high school level or below), it's the other way around. Efforts should be made to attract more men to the field, rather than treating it as a graveyard for women who can't decide on a major.

 

Well, I guess I'm an even older school liberal then, probably bordering on libertarian. Individual freedoms trump group identities in my opinion. I'm in favour of people doing what they want to do, and trusting them to be rational enough and best placed to decide what is best for them. 

 

I would say that artificially changing the balance sounds like you're giving positive weight to a person's sex. How many more points does that get you when making a job application? What if the male candidate had exactly the same professional and academic qualifications, would he lose just because he is a guy? 

 

If so, what if his qualifications were, say, 5% better than the woman's? Does being a woman trump that extra 5%? 10%? 20%?

 

Have you seen the study to do with human behavoural sexual dimorphism? I can't remember it's exact title... Why can't a man be more like a woman? [something something] across 55 countries by, I think, Schmitt et al.. It's quite interesting. Google should be able to find you the abstract at least. 

 

Basically, these people surveyed data from 55 countries and they observed that, in countries which have greater levels of personal freedom and egalitarianism, men and women behave more differently to one another. 

 

Now, that's just an observation, but it's an interesting one. Why do men and women behave more differently in countries where they have more choice? Maybe, because when people are free to choose what they want, it turns out that men and women just want different things in life? 

 

For a personal example which builds off the one you gave: you'd have to pay me a lot more than you'd probably have to pay most women to educate kids. I don't particularly like kids. At all. Women, in my experience, tend to quite like kids. I can think of one or two that I've met who don't, but most that I have met do. 

 

Maybe I am typical of men in general in that one respect and the reason there are so few men who are teachers is because we just aren't interested? Or, rather, because governments don't pay teachers enough to make us interested?

 

Edit: Just realised how apt my avatar is for this discussion. That's literally the face I have been pulling while typing this.

You should take some time and read up on some of the current research; I'll see if I can find some for you. In fact, the current paradigm says that one of the main rasons women don't enjoy STEM courses have nothing to do with the course, but instead with the social stigma attached to them (for women). And again, I cite teaching (although nursing is another great example) as an example of the reverse - most men seem to avoid these fields because of the stigma attached.

Now, one can take the view here that "sexism is reality - deal with it", but I don't subscribe to that.

 

Maybe not "sexism is reality" but "human sexual behavioural dimorphism is reality"?

 

Edit: And even if "sexism [were] reality", I agree with David Hume when he said that just because something is the case doesn't mean it ought to be the case. But I think some consideration of the facts is required and, to me at least, it appears that men and women want different things out of life. I suspect that that has just as much to do with biology as with culture. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by StrickenBiged

[starcrunch061]

We are in profound disagreement.

 

While I certainly agree that men and women make different choices, there is nothing in current research about STEM to support that those choices are related to this. It might be the case that it's true, and I certainly don't support the way Larry Summers was drummed out of Harvard for suggesting that we consider more research in this angle. But even so, a vague (if certainly supportable) statement like "Men behave differently from women" can't be used as a catch-all for every single imbalance in life.

 

Further, even if you subscribe to a strong dose of personal freedom and responsibility, this can only be applied to our settings here if you assume that the playing field is level. It's like pure free market supporters who seem to ignore the fact that our current economic capitalistic structure has been built outside of such a system.

 

But I'm bla bla blah-ing. At the end of the day, I want more women in gaming, and I want less sexism among gamers. I doubt that choosing critics for the silly GOTY awards will do anything to alleviate the situation.

[StrickenBiged]

We are in profound disagreement.

 

While I certainly agree that men and women make different choices, there is nothing in current research about STEM to support that those choices are related to this. It might be the case that it's true, and I certainly don't support the way Larry Summers was drummed out of Harvard for suggesting that we consider more research in this angle. But even so, a vague (if certainly supportable) statement like "Men behave differently from women" can't be used as a catch-all for every single imbalance in life.

 

Further, even if you subscribe to a strong dose of personal freedom and responsibility, this can only be applied to our settings here if you assume that the playing field is level. It's like pure free market supporters who seem to ignore the fact that our current economic capitalistic structure has been built outside of such a system.

 

But I'm bla bla blah-ing. At the end of the day, I want more women in gaming, and I want less sexism among gamers. I doubt that choosing critics for the silly GOTY awards will do anything to alleviate the situation.

 

Are we in profound disagreement?

 

All I've done is ask questions and express skepticism about your position, playing devil's advocate if you will. I'm happy to be convinced to your line of thinking, but I think that the problems I raised (e.g. how much more "points" should a person's sex win them? How do you account for the observable fact that men and women exhibit more difference when they have more freedom to do so? etc.) need to be addressed and introduce important moral problems with your position which should be considered. 

 

If I have come across as knowing the answers to these questions, then I have either written poorly or been misunderstood. I honestly don't feel that well informed in this area and I'd like to know more. But I am a skeptic, and will poke and prod your conclusions to see if they stand up.

 

What "imbalance in life" would you like to touch on? 

 

What about the "playing field" in modern, liberal democracies like, say, the United Kingdom or the United States isn't level? AFAIK, you have very similar labour laws to ours - equal work for equal pay, no discrimination based on gender/religion/race/etc, and all the rest.

 

If people are failing to enforce their individual rights under those laws, then isn't that the "players" fault for choosing not to take advantage of the rules of the playing field which are available to them?

 

And, while we have those laws, aren't the proponents of, say, positive discimination actively undermining those laws when they say "no - we should discriminate in favour of this group"? I can't see how our current labour laws as described above could rationally co-exist with laws in favour of positive discrimination.

 

Less sexism everywhere would be great. Perhaps the differences between us are that I just don't see sexism where you do? 

 

Edit: numerous typos, punctuation, grammar.

Edited December 3, 2015 by StrickenBiged

[Satoshi Ookami]

>Kotaku

>serious discussion

 

 

For some reason, I don't see these things going together well...

 

 

As for my opinion. I don't really care either way. Game awards are just here so AAA games that are overhyped can get even more attention.

They could put anyone as a judge, and the result would still be same.