On Dongles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

matthew_lane:

OlasDAlmighty:
So his point is invalid because he referred to them as strippers instead of dancers?

Yes, by definition. If i run around screaming "aliens are invading" & you point out that those are clouds & not aliens, is my point that aliens are invading now not valid on the basis of a lack of invading aliens? OF COURSE IT IS!

You know full well that when he said strippers he meant exotic dancers, don't play dumb, the difference is a few pieces of string anyway. You're hiding behind a minor word technicality that has no bearing whatsoever on his actual argument, but if it's really so important to you.

To every straight male defending the strippers:

Imagine you're a developer at a videogame convention. Suddenly, a bunch of exotic male dancers wearing only a tanga hop on your table and put their asses in front of your face, just like the girl is doing in this comic.

Now you can understand why there was a righteous outrage at this.

matthew_lane:

Why should a company not hire dancers to dance at a party? Should musical directors no longer hire dancers? What about theatre troops, should they not have dancers either... After all dancer is apparently a synonym for stripper... Hence a ballerina is now the same thing as a stripper.

Well according to you the difference between dancers and strippers is as big as the difference between alien spacecrafts and clouds, so I'd call this argument dead on arrival. But just so you're aware: there's more than one type of dancer in the entire world.

wulf3n:

I would be incensed by the presence of strippers of any gender "hired" to perform at a Video Game event.

... Are you suggesting these ladies were kidnapped and then told to dance on stage?

And only two weeks out of being topical. Cheers.

Aaron Sylvester:

I wasn't there so if they were genuinely STRIPPERS stripping their clothes off down to thongs/breasts then we have a problem because would be completely inappropriate.

However if they were nothing more than dancing girls in sexy clothing then that is more than fine, they're just there to dance and put on a show. The word "stripper" seems to be getting tossed around rather lazily in this thread, it makes me think people know what an actual stripper is and what an actual stripper does :S

edit: Yup, digging up more info on this incident, here we go: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/27/really-igda-party-at-gdc-brings-on-the-female-dancers/
Strippers my ass, just TWO dancers. However it seems that enough people complained about that so the IGDA won't be doing it again. I can see that it was inappropriate, this wasn't just some typical gaming convention/party. Fair enough.

The fact that it made the female co-chair of IGDA's Women In Games Group step down is HILARIOUS though, so that's all it takes to make a feminist run away? Talk about over-emotional :P

Strippers, dancers, over-zealous attendees, whatever. It doesn't make any difference, as it's still something that shouldn't be at a conference.

I understand your position, the organisers were just trying to make it more "interesting" but If you need something like dancers to want to attend, then you shouldn't be in the industry.

Woodsey:

wulf3n:

I would be incensed by the presence of strippers of any gender "hired" to perform at a Video Game event.

... Are you suggesting these ladies were kidnapped and then told to dance on stage?

No, just not wanting to exclude professional strippers who may be attending for the games, rather than attending as a means of getting paid.

rhodo:
To every privileged straight male defending the strippers:

....imagine you're a videogame developer at a videogame convention. Suddenly, a bunch of male strippers wearing only a tanga hop on the table and put their asses in front of your face, just like the girl is doing in this comic.

Now you can understand why there was a righteous outrage at this.

Ok, imagine this scenario. You are at a party with a bunch of people in the fashion industry. Let's say it's an after-party at Milan fashion week. It's a mix, but most of the people there are either female or gay males. It's a pretty casual environment, there's loud music and drinking; but some people are having serious conversations because hey, they all work in the same industry. There are a couple of fairly buff shirtless dudes dancing on stage while singing "it's raining men." Everyone is generally enjoying themselves.

Now imagine some guy in the corner yelling "Fuck all this gay shit. Shit's fucking gross. I can't believe the sponsors are bringing this into a professional event."

That guy would be, rightly, considered a homophobic, buzz-killing douche.

Snooder:

Ok, imagine this scenario. You are at a party with a bunch of people in the fashion industry. Let's say it's an after-party at Milan fashion week. It's a mix, but most of the people there are either female or gay males. It's a pretty casual environment, there's loud music and drinking; but some people are having serious conversations because hey, they all work in the same industry. There are a couple of fairly buff shirtless dudes dancing on stage while singing "it's raining men." Everyone is generally enjoying themselves.

Now imagine some guy in the corner yelling "Fuck all this gay shit. Shit's fucking gross. I can't believe the sponsors are bringing this into a professional event."

That guy would be, rightly, considered a homophobic, buzz-killing douche.

I like how you subtly alter the reversal of the situation from the one that actually occurred, turning the offended into someone the audience can hate.

It's a nice use of loaded language, and I'm sure someone will be fooled by it.

wulf3n:

Snooder:

Ok, imagine this scenario. You are at a party with a bunch of people in the fashion industry. Let's say it's an after-party at Milan fashion week. It's a mix, but most of the people there are either female or gay males. It's a pretty casual environment, there's loud music and drinking; but some people are having serious conversations because hey, they all work in the same industry. There are a couple of fairly buff shirtless dudes dancing on stage while singing "it's raining men." Everyone is generally enjoying themselves.

Now imagine some guy in the corner yelling "Fuck all this gay shit. Shit's fucking gross. I can't believe the sponsors are bringing this into a professional event."

That guy would be, rightly, considered a homophobic, buzz-killing douche.

I like how you subtly alter the reversal of the situation from the one that actually occurred, turning the offended into someone the audience can hate.

That was rather the point.

A lot of the furor over this depends on your point of view. To some, the guy in the corner is an irritating annoyance turning what should be a fun time into an straight-laced and overly serious event based solely on his own selfishness and lack of tolerance for the ability of others to enjoy things that make him personally uncomfortable. Guess what, that is EXACTLY what "privileged straight males" think about people complaining over booth-babes or dancers or whatever other "pandering to the straight male" people are complaining about today.

Ultimately the issue boils down to "this thing is enjoyed by other people but makes me uncomfortable."

Snooder:

That was rather the point.

A lot of the furor over this depends on your point of view. To some, the guy in the corner is an irritating annoyance turning what should be a fun time into an straight-laced and overly serious event based solely on his own selfishness and lack of tolerance for the ability of others to enjoy things that make him personally uncomfortable. Guess what, that is EXACTLY what "privileged straight males" think about people complaining over booth-babes or dancers or whatever other "pandering to the straight male" people are complaining about today.

Ultimately the issue boils down to "this thing is enjoyed by other people but makes me uncomfortable."

It's facetious, and if you need to exaggerate a point to persuade others, you might not have as strong of a position as you initially thought.

You believe it's a case of someone trying to ruin others fun, but it's not like she went into a strip club and started brow beating, it was a games conference that hired dancers. What does that have to do with games?

The real issue is the exclusionary behaviour that is continually demonstrated by the games industry. Why do we need dancers at a games conference. Who is really "hurt" by their exclusion. Whether you understand the position or not, enough people found this in bad taste to the point of resignation.

wulf3n:

It's facetious, and if you need to exaggerate a point to persuade others, you might not have as strong of a position as you initially thought.

I'm not exaggerating anything. I'm providing a direct analogue to the situation while replacing the actors to better illustrate how your personal bias affects your view.

You believe it's a case of someone trying to ruin others fun, but it's not like she went into a strip club and started brow beating, it was a games conference that hired dancers. What does that have to do with games?

What does fashion have to do with shirtless dudes?

The real issue is the exclusionary behaviour that is continually demonstrated by the games industry.

This sort of statement is what I'm trying to get people to think more logically about. Hiring dancers for a party has nothing to do with 'excluding' anyone from anything. It's there to entertain the demographic that makes up the majority of the attendees. It's as offensive to describe that as "exclusionary" or "sexist" as it is to complain that shirtless guys at a party where most people like seeing shirtless guys is a personal affront to your straight male sensibilities. Other people like that stuff, and you just had the bad luck to be in the minority on this specific occasion.

Why do we need dancers at a games conference. Who is really "hurt" by their exclusion. Whether you understand the position or not, enough people found this in bad taste to the point of resignation.

The point is not whether we "need" dancers or not. Clearly we don't. We also don't need alcohol or live music or DJs or any other 'fun' things that go on at informal events. But what's the point of having an informal event if you can't actually be informal and have fun? The fact that someone else's version of "fun" doesn't jibe with your own does not make their version of fun any less valid or important.

wulf3n:

Strippers, dancers, over-zealous attendees, whatever. It doesn't make any difference, as it's still something that shouldn't be at a conference.

For me that largely depends on the nature of the conference in question, and the type of dancer that is being employed does make a considerable difference.

If matthew lane is right however, this wasn't actually at the conference at all.

Therefore to be relevent; what are your opinions regarding female stage dancers (or over-zealous attendees?) at raves in nightclubs like the one organised by the IGDA?

EDIT correction: the IGDA didn't organise the rave. They organised a party in a nightclub, the rave was organised by Wargaming.net. (added 8/4/2013)

Do you see a problem with the IGDA organising two different style of events for its members, or with the hiring of female stage dancers for its nightclub events, or game developers associating for night club events?

Or do you have a different concern?

Personally I see there might be some conflict of branding if you organise two very distinctly different kind of events. I can also understand why someone who worked for them might be concerned with the direction the IGDA is going if they were wanting it to be about professional events like conferences and debates, rather than general entertainment events like dancing nights.

Additionally, I despise raves. So such events would exclude me regardless of any additional factors.

knight steel:
MMMMMMMMMM that one sexy ass all right-You should do more strips like this Desu

episode plox

Snooder:

I'm not exaggerating anything. I'm providing a direct analogue to the situation while replacing the actors to better illustrate how your personal bias affects your view.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where Brenda Romero said "Fuck all this lesbian shit. Shit's fucking gross." in those exact words. Hah direct analogue, you crack me up.

Snooder:

What does fashion have to do with shirtless dudes?

Absolutely nothing, but yours is an entirely fabricated scenario. There's no evidence to show that actually occurred. Other industries are probably smart enough not to pull stunts like this.

Snooder:

This sort of statement is what I'm trying to get people to think more logically about. Hiring dancers for a party has nothing to do with 'excluding' anyone from anything.

If a part of your audience are offended by said behaviour, whether you intend it or not you're excluding them.

Snooder:

It's there to entertain the demographic that makes up the majority of the attendees.

Chicken or the Egg. Maybe they're only the majority because of the exclusionary behaviour.

Snooder:

It's as offensive to describe that as "exclusionary" or "sexist" as it is to complain that shirtless guys at a party where most people like seeing shirtless guys is a personal affront to your straight male sensibilities.

Spoken like someone who's always been a part of the majority. No ones saying these types of parties can't exist, just that their prevalence in GAMES CONVENTIONS is ridiculous and unnecessary. It detracts nothing of note if removed, yet discourages others when included.

Snooder:

Other people like that stuff, and you just had the bad luck to be in the minority on this specific occasion.

And you wonder where "privileged straight males" comes from.

Snooder:

The point is not whether we "need" dancers or not. Clearly we don't. We also don't need alcohol or live music or DJs or any other 'fun' things that go on at informal events. But what's the point of having an informal event if you can't actually be informal and have fun? The fact that someone else's version of "fun" doesn't jibe with your own does not make their version of fun any less valid or important.

There are plenty of places you can go for "informal events" if a group want to go to something like that they can. When you organise you're own event you need to think of the messages being sent to those that don't share your view of "fun". The fact that you don't understand [or don't care] is why the "privileged straight males" line gets thrown around.

xorinite:

For me that largely depends on the nature of the conference in question, and the type of dancer that is being employed does make a considerable difference.

If matthew lane is right however, this wasn't actually at the conference at all.

Therefore to be relevent; what are your opinions regarding female stage dancers (or over-zealous attendees?) at raves in nightclubs like the one organised by the IGDA?

Why did the IGDA need to organise a rave at a nightclub? is basically my opinion. I'm sure there are clubs in the general area, if attendees were so inclined, but specifically organising said event sends the message [intentional or not] you're the ones we care about.

xorinite:

Do you see a problem with the IGDA organising two different style of events for its members, or with the hiring of female stage dancers for its nightclub events, or game developers associating for night club events?

Or do you have a different concern?

Why are the IGDA organising raves?

xorinite:

Personally I see there might be some conflict of branding if you organise two very distinctly different kind of events. I can also understand why someone who worked for them might be concerned with the direction the IGDA is going if they were wanting it to be about professional events like conferences and debates, rather than general entertainment events like dancing nights.

Additionally, I despise raves. So such events would exclude me regardless of any additional factors.

scienceguy8:
Let's take a look at another industry with similar gender makeup. Most engineering disciplines are heavily male dominated, just like the video game industry. Last time I went to an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) sectional, not once did I see any female performers, entertainers, strippers, or hired eye-candy. If you are having a professional get-together, why do you need female performers? It doesn't matter if all their clothes stay on. The simple fact you hired women for an event just because they are women is crass.

I already agreed that the dancers were inappropriate, but I really think you should look up what "afterparty" means. Afterparties can get pretty ridiculous no matter how "professional" the original event was. The dancers didn't come during the actual seminars/talks/presentations, they came when all that was over, the music was turned up, the drinks were handed out and people started having fun.

Can people please look up the actual incident and stop taking this comic literally??

Susan Arendt:
Correct, they weren't strippers, and they were dressed in "yeti" costumes that were fairly demure (unlike the Wargaming party, where they were barely dressed). In the case of the IGDA party, it's still considered a professional event as many designers uses such GDC events to network, pursue job leads, etc.

I was wondering which side of the story was true.. since I heard multiple things about the girls themselves.

Thank you for clearing that up, plus I agree- whenever you're attending something like that, treat it like you're at a best friend's party and show respect. Besides, someone you may know like your boss can be there themselves and it'd be awkward if you were caught doing something you shouldn't be doing.

OT: I do not care how someone looks.. I would admire their character if they're being honest about their hobbies such as gaming.
Also I must say, Erin's expression at the end is priceless lol.

wulf3n:

Absolutely nothing, but yours is an entirely fabricated scenario. There's no evidence to show that actually occurred. Other industries are probably smart enough not to pull stunts like this.

Quick google fu brings this up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=zFFGbi4CCvg&NR=1
Please note that it is, yes, a party organized by a company in the fashion industry that heavily features half-naked men mingling.

wulf3n:

If a part of your audience are offended by said behaviour, whether you intend it or not you're excluding them.

Again, replace the principal actors in that statement and tell me it still makes sense. Is a party that offends a straight guy "exclusionary" just because he's uncomfortable around shirtless men? No. Ergo, a party that offends a straight female is not also "exclusionary" just because she's uncomfortable around women in skimpy dresses.

wulf3n:

Spoken like someone who's always been a part of the majority. No ones saying these types of parties can't exist, just that their prevalence in GAMES CONVENTIONS is ridiculous and unnecessary. It detracts nothing of note if removed, yet discourages others when included.

First of all, it would be wildly incorrect to assume that I've always been part of a majority.

Second, it would be a different conversation if people were arguing for the addition of different types of parties or saying that it's cool if we have these events, but we ought to have other events as well. But they aren't. There's no call of, "hey, we've put up with your bro-zone for a while now, how about having a ladies night or family friendly events one night out of the week." Instead the statements made and the complaints are "this makes me uncomfortable and I should never have to see it." Which, by definition, means that it should never exist in the same space that you also exist.

Let's say that we concede that the proper place for informal parties like this are away from the GDC after-party. Cool, we can have an after-after-party. Guess what happens next? Everyone shows up to the after-after-party and suddenly that becomes the place where deals are made, connections happen, and the journalists have to come. Then we have news stories about dancers at the after-after-party.

wulf3n:

And you wonder where "privileged straight males" comes from.

I don't wonder that at all. I simply think at some point people have to realize that they aren't always going to be the "face" of the particular group they happen to be included in. That the group as a whole tends to follow the tastes of the majority isn't "tyranny" or "privilege" it's just common sense.

There's nothing wrong with feeling dissatisfied as part of a minority. Or agitating for a little more focus on your personal needs. What's going on though isn't that. Or at least it's not being articulated that way.

wulf3n:

There are plenty of places you can go for "informal events" if a group want to go to something like that they can. When you organise you're own event you need to think of the messages being sent to those that don't share your view of "fun". The fact that you don't understand [or don't care] is why the "privileged straight males" line gets thrown around.

Yes, and one of those places is an after-party at a conference.

wulf3n:

Why did the IGDA need to organise a rave at a nightclub? is basically my opinion. I'm sure there are clubs in the general area, if attendees were so inclined, but specifically organising said event sends the message [intentional or not] you're the ones we care about.

wulf3n:

Why are the IGDA organising raves?

Well if your only concern why organise a rave; I would assume they arrange it for entertainment purposes. While I dislike raves, the last time I attended one the people there appeared to be enjoying themselves and might enjoy attending them with members of an association group if they belonged to one.

Is there some reason they shouldn't organise raves?

I don't see why a rave has less right to exist than a conference or any other kind of company outing. There are doubtlessly people who dislike conferences to the same degree I dislike raves.

I'd have a different opinion if they made the events mandatory (which they sometimes do for conferences)

SidheKnight:
Pole Dancers:

It was inapropiate, for the following reasons:

1) It was a supposedly professional conference, and this kind of things makes them seem less serious.
2) There were both men and women present, therefore catering to only one gender's preferences is discrimination.
3) So they had to either have both male and female dancers, or have none. Otherwise, it's sexism.

1. The events being described didn't actually happen at a conference at all, they happened in a night club at a rave held by people who were not the convention holders.
2. No poledancers were hired at all. The girls in question were hired for a completely unrelated service & just happen to get up and dance on stage.
3. They had none.

OlasDAlmighty:
You know full well that when he said strippers he meant exotic dancers, don't play dumb, the difference is a few pieces of string anyway. You're hiding behind a minor word technicality that has no bearing whatsoever on his actual argument, but if it's really so important to you.

Fine call the exotic dancers... There were no exotic dancers involved either. The people in question hired spole people, no different then the burcaddi girls or other attractive product spokes people you will see at pubs & clubs.

They just happened to get up on stage and dance at some point. So again, there were no strippers, no exotic dancers, burlesque dancers, exotic servcie management offficers or any other pretend synonym for strippers, involved at all.

OlasDAlmighty:
To every straight male defending the strippers:

Imagine you're a developer at a videogame convention. Suddenly, a bunch of exotic male dancers wearing only a tanga hop on your table and put their asses in front of your face, just like the girl is doing in this comic.

An again, i'll point out that this scenario you are trying to present did not happen.

OlasDAlmighty:
Now you can understand why there was a righteous outrage at this.

Yep, confirmation bias: Its coming from that part of you that really wants this made up scenario you've invented to be true, so you can rage at it... Because it will confirm what you already think you know. But in truth you are essentially getting angry at your own strawman.

wulf3n:
It's facetious, and if you need to exaggerate a point to persuade others, you might not have as strong of a position as you initially thought.

I would agree. People here screamed sexism because a geeky conference hired strippers, to be almost naked at a conference for the benefit of men.

What actually happened was a group of girls hired to work at a rave not held by the conference or its organisers, hired to work as spokes-people had the tenacity to dance on stage, while adequately clothed for a rave.

So yeah i agree: If you feel the need to exaggerate your point to the point of being unrecognisable, then chance are pretty good that you are talking rubbish.

Snooder:

Again, replace the principal actors in that statement and tell me it still makes sense. Is a party that offends a straight guy "exclusionary" just because he's uncomfortable around shirtless men? No. Ergo, a party that offends a straight female is not also "exclusionary" just because she's uncomfortable around women in skimpy dresses.

While you're not prohibiting people from attending, you're creating an environment that certain groups feel uncomfortable in ergo exclusionary.

Snooder:

Instead the statements made and the complaints are "this makes me uncomfortable and I should never have to see it." Which, by definition, means that it should never exist in the same space that you also exist.

Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Snooder:

Let's say that we concede that the proper place for informal parties like this are away from the GDC after-party. Cool, we can have an after-after-party. Guess what happens next? Everyone shows up to the after-after-party and suddenly that becomes the place where deals are made, connections happen, and the journalists have to come. Then we have news stories about dancers at the after-after-party.

How about this. Don't organise after-after-parties.

Snooder:

There's nothing wrong with feeling dissatisfied as part of a minority. Or agitating for a little more focus on your personal needs. What's going on though isn't that. Or at least it's not being articulated that way.

Really? despite what most might think, The issue isn't "Female developer/organise doesn't like seeing half naked woman", rather "Female developer/organiser doesn't like the idea of her "gender" being used solely for entertainment" at a supposed gathering of professionals.

Snooder:

Yes, and one of those places is an after-party at a conference.

That's arguable, which is why we're arguing it.

xorinite:

Well if your only concern why organise a rave; I would assume they arrange it for entertainment purposes. While I dislike raves, the last time I attended one the people there appeared to be enjoying themselves and might enjoy attending them with members of an association group if they belonged to one.

Is there some reason they shouldn't organise raves?

There's no need. If the attendees want entertainment they can go to a rave after. The conference should be about the conference.

xorinite:

I don't see why a rave has less right to exist than a conference or any other kind of company outing. There are doubtlessly people who dislike conferences to the same degree I dislike raves.

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

xorinite:

I'd have a different opinion if they made the events mandatory (which they sometimes do for conferences)

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

wulf3n:
Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Except it didn't happen at an industry event, it happened at a night club open to the public, held by people who were not the convention organisers.

Mate you are yelling at your own made up strawman. The events you are depicting in your scenario, the ones you are angry at never happened.

matthew_lane:

wulf3n:
Should it exist at an Industry event? after party or otherwise? The purpose of these is a gathering of Professionals, not let's get drunk, listen to loud music, and look at half naked woman. There are already places for that.

Except it didn't happen at an industry event, it happened at a night club open to the public, held by people who were not the convention organisers.

Really?

It was a party organised by YetiZen a company that organises game development workshops and co-presented by the IGDA

They didn't just go to some random party afterwards, they went to an after-party organised by the organisers of the conference.

Now you may say "Oh, but it was "wargaming" who organised the party, YetiZen had nothing to do with it", to which I reply standard marketing BS, if you put your name on something you better make sure its something you agree with

wulf3n:
It was a party organised by YetiZen a company that organises game development workshops and co-presented by the IGDA

They didn't just go to some random party afterwards, they went to an after-party organised by the organisers of the conference.

Yetizen were not co-producers. Yetizen were nothing more then content providers for the convention. To say that yetizen was a co-presenter is kind of like me saying i'm in charge of gencon because i ran a D&D module at one, that one time.

Yetizen sponsored an event at a local nioght club open to the public, it was not a con event. The party sponsored by the convention itself was the following night. People keep on conflating the two events. They are not the same event.

xorinite:

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

I don't think you really understand how these sorts of events come about. The whole after-party thing starts as a way for people to unwind and relax informally a bit outside the strictly professional environment of the conference itself.

The fact that deals are made and stuff happens isn't the reason for the after-party's existence, it's simply a side-effect of getting various people together in the same room. The reason those people are there in the first place is to have fun. It's pretty simple. Conference ends, some friends get together to hang out and talk shop a bit. The next year people hear about how awesome that party was and more people show up. Then the next year some marketing agency hears about all those people getting together and decides to promote their product in the same place. Then the next year another company decides to replicate the success of the first party and hosts their own event. Ten years down the line you end up with multiple companies "sponsoring" different parties and different events and it ends up being the place to be, where even more deals are made than at the primary event.

Saying "oh it's too big now, you're not here for fun anymore" defeats the whole purpose.

wulf3n:
Now you may say "Oh, but it was "wargaming" who organised the party, YetiZen had nothing to do with it", to which I reply standard marketing BS, if you put your name on something you better make sure its something you agree with

/facepalm. The lihnk you've posted actually proves my point. Actually go back & read what it says.

matthew_lane:

wulf3n:
It was a party organised by YetiZen a company that organises game development workshops and co-presented by the IGDA

They didn't just go to some random party afterwards, they went to an after-party organised by the organisers of the conference.

Yetizen were not co-producers. Yetizen were nothing more then content providers for the convention. To say that yetizen was a co-presenter is kind of like me saying i'm in charge of gencon because i ran a D&D module at one, that one time.

Yetizen sponsored an event at a local nioght club open to the public, it was not a con event. The party sponsored by the convention itself was the following night. People keep on conflating the two events. They are not the same event.

No IGDA were the co-sponsers. But I will concede that there were 2 parties, the Tuesday and the Wednesday. The one that gets the most flak [and is lumped in with YetiZen] was organised by wargaming [whoever that is]. However both included questionable actions.

The line "YetiZen did not hire dancers. We hired avid gamers, who happened to be models, to discuss gaming with the invited guests."

Why would you need to "hire" avid gamers, and why hire those that are also models.

matthew_lane:

wulf3n:
Now you may say "Oh, but it was "wargaming" who organised the party, YetiZen had nothing to do with it", to which I reply standard marketing BS, if you put your name on something you better make sure its something you agree with

/facepalm. The lihnk you've posted actually proves my point. Actually go back & read what it says.

did you read it all?

Snooder:

xorinite:

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

I don't think you really understand how these sorts of events come about. The whole after-party thing starts as a way for people to unwind and relax informally a bit outside the strictly professional environment of the conference itself.

The fact that deals are made and stuff happens isn't the reason for the after-party's existence, it's simply a side-effect of getting various people together in the same room. The reason those people are there in the first place is to have fun. It's pretty simple. Conference ends, some friends get together to hang out and talk shop a bit. The next year people hear about how awesome that party was and more people show up. Then the next year some marketing agency hears about all those people getting together and decides to promote their product in the same place. Then the next year another company decides to replicate the success of the first party and hosts their own event. Ten years down the line you end up with multiple companies "sponsoring" different parties and different events and it ends up being the place to be, where even more deals are made than at the primary event.

Saying "oh it's too big now, you're not here for fun anymore" defeats the whole purpose.

I'm not seeing anything that shows the after-parties are a good thing. I know why/how they exist, I'm merely questioning should they exist [more specifically should they be organised/sponsored by the conference itself]

wulf3n:
However both included questionable actions.

Define these questionable actions? I see a company that hired attractive spokes people, adequately dressed for a rave. I see a different company hire female idols, also adequately dressed. I see nothing at all questionable about either set of actions.

wulf3n:
Why would you need to "hire" avid gamers, and why hire those that are also models.

Because models are extroverts & spokes people need to be extroverts... Unfortunately there is no such thing as an extrovert store.

Theres an entire cottage industry around this mate. Models are used as sales spokes people for any amount of products mate. Again, this is in no way "questionable"

wulf3n:

There's no need. If the attendees want entertainment they can go to a rave after. The conference should be about the conference.

Which is what they did. There was an optional rave event arranged which they could attend after the conference if they wanted to, which some people took advantage of.

I mean you can say there is no 'need' for any form of after party, or entertainment based company outings. Various companies however find that company outings for entertainment events are something that is desirable.

wulf3n:

It doesn't have less right to exist. It's just not something that should be a part of the conference. You're not at the conference for "fun" you're there to confer with other developers.

That is a matter of preference and opinion.
I do not see any compelling rational why a company shouldn't arrange an outing for the entertainment of their staff if they so wish, nor why a conference cannot be fun, nor why associations/people/companies cannot arrange an optional after party for the purposes of entertainment.

If you make a conference which specifically excludes fun you will both have a smaller turn out for the conference as well as having a less successful conference. An event organiser who produces unsuccessful events will simply not be used in the future.

wulf3n:

While not "mandatory", like Snooder mentioned deals are made at these after parties, and not attending can be quite damaging for an individual/company [at least in other industries, I'm not sure about the Games industry].

This is true in all forms of optional group activities, the only way to prevent this is to not have any form of group activity, including conferences and all forms of after parties.
On somewhat of a tangent, how can anyone arrange any kind of deal at a rave, you can barely hear what anyone else is saying and only that if they shout in your ear.

wulf3n:
I'm not seeing anything that shows the after-parties are a good thing. I know why/how they exist, I'm merely questioning should they exist [more specifically should they be organised/sponsored by the conference itself]

Thats cool, there are any amount of things i don't think are good. Guy on guy gay porn, romantic comedies, any number of stupid american tv shows about hunting for bargins in other peoples trash, the jersey shore, the hills, the kardashians... None of these things have any value to me... Doesn't mean they cease to exist because i personally see no value in them.

The world doesn't adapt to suit your personal preferences Wulf3n

matthew_lane:

wulf3n:
However both included questionable actions.

Define these questionable actions? I see a company that hired attractive spokes people, adequately dressed for a rave. I see a different company hire female idols, also adequately dressed. I see nothing at all questionable about either set of actions.

wulf3n:
Why would you need to "hire" avid gamers, and why hire those that are also models.

Because models are extroverts & spokes people need to be extroverts... Unfortunately there is no such thing as an extrovert store.

Theres an entire cottage industry around this mate. Models are used as sales spokes people for any amount of products mate. Again, this is in no way "questionable"

Obviously people are going to see what they want. But if you can't see how hiring "avid gamers" in furry crop tops and/or mini skirts isn't exclusionary then nothing I say is going to change that.

matthew_lane:

Thats cool, there are any amount of things i don't think are good. Guy on guy gay porn, romantic comedies, any number of stupid american tv shows about hunting for bargins in other peoples trash, the jersey shore, the hills, the kardashians... None of these things have any value to me... Doesn't mean they cease to exist because i personally see no value in them.

The question is whether or not it has any place in a professional context.

matthew_lane:

The world doesn't adapt to suit your personal preferences Wulf3n

And that is why the world fails >:|

xorinite:
...stuff...

We're going round in circles. You'll find responses to your questions in my previous posts. :P

At convention changes to optional afterparty. Yeah nothing like some good fact twisting and obscuring to make it fit a agenda. We really need gender topics to be fused with politics and religion btw.

SidheKnight:

Pole Dancers:

It was inappropriate, for the following reasons:

1) It was a supposedly professional conference, and this kind of things makes them seem less serious.
2) There were both men and women present, therefore catering to only one gender's preferences is discrimination.
3) So they had to either have both male and female dancers, or have none. Otherwise, it's sexism.

Well written post.

Since you're offering your opinion, I'd like to pick your mind about this, since you seem able to talk about this maturely.
I'm wondering why you're calling it sexism. While it technically falls under the definition(hereunder behaviour/conditions that fosters stereotypical roles based on gender), what makes you define it as sexism?

Ignore the definition, you can attest sexism to anything with a bit of imagination, however this is not the point.
What makes you think sexism is a proper term for this situation?

It would be fair to assume that the responsible people did not do this with bad intent, right?
With that in mind, it would qualify as unintentionally sexist behaviour, a douche or inappropriate move, but not out of spite, malice or hatred for women.

Would you still consider it sexist at this point, or rather do you still think sexism is the correct term?

Moving on: The assumption that there has to be equal shares of male and female dancers(or according to attendance) doesn't strike me as right. For one, you're assuming that people can't enjoy the performance of the same gender without being homosexual.
I'll grant you that it's a performance of a sexual nature(if isolated to the act itself), but this is in relation to "spicing up" a party, getting things going, having something to watch while you enjoy the event, while you're doing other things yourself(dancing, drinking, talking, socializing in general).

Do you agree?

Last note:
If there were male dancers as well, don't you think it would be going out of peoples way to be politically correct and just cause an awkward situation?
Being realistic; As things are now, women are far more used to and comfortable seeing adoration and the worshipping of women, than men are used to other men in the same situation.
Not saying it's right, I'm just explaining the current situation, sociologically.

Other than making a statement, wouldn't it just be pandering the socially sensitive individuals who might take offense at the situation?

The point I'm trying to make here, is that it's not a cut case of black and white and people seem to overreact, so I was surprised that you, who seems like a well thought out person judging from your post, decided to just stamp it as sexism.
I still want answers to the questions I wrote, but I'm sort of hoping that you might change your mind about it.

wulf3n:
Obviously people are going to see what they want. But if you can't see how hiring "avid gamers" in furry crop tops and/or mini skirts isn't exclusionary then nothing I say is going to change that.

Theres actually nothing exclusionary about it. A group of people got paid to be spokes people. These people happened to be female & attractive. How is that exclusionary? I mean thats like calling a car dealer sexist & exclusionary because they only had male sales people & that you feel excluded from purchasing a car because of it.

wulf3n:
The question is whether or not it has any place in a professional context.

Mate its a rave, the only way it has any professional context is if you are a party organiser looking to throw a rave. The rave exists specifically not to be professional. Its meant to be fun; you remember fun right? Its that time when people let there hair down & just relax.

wulf3n:
And that is why the world fails >:|

Oh wow, you officially lose the right to ever say anyone else has privilege.

matthew_lane:

Theres actually nothing exclusionary about it. A group of people got paid to be spokes people. These people happened to be female & attractive. How is that exclusionary? I mean thats like calling a car dealer sexist & exclusionary because they only had male sales people & that you feel excluded from purchasing a car because of it.

Who do you think these people were hired to spoke to? I can't tell if you're intentionally seeing only surface elements, or if you really can't see why people find this type of thing offensive.

wulf3n:
Mate its a rave, the only way it has any professional context is if you are a party organiser looking to throw a rave. The rave exists specifically not to be professional.

When it has the sponsorship of the Industry it is now a Professional event.

matthew_lane:

Its meant to be fun; you remember fun right? Its that time when people let there hair down & just relax.

Yeah, to a select group of people. Sucks to be you if you're not who they're targeting.

matthew_lane:

Oh wow, you officially lose the right to ever say anyone else has privilege.

Oh wow, you officially can't recognize sarcasm.

Really people. You're that desperate for a little eye candy?

This is an Industry sponsored event that's supposed to be "fun" for everyone, stop being selfish and give up the pandering BS so that others can have fun as well.

wulf3n:
Who do you think these people were hired to spoke to? I can't tell if you're intentionally seeing only surface elements, or if you really can't see why people find this type of thing offensive.

They would have spolen to anyone willing to listen.

wulf3n:
When it has the sponsorship of the Industry it is now a Professional event.

It wasn't sponsored by an industry, it was sponsored by "A" company: I hate to tell you this, but all raves are sponsored by a company (usually its sponsored by the clubs management, but sometimes its sponsored by a particular company).

wulf3n:
Yeah, to a select group of people. Sucks to be you if you're not who they're targeting.

The group that was being targetted is people who like terrible dubstep music & seizure inducing flashing lights. This is the main draw of a rave.

wulf3n:
Oh wow, you officially can't recognize sarcasm.

You know what they say; "beware those truths said in jest."

wulf3n:
Really people. You're that desperate for a little eye candy?

Dude, no one gives a shit about them being eye candy. Personally i find it to be pandering & silly. But you know what, when people come along screaming sexism about something thats not sexism & making hyperbolic bullshit statements where they have to lie by ommission to try to make a point, that pissess me off even more. When you take those lies of ommission & then try to smear an entire industry, so you can feel better about the arse backwards generalisations you already hold, as you try to justify them against demonstrable fact, that torques me up from generally pissed off, to down right ornery.

Your views are demonstrably wrong: Which is why you continue to feel the need to misrepresent demonstrable fact.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here