Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)

[Unofficial Who]

17 hours ago, SMD said:

 

Are u ok

 

I didn’t want to tone police as you might be unaware that R U OK is being promoted as a way of promoting discussion about mental health.

 

Please don’t use it as shorthand for “are you ok hun?” (Which in this thread might be seen as slightly problematic.)

[JPickford]

Fucking hell

[Unofficial Who]

20 minutes ago, JPickford said:

Fucking hell

 

I’ve got a bit of a chip on my shoulder on the use of “are you ok?” as a way of shutting down debate. It’s not great.

[Escape]

I doubt anyone'd be talking about this if she'd said ‘Sorry, I was a bit rude about that guy; I was having a bad day’. Through her sacking she's now Dennis the peasant, and no longer has to hold her hands up because of her unfair treatment.

 

I'm not telling anyone that their complaints aren't valid, but I do think that a lack of compromise makes life harder for those who suffer. I'm not asking people who do things like this to toughen up because I take a dim view of their actions: it's because I think they'd find it easier to cope through life if they did. A Tory bootstrapper's the last thing I want to sound like when I say that. It doesn't mean letting everything slide until you snap with the injustice of it all, but I'm uncomfortable with the growing ability (seemingly) to rely on minority advocation to swerve responsibility from personal fallouts. We all agree on trying to improve equality for women, and trying to foster greater unity between minority groups, but for me — to Python again — there's too much Yorkshiremanning getting in the way right now. It's only in very recent human history that we haven't needed to be hunter-gatherers, and we've already reached a point where we've lost many of those survival skills that our primordial brains are clinging to stoicism for.

 

I'm certainly glad that I'm not getting chased by lions on the daily or whatever, but this is still a very harsh world in which unseen workers are breaking their backs for our luxuries, and so I think it's important to remember both context and intersectionality when it comes to the way we behave over modern social issues. They're every bit as important as the majority of their hardcore supporters claim, and I'm happy to support most of those causes without any notable caveats, except at the expense of rocking several other boats to do it. Progress is held back by a large number (and christ it's a shame that we're mostly all on the same unity page save our twisted knickers), but beating those noncompliants over their heads isn't going to accelerate positive change. I actually feel we were in a better social place ten years ago.

 

Good luck to Price with finding a new job. I've zero problems with her as a person (hadn't heard of her before this), I just disagree with her handling of this situation and think that she's making it harder for herself. The opposite of that isn't appeasement to bare mantows or whatever (though technically it is), it's keeping your head down and having a good moan to your mates in private as per trad.

[Escape]

19 hours ago, grindmouse said:

SMD is surprised if any women would act the way Escaped’s friends act because women don’t generally feel comfortable doing “that”. SMD knows women! He’s read the articles!

 

To be fair, most of the women I had in mind when I wrote that I've known through boxing, so they're not representative of any majority. And that was my point: who is? But they'd happily call any of us dicks, and I wanted to question those broad brush strokes as potentially patronising. I'm sure there are still lots of self-identifying Barbies around, too. Have they become offensive to other groups?

 

This is all wandering off-course, but I've mentioned it now. Probably best to not drag it down the road.

 

4 hours ago, Smitty said:

 When challenged you circle the wagons, hope the group will back you up and often shoot out fresh accusations.

 

I've played that game. This IRL's a new one on me, though. I feel like I've skipped a generation to granddadism watching those.

[MechE]

16 hours ago, Smitty said:

 

I have no problem with the idea of mansplaining. I have a serious problem with firstly continuing to widen the definition to the point of uselessness - where it essentially becomes 'when a man explains something to a woman and I think I can make hay with it - and then on that basis casually slandering strangers with very serious charges like misogyny. 

 

You have no grounds at all for accusing this guy of hating women simply because he made a suggestion to a woman. If it was you, you'd be outraged that you could be convicted and sentenced by a group of strangers based on this interaction .

But this didn't happen. What we end up doing here is when women have a bit of a rant about their experiences of being patronised, that gets blown up and they have to defend the accusations that they've called someone a woman hating misogynist. The end result is that women end up keeping quiet.

 

I know when I used to lead a team with some female mechanical engineers, they would get a load more patronising comments than I ever had to deal with. Being able to have a bit of a rant about it was a useful release for them. To escalate this to a serious case of slander is counterproductive.

[PaB]

10 minutes ago, MechE said:

 

 

I know when I used to lead a team with some female mechanical engineers, they would get a load more patronising comments than I ever had to deal with. Being able to have a bit of a rant about it was a useful release for them. To escalate this to a serious case of slander is counterproductive.

As a team lead you used to let them rant rather than actually doing something about it ?

 

i mean did you challenge any of those patronising comments? 

[Sprite Machine]

46 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

i mean did you challenge any of those patronising comments? 

I'm not sure how useful that would be, given the response could always be "I'd make the same comment to a male co-worker, stop making it about gender!"

[PaB]

Just now, Sprite Machine said:

I'm not sure how useful that would be, given the response could always be "I'd make the same comment to a male co-worker, stop making it about gender!"

Of course it would be useful . You don’t change culture in the workplace by keeping quiet because you’re worried about the response to legitimate complaints.

 

As a manager or team lead (in fact as an employee) you have a duty to do something about behaviour that causes staff to have to “rant”  .

 

You deal with the thing that’s causing the ranting . You don’t accept it and put up with it . Whatever it is .

[Sprite Machine]

I agree. I was (somewhat facetiously) following the logical conclusion of the "no proof, can't assume" argument - one that you yourself espoused earlier:

 

On 12/07/2018 at 13:39, PeteBrant said:

Whatever mate. I think it's wrong to assume every single instance of a man making a point to a woman on a given subject is because misogyny as opposed to them thinking " i know better" because they think they know better  regardless of gender.

[Unofficial Who]

3 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

Of course it would be useful . You don’t change culture in the workplace by keeping quiet because you’re worried about the response to legitimate complaints.

 

As a manager or team lead (in fact as an employee) you have a duty to do something about behaviour that causes staff to have to “rant”  .

 

You deal with the thing that’s causing the ranting . You don’t accept it and put up with it . Whatever it is .

 

We’re swerving off topic but the above is true regardless of gender. You have to get on top of ranting and solve the issue causing it or sometimes counselling the complainers about realistic expectations. Sometime you need to reign in gossip or bullying.

 

You’ve got to be insanely careful with how much ranting is allowed. Ignore it or let it go on too much and you end up with a toxic work culture that’s incredibly hard to fix.

 

Bring it back on topic what you don’t do as a team leader when confronted by a complaint by a customer is immediately fire the employee and then throw them to the wolves in public unless it’s something incredibly damaging and / or criminal. Partially because it will kill morale in your team. But also because you will end up attracting every demon customer around. (And I’m not calling Deroir this, as far as I know he wasn’t the one petitioning for her to be fired.)

 

Anyone who has ever worked in customer service will know about demon customers and the dangers of acquiescing to them. From that point on you’ll have a loyal customer for life.But the amount of time and money you spend trying to placate them generally outstrips any profit that might be made in the long run. Especially in community based businesses where the community you foster is as important if not more important than your staff.

[PaB]

3 minutes ago, Sprite Machine said:

I agree. I was (somewhat facetiously) following the logical conclusion of the "no proof, can't assume" argument - one that you yourself espoused earlier:

 

Which part of my earlier post do you think is inconsistent with my most recent , then ? 

 

i didn’t saying that giving your opinion because you think you are right is the correct thing to do , I said the motivation is not always clear .

 

And if you have a team complaining that they are constantly being patronised by a person or persons then you have something to investigate . 

[PaB]

4 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

 

Bring it back on topic what you don’t do as a team leader when confronted by a complaint by a customer is immediately fire the employee. .

Entirely depends on the circumstances involved. 

 

[Sprite Machine]

54 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

Which part of my earlier post do you think is inconsistent with my most recent , then ?

I don't mean to single you out, and I've perhaps misinterpreted your prior comments, in which case, I apologise.

 

To clarify:

There is the train of thought that, because we can't literally read a person's mind, that we can't know for sure that their comments are being made because of the target's gender. And that, because we can't know for sure, we can't criticise their comments or call them a bit mansplainy. If we follow this logic, then we also couldn't criticise the comments in the workplace example above, because without knowing what the commenters are actually thinking, any assumption about their biases is baseless. Every single one of them could say their comments were nothing to do with the target's gender, and there would be no way to prove otherwise.

In other words, if you accept that we should absolutely take action in an example where female work colleagues feel they are being unfairly targetted with comments, then it follows that we should also take action when female developers on Twitter feel they are being unfairly targetted with comments.

 

-----------
 

15 hours ago, Smitty said:

I know what the concept is. The idea that I don't think it has any meaning is ridiculous. It's a real thing and had a real meaning, once. I literally state in the post you quote that it has a meaning that is being eroded by casual misuse. So good fucking luck with an obvious lie like I believe it has no meaning.

 

But you can't demonstrate the example in question (or many others) is proof of that. 

 

You don't seem to care one bit about proof. As far as you're concerned, if you can imagine it to be so - if you suspect it - then it is prima facie proven.

 

That's the problem. All of you can go around casually accusing anyone you like of sexism and misogyny and the only evidence required is your own speculation.

 

I have no problem with the idea of mansplaining. I have a serious problem with firstly continuing to widen the definition to the point of uselessness - where it essentially becomes 'when a man explains something to a woman and I think I can make hay with it - and then on that basis casually slandering strangers with very serious charges like misogyny.

Smitty, your argument doesn't make sense. You state that mansplaining "had a meaning once", but you don't state what that meaning was or why this person's comment doesn't fit the same description. What distinction are you making between what you perceive to be valid accusations of mansplaining, and this?

 

You argue the term doesn't fit this example because you can't prove the motive or biases of the commenter. But, equally, you can't prove the biases behind any comment. All you can do is look at the aggregate phenomenon, the statistics, and try to understand the social conditioning behind them.

 

The other mistake you make here is equating "suggesting somebody might be influenced by unconscious biases" with "literally calling them a woman-hating misogynist". This simply isn't true and nobody is doing that. People being influenced by biases doesn't make them "bad people".

 

This isn't a court, nobody is on trial, and pointing out social biases in people isn't "slander". The reason for pointing out when these biases manifest is to encourage some self-reflection, to realise that we're all affected by this in various ways. Not to denigrate and ridicule.

[PaB]

1 hour ago, Sprite Machine said:

 

There is the train of thought that, because we can't literally read a person's mind, that we can't know for sure that their comments are being made because of the target's gender. And that, because we can't know for sure, we can't criticise their comments or call them a bit mansplainy. If we follow this logic, then we also couldn't criticise the comments in the workplace example above, because without knowing what the commenters are actually thinking, any assumption about their biases is baseless. Every single one of them could say their comments were nothing to do with the target's gender, and there would be no way to prove otherwise.

This is simply not true. You are going into it on the basis that the problem is misogyny. That's why you assume that we "criticise the comments in the workplace example above, because without knowing what the commenters are actually thinking, any assumption about their biases is baseless."

 

If someone, or a group of people are having to "rant" on a regualt basis to let off steam because of frustrations in the workplace, then you find out what those frustrations are, and you do something about them. Now it might be because of sexism, or it might be the bloke is a twat or it might be because they drink cup a soup in the office. . Could be any myriad of reasons. But you don't not do anything because you have decided it's because sexism and you can't do anything without solid proof.

 

 

 

Quote

In other words, if you accept that we should absolutely take action in an example where female work colleagues feel they are being unfairly targetted with comments, then it follows that we should also take action when female developers on Twitter feel they are being unfairly targetted with comments.

 

Of course you should. People should also expect action to be taken where they react in a certain way.

 

With regards to twitter itself. Until people are held responsible for thier comments, it will continue to be a cesspit of absolute wankers that I refuse to have anything to do with

 

 

[Sprite Machine]

12 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

This is simply not true. You are going into it on the basis that the problem is misogyny. That's why you assume that we "criticise the comments in the workplace example above, because without knowing what the commenters are actually thinking, any assumption about their biases is baseless."

 

If someone, or a group of people are having to "rant" on a regualt basis to let off steam because of frustrations in the workplace, then you find out what those frustrations are, and you do something about them. Now it might be because of sexism, or it might be the bloke is a twat or it might be because they drink cup a soup in the office. . Could be any myriad of reasons. But you don't not do anything because you have decided it's because sexism and you can't do anything without solid proof.

I think you've missed my point. I wasn't saying that I agree with that train of thought, I was specifically criticising it.

 

In the example given, the female members of the team were ranting because they were receiving more patronising comments than the men were. What solution or intervention would you propose in this case?

[MechE]

3 hours ago, PeteBrant said:

Of course it would be useful . You don’t change culture in the workplace by keeping quiet because you’re worried about the response to legitimate complaints.

 

As a manager or team lead (in fact as an employee) you have a duty to do something about behaviour that causes staff to have to “rant”  .

 

You deal with the thing that’s causing the ranting . You don’t accept it and put up with it . Whatever it is .

Firstly, I'd like to think I did a huge amount in my last place of work to improve diversity and inclusion. Amongst other things:

• I helped change the promotion system to not be so rigidly focused on rewarding bullish alpha behaviour, and to value softer skills.
• I gave talks to directors about how tokenism doesn't address the underlying issues of D&I
• I helped to push for more social / team building events to take place during lunchtimes rather than in the pub after work so they were more inclusive for people who had family commitments, or weren't particularly into the drinking culture.
• I promoted the contributions of every team member, rather than the senior guy taking a lot of the credit, as tended to happen.

But beyond this, you've got to be proportionate in your response to things. Being a bit patronised by a client is not a crime, and some people take even the slightest suggestion that they've made a sexist comment as a very serious slur, so having a bit of a rant with your colleagues can be completely proportionate response.

[PaB]

13 minutes ago, Sprite Machine said:

In the example given, the female members of the team were ranting because they were receiving more patronising comments than the men were. What solution or intervention would you propose in this case?

Off the top of my head..

Decide:

What are the actual comments?

What is the mechanism for delivering those comments?

Who is making the comments?

 

And then work from there

 

 

[Dudley]

7 hours ago, Sprite Machine said:

I'm not sure how useful that would be, given the response could always be "I'd make the same comment to a male co-worker, stop making it about gender!"

 

"Give me an example of when you did"

[Escape]

There's no indication of what went down behind the scenes? If I'd been her boss I'd have said ‘I know he was teaching grandma to suck eggs, but can you just apologise so that we can sweep it under the rug?’.

 

We're a long way from having to worry about the downsides to a kinder society, but I do wonder how soft is too soft before we might begin to lose our ability to cope with setbacks, injustice and regular frustrations. There's a fine line between character-building banter and perceived/actual abuse (the Tories' welfare cuts are one of my hobbyhorses), and this obviously wasn't a welcome experience for Price, but this entropic effect where overreactions send a bunch of bastards into a tailspin never seems far away. It's a wasps' nest catch-22 that leaves both sides upset. Trenches deepen.

 

And so while I don't believe that any minorities should placate the rest of us with self-moderation, I am beginning to value resilience as increasingly helpful across the board. I dunno if we're losing it in recent times, or if I'm just reading more. And it's entirely possible that being less aggressive wouldn't make alt-righters/name-yer-bad-guys any more accepting. I've no insight. My only personal solution is WarGames': I've given up trying to engage with anyone about social issues online. I'll always be wrong to such a large group, whoever they are.

[SMD]

Why in the blue fuck should women and minorities display resilience?

[Escape]

They shouldn't have to. Only my strawman said that.

 

I'm a dirt-poor foodbanker and I don't talk about it; plenty worse-off. Doesn't make me better than anyone else, but I do believe I'd suffer more if I raged against it. I don't expect a much better world in my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong and that these no-win battles of our times don't predict the eventual outcome. What cost the fallout for ineffective fighting.

 

Lots of people feel that equality's achievable within decades, and I'm fine with that belief; it's very positive. I don't share it. I follow Bernie Sanders on Twitter, and it's really quite depressing to see him at the grindstone in a country that pushed him aside for Clinton. I put games down as a lost cause long ago.

 

If I were a woman who wanted to work in games, I'd want to be behind the scenes. So we're actually on the same page as far as that goes. I doubt it's possible to derail the industry from its misogynistic tracks at this point, which is maybe something that took off when online play became huge? That seems to have been when the door opened to it, at least.

[Opinionated Ham Scarecrow]

 

Fucksake gog....

[K]

Finally, a really violent computer game with an unenlightened attitude to women and minorities!

[smac]

Did somebody get confused between 'gog' and 'gg' there?

[Wroth]

They've removed the tweet

 

edit: Oh dear, those replies!

I wonder how many of those telling them they shouldn't have given in to pressure were also calling for Price's firing.

 

 

such self awareness

[Dig Dug]

They clearly hit a nerve by calling it what it is.

[SweatyTravolta]

They corrected themselves. I probably wouldn't have made the connection either without having seen the original Running with Scissors tweet,

[Unofficial Who]

This is the problem with social media. The lesson GOG is going to learn from this is that people sympathetic to the GG cause are the majority because it would take a brave soul indeed to tweet in that thread to make a counter point.

 

It would be like willingly sticking your hand into a blender. Not sure what GOG could do after posting that tweet to mitigate damage.

[Fry Crayola]

37 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

The lesson GOG is going to learn from this is that people sympathetic to the GG cause are the majority

 

You always have such a negative outlook on things. GOG aren't going to look at a minor twitter rage and think "oh fuck, better court the larger part of the market - stupid hatenerds" after already outright stating that GG was an abusive movement.