Weltall Zero
Member
This thread is like groundhog day. Again. Loops within loops within loops.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Game Awards jury lists only 2 women out of 32 jurors (sites selected jurors)
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
This thread is like groundhog day. Again. Loops within loops within loops.
I'm not presenting a single strawman. He literally discussed interest AND used the word qualifications to describe a journalists lack of experience necessary to be on the jury (hence why I even said what I did in the first place) and I'm referencing qualifications. He discussed this on a thread about the lack of female representation on a panel of jurors made up of journalists. It doesn't take much to connect the two dots. He is arguing that they lack qualifications.....that's literally what he said and it's in relation to this topic. I'm being repetitive, I know, but that's for a reason.
And despite his belief on the amount of women writing about games, there's probably more than he is aware of considering his immediate use of the Candy Crush argument and personal experiences that show his lack of experience with women in gaming in general.
And now you're twisting what I wrote. I never said that he argued that ALL female journalists are incapable of writing about games. I'm arguing against this qualifications argument that keeps on popping up. You even have the audacity to accuse me of this and quote my actual words in your post. Putting words in my mouth while ignoring the actual words you quoted? Thanks. I appreciate that.
I'm not going to bother talking to you more, TBiddy, especially if this is how it's going to be. All your attitude tells me is that you don't care to discuss this topic in the first place, especially if all you do is accuse me of various logical fallacies and twist my words. My interpretation of his post is grounded directly in what he stated and in relation to the topic. You clearly just want to play some ridiculous gotcha game with me for daring to say a thing contrary while you ignore the subject matter at hand. I'm not going to bite, sorry.
GlamFM
Banned
This is one of the cases where you think you´re doing the right thing, but actually hurt the good cause.
You distract from the big issue and kind of ridicule the entire thing.
There are plenty of fights to be fought when it comes to gender equality - the composition of the game award jury is not one of them.
You distract from the big issue and kind of ridicule the entire thing.
There are plenty of fights to be fought when it comes to gender equality - the composition of the game award jury is not one of them.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
why?
Equality is not about having equal numbers, it is about women in the same position being treated the same. And what matters the most is that these two women are valued and treated equally in the jury, I sincerely hope that is the case.
As far as I can tell the selection pool consisted mainly out of men, hence I do not necessarily see a problem with the majority of this selection being men. Now I know there are severe problems in this industry regarding women and I celebrate the recent trend of calling that shit out, but as far as I can tell it is hard to state this selection is based on gender preference. To give an example; If a crew consisting of ten only has two females and they need to pick one person on equal measure, chances are quite low they will pick one of the women. And to me that is not inherently bad, as long as they were considered on equal measure. It is hard to tell if that happened though and I obviously do not know what happens behind the scenes, nor am I familiar with most of these journalists.
On additional note; As someone that sings (group lessons and practice) and used to help organizing beneficial events, I have experienced being a sole man in larger female groups quite often. This was never a problem as I was totally accepted and valued. Even though over here it are mostly women that seem interested in these activities, it is never a problem when men want to join. This. however, does not seem to be the case in the games industry at all. Still, I really think focusing on numbers rather than the actual interactions has so many variables that it is hard to tell wrong from right.
As far as I can tell the selection pool consisted mainly out of men, hence I do not necessarily see a problem with the majority of this selection being men. Now I know there are severe problems in this industry regarding women and I celebrate the recent trend of calling that shit out, but as far as I can tell it is hard to state this selection is based on gender preference. To give an example; If a crew consisting of ten only has two females and they need to pick one person on equal measure, chances are quite low they will pick one of the women. And to me that is not inherently bad, as long as they were considered on equal measure. It is hard to tell if that happened though and I obviously do not know what happens behind the scenes, nor am I familiar with most of these journalists.
On additional note; As someone that sings (group lessons and practice) and used to help organizing beneficial events, I have experienced being a sole man in larger female groups quite often. This was never a problem as I was totally accepted and valued. Even though over here it are mostly women that seem interested in these activities, it is never a problem when men want to join. This. however, does not seem to be the case in the games industry at all. Still, I really think focusing on numbers rather than the actual interactions has so many variables that it is hard to tell wrong from right.
100% agree.
I don't know, i don't even think outlets would have a problem with selecting their women editors as judges (as few as they are) if asked to.
As was pointed out a few times, the reason the panel looks like it does is that this is literally 2 emails to the EIC of the sites and theres not much more thought put into who is selected (or what is selected) than that.
Now, i don't think these awards should be taken more seriously than that given what type of show this is, but if you do, adapting the selection process to the new realities of the industry (and i don't mean just more women) is worth looking into.
Yeah, I'd think it would be this easy. Apparently it's not.
So you are saying that everyone should fill a quota of X females, X men, X -insert race- and so on is a good thing, regardless of qualifications in the area?
I don't see the positives in sending emails saying "hey we want X of this" if the outlet already had someone in mind who they saw as more qualified and experienced for the 'job' they are going to do.
Discussion of the games industry as a whole is a whole nother topic itself.
This is simply about people wanting 50/50 regarding reasons, which is not arguing for equality.
Drac84
Member
I didn't follow that thread, but I don't see the issue with people questioning the findings of that survey. If it doesn't gel with people's general observations and perceptions why wouldn't we discuss and debate it? We discuss research claims all the time on this forum. Every time a paper claiming that 'consoles are dead' is released there's a 50 page thread where we analyse the claims made and compare them with our own experiences and observations. Ideally the console market will one day reach a point where 50% of players are women, it's not a development that i'm afraid of, quite the contrary. I simply don't believe we're there yet. Having read the article you provided a link to, the questions that sprang to my mind are which consoles were included, and what was the framing of the question (do you own a console, do you play a console, does your household have a console etc). If a survey asked my Mum and my Sister 'do you own a console' both would answer yes, but only one is a gamer. These questions aren't formed out of a desperate defensive need to disprove the findings and 'maintain dominance', it's just curiosity. I'm truly sorry if you feel drained by the need to defend female gaming; i'm not going to pretend like there aren't a LOT of male gamers that do attack any mention of the subject. But I don't think that should prevent people on this forum from discussing and debating the merits of that paper.
Back on topic, having looked at the last few pages, an argument I've seen is that the most qualified person for the job should be nominated regardless of gender. I don't agree that it should be the most 'qualified' (are there video game journalist qualifications?), but elements such as experience, judgement and knowledge should all be the basis of the nominations. The discussion has been on the overall number ratios of gender, but something that's been lost in the discussion is looking at the actual people each outlet has nominated.
http://thegameawards.com/jury-and-advisors/
I can only comment on the outlets that i'm familiar with, but each of them has nominated (in my opinion) the best judge from their site/magazine.
Aus Gamers - Stephen Farrelly
Giantbomb - Jeff Gerstman
Edge UK - Tony Mott
IGN - Tal Blevins
US Gamer - Jeremy Parish
These are all very experienced, senior people who have been in and around the industry for a very long time, and I can't think of anyone else at each of their outlets (male or female) that I would nominate ahead of them. As a whole when looking over the website's list of judges there is a distinct lack of women and younger people, and while having greater diversity amongst the judging panel to offer a broader range of perspectives and better represent the gaming community would be ideal, when I look at the actual individual people nominated there isn't anyone that I would sub-out in favour of another specific person.
Finally, I think the outlets that are withdrawing from the Awards are taking the easy way out. If they feel so strongly about the imbalance they should do their part to help redress it by nominating an experienced female representative from their organisation as a judge. It wouldn't immediately make the balance 50/50, but every journey starts with a single step. If the outlets professing the most concern and outrage about this issue do nothing (and boycotting is very, very close to doing nothing), then nothing will change.
The cynic in me wonders if the people withdrawing are more concerned with appearing progressive than they are with actually being progressive by helping to instigate change.
TBiddy
Member
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not out to "get you", I'm merely pointing out that you're presenting a strawman in order to win the argument against him. Surely, that's not a way to discuss?
The question for a good jury is always, what diverse views and opinions are they bringing to the table? All those people from your list maybe all expert, but they are from a very similar environment and bring a similar view of the industry. With this you just create a majority of one opinion and put everybody else in the minority. It's basically incest.
A more diverse jury can bring a variety on opinions and give a minority a better chance of achieving a success. A game winning a award of a diverse and professional jury has actually much more value, then getting a handjob from your fans, colleagues or other people close to the industry. You know, a award people can take seriously.
TBiddy
Member
You're right about that (except the last part, which I don't agree with). But how you would suggest a jury to be chosen?
As I understand it, each website had to submit their own candidate, which the other sites knew nothing about. If we assume that most of the sites are somewhat professionally run, wouldn't it make sense that they've chosen their "best" or "most enthusiastic" reviewer? I can't see how a more diverse jury could be found, without forcing it on the websites.
I don't know how you possibly got all of that out of my post.
I like how you continued ignoring my entire post pointing out how I wasn't using the fallacy you accused me of (I referenced his very words no less and their relation to this topic-a key point you're still ignoring) and my pointing out that you were twisting my words for your own ends. That doesn't help how I view your overall ignoring of the topic at hand and ignoring of my posts in general. I was fair to him and happily welcome discussion. You on the other hand have shown me you do not welcome discussion. Thanks and have a wonderful day.
If you look for the topic the general reaction to it is less about "questioning/curiosity" (which I am already leery of as is. "Just asking questions" is never a fun type of person to deal with, if you know what I mean) and more about attempting to further discuss how women don't play video games because Candy Crush, they don't actually own it, it's their bfs and they just watch him play and other nonsense. I feel drained because when I bring up these issues they're ignored or I'm told: "All of these numerous studies showing women equally/very near equally/even in the majority play games are lies because *insert numerous excuses here*". I'm not the only one treated like this, of course. It's an experience we put up with constantly.
And I'm honestly already tired of typing this since it's always the same thing over and over and I spend way too long formulating how to basically say the same thing I'm so annoyed over. I don't mean that in a "I'm pissed with you manner", I mean that in a "this topic is tiring and I want it to stop popping up and wish people would just accept that others enjoy the same stupid hobby". That's part of why the topic of questions you bring up are draining in the first place as well. They read less like "merit discussing" and more like: "What hole can I try to poke in this to protect me from the idea that other people like video games?"
There's no necessary thing preventing people from discussing the merit of anything. The issue comes from the amount of people who don't care to actually discuss the merit in the first place. Their responses immediately read as a defense of the boy's club culture they've cultivated. I hope you get where I'm coming from here.
To verge back onto the topic more: Diverse backgrounds combined with experience bring in differentiating viewpoints. Which is frankly always healthy to have. Agreed with Metal B more or less simply put. And a tiny bit of what you mentioned Drac as well.
What I don't like is it seems places are now putting the fault on the game awards for this. And not asking the bigger question. Why do these publications seem to employ so few women and minoritities. Also it begs the question. How many of both? Women and minorities are seeking out these jobs?
I get the distinct impression a lot of the people saying this is no big deal or that they should just pick the 'most qualified' regardless of gender/race (whatever 'most qualified' is supposed to mean for gaming awards) haven't worked in the real world very long or at all.
In the real world, every company and government espouses the view that they are a meritocracy, and that the best and hardest working will move up the ladder.
In the real world, every company and government is not really a meritocracy, and who you know (and often how white and male you are) matters far more than any of those things.
Saying 'Well if they had picked 32 women who were all qualified it'd be fine!' is disingenuous, for the simple reason that there's a zero percent chance of that happening, while an all white male panel almost happened.
I say this all as a white male who has certainly benefited from his race/gender in many subtle ways and volunteers with girl scouts and supports all his wife's Society of Women Engineers activities in part due to how disgusted I've been at how women get treated in everyday, casual ways in work environments. This sort of nonsense is a huge problem, and you can't just toss up your hands and go 'whatever' when it happens over and over again and expect it to just work itself out in the end.
In the real world, every company and government espouses the view that they are a meritocracy, and that the best and hardest working will move up the ladder.
In the real world, every company and government is not really a meritocracy, and who you know (and often how white and male you are) matters far more than any of those things.
Saying 'Well if they had picked 32 women who were all qualified it'd be fine!' is disingenuous, for the simple reason that there's a zero percent chance of that happening, while an all white male panel almost happened.
I say this all as a white male who has certainly benefited from his race/gender in many subtle ways and volunteers with girl scouts and supports all his wife's Society of Women Engineers activities in part due to how disgusted I've been at how women get treated in everyday, casual ways in work environments. This sort of nonsense is a huge problem, and you can't just toss up your hands and go 'whatever' when it happens over and over again and expect it to just work itself out in the end.
TBiddy
Member
I didn't think there was anything further to add to that discussion. I stand by what I posted earlier, which (in my eyes, at least) proved that you set up a strawman in order to win the argument. We both know that this topic is very sensitive and attributing point of views to an opponent certainly doesn't help.
You disagree with how I viewed your post, and that's fine with me. Good day to you as well.
The answer isn't simple and its a mirror of the problems of the industry. Woman and ethnic minorities have a hard time in the industries (as developers and consumers). One important move forward would to be building a fundament and give those groups a more important stance. An important award, where you have a diverse cast in the jury, means developers have to think about a much wider and diverse audience, if they want to have the award. Those not only bring glory, but also sells for the developers (like all the niche movies, which win the Oscars. Even so the Oscar awards lost a lot of value, because of there predictable jury). It would be a small step, but we have to start somewhere.
So yes, nominate woman or other ethnic minorities, which couldn't be big experts in the field. But it would show similar journalist, that there is a chance for them to be recognised and encourage them to be become even bigger experts. It could be difficult in the beginning, but it would slowly grow into a better and more value award.
TBiddy
Member
In my eyes it should be the "best" (for lack of better word) candidate that should be chosen from each gaming site, no matter the sex.
Also, I'm of the opinion that selecting someone purely based on gender or etnicity is doing them a disservice.
GlamFM
Banned
That´s nominating someone just for the sake of it.
And that´s the wrong approach.
Same qualification should be the basis for all discussion and for all decisions.
When I sit in a plane I want the pilot to be the best one for the job - not someone who fitted whatever profile.
Maybe all this discussion is just a little bit premature.
Just from my personal experience of going to gamescom for years I can tell that female "hardcore" gamers are on the rise big time.
Soon that will be reflected (more) in games media - and soon after that in a jury I´m sure.
That is not what TGA are doing though. They aren't filling one position, and searching for the best candidate. They are filling 34, and the goal is building a solid group. I don't want a pilot fueling the plane before takeoff, I want someone with a different background and a different set of skills.
In this case TGA would benefit from broadening their perspective when the decision is being made. This is about evaluating an art product, bringing in different perspectives would benifit the group.
I think it's more of an issue with the industry rather than the game awards. You're right. You pick the best journalists. Now we should ask ourselves why is the industry so homogenized that the best journos are 1 demographic
You can find one of the reasons in the responses in this thread.
Yeah I wasn't actually asking but more of a statement. I know why
the_prime_mover
Member
I take issue with the merit based approach in such a selection processes because, at a minimum, the mechanics behind the industry at large seem to give more power and authority to men regardless of merit (I.e. The boy's club approach to inclusion). That means that the pool of 'qualified' representatives has been skewed prior to selection which gives us something to point at and say "See if we pick by qualification then it just so happens that it is primarily (white) men - no bias whatsoever".
In some particular cases the issue of merit is critical (I.e. Highly specialized engineering and science projects as only one example) and there is likely only a small pool of qualified individuals. But in many cases the difference between one person's qualifications and another's is likely rather minor. In these cases, we as a society would benefit from forgoing the strict 'merit' approach and instead focus on the optics. Women represent 50% of the population and should represent 50% of most groups for as long as it takes to completely eradicate the stench of institutionalized sexism that currently exists.
And, in light of this past year, the gaming industry specifically would be doing itself a favour if it made more of an effort to put women front and centre. It might be awkward and shallow at the beginning, but that is far, far better than upholding the 'merit' line of reasoning which does nothing to change the optics or pressure the underlying machinery to change.
In some particular cases the issue of merit is critical (I.e. Highly specialized engineering and science projects as only one example) and there is likely only a small pool of qualified individuals. But in many cases the difference between one person's qualifications and another's is likely rather minor. In these cases, we as a society would benefit from forgoing the strict 'merit' approach and instead focus on the optics. Women represent 50% of the population and should represent 50% of most groups for as long as it takes to completely eradicate the stench of institutionalized sexism that currently exists.
And, in light of this past year, the gaming industry specifically would be doing itself a favour if it made more of an effort to put women front and centre. It might be awkward and shallow at the beginning, but that is far, far better than upholding the 'merit' line of reasoning which does nothing to change the optics or pressure the underlying machinery to change.
I wonder if people realise that in any male dominated field, women typically have to work far far harder to achieve a similar level of success to men.
Law of averages suggests that many woman that has managed to achieve success in this field has done so in the face of systemic discrimination in the industry, disproportionate abuse from the audience, overt sexism from individuals who are embedded enough in the establishment to be able to get away with it, and more challenges.
If you are simply ranking individuals according to position in the professional hierarchy, your ranking system is flawed, and will benefit complacent and mediocre white men who have got into their position through connections and knowing the right people moreso than hard work and raw talent. We've all read the work of Kuchera and Gies over at Polygon, right? Any number of women could fill their roles far more effectively, and probably would do so if the deck wasn't stacked against them.
Law of averages suggests that many woman that has managed to achieve success in this field has done so in the face of systemic discrimination in the industry, disproportionate abuse from the audience, overt sexism from individuals who are embedded enough in the establishment to be able to get away with it, and more challenges.
If you are simply ranking individuals according to position in the professional hierarchy, your ranking system is flawed, and will benefit complacent and mediocre white men who have got into their position through connections and knowing the right people moreso than hard work and raw talent. We've all read the work of Kuchera and Gies over at Polygon, right? Any number of women could fill their roles far more effectively, and probably would do so if the deck wasn't stacked against them.
the_prime_mover
Member
I imagine most people realize this, but those that need to admit it are the ones with the most to lose...
Quoting this just so it shows up for a third time in the row because it's spot on.
50/50 split in the jury would be just a pretentious move, the jury could reflect the true gender ratio in the industry by some error margin and that would be fine. Making the jury 50/50 solves no gender discrimination problem, it's not something that should be solved top to bottom, but bottom to up (more women as game journalist -> more women in jury)
The game awards decided on the selection process. Why shouldn't they take responsibility for the outcome - it is their show, no one forces them to appoint the jurors throug a process that led to these results. And no one is stopping them from making changes now that they can see how it turned out.
Their show, their responsibility. The much bigger industry problem is not theirs to solve, this is though.
GlamFM
Banned
That´s BS though. The game awards nominated outlets, not individuals AFAIK.
igordennis
Member
I love it when people think their anecdote experiences are representing of the entire world. I simply love it.
If they can't find a dozen non-whites or women who know about video games in 2015 they're either screwing up, not looking at all or alternatively this world is truly fucked.
Now that I think about it, I could probably supply those people from my friends and social media contacts.
Night Angel
Member
So the solution is what?
"Please don't send your lead editor or most experienced people, unless they aren't a white male"? The selection process they chose was completely reasonable if the expectation was to have seasoned people from the gaming journalism scene on the panel.
Something is obviously wrong here, but I find it hard to blame the VGAs for it.
All the people arguing "the most qualified person for the job!" conveniently forget about just who some of the 'top' people in the games press are right now.
So you refuse to fly on all of the thousands of flights that don't have the best pilot for the job? You'll only accept the absolute pinnacle of the profession and everyone else is trash? We both know that's bullshit.
Good gravy we're still getting this shit.
The industry as we know it today was created by marketers in the 80s who, looking for a quick buck, targeted young and adolescent males as the core of their market.
For a long time this did lead to a large gender imbalance in who played games, which before this had barely existed. As time has moved on this gender imbalance has all but disappeared, in that there is now a small majority of women playing games.
Of course the industry itself is still a new boy's club, but that will change too, and that's no excuse for not trying to do better right now.
For setting up a flawed selection process that allowed this extremely predictable outcome.
Because they designed the entire selection procedure. I don't think there's any reason to think they deliberately designed it to favour homogeneity, and I am absolutely not ascribing malicious intent to their approach, but when designing the selection process they gave little/no thought to diversity, and ended up with a panel overwhelmingly full of white men.
Geoff Keighley is not the global head of the patriarchy, he is just a man who is very much part of the establishment, for whom diversity is way way down the list of priorities when assembling a judging panel for his awards ceremony/advertising party.
He is framing TGA as a celebration of gaming's cultural significance. His words. It would seem that he does not consider having diverse representation within TGA as being important to the cultural significance of the medium. I disagree with this, and it seems at least a couple of the judges he chose disagree with this too.
Edit: Also after getting the shortlist of candidates back from the publications, they seemingly had no thought process before publishing them. Many people would have thought "Hmm. This list is overwhelmingly full of white men, perhaps I should contact one of the huge number of qualified women or non-white people in the field that I did not invite to participate yet". Even if somehow they only know white men (which I entirely reject), there's any number of ways to solicit suggestions for people who could expand the diversity of the panel.
No one put a gun to Keighley's head and forced him to accept the initial shortlist as the only possible range of judges.
Correct, and the results of this nomination process were shit. When you get shit results, you act accordingly.
TBiddy
Member
How would you suggest that the jury be selected?
What's "shit about it"? Are the selected jurors incompetent fools?
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
"Please recommend a male and a female staff member to represent your publication. Upon receiving all applications we'll decide upon a panel and send you the results."
If you had the choice, would you rather ride with the best pilot for the job, or someone who isn't?
We both know what you would choose.
GlamFM
Banned
So you nominate biogamergirl and leave GiantBomb out - correct?
Please outlet, send me 2 candidates for me: 1 male and 1 female. We gonna randomly select one to represent your outlet. thank you.
igordennis
Member
Nice strawmen.
Similar threads
- Poll