Why is LBGT/women in gaming so special?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Fischgopf:
They aren't special and people that say otherwise are full of it. Does that clear it up for you?

We're special cause you make us special by trying to treat us as not special ;)

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:

Some cultures celebrate differences as great and not a bad thing, and ALSO see different as equal. For example. Your favorite pie is cherry, mine is apple. If we both have apiece of apple pie it is not equal because i would receive my favorite piece of pie and you did not. No to be equal, you can have a piece of cherry pie and I have a piece of apple pie and we are both having our favorite piece of pie. Simply because something is different does not make one better or worse. However, expecting for one to settle and the other to not settle, then that is not equality.

Part of the problem is the existing society does not have room to create equality, as the equality has to be designed and integrated into the society the whole way up. It starts with the priorities the society places on different things.

For example, in a maternal culture, the warrior is not promoted, the teacher is. The most important person in society is the teacher because they are building the most important part of the future, the children. Then after the teacher is the doctor then the gardener. These have high social status and popularity. The warrior is worse than being a sanitation worker, it is the job that is necessary but no one wants to do, and is only done as a last resort. There is no " hero worship", and soldiers dislike and regret what they do. You cannot expect a society constructed against another to be equal for both parties. They have to reconstruct society from the ground up including parts of both to actually make it equal, and different. That way both people have their favorite piece of pie.

IDK ... I was both an enlistee at 16 and a teacher later on. I kind of incorporated elements of both. Some skills and qualities directly transferable. Leadership, strength of will, discipline. I don't think it's as simple as breaking it down into a Mill's-esque critique of pigs in mud situation. I think the highly centralized nature of education is to secondary school's detriment. I think it should have a wider community based model that emphasises solidarity and active reality testing to the nature of work and the social conscious, but also improve student goal orientation.

The biggest critique of education in the West is 13 years of what? The idea that a student is required them to still study 7 years' full time medicine courses to become a doctor with an MBBS ... not even including their student-doctor duties. Students should leaveschool with an idea of what they want to do, and if teacherscan't help them figure that out ... parents sure the fuck won't. Seriously, parents are kind of crap. But .... ehhh ... another topic.

Equality canbe achieved whether as a soldier or a teacher, I mean when Ifirst enlisted there were ashitload of LGBTQ people, either in the closet or otherwise, in the military. It was kind of a surprise but in the end it really wasn't ... the military was stable employment ... There was a reason why pre-Trump there was abig push toallow trans people to openly serve in the military, because something like 2 or3 times as many trans people actively serve than you'll find in common society by capita. And the fact that Republicans, who pretend to lovew soldiers, pretend to love those that serve their country, were trying to hurt their careers even then.

Fucking disgraceful.

I mean the U.S. is a prime example of how splitting societies into archetypal formations like 'paternal' or 'maternal' is kind of a broken metric. Because the U.S. treats its soldier like garbage and it treats the people willingto serve like garbage.

That is another issue as well, EVEN the education system would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, it along with most other systems were designed lopsided. And not just lopsided in the case of education, they are rather self defeating. The focus is supposed to be on the child's education, but much of the time their educational system works against what is best for their education and instead actually interferes with it.

The reason I break it down into maternal and paternal, is as you know coming from a maternal culture myself, these are the things that glaringly stand out. When they talk about trying to make things equal, they are not actually doing that at all when they are trying to fit someone into an existing society that was not designed with them in mind. Rather than doing that they need to be apart of the design during the entire process. Yes, they are archaic, but they are ALSO part of the initial " order" used to create the society itself and interwoven into everything that exists in that society today to a degree that they cannot just be picked apart easily, you pretty much have to redesign everything from the beginning one issue at a time to change how it functions all together. I am not saying they should function as separate systems, instead they should be integrated together to compliment one another. Priority should not be given to one over another, but to each equally. Personally, I think the current social order is a mess. Why would sports teams or athletes be paid more or have higher social status or importance to society over teachers, scientists, doctors or builders? The social order does not even make sense as they are more willing to forgo the necessities for them to even exist for mere entertainment!

Saelune:

Fischgopf:
They aren't special and people that say otherwise are full of it. Does that clear it up for you?

We're special cause you make us special by trying to treat us as not special ;)

Nope

Fischgopf:

Saelune:

Fischgopf:
They aren't special and people that say otherwise are full of it. Does that clear it up for you?

We're special cause you make us special by trying to treat us as not special ;)

Nope

Lots of people treat us different from everyone else. We didnt start treating us as "special". We just turned it around on people.

Saelune:

Fischgopf:

Saelune:
We're special cause you make us special by trying to treat us as not special ;)

Nope

Lots of people treat us different from everyone else. We didnt start treating us as "special". We just turned it around on people.

I repeat, nope.

You can go share your "special" thoughts with the nearest wall, I'm not entertaining you today.

Fischgopf:

Saelune:

Fischgopf:

Nope

Lots of people treat us different from everyone else. We didnt start treating us as "special". We just turned it around on people.

I repeat, nope.

You can go share your "special" thoughts with the nearest wall, I'm not entertaining you today.

Ok, you can nope all you want. It doesnt change the fact that the people so bothered by treating LGBT people as "special" are the actual cause of why it happened.

If you want to put a stop to it, then work to stop anti-LGBT views. Otherwise, thanks for making me feel oh so special ;)

Lil devils x:

That is another issue as well, EVEN the education system would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, it along with most other systems were designed lopsided. And not just lopsided in the case of education, they are rather self defeating. The focus is supposed to be on the child's education, but much of the time their educational system works against what is best for their education and instead actually interferes with it.

The reason I break it down into maternal and paternal, is as you know coming from a maternal culture myself, these are the things that glaringly stand out. When they talk about trying to make things equal, they are not actually doing that at all when they are trying to fit someone into an existing society that was not designed with them in mind. Rather than doing that they need to be apart of the design during the entire process. Yes, they are archaic, but they are ALSO part of the initial " order" used to create the society itself and interwoven into everything that exists in that society today to a degree that they cannot just be picked apart easily, you pretty much have to redesign everything from the beginning one issue at a time to change how it functions all together. I am not saying they should function as separate systems, instead they should be integrated together to compliment one another. Priority should not be given to one over another, but to each equally. Personally, I think the current social order is a mess. Why would sports teams or athletes be paid more or have higher social status or importance to society over teachers, scientists, doctors or builders? The social order does not even make sense as they are more willing to forgo the necessities for them to even exist for mere entertainment!

I think the key problem is the lack of adventure. I've always been an ardent believer the real world is a fantastic teacher. I've seen coups, wars, riots and tenuous moments of peace. Ancient jungles and crossed 20 mi. of knee length mud and neck high murky water, that was a desert plain only two weeks prior prior, trying to outpace the inevitable migration of crocodiles and climbing unyielding stone even after running out of most basic provisions a day prior. I think we need to inject the world back into education. 13 years of sanitizing education ... another 3, 5, 7 years, or more to get one, two or three degrees, with even more sanitized information ... and then we pretend people are prepared for the world.

Our education system doesn't do the world justice. The world is an amazing place and the no. 1 obstacle you'll face.

I am convinced that people would take environmental issues seriously if they personally see them. That people will take humanitarian issues seriously if they personally experience them. And that might sound harsh, but it's core to everything. Including concepts of privilege. I am clinically bored by the stereotypical well-to-do person, or some rich kid who grew up in a rich home and never had to make do with rice and bugs to survive a week. The scale and enormity of the problems facing the human condition can be summed up as simply; "People don't care, because people with the power to change it don't see it."

All humans require a prerequisite amount of suffering to make them real. Make them whole. Humans ae ostensibly children requiring a burnt hand to teach them not to touch the stove. Due to economic reasons alone, maybe society needs to bring the burning stove to them.

For people studying history or sociology, bring them into the field and show them what they'll be trying to discuss. Show them the interplay of historiography and the human condition. Not simply for themselves, but for the historians that will be using their materials to write in the future whenthe guns and cries are now silent. And that should be rewarded by academic institutions. Doing that sort of thing should be accredited as worthy of academic credit if they write about it, critique theory and opinion while they do it.

Not applicable for all studies, but quite a lot of them if you stop and think about it.

At the very least they'll be more interesting people. I think this also solves the idea of the disproportionate funding on mere entertanment assets. Australia spends ridiculous amounts of money to fund professional athletics ... back in the 50s, and the passing shadow of War, 'professional' athletes were still butchers, still teachers, still doctors, etc. While I think it's nonsense whenpeople say 'hardship builds character', and see it as little more than a thinly veiled excuse why others have to suffer intheir stead so they can justify their exploitation of other people ... I think there is a merit in accepting personal endangerment to find truth and the pursuit of knowledge.

You get people to realize more engagement, maybe less 'fun' but more core engagement with the wider world ... suddenly what merit does watching idiotic people kick a ball up and down a field for millions of dollars? You have seen natural horror, beauty and active engagement with reality. Not sat down to mindlessly observe an arbitrary game of arbitrary values calculated to arbitrary measurements.

And this isn't some mindless hypothetical, either. We know for a fact sedentary lifestyles are problematic in termsof the very ways we think. Our personal will to power. Even in cases of personal judgment and reality testing. There is trauma involved whenever idiots sit down to mindlessly be absorbed in whatever raving mad pundits scream at them through the screen, or being crippled into tribalistic garbage like what sportsball team you represent. That physical engagement with reality, through personal fortitude and strength of character, lies the means to being able to interrogate existence better. Eventually you become that "adrenaline junkie" (idiotic term) who decides to climb that mountain, or see that dangerous frontier ... and you may well die ... but I think people die little each time they actually watch a football game to completion rather than going outside to play.

Playing outside, it's not just for children. Certainly you'll get hurt, but being human is painful and you'll have a story to tell ... or at least a story if you die. Better than 95% of the people I know who you can sum up their existence as work and family life. The type of people that you lean back in the chair and and ask if they did anything interesting recently and they'll struggle to come up with something more than a blurb about the last holiday overseas where they simply didn't work and took whatever commercial bullshit interpretation of 'fun' with the kids. All while annoying you by trying to show you pictures of some generic pretty beach somewhere they visited.

No one wants to become that person, yet 95% of people do. Why? It's the same garbage message of 'safe', 'secure', 'sanitized' bullshit they've been brought up in all their lives. From ages 5 to 18, then again from 18/19 to 22+.

Our education system, and society in general, breaks people's spirits.

A good education system (and society) would tell a person, for their own good, that they see to it they do not divorce themselves from the realities of the world. You might even compel people to make the world a better place by realising it's not a cubicle or sterile office, or that everybody shouldn't be as secretly miserable as you are as you approach middle age, and pretend that by dint of your pathetic mundanity and misery is somehow moral, or rational, or righteous to the youth.

Kids should go out there, take drugs, see a coup unfold if they can, climb some exotic mountain range, hurtle through all-too-dense jungle on a trailbike going all a bit too fast, forget to pack enough quinine for the inevitable malaria. And it's just as terrible as people can imagine ... but it's also them not becoming the boring people everybody else wants them to be to justify how they're so fucking boring themselves.

Might I add, I'm not familiar with native American traditions (beyond what I studied in concert with early modern European history), but there are some tandems in aboriginal Australian cultures concerning education. Aboriginal Australian animism, in my opinion has the right idea. Adventure, physical movement, physical interaction with the land, the sea, the sky, to build personal character. Through interaction with the world you find the footprints of creation and deities. It's encouraged for youths to participate in a physical journey of their own steam as they approach adulthood. Meeting other groups of people, sharing ideas and stories, and travelling.

Community based education through a child's personal endeavours. It was so successful that within a few years you could have youth traverse huge swaths of the Australian landscape with precision, and just through conversation, recounting the old nation stories, and laws, and reciting the dreaming tracks. Where to find water, how to survive, what actions need to be followed, in a widely variant number of biomes. An education system that taught kids in a very small number of years how to make friendly contact with their neighbours, how to cultivate their resources, and self-sufficiency and the meanng and value of community service. It bridles an idea of personal worth, personalstrength, but also a respect for community action, a respect for truthful conveyance, the weight of agency, and so on.

By having them go out into the world, they come back enriched, capable and grateful for the society they left behind.

It was the world's first cartography system, law codex, and religion in one and it was a system that was in play well before the start of the Holocene right up until European colonization and conquest.

As for Republicans ... ehhh ... honestly, it's not so bad elsewhere but U.S. Republicans are the kind of people I feel entirely able to point at and explain why I think we need to end the career political class. And Democrats are no better, they're just less publicly worse. The way they treat people is unconscionable. And it stings, you know? I can empathize, and the idea that if Australian politicians were only marginally worse they be like those Republicans who not only would justify my youth homelessness, butthen spit in my eye for serving the country as well?

Just to hurt me?

I won't openly advocate what I'll next say, I'll merely state that these people do not deserve your oath and leave it at that.

inu-kun:

shrekfan246:
Why are straight white men so special that they always need to have the majority of everything?

At least for the non-gender part, because they are the majority in countries that make games. Do you criticize China and India for not having enough white people in their culture? (I'm joking, that would be a racist act)

As someone who watches Indian movies, yes I do criticise them for the casual racism and sexism that is in them. It has nothing to do with this conversation though, because the complaint is clearly made by a Westerner complaining about the Western games that are made in the West. "Well other countries are racist too!" isn't a valid argument.

Saelune:
@Metalix_Knightmare: And so we reach the catch 22 of it all. "Women dont do it, so they shouldnt do it, cause they cant do it cause they wont do it".

Yet we reach a outrage because there aren't enough women in "XYZ"-job, but nobody ever raises their hand to say, "Maybe women don't work in this field because it doesn't appeal to most of them."

Video games are a passion. Learning to program, code, animate, even write, are all creative passions. Maybe people just need to admit that currently there aren't a lot of women willing to go to school for computer programming, or game design, or animation, or any of that shit. And the women that do learn these skills, choose to take them else where like film, television, or simply novel writing.

It's one of those things where how can you look at a job and definitively say, "Not enough women work in this field."

I know it is a sore topic, but men and women are different. We have different interests, different desires, and so on. Some of those things are society influenced, but they are still there. Some people break the trend and go off doing something different than what is expected of them, but those are the very few outliers and they shouldn't be used as some kind of measuring stick.

Saelune:

Fischgopf:

Saelune:
We're special cause you make us special by trying to treat us as not special ;)

Nope

Lots of people treat us different from everyone else. We didnt start treating us as "special". We just turned it around on people.

Not for nothing, but when LBGT community starts demanding special treatment they call themselves out as special. Whether this is special rights, special rules, special bathrooms, whatever it may be. That puts a huge target on your back, as it would anyone's back.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.....sometimes.

The hardest thing in the world is being different from everyone else. Eventually things will mostly come around. You will not and can not win everyone over.

CritialGaming:
Yet we reach a outrage because there aren't enough women in "XYZ"-job, but nobody ever raises their hand to say, "Maybe women don't work in this field because it doesn't appeal to most of them."

You mean aside from you and all the other dudes on the internet who seem get antsy anytime a demographic other than your own is talked about?

Video games are a passion. Learning to program, code, animate, even write, are all creative passions. Maybe people just need to admit that currently there aren't a lot of women willing to go to school for computer programming, or game design, or animation, or any of that shit. And the women that do learn these skills, choose to take them else where like film, television, or simply novel writing.

Got any proof to back up that assertion? Are we allowed to ask "Why?" in response to your assertion, or am I just supposed to take it as a given fact? Is it okay if I point out that this appears to be nothing more than an effort to stymie discussion? Would it be too SJW-y to suggest that it may have something to do with culture on the micro and macro levels of the industries in question and the society they function within?

I know it is a sore topic, but men and women are different. We have different interests, different desires, and so on. Some of those things are society influenced, but they are still there. Some people break the trend and go off doing something different than what is expected of them, but those are the very few outliers and they shouldn't be used as some kind of measuring stick.

And why exactly is your opinion on women an authoritative one? Why should I take this pseudo-determinist explanation as the truth?

CritialGaming:
Not for nothing, but when LBGT community starts demanding special treatment they call themselves out as special. Whether this is special rights, special rules, special bathrooms, whatever it may be. That puts a huge target on your back, as it would anyone's back.

I was not aware that my LGBTQ friends wanting the same rights and access to society that you and I already enjoy and often take for granted is "special treatment." Care to explain that one?

CritialGaming:

Saelune:
@Metalix_Knightmare: And so we reach the catch 22 of it all. "Women dont do it, so they shouldnt do it, cause they cant do it cause they wont do it".

Yet we reach a outrage because there aren't enough women in "XYZ"-job, but nobody ever raises their hand to say, "Maybe women don't work in this field because it doesn't appeal to most of them."

Video games are a passion. Learning to program, code, animate, even write, are all creative passions. Maybe people just need to admit that currently there aren't a lot of women willing to go to school for computer programming, or game design, or animation, or any of that shit. And the women that do learn these skills, choose to take them else where like film, television, or simply novel writing.

It's one of those things where how can you look at a job and definitively say, "Not enough women work in this field."

I know it is a sore topic, but men and women are different. We have different interests, different desires, and so on. Some of those things are society influenced, but they are still there. Some people break the trend and go off doing something different than what is expected of them, but those are the very few outliers and they shouldn't be used as some kind of measuring stick.

Who cares? If even one woman wants to do those jobs, thats enough. Dont stop her if she is capable. If you do, you're sexist. Its not complicated.

CritialGaming:

Saelune:

Fischgopf:

Nope

Lots of people treat us different from everyone else. We didnt start treating us as "special". We just turned it around on people.

Not for nothing, but when LBGT community starts demanding special treatment they call themselves out as special. Whether this is special rights, special rules, special bathrooms, whatever it may be. That puts a huge target on your back, as it would anyone's back.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.....sometimes.

The hardest thing in the world is being different from everyone else. Eventually things will mostly come around. You will not and can not win everyone over.

The target was put on our backs. People for a long time treated LGBT people differently, go figure we start feeling "special". If you dont like it, stop being anti-LGBT. Once people stop being anti-LGBT and treating us different than the majority of people, then that "specialness" you detest will go away.

In alot of old cultures homosexuality WASNT treated as different, and lo and behold, it was not treated as special then.

Saelune:
Who cares? If even one woman wants to do those jobs, thats enough. Dont stop her if she is capable. If you do, you're sexist. Its not complicated.

I'm not saying stop anyone from working any job that they want, assuming they are qualified to do that job. What I am saying is stop acting like there is a minimum quota that has to be met for a given job. By saying "This is a sexist workplace unless there are X women working here" is just foolish, because there simply might not be enough women APPLYING for said job to meet this random standard.

Saelune:
The target was put on our backs. People for a long time treated LGBT people differently, go figure we start feeling "special". If you dont like it, stop being anti-LGBT. Once people stop being anti-LGBT and treating us different than the majority of people, then that "specialness" you detest will go away.

You saying that the demand for special bathrooms is the direct result of Cis-people treating Transgender folk "special"? You might be right, but it seems a little Catch-22 to me. Acting special because you are treated special, while insisting you would stop acting special if people didn't treat you special? I mean there is a logic to that, but at the same time I don't feel like that is a good reasoning.

Someone on either side of this issue needs to step up and make a change. Because otherwise you just have two sides that bump heads.

CritialGaming:

Saelune:
Who cares? If even one woman wants to do those jobs, thats enough. Dont stop her if she is capable. If you do, you're sexist. Its not complicated.

I'm not saying stop anyone from working any job that they want, assuming they are qualified to do that job. What I am saying is stop acting like there is a minimum quota that has to be met for a given job. By saying "This is a sexist workplace unless there are X women working here" is just foolish, because there simply might not be enough women APPLYING for said job to meet this random standard.

Saelune:
The target was put on our backs. People for a long time treated LGBT people differently, go figure we start feeling "special". If you dont like it, stop being anti-LGBT. Once people stop being anti-LGBT and treating us different than the majority of people, then that "specialness" you detest will go away.

You saying that the demand for special bathrooms is the direct result of Cis-people treating Transgender folk "special"? You might be right, but it seems a little Catch-22 to me. Acting special because you are treated special, while insisting you would stop acting special if people didn't treat you special? I mean there is a logic to that, but at the same time I don't feel like that is a good reasoning.

Someone on either side of this issue needs to step up and make a change. Because otherwise you just have two sides that bump heads.

I never said there has to be a minimum quota. Im saying that when a woman wants to do something and is capable, dont stop her just cause she is a woman.

Special bathrooms? SPECIAL BATHROOMS? We just want to use the same bathrooms as everyone else, we just dont want security guards to bust in and drag us out of them.

The government is run by straight people. We cant make the change.

CritialGaming:

Saelune:
@Metalix_Knightmare: And so we reach the catch 22 of it all. "Women dont do it, so they shouldnt do it, cause they cant do it cause they wont do it".

Yet we reach a outrage because there aren't enough women in "XYZ"-job, but nobody ever raises their hand to say, "Maybe women don't work in this field because it doesn't appeal to most of them."

Video games are a passion. Learning to program, code, animate, even write, are all creative passions. Maybe people just need to admit that currently there aren't a lot of women willing to go to school for computer programming, or game design, or animation, or any of that shit. And the women that do learn these skills, choose to take them else where like film, television, or simply novel writing.

It's one of those things where how can you look at a job and definitively say, "Not enough women work in this field."

I know it is a sore topic, but men and women are different. We have different interests, different desires, and so on. Some of those things are society influenced, but they are still there. Some people break the trend and go off doing something different than what is expected of them, but those are the very few outliers and they shouldn't be used as some kind of measuring stick.

Were you being truthful when you said that you "wanted to understand"?

Because your most recent posts show a complete lack of "understanding." Women face challenges whether or not they want to work in video games, film or television, or even simply novel writing.

Novels. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/06/catherine-nichols-female-author-male-pseudonym

Film. http://shitpeoplesaytowomendirectors.tumblr.com/

Television. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/27/sexism-film-industry-stories

Women want to work in video games. Women want to work in film. Women want to work in television. Women want to write novels. But they face obstacles that (white) men do not have to face. It is well documented. The statistics are compelling. The anecdotes are overwhelming. The fact that only 4 women have been nominated for academy directors award out of 400 nominees is not because of a lack of desire of women to direct.

You don't understand the issues at all. You have no desire to understand the issues. You have no interest in listening. You are simply witnessing. A preacher, preaching to your flock.

CritialGaming:

Saelune:
Who cares? If even one woman wants to do those jobs, thats enough. Dont stop her if she is capable. If you do, you're sexist. Its not complicated.

I'm not saying stop anyone from working any job that they want, assuming they are qualified to do that job. What I am saying is stop acting like there is a minimum quota that has to be met for a given job. By saying "This is a sexist workplace unless there are X women working here" is just foolish, because there simply might not be enough women APPLYING for said job to meet this random standard.
Someone on either side of this issue needs to step up and make a change. Because otherwise you just have two sides that bump heads.

When the primary reason women and minorities are listing as the reason they are leaving tech is due to their "treatment" and " hostile work environment" not the job itself, that they are obviously qualified for since they were hired and that is what they received their education in, you have to take a look at that and understand that maybe there is an issue that needs to be addressed that is driving so many out? This isn't being something that is assumed, THIS is what they are actually telling us as the reason they left. People simply do not want to work in a toxic environment, it simply isn't worth it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/27/toxic-workplaces-technology-women-minorities-retention/100977038/
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/28/525992223/survery-says-workers-are-leaving-tech-jobs-because-of-mistreatment
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-story.html

Lil devils x:

CritialGaming:

Saelune:
Who cares? If even one woman wants to do those jobs, thats enough. Dont stop her if she is capable. If you do, you're sexist. Its not complicated.

I'm not saying stop anyone from working any job that they want, assuming they are qualified to do that job. What I am saying is stop acting like there is a minimum quota that has to be met for a given job. By saying "This is a sexist workplace unless there are X women working here" is just foolish, because there simply might not be enough women APPLYING for said job to meet this random standard.
Someone on either side of this issue needs to step up and make a change. Because otherwise you just have two sides that bump heads.

When the primary reason women and minorities are listing as the reason they are leaving tech is due to their "treatment" and " hostile work environment" not the job itself, that they are obviously qualified for since they were hired and that is what they received their education in, you have to take a look at that and understand that maybe there is an issue that needs to be addressed that is driving so many out? This isn't being something that is assumed, THIS is what they are actually telling us as the reason they left. People simply do not want to work in a toxic environment, it simply isn't worth it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/27/toxic-workplaces-technology-women-minorities-retention/100977038/
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/28/525992223/survery-says-workers-are-leaving-tech-jobs-because-of-mistreatment
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-story.html

Holy shit actual evidence and examples of what is happening!? This is great! I mean....it's not great, but it shines a light on what I don't understand, which is always a good thing.

Hostile work places I can understand. Nobody wants to work in that kind of situation.

The question is now....is this a universal problem, or is this an example taken from shitty workplaces and highlighted? Because I don't believe game companies are universally this shit to women.

I know several women who work for Blizzard and they love it there. So it is a matter of finding the right company, which I know is easier said than done when you absolutely need a job. And no business has a "shitty workplace" sign on the door as you enter so it can be impossible to know when applying.

So here's the question? How do you fix it? While I would suggest that people just get jobs at more respectable companies, there are those that would suggest this is an issue women deal with no matter where they go and what they do, and to that respect how do you fix what appears to be a plague?

starbear:

Were you being truthful when you said that you "wanted to understand"?

Because your most recent posts show a complete lack of "understanding." Women face challenges whether or not they want to work in video games, film or television, or even simply novel writing.

Novels. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/06/catherine-nichols-female-author-male-pseudonym

Film. http://shitpeoplesaytowomendirectors.tumblr.com/

Television. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/27/sexism-film-industry-stories

Women want to work in video games. Women want to work in film. Women want to work in television. Women want to write novels. But they face obstacles that (white) men do not have to face. It is well documented. The statistics are compelling. The anecdotes are overwhelming. The fact that only 4 women have been nominated for academy directors award out of 400 nominees is not because of a lack of desire of women to direct.

You don't understand the issues at all. You have no desire to understand the issues. You have no interest in listening. You are simply witnessing. A preacher, preaching to your flock.

Can I be honest with you?

Those articles really just seem like these creators couldn't handle trolling. Or perhaps their work wasn't as good as they think it was. Like that Catherine one. That just seems like excuse making for what might have just been a shitty book. NOW I DONT KNOW! So I could be wrong, but quite frankly if you are going to be a content creator in any walk of life (youtube, novels, acting, directing, etc) you need to have a fairly decent skin, because people on the internet can be fucking dicks.

Totalbiscuit aka John Bain, is a youtuber that talked about having to see a fucking shrink because of the comments people put on his videos.

Boogie2988 is a fat man who deals with harsh, hateful shit in his comment section.

Stephanie Meyer was called one of the worst writers in the fucking world for her Twilight series.

These comments are just part of it. And you can argue that it shouldn't be the case and people shouldn't have to deal with these things, and you would be right, but I really don't see that trolling shittiness going away anytime soon. Especially as long as people can hide behind a keyboard.

Yet to me, that article about Catherine is really a victim-playing article trying to draw attention to a novel that probably just wasn't very good. So the author instead made up other reasons as to why publishers didn't like the book instead of looking at the feedback that says people just hated the main character in the book. It looks like she was reading things into the feedback and negative comments of the book, just because. NOW, I DONT KNOW! But that's what the article read like to me.

It's hard to say that she was rejected because she was a women when there are fucking SHITLOADS of female authors all over every single bookstore. Doesn't matter what section you go to, sci-fi, romance, fiction, non-fiction, humor, history, whatever. There are female authors everywhere. So I have a hard time believing that Catherine's book was rejected because she was a woman, there is too much evidence to support that her sex has nothing to do with it.

CritialGaming:

Lil devils x:

CritialGaming:

I'm not saying stop anyone from working any job that they want, assuming they are qualified to do that job. What I am saying is stop acting like there is a minimum quota that has to be met for a given job. By saying "This is a sexist workplace unless there are X women working here" is just foolish, because there simply might not be enough women APPLYING for said job to meet this random standard.
Someone on either side of this issue needs to step up and make a change. Because otherwise you just have two sides that bump heads.

When the primary reason women and minorities are listing as the reason they are leaving tech is due to their "treatment" and " hostile work environment" not the job itself, that they are obviously qualified for since they were hired and that is what they received their education in, you have to take a look at that and understand that maybe there is an issue that needs to be addressed that is driving so many out? This isn't being something that is assumed, THIS is what they are actually telling us as the reason they left. People simply do not want to work in a toxic environment, it simply isn't worth it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/27/toxic-workplaces-technology-women-minorities-retention/100977038/
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/28/525992223/survery-says-workers-are-leaving-tech-jobs-because-of-mistreatment
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-story.html

Holy shit actual evidence and examples of what is happening!? This is great! I mean....it's not great, but it shines a light on what I don't understand, which is always a good thing.

Hostile work places I can understand. Nobody wants to work in that kind of situation.

The question is now....is this a universal problem, or is this an example taken from shitty workplaces and highlighted? Because I don't believe game companies are universally this shit to women.

I know several women who work for Blizzard and they love it there. So it is a matter of finding the right company, which I know is easier said than done when you absolutely need a job. And no business has a "shitty workplace" sign on the door as you enter so it can be impossible to know when applying.

So here's the question? How do you fix it? While I would suggest that people just get jobs at more respectable companies, there are those that would suggest this is an issue women deal with no matter where they go and what they do, and to that respect how do you fix what appears to be a plague?

It isn't even necessarily always even "The right company" as much as it is "The right team", as the different games are broken down into tight groups. They solve it the same way they have been tackling it in medicine. Although the medical field is still really hostile to women compared to many other fields, they had to address it head on. They had to fire/ remove hospital privilege/ revoke residency of Physicians that refused to comply with their female superiors and/ or created a hostile working environment for others.

They pretty much had to clean house to solve it. Of course there is still much work that needs to be done to completely eliminate it, but it is still so much better than it used to be. They have to have a zero tolerance policy for that behavior in the workplace. The best way of routing it out that I have seen was to promote a woman with a backbone that isn't just there for their entertainment to a supervisor position and you find out real fast who the problems are as they proceed to lose their shit when a woman tells them what to do. It is a rough road, but the sooner it happens, the sooner it is over and men and women working together in the environment as equals becomes the norm there instead.

Some of the reasons I have heard for why women should not work in gaming that completely blew my mind..
"Men here work long hours and need to relieve themselves. How can I fap when there is a woman working next to me?"
"Women are not going to know what gamers want"
"Women only like to play candy crush".
SERIOUSLY, they actually said this crap.

CritialGaming:

starbear:

Were you being truthful when you said that you "wanted to understand"?

Because your most recent posts show a complete lack of "understanding." Women face challenges whether or not they want to work in video games, film or television, or even simply novel writing.

Novels. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/06/catherine-nichols-female-author-male-pseudonym

Film. http://shitpeoplesaytowomendirectors.tumblr.com/

Television. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/27/sexism-film-industry-stories

Women want to work in video games. Women want to work in film. Women want to work in television. Women want to write novels. But they face obstacles that (white) men do not have to face. It is well documented. The statistics are compelling. The anecdotes are overwhelming. The fact that only 4 women have been nominated for academy directors award out of 400 nominees is not because of a lack of desire of women to direct.

You don't understand the issues at all. You have no desire to understand the issues. You have no interest in listening. You are simply witnessing. A preacher, preaching to your flock.

Can I be honest with you?

One would assume you've been honest with me from the start.

Those articles really just seem like these creators couldn't handle trolling. Or perhaps their work wasn't as good as they think it was. Like that Catherine one. That just seems like excuse making for what might have just been a shitty book. NOW I DONT KNOW! So I could be wrong, but quite frankly if you are going to be a content creator in any walk of life (youtube, novels, acting, directing, etc) you need to have a fairly decent skin, because people on the internet can be fucking dicks.

Lets summarise the Catherine article.

Women send novel to 50 agents. She receives 2 manuscript requests.

The same women sends the same novel to 50 agents: the same pages, the same covering letter, but changes her name to a male name. She receives 17 manuscript requests.

CritialGaming's conclusion: she wrote a shitty book. And she couldn't handle trolling.

What the fuck? It was the same fucking book. It may well have been a shitty book: but why did the "male" writer of the shitty book get eight times the responses as the female writer?

Totalbiscuit aka John Bain, is a youtuber that talked about having to see a fucking shrink because of the comments people put on his videos.

Boogie2988 is a fat man who deals with harsh, hateful shit in his comment section.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Hateful comments on youtube are not a barrier to employment.

Stephanie Meyer was called one of the worst writers in the fucking world for her Twilight series.

Stephanie Meyer is certainly not a great writer IMHO. But so fucking what?

These comments are just part of it. And you can argue that it shouldn't be the case and people shouldn't have to deal with these things, and you would be right, but I really don't see that trolling shittiness going away anytime soon. Especially as long as people can hide behind a keyboard.

The comments aren't part of it at all. People don't "hide behind a keyboard" in the workplace.

Yet to me, that article about Catherine is really a victim-playing article trying to draw attention to a novel that probably just wasn't very good. So the author instead made up other reasons as to why publishers didn't like the book instead of looking at the feedback that says people just hated the main character in the book. It looks like she was reading things into the feedback and negative comments of the book, just because. NOW, I DONT KNOW! But that's what the article read like to me.

It's hard to say that she was rejected because she was a women when there are fucking SHITLOADS of female authors all over every single bookstore. Doesn't matter what section you go to, sci-fi, romance, fiction, non-fiction, humor, history, whatever. There are female authors everywhere. So I have a hard time believing that Catherine's book was rejected because she was a woman, there is too much evidence to support that her sex has nothing to do with it.

The numbers don't fucking lie. 17 requests vs 2 requests. Do you honestly think that this is the only example of this happening? Can you guess why J.K Rowling used her initials instead of Joanne when Harry Potter was first published? Female authors are not "everywhere" and those that are in places you happen to frequent faced a bigger, longer and harder road to get there than the typical male author. I didn't intend that article to be the "be all and end all" of the debate. It was a single example. There are many fucking more. But I understand the topic. You clearly do not. I'm not going to spoonfeed you the information because you are still showing no signs that you actually want to learn anything. Do you want to understand or not?

Human beings too often have agendas and there are always blatant examples of truth suppression and misrepresentation, which is why issues like this thread's are left unresolved and a tangled mess. Yeah I'm aware I'm guilty of it, as is probably anyone with a personal opinion.

Is there even a such thing as unequivocal truth anymore, or is it always going to be marred with personal bias-especially by groups of people in highly influential places-because that's just a part of human nature?

None of us have the same life experiences, and it's almost like we need a far outlying third party to render an effective judgment on any multi-faceted issue.

starbear:

The numbers don't fucking lie. 17 requests vs 2 requests. Do you honestly think that this is the only example of this happening? Can you guess why J.K Rowling used her initials instead of Joanne when Harry Potter was first published? Female authors are not "everywhere" and those that are in places you happen to frequent faced a bigger, longer and harder road to get there than the typical male author. I didn't intend that article to be the "be all and end all" of the debate. It was a single example. There are many fucking more. But I understand the topic. You clearly do not. I'm not going to spoonfeed you the information because you are still showing no signs that you actually want to learn anything. Do you want to understand or not?

And this is the point where our conversation stops. Because now you are just exaggerating and under representing female authors (in our given example) in order to twist your points to make them true. If you don't think female authors aren't "everywhere" then you need to go to a book store. Hell go to a mainstream book store and look around. EVERY single genre in that book store with have a plethora of women authoring those books.

I mean fantasy alone has a shit ton of authors, some of them are personal favorites of mine. Charlaine Harris, who writes the True Blood series. Laurel K. Hamilton, who writes the Anita Blake Vampire series. Christine Golden, who writes many video game tie-in novels and some of the DragonLance novels.

Your article about Christine is exactly what you said..."A Single Example". And to me her search for manuscript requests doesn't read like some malicious ploy to prevent a female author. It really seems like making a false claim to explain why her book wasn't getting published, not letting any of the blame fall upon her writing itself. Publishers are pretty smart, and frankly if the book was really good, it wouldn't matter if she was a big talking panda....the book would have been accepted. But it wasn't and that tells me that the book wasn't good. Maybe it had too many spelling issues, poorly edited, sloppy, inconsistant, any number of reasons that could have caused a rejection. We dont know.

But I do not believe that her book was rejected purely for sexist reasons. There is too much evidence against that claim in EVERY single book store and library.

Anyway it was fun, but I'm signing off of this thread because this is too hot a topic with people too willing to make blind claims on both sides (I'm guilty as well) and it has become clear that this really isn't a debate that could be had over a message board effectively.

CritialGaming:

starbear:

The numbers don't fucking lie. 17 requests vs 2 requests. Do you honestly think that this is the only example of this happening? Can you guess why J.K Rowling used her initials instead of Joanne when Harry Potter was first published? Female authors are not "everywhere" and those that are in places you happen to frequent faced a bigger, longer and harder road to get there than the typical male author. I didn't intend that article to be the "be all and end all" of the debate. It was a single example. There are many fucking more. But I understand the topic. You clearly do not. I'm not going to spoonfeed you the information because you are still showing no signs that you actually want to learn anything. Do you want to understand or not?

And this is the point where our conversation stops.

This conversation is "stopping" not because of any relevant facts: but because of what you said earlier in the thread. You are uncomfortable with having your opinions challenged. So you are running away from the conversation.

Because now you are just exaggerating and under representing female authors (in our given example) in order to twist your points to make them true. If you don't think female authors aren't "everywhere" then you need to go to a book store. Hell go to a mainstream book store and look around. EVERY single genre in that book store with have a plethora of women authoring those books.

"Everywhere" is a relative word. "Plethora" doesn't mean representative.

I mean fantasy alone has a shit ton of authors, some of them are personal favorites of mine. Charlaine Harris, who writes the True Blood series. Laurel K. Hamilton, who writes the Anita Blake Vampire series. Christine Golden, who writes many video game tie-in novels and some of the DragonLance novels.

You are mistaking anecdotal data with actual facts. I don't doubt you've had a lot of exposure to female authors which is why I refered to "those that are in places you happen to frequent."

Your article about Christine is exactly what you said..."A Single Example". And to me her search for manuscript requests doesn't read like some malicious ploy to prevent a female author. It really seems like making a false claim to explain why her book wasn't getting published, not letting any of the blame fall upon her writing itself.

There was no false claim. There doesn't need to be "malicious intent." Intent doesn't matter. The book getting published or not isn't relevant to the conversation. Ignore that. Focus on the objective data. 17 vs 2. Everything was identical except for the gender of the writer. How are you explaining the difference? Do you think the book publishers were trolling? If the book was simply bad, then why was the manuscript eight times more likely to be requested when the author was a male than when it was female?

Publishers are pretty smart, and frankly if the book was really good, it wouldn't matter if she was a big talking panda....the book would have been accepted. But it wasn't and that tells me that the book wasn't good. Maybe it had too many spelling issues, poorly edited, sloppy, inconsistant, any number of reasons that could have caused a rejection. We dont know.

The manuscript was accepted 17 times when it was sent by a man. It was only accepted twice when sent by a woman. We aren't talking about the rejection. The 17 time it was accepted it would have had the exact same spelling issues, it would have been just as poorly edited, just as sloppy and just as inconsistent as the two times it was accepted when it was sent by a woman. Your post-hoc excuses just don't cut it.

But I do not believe that her book was rejected purely for sexist reasons.

Why was the manuscript accepted 17 times when it was sent by a man, and only twice when sent by a woman?

There is too much evidence against that claim in EVERY single book store and library.

Cite please.

Anyway it was fun, but I'm signing off of this thread because this is too hot a topic with people too willing to make blind claims on both sides (I'm guilty as well) and it has become clear that this really isn't a debate that could be had over a message board effectively.

I haven't made a single blind claim in this thread. You are signing off because you admit you can't handle confrontation and you don't actually really want to change your way of thinking. If you are going to continue to witness then no, this subject can't be "effectively debated." But thats entirely on you and has nothing to do with anyone else that has posted in this particular thread.

Good article.

And if that's considered too biased or subjective being written by a male, here's another written by a woman about another very successful woman who basically reiterates the same point.

Rarely are we even exposed to opinions like that in public anymore. The misrepresentation of a core issue coupled with media-fueled agendas can lead to an incredibly tangled ball of yarn.

hanselthecaretaker:
Good article.

And if that's considered too biased or subjective being written by a male, here's another written by a woman about another very successful woman who basically reiterates the same point.

There's plenty of women I consider idiots. Germaine Greer, for one. Feminist also (argh ... maybe?), or do you think that we happen to think with a hivemind?

I mean it makes life easier for you to make these assumptions, because then you clearly don't have to think right?

Rarely are we even exposed to opinions like that in public anymore. The misrepresentation of a core issue coupled with media-fueled agendas can lead to an incredibly tangled ball of yarn.

Citation needed.

I see uninformed people making opinions all the time. Like there was this guy, in this thread, that said all humans are selfish (as if that somehow liberated them from the moral burden of people doing the right thing) ... except that the evidence doesn't say that at all. That it's inherently stupid to call the entire species selfish or generous, because when necessary care and evaluation is given towards understanding the human condition it doesn't allow for such mindless broad strokes?

hanselthecaretaker:

Rarely are we even exposed to opinions like that in public anymore.

Never before in the history of mankind has it been as easy as it has been now to be exposed to opinions like this.

Anybody with an opinion can hop on twitter, express their opinion, and can gather a following. Bloggers, reddit, facebook, medium, instagram, you can do it from the comfort of your own home and you can have your opinions shared by millions.

And you can personally curate the opinions you hear. Don't like CNN? Don't follow them on twitter. Don't like Uncle Bob's opinion on the president? Mute him on facebook. You can (and most people do) just switch off what you don't want to hear.

We are in the golden age of opinions. You've got things completely wrong.

I should've clarified by "public" meaning "formal" sources of information.

Sure anyone on the internet can spout an opinion, no arguments there, but what is it that makes people trust "official" sources of information more-so than any others? It seems that's the surest avenue towards those sources inevitably taking advantage of their userbases' confidence.

hanselthecaretaker:
I should've clarified by "public" meaning "formal" sources of information.

Whats a "formal official" source of information? You've cited the National Review, the Telegraph, and the Evening Standard which is about a "formal" and as "official" as you can get.

Sure anyone on the internet can spout an opinion, no arguments there, but what is it that makes people trust "official" sources of information more-so than any others? It seems that's the surest avenue towards those sources inevitably taking advantage of their userbases' confidence.

I suspect you haven't been paying attention to the events of the last year. But what is it exactly you are asking for? Dennis Prager thinks that feminism makes weak women. So he wrote an article and the National Review published it. Do you agree with his opinion? Well good for you! But why do you think its the job of other "formal" "official" sources of information to give him a voice? There are a million people with opinions. It is very easy to find and listen to people whose opinions that you like. On every single CNN panel they have the most ridiculous people espousing views that are counter to the "mainstream." I don't think your assertion holds water. Exposure to these opinions are not rare. Start a video series on "Tropes vs women" and leave the comments section open and you will see that these opinons out in the wild.

starbear:

hanselthecaretaker:
I should've clarified by "public" meaning "formal" sources of information.

Whats a "formal official" source of information? You've cited the National Review, the Telegraph, and the Evening Standard which is about a "formal" and as "official" as you can get.

Sure anyone on the internet can spout an opinion, no arguments there, but what is it that makes people trust "official" sources of information more-so than any others? It seems that's the surest avenue towards those sources inevitably taking advantage of their userbases' confidence.

I suspect you haven't been paying attention to the events of the last year. But what is it exactly you are asking for? Dennis Prager thinks that feminism makes weak women. So he wrote an article and the National Review published it. Do you agree with his opinion? Well good for you! But why do you think its the job of other "formal" "official" sources of information to give him a voice? There are a million people with opinions. It is very easy to find and listen to people whose opinions that you like. On every single CNN panel they have the most ridiculous people espousing views that are counter to the "mainstream." I don't think your assertion holds water. Exposure to these opinions are not rare. Start a video series on "Tropes vs women" and leave the comments section open and you will see that these opinons out in the wild.

Public schools and universities, corporate news outlets, radio, TV, printed news publications, basically anything mainstream has a noticeably different agenda than what I posted.

hanselthecaretaker:

Public schools and universities, corporate news outlets, radio, TV, printed news publications, basically anything mainstream has a noticeably different agenda than what I posted.

I want to touch on this. Because I see a lot of media blaming for being biased one way or the other when it comes to reporting news stories. Apart from report actually physical events that happen, (natural disasters, police chases, shootings, etc) the news makes it's money based on a degree of sensationalism. Most of the time they blur the truth in order to make a story more exciting to watch.

I wouldn't necessarily call it an "agenda" unless you call trying to make as much money for the network an "agenda".

Oh yes the news will report a radical feminist movement and say stupid shit about protests, or wage gaps, or whatever it might be. It doesn't make anything they say regarding these issues true, because these networks will typically allign themselves to whatever wackjob opinion gets the most ratings.

Hell we've seen it before directly related to video games. Remember when the news used to report on every GTA that came out, talking about corruption of our children? Or when Mass Effect 1 had a sex scene and they said it was just pornography. None of that shit was even remotely true, yet they ran those stories because it got them ratings.

Social issues are no different. They don't report facts, they make up facts to generate sensationalist ratings. That's all.

So take official news sources (CNN, Fox, New York Times, etc) with grains of salt.

The problem is that even if you take the information from independant research, you rely on that data not being twisted to support whatever that data center wanted. So the idea is to take sources from a lot of places and make your own conclusions right?

https://fee.org/articles/truth-and-myth-on-the-gender-pay-gap/
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/08/dispelling-the-myths-why-the-gender-pay-gap-does-not-reflect-the-choices-women-make
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/there-no-gender-wage-gap

And on and on.

So after reading some articles. This is what I have found just on this particular issue, i know it's a little different than what I started this thread with, but here we go.

Women DO NOT make as much money as men, when looking at a huge blanket study. This leads the feminist extremist groups to say it's a pay gap, discrimination, whatever the fuck they say. However it isn't really that clean cut. Here are some things on Women in the workplace I have found.

1. More women work part time. Part time work pays less even if it is the same job as a full time employed man.
2. Women are often more content with a lower salery. I read a study that said women are 50% LESS likely to ask for pay raises regularly. So a women who had been with a company for years wont make as much as a man because chances are than man has negotiated for regular pay increases, where the woman has not.

Look I'm not gonna sit here and say anything about whether there is sexist discrimination or not. But I will say that the data doesn't add up. I mean I am a business owner myself. Are you gonna tell me that I can save 25% of all my wage expenses by hiring only women? Or even if I did hire a men and a woman to handle the same tasks and responsibilities in my office, but I paid the woman 77% of what I paid the man, do you have any fucking idea how much shit I would get in just from government sources? Even if the woman never said a word to anyone about it. The IRS would catch it and rip me a new anus.

There are too many factors that I do NOT believe that people look at. This article https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/08/dispelling-the-myths-why-the-gender-pay-gap-does-not-reflect-the-choices-women-make contains a graph chart that shows a pretty severe pay gap between men and women of the same education level, but the graph nor the article itself illustrates the WIDE variety of jobs and that are offer at those levels of degrees. If I have a Masters degree in Business, will I make the same money as a woman with a Master's in Criminal Law? No! Of course not. Which just goes to show you that there are far too many factors in play to label the pay gap as "discrimination".

It's a clusterf#ck is all I'm getting at, and a subjective one at that in which current social trends generally have a greater influence on the outcomes. I'm merely making commentary as I have little direct issue with it one way or another, but I can understand why some would take it more personally depending on their individual or collective stances.

Ironically enough I think discussing video games would be far more productive, for better or worse.

hanselthecaretaker:

Public schools and universities, corporate news outlets, radio, TV, printed news publications, basically anything mainstream has a noticeably different agenda than what I posted.

You think public schools should have the opinion of an American conservative and nationally syndicated radio talk show host as part of their curriculum? How on earth do you justify that?

starbear:

hanselthecaretaker:

Public schools and universities, corporate news outlets, radio, TV, printed news publications, basically anything mainstream has a noticeably different agenda than what I posted.

You think public schools should have the opinion of an American conservative and nationally syndicated radio talk show host as part of their curriculum? How on earth do you justify that?

No, just throwing out a counterpoint out into the pond. In any case, it's impossible to deny there is increasingly a far, far greater influence of liberalism in public schools than conservatism in the last few decades. It is also impossible to deny that public schools have taken a nosedive in delivering quality education in the last few decades, largely thanks to negative aspects of teacher's unions.

Any rational person can realize that both extremes are detrimental for various reasons, but we desperately need to find a better balance than we currently have.

hanselthecaretaker:

starbear:

hanselthecaretaker:

Public schools and universities, corporate news outlets, radio, TV, printed news publications, basically anything mainstream has a noticeably different agenda than what I posted.

You think public schools should have the opinion of an American conservative and nationally syndicated radio talk show host as part of their curriculum? How on earth do you justify that?

No, just throwing out a counterpoint out into the pond. In any case, it's impossible to deny there is increasingly a far, far greater influence of liberalism in public schools than conservatism in the last few decades. It is also impossible to deny that public schools have taken a nosedive in delivering quality education in the last few decades, largely thanks to negative aspects of teacher's unions.

Any rational person can realize that both extremes are detrimental for various reasons, but we desperately need to find a better balance than we currently have.

What? No! That's complete bullshit.

First of all, how can you say that conservatism has less of an influence in schools when people have to fight to include common sense things like the theory of evolution, climate change and sex education in the curriculum?

Second, the "we need to find a middle ground" is bullshit. It's called the Golden Mean Fallacy actually. There is the truth, there's science, that's what should be taught. The middle ground between sense and nonsense is still nonsense.

hanselthecaretaker:

starbear:

hanselthecaretaker:

Public schools and universities, corporate news outlets, radio, TV, printed news publications, basically anything mainstream has a noticeably different agenda than what I posted.

You think public schools should have the opinion of an American conservative and nationally syndicated radio talk show host as part of their curriculum? How on earth do you justify that?

No, just throwing out a counterpoint out into the pond.

What counterpoint? What is it you want to change?

In any case, it's impossible to deny there is increasingly a far, far greater influence of liberalism in public schools than conservatism in the last few decades. It is also impossible to deny that public schools have taken a nosedive in delivering quality education in the last few decades, largely thanks to negative aspects of teacher's unions.

I think it is possible to deny many of the things you claim: especially the "negative aspects of teacher's unions" and that education has taken a nosedive in delivering quality education.

Any rational person can realize that both extremes are detrimental for various reasons, but we desperately need to find a better balance than we currently have.

I'm rational. I think that the opinion "feminism makes weak women" is based on an ignorant assumption of what feminism is, and that feminism in itself is not an extreme position. I don't think we desperately need to find a better balance at all. You haven't identified a problem. Dennis is going to be able to continue to express himself, and people that think like him will be able to follow along.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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