A Female Perspective On The "Viking" Dev Culture

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

A Female Perspective On The "Viking" Dev Culture

image

Yesterday we brought you Clint Hocking's thoughts on the male-dominated gaming industry. Today we present a female perspective.

To recap: Clint Hocking is the creative director at LucasArts. In a recent opinion piece, Hocking slammed the lack of diversity in games development. In sum, Hocking believes that the dearth of ladies creating games ensures a field of products that fail to represent the values and opinions of humanity as a whole.

Continuing, Hocking offered steps which he believes will improve the industry's ability to tap into the feminine aspects of the cultural zeitgeist, as well as solid fiscal reasons for publishers to pursue a more gender-diverse workforce.

This morning I received an email response to Hocking's ideas from Quinn Dunki, programmer of Trucks And Skulls, head of One Girl, One Laptop Productions, and noted female. In the interest of gender equality and generating page views via controversy, we present her counterpoint:

I like the sentiment, but framing the debate this way is an aspect of the problem. The only way women are going to be comfortable in the industry is knowing that people don't care about gender. Really the worst compliment you can hear in this business is when someone says, "She's just like one of the guys." That sets the male standard as the ideal. Making an issue of gender IS the issue. We need to get past that. Strive to be the pure meritocracy that most people agree we should have. If you're a man in a power position, that means keeping a critical eye on your own internal biases, and make extra effort to be fair.

This is bigger than an industry problem. The outreach needs to go down to the middle school levels. That's where the research shows girls stop studying math and science due to pressures from peers and other sources. The only difference between me and my math-inclined, game-loving friend who does advanced needlepoint instead of engineering is that she succumbed to the peer pressure. Fix this problem, and everything else will come out in the wash in a generation or two.

In the meantime, the best thing we can do is provide role models. If you're a female engineer or scientist, put yourself out there. Give young girls someone they can look at and say, "hey, I can do that too!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the habit of publishing opinions that I don't directly create myself, but I can't really fault Dunki's logic here. "Pure meritocracy" should be the key buzzword for every gaming industry human resources department until the heat death of the universe.

Though I agree with her, I don't know that Dunki is giving an appropriately vast scope to the root problem. Assigning "appropriate" roles to either gender is a widespread phenomenon in every aspect of society. Lessening this effect is a noble goal we should all strive for, but I'm not entirely sure that it can be eradicated without completely dismantling widely held cultural mores.

Of course, that's assuming it isn't some ingrained biological thing left over from the days when both genders lived in constant fear of disembowelment by cold, calculating velociraptors.

Permalink

I like the sentiment, but framing the debate this way is an aspect of the problem. The only way women are going to be comfortable in the industry is knowing that people don't care about gender. Really the worst compliment you can hear in this business is when someone says, "She's just like one of the guys." That sets the male standard as the ideal. Making an issue of gender IS the issue. We need to get past that. Strive to be the pure meritocracy that most people agree we should have. If you're a man in a power position, that means keeping a critical eye on your own internal biases, and make extra effort to be fair.

This paragraph is exactly how I felt when I read this article.

Soo... She is not like the other guys?

She is like... The other fellers? No... Buddies? Negative...

The other... Ummm... Ehhh... Things?

She is fully identical to my additional coworkers, in all terms and manners (except reproductive organs).

It would be so much easier if we were all Barbie & Ken dolls.

"Pure Meritocracy" should be the key buzzword for *every* HR department in *every* industry *everywhere*.

DazBurger:
Soo... She is not like the other guys?

She is like... The other fellers? No... Buddies? Negative...

The other... Ummm... Ehhh... Things?

She is fully identical to my additional coworkers, in all terms and manners (except reproductive organs).

I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).

Veloxe:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).

You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.

I don't care. As long as the game is good it's developer can have anything in his/her/it's pants.

I think the whole notion of trying to push women into industries because we decided that there aren't enough of them around is counterproductive. That goes for when "we" is a bunch of guys who are tried of the sausage fest or if it's a bunch of women butthurt that other women are doing what *they* want to do instead of what "we" want them to do.

I mean, how often do women get together and say "There aren't enough straight men in the fashion indusrty! What do we need to do to drag more in?"

Agayek:

Veloxe:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).

You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.

You're missing the point: The implication is that a woman being "one of us" is abnormal. It's kind of like saying "You did a good job for a woman!" or "You're a credit to your race!". You would only ever say that somebody is "like one of the guys" if there was the natural expectation that she *wasn't* like one of the guys.

Agayek:

Veloxe:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).

You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.

Ya, I can understand where she is coming from in her interpretation of the language but it does seem a little overboard to look for insult in what is supposed to be acceptance. Unfortunately I think even if we went with a gender neutral term I don't think it would solve the issue. Like, if they instead said, "You're one of us now!" (or whatever) if it's said by a group of Men (or Women) to one of the opposite sex you could still gleam the same subtext from it if you were looking for it.

I think part of the issue comes from how one views themselves. Like the thought that "I don't want to be one of the guys, I am a women." then obviously an issue will arise because they are concerned with their own sex and how it sets them apart from others. That idea isn't necessarily wrong since the sexes are different (in more ways then just reproduction) but I think the ability to push passed ones own sex and just deal with it is important, regardless of which side of the gender fence you occupy. Obviously not if it's a major issue involving discrimination but for something like "Being one of the guys" it's a good skill to have.

BloodSquirrel:

Agayek:

Veloxe:
I just go with "One of us...one of us...".

Although I think her breakdown of "She's like one of the guys" is a little too deep when it's just supposed to mean that she isn't really different from anyone else doing the job (or to say, she fits in).

You're correct insofar as it's meant to imply a lack of difference, but she is also correct in that there are connotations to such a statement that are somewhat negative (specifically, that "guys" is the norm/standard).

Personally, I agree with you, and for the most part I'm against the idea of reading subtext from just about anything, but she does have a valid point. There's no way to resolve said point without actually coining a gender-neutral equivalent of "guys"/"gals"/etc, but it does bear thinking about.

You're missing the point: The implication is that a woman being "one of us" is abnormal. It's kind of like saying "You did a good job for a woman!" or "You're a credit to your race!". You would only ever say that somebody is "like one of the guys" if there was the natural expectation that she *wasn't* like one of the guys.

I would disagree. I have used the "like one of the guys" saying when talking about guys before. I'm not saying that before we accepted them they weren't male. "Guys" in this sense isn't about the junk that's between your legs, it's about "the group". If you wanted to be perfectly fair you'd say "She's a part of the group!" or something to that effect. Yes, you can infer the "one of the guys" idea as saying all the things you mentioned, but that's not the intent. Intent is very important.

Is it a perfectly ideal saying for the current age? No. But it's also not used to try and put down people or somehow state that women are inferior until accepted. It's used to say someone is part of the group, that's the intent.

BloodSquirrel:
You're missing the point: The implication is that a woman being "one of us" is abnormal. It's kind of like saying "You did a good job for a woman!" or "You're a credit to your race!". You would only ever say that somebody is "like one of the guys" if there was the natural expectation that she *wasn't* like one of the guys.

Except there is a natural expectation. The thing you're not seeing is that such an expectation is applied to everyone, not just women. Groups form, especially in instances of collaboration. As such, there are people outside of those groups. If an outsider wants to join, they must be accepted, and thus become "one of the guys". No one starts off as part of the group, they must join it.

There's no inherent negative implications that someone is "one of the guys". All it says is that the person is part of the group. Gender is irrelevant in the matter.

I think when she made that remark about one of the guys, she was referring more to the attitude than the actual phrase being offensive. So you can all stop arguing about the least relevant part of the interview now. ;)

BloodSquirrel:
I think the whole notion of trying to push women into industries because we decided that there aren't enough of them around is counterproductive. That goes for when "we" is a bunch of guys who are tried of the sausage fest or if it's a bunch of women butthurt that other women are doing what *they* want to do instead of what "we" want them to do.

Indeed, but it depends on how you see the problem. If it's just the gender ratio that pisses you off, trying to fix it by shoehorning men/women in is kind of pointless. The worry is more that the poor gender ratio is a result of men/women finding it hard to get into that area or being actively discouraged from pursuing an interest - so there just "not being enough women" is a symptom, not the disease.

Right, here's my two penneth:

Ok I've re-written and started from scratch multiple times now so I'm not going to try to gloriously articulate my full opinion.

However, I agree with both Cavalli and Dunki. The problem is society as a whole, and the assumption of certain traits and roles as being good for one gender while being not so good for the other.

Admitedly, I think that there maybe something to the concept of atleast some of it being left over from our instinctive imperatives. Gods alone know that when I for one am in a social situation, I treat the fairer sex completely differently from when I'm at work: socially, with my female friends, my instincts tell me to help them or protect them, or seduce the pants off them (or of course, all three). Then again, at work, with my female colleagues/subordinates (when I'm crew boss) (even when they are the same people incidentally), I'll treat them solely on the grounds of their abilities to do the job (that may admitedly be attributable to differences in discipline, mindset, or just alcohol levels).

Hot damn this is one of the best cases of "missing the point entirely" by this lady. Who-wee...

Not one day after Hocking says one of the dumbest, most condescending things I've ever heard and already there's another article slamming him for it. Justice!

Veloxe:
I would disagree. I have used the "like one of the guys" saying when talking about guys before.

Okay- why were they "like one of the guys" instead of "one of the guys"?

"She's part of the group" still has the same problem- the fact that it's being stated as a compliment means that it wasn't considered a given in the first place. Ever heard the phrase "Damning with faint praise"?

BloodSquirrel:

I mean, how often do women get together and say "There aren't enough straight men in the fashion indusrty! What do we need to do to drag more in?"

To be fair, I'm not sure than most straight men would NEED to be "dragged" into the fashion industry. Unless of course actual drag activities would ensue. But on topic, it would probably be rather helpful for getting some healthy diversity in the gaming industry if more female human beings were actually encouraged to get into the fields covered by aforementioned industry. Coding, graphical design,writing, promotion as well as art. You get the idea.

"Buzzwords" should be stomped on like the parasitical etymology they're spawned from.

Along with overstretched metaphors.

RvLeshrac:
"Pure Meritocracy" should be the key buzzword for *every* HR department in *every* industry *everywhere*.

Well sure but there are cases when, on merit alone, men will consistantly out-perform women (and vice versa) due to how humans have evolved genetically and memetically but this isn't an acceptable concept in the "everyone is as good as everyone else" nonsense world people try to foist. If there is one thing I honestly think causes a fuck ton of problems is the idea that "If you're true to yourself everything will be just fine" since it's pure bollocks.

OT: I think it's a bit odd that she is so condescending about her friend. Does she really have to have been forced by socitey to choose not to be an engineer? Couldn't it actually be that she didn't want to pursue a career like that? And is it so insane for her to like needlepoint? That's like some guy getting pissy because he finds out a friend of his loves cars since it's so totally peer pressure to like things that are associated with gender.

The problem I have with her argument is that she doesn't really seem to understand why Hocking framed his argument in such a way. If you're going to appeal to a business, you're going to have to provide a purely fiscal reason as to why something is a good idea. Otherwise, the business is going to deny it just because they would deem it a waste of money.

What's more, while I do understand where she's coming from, and her suggestion is a good idea, peer pressure is nothing new. This kind of thing has been going on for ages, and it would take a large restructuring of our society from the ground up in order to change things. And we do need it, I think, but no company is going to wait for what could potentially be decades for such a change, nor will they be willing to pool money into such a long-winded endeavor that potentially won't make them revenue. They'll want their female developers now, and they'll want them cheap (or as cheap as the would want any other developer they'd hire).

That said, the changes she's suggesting has to take place on a more personal level, not a business one. Put some role models into the spotlight, and parade them for all to see. At the same time, put it into people's heads that girl developers are a good idea, rather than a reason to mock them, or convince them otherwise. For the most part, that's what people can do. But it won't be enough to convince businesses to hire more of them than normal, let alone encourage them to enter the industry.

That's the main focus of Hocking's argument. He's providing reasons and steps that'll help push things forward in the industry while at the same time letting the businesses know they'd be protecting their own interests in doing so. Women not feeling comfortable in the industry is a problem, but it won't change unless we get women into the industry now. Until then, men are always going to be screaming "R U rly a grl?" over Xbox Live voice chat like it's as big a deal as the heaven and earth being flipped around.

Agayek:

If an outsider wants to join, they must be accepted, and thus become "one of the guys". No one starts off as part of the group, they must join it.

That works if you're talking about an exclusive group- but not when you're talking about a group like "The guys at the office". Becoming "one of the guys" is the norm.

Seventh Actuality:

Indeed, but it depends on how you see the problem. If it's just the gender ratio that pisses you off, trying to fix it by shoehorning men/women in is kind of pointless. The worry is more that the poor gender ratio is a result of men/women finding it hard to get into that area or being actively discouraged from pursuing an interest - so there just "not being enough women" is a symptom, not the disease.

I don't see anybody making much of a case for the "actively discouraged" side. The complaining is coming exclusively from people on the inside- not from people on the outside who are trying to get in.

The largest problem in Game Design comes purely from the gender imbalance in people who play games surely? There are different factors in things like maths or engineering, but the things most likely to inspire someone to want to go out there and work on games are games themselves.

And in the end the solution will work at both ends at once. Greater visibility to shorter more innovative games exposes and interests people who wouldn't be interested (and allows for games to have themes and ideas away from the masculine mainstream) and gives them a much more visible and shorter opportunity to work on games themselves. It's things like In the Company of Myself, Once Chance and even Angry Birds that will drive forward gender inequality.

BloodSquirrel:

I don't see anybody making much of a case for the "actively discouraged" side. The complaining is coming exclusively from people on the inside- not from people on the outside who are trying to get in.

AHA~ In here lies the key, the reason we are not hearing from people on the outside trying to get in, is because they are small in number because there is not much of anyone telling them that they want them there! That is why the insiders calling for change is so important. If we can get women to not only feel like they ARE NOT weird sideshow attractions for liking video games, but actually get some encouragement for them to use their skills in any of the many broad areas of the medium, it will get better. As long as you know, the rest of the bigshots realize it's not-at-all a bad idea to have a ton of previously not tapped talent who feel comfortable looking for jobs in the industry.

RvLeshrac:
"Pure Meritocracy" should be the key buzzword for *every* HR department in *every* industry *everywhere*.

I'm afraid I'm unable to consider anything involving "buzzword" as a good idea. EVER.

BloodSquirrel:

Seventh Actuality:

Indeed, but it depends on how you see the problem. If it's just the gender ratio that pisses you off, trying to fix it by shoehorning men/women in is kind of pointless. The worry is more that the poor gender ratio is a result of men/women finding it hard to get into that area or being actively discouraged from pursuing an interest - so there just "not being enough women" is a symptom, not the disease.

I don't see anybody making much of a case for the "actively discouraged" side. The complaining is coming exclusively from people on the inside- not from people on the outside who are trying to get in.

"Actively discouraged" was probably the wrong way of putting it - more like not being led to consider it a valid option in the first place. It's depressing how frequently people don't look into something once they've pegged it as "for" the opposite gender.

The reason it seems that the complaining comes from people on the inside could also just be that people already in the industry are the ones whose voices are going to be heard on a gaming website.

I like the sentiment, but framing the debate this way is an aspect of the problem. The only way women are going to be comfortable in the industry is knowing that people don't care about gender. Really the worst compliment you can hear in this business is when someone says, "She's just like one of the guys." That sets the male standard as the ideal. Making an issue of gender IS the issue. We need to get past that. Strive to be the pure meritocracy that most people agree we should have. If you're a man in a power position, that means keeping a critical eye on your own internal biases, and make extra effort to be fair.

I understand her point, and to an extent I agree with it, however I think that first we do need to make gender an issue before we can make it a non-issue.

If we didn't make gender an issue, there would be no women who would join up in the first place, at least not any more than there already is. We can't just close our eyes and go "gender doesn't matter!" in a male-dominated industry like this when it so clearly does matter. If we do make a conscious effort to diversify the workplace, not just with women but with every kind of person, then it will eventually lead to where we don't have to make a conscious effort and we'll be set already.

This is bigger than an industry problem. The outreach needs to go down to the middle school levels. That's where the research shows girls stop studying math and science due to pressures from peers and other sources. The only difference between me and my math-inclined, game-loving friend who does advanced needlepoint instead of engineering is that she succumbed to the peer pressure. Fix this problem, and everything else will come out in the wash in a generation or two.

In the meantime, the best thing we can do is provide role models. If you're a female engineer or scientist, put yourself out there. Give young girls someone they can look at and say, "hey, I can do that too!"

And see, I find this a bit contradictory to her main point of "don't make gender an issue" when she says we need more female rolemodels for girls that in effect make gender an issue. That "hey, I can do that too!" implies what she doesn't want; that the male-standard of the job that is heavily male dominated is the way to go for female role-models. The attempt at not being a stereotype becomes a stereotype, I guess. The rolemodel that shows the girls that "you too can become a game developer!" inadvertently makes gender an issue, and comes back to my main point where we do need to make some conscious effort until it becomes no effort at all.

Overall, I respect Ms. Dunki's opion, though I don't think this is quite the way to go. While this may not be an truly adequate analogy, it's like going "your skin color doesn't matter!" to magically make racism disappear. It doesn't work like that.

BloodSquirrel:
"She's part of the group" still has the same problem- the fact that it's being stated as a compliment means that it wasn't considered a given in the first place.

So when you move into a new work place, social situation, or otherwise you should immediately be considered part of the group and immediately accepted? Of course not, you have to get to know people and they have to get to know you and then you become part of the group. Obviously things are slightly different when dealing with the work place situation. Since it's in every ones best interests to attempt to make everyone part of the group (so there isn't too much work place politics BS flying around). But that doesn't mean your instantly accepted, it just means people become more accepting and it's easier to get to that point.

As for the first question you posed, they were "like one of the guys." because I had been asked what I thought about them. So I responded that they were like one of the guys. Since they were a member of our group of like minded people they were, as such, like one of the guys. It wasn't that they were inferior to us before we looked down from our golden thrones and determined they may enter our inner circle, it was that we liked him and chose to hang out with him. Same thing applies to the other side of the gender fence. It's not that I sit on my man throne and decree "Hmmm, pretty good, for a women. Very well, we shall allow your entrance into our group!" it's that we like the person and choose to hang out with them.

Simeon Ivanov:
I don't care. As long as the game is good it's developer can have anything in his/her/it's pants.

Ditto. It doesn't matter what body parts you have as long as you do your job well. And as for the whole male dominated industry, we can't do anything about it unless woman try to join in.

Well said. That guy was a blowhard. The worst thing you can do is treat someone badly because they are a different gender or race. The next worst thing you can do is treat them better for the same reasons. Making exceptions for people because they are female will only hurt the female population within the industry, and maybe even the industry itself. You still want the best person for the job. If you hire a female just to have more of them in the industry, and they produce bad work, then you have hurt everyone involved.

I don't agree with everything she says though. More female roll models is the same bad medicine. Why can't there just be roll models. Simple, because all of society has taught us to separate based on these things. And not just in a bad way, but in positive ways as well.

Jumplion:
And see, I find this a bit contradictory to her main point of "don't make gender an issue" when she says we need more female rolemodels for girls that in effect make gender an issue. That "hey, I can do that too!" implies what she doesn't want; that the male-standard of the job that is heavily male dominated is the way to go for female role-models. The attempt at not being a stereotype becomes a stereotype, I guess. The rolemodel that shows the girls that "you too can become a game developer!" inadvertently makes gender an issue, and comes back to my main point where we do need to make some conscious effort until it becomes no effort at all.

Overall, I respect Ms. Dunki's opion, though I don't think this is quite the way to go. While this may not be an truly adequate analogy, it's like going "your skin color doesn't matter!" to magically make racism disappear. It doesn't work like that.

I don't think it's even so much of an issue of needing to single out girls to try and foster an interest in game development and other technical fields. It's the attitude itself among girls at a certain age that puts pressure on kids who ARE interested in these things that makes them abandon it. Kids want to fit in with their peers at the middle school age, and they sometimes cast those interests aside in hopes of fitting in with the other girls.

Most of my girl friends when I was young played games all the time, but dropped the hobby at the age when it started to be "weird". Growing up, I was picked on relentlessly by other girls for being more interested in games, art, and science than fashion and JTT. Until playing games is no longer something that a lot of girls feel embarrassed about or have to hide, having cool role models (male and female, I don't think it matters) to aspire to gives them something to feel confident about in maybe pursuing those interests in the future.

On the subject of "one of the guys", I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a little odd whenever I start a new job in the game industry. I've only worked at studios that make mostly FPS games, and I'm used to being the only or one of maybe two females on my team. But although I feel very comfortable working with my coworkers and enjoy my work environment, I did notice when I first started that people were very careful not to try and offend me when they made jokes or played certain youtube videos. One guy even changed his desktop background from a semi-nude chick before I arrived. Since then, I think I've proven that I'm effectively "one of the guys", and if I wasn't cool with FPS games I wouldn't want to be working on them. But I can see how the current game development atmosphere is something that a lot of guys would like to preserve.

Chemical Alia:
I don't think it's even so much of an issue of needing to single out girls to try and foster an interest in game development and other technical fields. It's the attitude itself among girls at a certain age that puts pressure on kids who ARE interested in these things that makes them abandon it. Kids want to fit in with their peers at the middle school age, and they sometimes cast those interests aside in hopes of fitting in with the other girls.

Most of my girl friends when I was young played games all the time, but dropped the hobby at the age when it started to be "weird". Growing up, I was picked on relentlessly by other girls for being more interested in games, art, and science than fashion and JTT. Until playing games is no longer something that a lot of girls feel embarrassed about or have to hide, having cool role models (male and female, I don't think it matters) to aspire to gives them something to feel confident about in maybe pursuing those interests in the future.

On the subject of "one of the guys", I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a little odd whenever I start a new job in the game industry. I've only worked at studios that make mostly FPS games, and I'm used to being the only or one of maybe two females on my team. But although I feel very comfortable working with my coworkers and enjoy my work environment, I did notice when I first started that people were very careful not to try and offend me when they made jokes or played certain youtube videos. One guy even changed his desktop background from a semi-nude chick before I arrived. Since then, I think I've proven that I'm effectively "one of the guys", and if I wasn't cool with FPS games I wouldn't want to be working on them. But I can see how the current game development atmosphere is something that a lot of guys would like to preserve.

See, I completely agree with you, if we want a more diverse industry, specifically with more women in it, we have to start at the early stages and make it so that it's fine for any kind to go for their interests.

But to do that, like I said, we need to make a conscious effort to start including the cootie-infected girls to the point where we don't even need to make any effort. Like I said in my racism analogy, saying "just don't hate people based on their skin color!" doesn't stop the situation of racism. Likewise, just saying "don't make a big deal out of gender at all!" doesn't help the situation and only hides the real problem of lack of diversity. If we do that, then maybe situations like yours would be less frequent and it'll just be a generally better team.

There was a great post, multiparagraphed n' all, which basically said that we all keep saying that the gaming industry needs to grow up, yet this industry adamantly refuses to. The state of the industry today is remarkably similar to the turning point of films in many aspects. Simply saying "don't make an issue of this and/or that" doesn't help said issue, and if we want this medium to grow we have to be more harsh on it. I think Dunki is being forgiving of the industry, which I don't think helps it.

Baresark:
Well said. That guy was a blowhard. The worst thing you can do is treat someone badly because they are a different gender or race. The next worst thing you can do is treat them better for the same reasons. Making exceptions for people because they are female will only hurt the female population within the industry, and maybe even the industry itself. You still want the best person for the job. If you hire a female just to have more of them in the industry, and they produce bad work, then you have hurt everyone involved.

See, though, that wasn't his main point. His main point, put simply, was "we need more female developers." He didn't say treat them worse, he didn't say treat them better, he didn't say give them any different expectations. He just said we need more females in this industry to diversify it. That doesn't mean hiring every other female that applies, if the person doesn't look good for the job then s/he isn't good for the job. Rather, we need to start getting more females interested in working in the industry to begin with, as Dunki says. This is why I think we do need to make gender matter, otherwise we're still stuck with a sausage-fest.

 Pages 1 2 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