You don't have to define them. They can really define themselves. I'm not bothered with what label marketers wish to place on me.Let em. I'm more interested in covering people outside or within that segment than defining them.
You don't have to define them. They can really define themselves. I'm not bothered with what label marketers wish to place on me.Let em. I'm more interested in covering people outside or within that segment than defining them.
I don't care about gamers and their gender. I care about PEOPLE getting harassed. All harassment and hatred, no matter where it comes from, should be condemned. All these gamers, all these feminists, all these LGBT, ALL of them are Actual. Human. Beings.
Corporations are going to do that regardless of how folks who enjoy playing games self identify. It is what corporations do.
Aren't you really just replacing one label for corporations to exploit with another? Corporations have no trouble re-appropriating labels and identities held by the sophisticated and progressive people to sell products. Organic food markets and gluten-free food products are sold to people who don't have coeliac disease. They represent products that are sold to support an identity. Many of these more expensive products are bought and consumed by professional people who you would think are educated and politically engaged.
Most labels and identities are exploited by corporations. That doesn't mean these labels don't bring positives to people. Corporations will find ways to profit off of everyone's differences. It's part of determining Market segments. That doesn't make calling oneself a gamer any more wrong than calling yourself a traveler or a surfer. Both are used by Marketers and enforced, neither identities are something that people should feel shame about.
Marketers will just come up with another word to represent this splinter segment.
There is no GIF to adequately respond to this. Do you just have to be a complete fucking psychopath to lecture other people on morality when you hold views like this?I have a question. Why is Ian Miles Chong (EIC of Gameranx) still in the vg press? The guy used to be a redditor mod who sold his influence and got perma-banned for it when found out, and a racist nazi sympathiser. Once again, disgusted.
http://www.dailydot.com/society/reddit-hire-spam-ian-miles-cheong-sollnvictus/
http://i.imgur.com/Ky20VnS.jpg
#notyourshield is certainly...colorful right now.
You don't have to define them. They can really define themselves. I'm not bothered with what label marketers wish to place on me.
It's more about acknowledging that there isn't this specific stereotype demographic that you have to try and aim towards (market to, cater to, etc), because who "gamers" actually are IRL is increasingly broad. I also think a lot of folks--particularly socially-liberal people--find themselves looking at a lot of the bigoted attacks coming out of a vocal part of what they felt was a largely similar community and finding they have little in common with them.I still honestly don't understand how moving on from the term "Gamer" is going to change anything.
Totally. It's not my place or anyone else's to define who a person is based on a shared interest. It's like naming someone a Call of Duitier simply because they like Call of Duty. I think it's more interesting to ask why someone likes a certain game than just defining them by what they like. There's always a different answer and that's ten times as fascinating than generalizing someone because of their interest.
#notyourshield is certainly...colorful right now.
I agree with this, but I also think that this is why most media tend to describe themselves in terms of movements, whereas videogames tend to currently describe themselves as "Generations", which is entirely based on console-progression, which means the entire framing of cultural discourse for videogames is based on the corporate dominance of a given time period. Videogames have become far too comfortable being signified by corporate interests and have yet to really escape this because they continue to be commodified without attempting to elude definition by exploring new concepts. It's more than a bit disturbing to suddenly be seeing a bunch of games defining themselves as "Souls-like" without any real consensus on what that means as well as there being no real critical upheaval when regarding that as a style.Aren't you really just replacing one label for corporations to exploit with another? Corporations have no trouble re-appropriating labels and identities held by the sophisticated and progressive people to sell products. Organic food markets and gluten-free food products are sold to people who don't have coeliac disease. They represent products that are sold to support an identity. Many of these more expensive products are bought and consumed by professional people who you would think are educated and politically engaged.
Most labels and identities are exploited by corporations. That doesn't mean these labels don't bring positives to people. Corporations will find ways to profit off of everyone's differences. It's part of determining Market segments. That doesn't make calling oneself a gamer any more wrong than calling yourself a traveler or a surfer. Both are used by Marketers and enforced, neither identities are something that people should feel shame about.
I really don't get it. Shouldn't people in order to get hired, be evaluated, first and foremost, according to their skills?
From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.
The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).
The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.
"The overall pattern of results obtained in the present study also helps to illuminate some of the processes underlying the effects of aversive racism. In particular, participants ratings of the candidates qualifications were not directly influenced by race: Participants rated the objective qualifications of blacks and whites equivalently. The effect of race seemed to occur not in how the qualifications were perceived, but in how they were considered and weighed in the recommendation decisions. We (Gaertner et al., 1997) have proposed, for example, that the effects of aversive racism may be rooted substan-
tially in intergroup biases based on social categorization processes.
These biases reflect in-group favoritism as well as out-group derogation. Along these lines, Hewstone (1990) found that people tend to judge a potentially negative behavior as more negative and intentional, and are more likely to attribute the behavior to the persons personality, when the behavior is performed by an out-group member than when it is performed by an in-group member. Thus, when given latitude for interpretation, as in the ambiguous-qualifications condition, whites may give white candidates the benefit of the doubt, a benefit that is not extended to out-group members (i.e., to black candidates). As a consequence, as demonstrated in the present study, moderate qualifications are responded to as if they were strong qualifications when the candidate is white, but as if they were weak qualifications when the candidate is black.
The subtle, rationalizable type of bias demonstrated in the present study, which is manifested in terms of in-group favoritism, can pose unique challenges to the legal system.
A large body of research suggests each one of us holds implicit biases that impact our judgment. Implicit bias is, in essence, part of the human condition. As such, it inevitably impacts interactions with others and processes in which we engage, including the faculty search process. Research suggests that we all engage in unconsciously biased assessments and decision making processes. With this understanding, we can more swiftly move away from blame and embarrassment, and towards efforts to identify, understand and minimize negative impacts of unintended bias as we search for and hire outstanding faculty.
I thought they called them "dudebros"(a little humor to lighten the mood).
Do you think Ian has anything to do with the current controversy? Beyond being an awful person I guess.There is no GIF to adequately respond to this. Do you just have to be a complete fucking psychopath to lecture other people on morality when you hold views like this?
These people are not just losing the argument. They are going down in flames.
Essentially, the meritocracy is a beautiful idea, but it has little bearing on actual reality.
I agree with this, but I also think that this is why most media tend to describe themselves in terms of movements, whereas videogames tend to currently describe themselves as "Generations", which is entirely based on console-progression, which means the entire framing of cultural discourse for videogames is based on the corporate dominance of a given time period. Videogames have become far too comfortable being signified by corporate interests and have yet to really escape this because they continue to be commodified without attempting to elude definition by exploring new concepts. It's more than a bit disturbing to suddenly be seeing a bunch of games defining themselves as "Souls-like" without any real consensus on what that means as well as there being no real critical upheaval when regarding that as a style.
Labels are used by corporate interests to commodify entertainment, but I've never seen it occur anywhere as quickly and aggressively as in the videogame industry.
It's more about acknowledging that there isn't this specific stereotype demographic that you have to try and aim towards (market to, cater to, etc), because who "gamers" actually are IRL is increasingly broad. I also think a lot of folks--particularly socially-liberal people--find themselves looking at a lot of the bigoted attacks coming out of a vocal part of what they felt was a largely similar community and finding they have little in common with them.
That Gamergate IndieGogo where people are actually asking to hire a lawyer is among the most insipid things I have seen in a long time and goes a long way to having the rest of us throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes the issue, but some of the responses are interesting in their own way.
This tweet in particular just makes me laugh and laugh. The irony can be canned and sold wholesale.
That Gamergate IndieGogo where people are actually asking to hire a lawyer is among the most insipid things I have seen in a long time and goes a long way to having the rest of us throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes the issue, but some of the responses are interesting in their own way.
This tweet in particular just makes me laugh and laugh. The irony can be canned and sold wholesale.
So in this case does Gamer just become a slur of those thus-minded?
That Gamergate IndieGogo where people are actually asking to hire a lawyer is among the most insipid things I have seen in a long time and goes a long way to having the rest of us throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes the issue, but some of the responses are interesting in their own way.
This tweet in particular just makes me laugh and laugh. The irony can be canned and sold wholesale.
The indiegogo campaign to hire a gamergate lawyer is run by Art Monzon. He neglects to mention that the lawyer Mahrosh Nawaz is his fiancée.
At least, so I conclude from their easily-googleable wedding registry. http://www.myregistry.com/wedding-registry/Mahrosh-Nawaz-Art-Monzon-Farmers-Branch-TX/562529
Labels are used by corporate interests to commodify entertainment, but I've never seen it occur anywhere as quickly and aggressively as in the videogame industry.
Interesting thing about that IndieGoGo thing.
https://twitter.com/ctatplay/status/507291861644349441
https://twitter.com/ctatplay/status/507292009497755649
Interesting thing about that IndieGoGo thing.
https://twitter.com/ctatplay/status/507291861644349441
https://twitter.com/ctatplay/status/507292009497755649
this is a good post. post more about people being stupid in this stupid stuff
Between Breitbart and that lawyer thing, there sure seem to be some businessmen creeping up to pander to the movement.
I really don't get it. Shouldn't people in order to get hired, be evaluated, first and foremost, according to their skills?
For example, in a study in which white college students were asked to evaluate Black and White people on a simple "good-bad" basis, where choosing bad rather than good to describe Blacks might clearly indicate bias, the students consistently rated both Blacks and Whites positively. However, when the task was changed slightly to rating Blacks and Whites on a more subtle continuum of goodness, Whites were consistently rated better than Blacks. For instance, when the rating choice was "ambitious-not lazy," Blacks were not rated as more lazy than Whites, but Whites were evaluated as more ambitious than Blacks. Repeated findings of this nature led these researchers to conclude that a subtle but important bias was operating. In the eyes of the aversive racists, Blacks were not worse, but Whites are better.
How might such a bias affect hiring decisions? Would this kind of bias affect how the competence of Black and White candidates might be evaluated? To explore this question, a study was conducted in which White college students were asked to rate college applicants who on the basis of transcript information were strongly qualified, moderately qualified, or weakly qualified. In some cases the applicant was identified as Black, in other cases as White. When the applicant was weakly qualified, there was no discrimination between Black and White applicants. Both were rejected. When the applicant had moderate qualifications, Whites were evaluated slightly better than Blacks, but not significantly so. However, when the applicant had strong qualifications, there was a significant difference between how strong White candidates and strong Black candidates were rated. Though the information that had been provided about the candidates was identical, the Black applicants were evaluated significantly less positively than the White applicants. The subtle bias that Dovidio and his colleagues have identified does not occur at all levels, but it occurs where you might least expect it, when the Black candidate is highly qualified. In this and other similar studies, Blacks could be seen as good, but Whites with the same credentials were consistently rated better.
The bias was even more apparent when the Black person being rated was in a position superior to the White evaluator. While high-ability White supervisors were accepted by subordinate White raters as being somewhat more intelligent than themselves, White evaluators consistently described high-ability Black supervisors as significantly less intelligent than themselves. So even when the Black supervisor is more competent than the White subordinate, the White again sees the situation as though a Black person less qualified than themselves is being given preferential treatment.
That Gamergate IndieGogo where people are actually asking to hire a lawyer is among the most insipid things I have seen in a long time and goes a long way to having the rest of us throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes the issue, but some of the responses are interesting in their own way.
This tweet in particular just makes me laugh and laugh. The irony can be canned and sold wholesale.
Now I'm gonna have to shoot slice you.
Do you think Ian has anything to do with the current controversy? Beyond being an awful person I guess.
There's a particularly illustrative study related in Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race, which should help illuminate the problem with this thinking:
In addition to this, there's also the studies done on what has been termed "benevolent" sexism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id7hPJS05V4There's a particularly illustrative study related in Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race, which should help illuminate the problem with this thinking:
There's a particularly illustrative study related in Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race, which should help illuminate the problem with this thinking:
There is no GIF to adequately respond to this. Do you just have to be a complete fucking psychopath to lecture other people on morality when you hold views like this?
These people are not just losing the argument. They are going down in flames.
At least people won't identify themselves through the products they consume and thereby avoid playing into the identities constructed by corporate and marketing, which are solely aimed to increase profits and consumption.
You're comparison is a bit unfair. Anita Sarkeesian's videos serve a different purpose and a very different audience than (e.g.) a book by Judith Butler. Her intention is to "examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective". That's it. It's just an introduction (in a mostly descriptive way) for "regular" people interested in the topic. The philosophers/academics you list are more interested in (feminist) theory itself and in advancing this theory. Their audiences are (often) other academics who already know a lot about feminism. The more layered and sophisticated criticism for video games you ask for actually exists (e.g. here), but these texts are usually a bit too complicated/too niche for people who aren't familiar with the jargon (unlike an Anita Sarkeesian video).
A fairer question would be "are her videos good enough for the intended purpose?" And the answer to that is, imho: "Yes, they are." She can break down an issue and present it properly for her intended audience. They are good enough to introduce people to the field and they can start a proper discussion. Of course they could be better, but the quality is already well above similar videos by other people.
And I agree that we need more and better critics; one for "othering," one for racism and one for masculinities etc. But in light of the things that are currently happening, I wouldn't count on people stepping forward to expose themselves.
I hope you're not serious. It isn't Hohokum that sells consols, it's FIFA, CoD, Destiny, NBA, AC, Watch_Dogs, Battlefield...
I still don't get the Giant Bomb argument. If they looked at all the candidates side by side and compared their submitted works and qualifications, why should they not go with the person they think is the best person for the job just because he's male and white. And why is NOT hiring someone a dismissal of their qualifications? It's not, someone was better than you. Just like all things in life, you aren't always the best for the job. And employer not giving you the job isn't a dismissal of your qualifications.
Unless someone has some insight and there is proof GiantBomb dismissed candidates that were female (ie. they didn't take their applications seriously or had a severe bias to the male applicants purely on their gender). But how do you prove that. If they 100% were genuine in their hiring process and seriously considerd each candidate, and still found the white male guy as having the best quality work, why is it bad for them to hire him vs hiring someone else that is worse then who they could have hired.
If my view on this is wrong, then I'm open to understanding why it's wrong. I just never understood the outrage. I can understand diappointment. But I don't get why GB should be criticized if they were genuine about the process and really thought he was the best for the job. I also found it unprofessional of Leigh and others that applied to rant on twitter because they didn't get hired. Unless they actually had proof their application wasn't taken seriously, I don't see how you can criticize a company for picking someone else over you.
I still don't get the Giant Bomb argument. If they looked at all the candidates side by side and compared their submitted works and qualifications, why should they not go with the person they think is the best person for the job just because he's male and white. And why is NOT hiring someone a dismissal of their qualifications? It's not, someone was better than you. Just like all things in life, you aren't always the best for the job. And employer not giving you the job isn't a dismissal of your qualifications.
Unless someone has some insight and there is proof GiantBomb dismissed candidates that were female (ie. they didn't take their applications seriously or had a severe bias to the male applicants purely on their gender). But how do you prove that. If they 100% were genuine in their hiring process and seriously considerd each candidate, and still found the white male guy as having the best quality work, why is it bad for them to hire him vs hiring someone else that is worse then who they could have hired.
If my view on this is wrong, then I'm open to understanding why it's wrong. I just never understood the outrage. I can understand diappointment. But I don't get why GB should be criticized if they were genuine about the process and really thought he was the best for the job. I also found it unprofessional of Leigh and others that applied to rant on twitter because they didn't get hired. Unless they actually had proof their application wasn't taken seriously, I don't see how you can criticize a company for picking someone else over you.
As I stated just in the last page, implicit biases may find a candidate chosen not purely on their on paper merits.
Issues with implicit biases generally are not clear cut situations where you can go "you did wrong" but taken as a whole across a number of organizations, it becomes a problem.
Her videos and critiques wouldn't pass the sort of thorough academic and critical review that any political/feminist critique would undergo in a more established medium, hence my comparisons to other works. I agree that there's a level of jargon and unfamiliarity (which some of Anita's supporters are using as weapons to bully people with), but I don't think a critique needs to reference other works in order to be nuanced and rigorous, though having Anita's videos as a point of reference for a large number of people is definitely going to help.
My problem with her videos and her more extremist supporters is the undertone of conspiracy theory she invokes (ironic in context of current events, I know). She has a somewhat flimsy thesis that's more implied than overt, and cherry picks examples to prove a pattern which is anecdotal evidence at best, which leads to a conclusion that's a variation of "coincidence? you decide". If you disagree with the premise, or call into question the mechanisms of the argument, you're called what's essentially a "patriarchy shill", which is conspiracy theorist 101 and you see it on both sides of the debate. People who support her will point to the controversy, and people who argue against her will point to the lack of context of her analysis or her qualifications to make these claims, while nobody actually debates the core problem because nobody knows what it is. It doesn't lead to productive discussion, atleast not yet.
That said, I think we all sort of understand that nuanced and thorough analysis that seeks to educate and not produce confrontations/controversy will not get the sort of viral attention her videos have gotten and will continue to receive. Unfortunately in the twitter/forums/leave-a-comment culture we're in right now, this might be necessary to get an idea to the front page and help it stay there for an extended period of time. Hopefully if this issue gets enough attention we'll all collectively grow past the sort of accusatory tone we're all using and the sort of ineffectual discussion her content is likely to produce and actually discuss this like adults.
If it works out for them, cool.
Does Anita have any collegiate degrees in Womens Studies or in Sociology, or is she just a "pop culture critic"
Does Anita have any collegiate degrees in Womens Studies or in Sociology, or is she just a "pop culture critic"
There's nothing wrong with Anita discussing the things she discusses, but her presentation and arguments leave a lot to be desired. It reminds me too much of a paper written by a sociology freshman as opposed to someone who's actually in the know. My only hope is that this leads to more exploration by trained people who have studied these things to an incredible degree
I edited my post after quoting Mumei. But here is what I said:
Interesting read. I still don't know how you enforce that, to make sure biases don't happen. Unless we start forcing private companies to have a mandatory quota for how many people are of different race/gender. But if we are taking a study like this into account, then we are saying 100% the guys at GiantBomb had a sub-conscious bias against the female applicants, because white male/gender tend to rate higher with white/males when viewing high qualified applicants side by side.
Would a blind application process be better? ie. People submit a number instead of their name/gender, with their work attached + their qualifications. Then they hire based purely on the facts, not knowing what the gender/race is?
So essentially they should hire a minority, not merely to support diversity but also so they don't appear prejudiced to the public because of a study that states they might be unconsciously biased and then just cross their fingers and hope the minority is at least remotely suited to the position. Why bother even looking at resumes at this point?Giant Bomb wasn't the nuke, it was just the straw that broke the camels back. While hiring the best candidate is fine, there's no denying that gaming journalism is still incredibly white and male. And while what they did wasn't bad, there are studies that show that this might've come from internalized biases against women and minorities. it's important to have diversity in this avenue, especially when you talk about how important diversity is.
I believe she hosts her master's thesis for all to read on her website.
She has a Master's degree in Social and Political Thought.