Support NeoGAF

[Vault Dweller 111]

I'm not the one accusing people of calling for quotas, so why would I do that work?

Here ya go.


http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1142273&page=1

 

[Skux]

You know we're on par with the film industry when the awards ceremonies are being derailed by questions about the diversity of their judging panels.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

You know we're on par with the film industry when the awards ceremonies are being derailed by questions about the diversity of their judging panels.

Derailed?

 

[viveks86]

No, it's not equally bad. It's worse.

You'd prefer a world in which this group was mandated by law to represent the current diversity percentages? Do we use worldwide statistics or local statistics for your ideal? While we're putting in gender quotas, we should also add ethnicity/race quotas as well, right? Religion? Eye color? Disabilities? Income level? At what point do we stop enforcing diversity once we begin? When it suits you?

Or, on the other hand, we can allow free societies filled with free individuals to freely choose who panels some relatively meaningless competition. They might not always choose a group that meets your [or mine] preferred criteria, but at least we're not enforcing diversity for the sake of diversity. A free society should see the dangers of such force clearly without it needing to even be explained.

The world isn't always going to look like you want it to. Forcing others to obey your mandate is not the solution. There are many other avenues to pursue. Using force to mandate something as meaningless as a judging panel is the realm of bureaucrats and fascists.

What is this free society you speak of? I'd like to live in it

You know we're on par with the film industry when the awards ceremonies are being derailed by questions about the diversity of their judging panels.

Thread on NeoGAF and one juror backing out = derailed?

 

[Illucio]

I'm sure their are plenty of capable women in the industry who could had been a juror. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split, hell I'd be fine with 30/70 if that, but you have to be blind if you can't see that this is in bad tastes.

Especially when you have the single most terrible juror from last year returning: Lou Kesten (who is the first name you see when you go to the list) who just last year was claiming he would had quit his job if Bayonetta 2 was awarded game of the year.

This is simply not giving me any faith in The Game Award Show, and I can easily see this becoming a shit fest behind the scenes. I'm sure the show itself will be great, but I'm still very disappointed how everything is turning out like this year, and it's too late now to change many of these things.

Hopefully next year will be better.

 

[Usobuko]

I'm not a fan quotas, how do we know if white males are qualified enough or not?

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

I'm sure their are plenty of capable women in the industry who could had been a juror. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split, hell I'd be fine with 30/70 if that, but you have to be blind if you can't see that this is in bad tastes.

Especially when you have the single most terrible juror from last year returning: Lou Kesten (who is the first name you see when you go to the list) who just last year was claiming he would had quit his job if Bayonetta 2 was awarded game of the year.

This is simply not giving me any faith in The Game Award Show, and I can easily see this becoming a shit fest behind the scenes. I'm sure the show itself will be great, but I'm still very disappointed how everything is turning out like this year, and it's too late now to change many of these things.

Hopefully next year will be better.

What if he had said that about a Call of Duty game?

 

[Velcro Fly]

Need to make the industry a desirable place where women will want to work

Part of that is opportunity and part of it is culture.

2 out of 32 is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Illucio]

What if he had said that about a Call of Duty game?

It's the fact he could had said it about any game in general is the problem.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

This is slightly OT but I am curious which country?

Malaysia. Look up the wikipedia entry for Ketuanan Melayu if you're interested.

 

[Shadoken]

Especially when you have the single most terrible juror from last year returning: Lou Kesten (who is the first name you see when you go to the list) who just last year was claiming he would had quit his job if Bayonetta 2 was awarded game of the year.

Well if we are going to be changing up the jurors we all know where to start lmao. But yea I dont see how this guy got in again with such obvious bias and hatred towards a game.

Malaysia. Look up the wikipedia entry for Ketuanan Melayu if you're interested.

Similar case in India , which is why I asked. I dont feel it is fair though , especially with the amount of BS politics that goes behind it ( People using money/influence to change which quota they get into). I can understand the logic behind the system. But there could be better ways to solve it at the root of the problem , instead of having a quota system at the top.
For example it would have been better if government provided more support for education of under-privileged children instead of having quotas in universities.

 

[Seiru]

Jesus the first page of this thread is embarrassing.

 

[way more]

My niece dreams of one day being on a jury award pool for video games. I guess I should let her down easy and tell her to set her sights on something a little more attainable, like reviewing literature.

 

[Critic]

Need to make the industry a desirable place where women will want to work

Part of that is opportunity and part of it is culture.

2 out of 32 is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

So we should force them to work there?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

So we should force them to work there?

No.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

No one I've quoted has suggested that until now, actually. That's a great idea, but not as great as enforcing "blind" recruitment processes, IMO.

Blind recruitment is a great practice but its not going to be something suitable for every job or every siruation.

You really need to calm down a bit. Nowhere in my posts have I talked about this. And of course companies sometimes hire people who can't do their job properly, you see it all the time. What are you trying to say here?

I'm completely chill. But you need to actually understand the logic behind what we are discussing since you have claimed about 3 times that you have no solution to the problem or concept of how to achieve the goal. And the issue is not that companies hire people who can't do the job. You keep mixing this up. The issue is that when in doubt the best competency is assigned to white males so opportunities to advance and get positions are INHERENTLY BIAS regardless. I have said this like 50 times. I don't get why its not understood by now.

In this thread we have evidence of bias, evidence of improved performance with more diversity and evidence of flawed reasoning about qualifications. The actual concept of quotas is not flawed. And I'm not even suggesting we need it specifically but if the choice is between a quota amd a white male dominated panel I am picking quota because it is factually better.

 

[Boombox On]

So we should force them to work there?

Making a job more desirable for people = forcing them to work there?
Do you know what the word "force" means?

 

[Laughing Banana]

"send someone but please consider issues of diversity" or "send someone and we highly value diversity here at The Official Games Award 2015* *brought to you by The Holy Mountain Dew and Our Blessed Doritos"

It's really that simple.

Sending that kind of note can be seen as "aw shit now I have to send someone "different" because if I am not I will be considered as someone that dislike/not favoring diversity", you know.

 

[autoduelist]

Jesus fucking christ, I honestly didn't expect people on GAF to be this dense, but here we are.

Let me explain in the clearest possible terms; these decisions were not and never were freely made in a vacuum. They are 'freely' made insofar as they have been unconsciously influenced by society and culture. Unwritten assumptions we generally are not consciously aware of.

One of those is our historical devaluing of female opinions. Look at how society treats female experts and academics. There is a reason why female academics are almost always only credited by media as co-authors of studies even if they were the team leader. There are reasons why media refer to husband/wife research teams with the male as the researcher and female as his wife.

There are reasons why chief justices in nearly every country are majority male despite the number of female law graduates eclipsing male grads. There are reasons why women CEOs are far fewer in number. There are reasons why female candidates for political office are asked bizarre questions about whether others will perceive them as weak or if they smile enough.

And here's the hint; the answer isn't qualification or merit.

You're arguing a different point entirely. We're not talking about how the choices to get to this were made -- there, I mostly agree with you. We're talking about the merits of using force to fix that. Your entire post is completely tangential to the point I was making.

You're actively ignoring my point and misconstruing my position on the matter. Force is not the solution.

 

[BlastProcessing]

No, it's not equally bad. It's worse.

You'd prefer a world in which this group was mandated by law to represent the current diversity percentages? Do we use worldwide statistics or local statistics for your ideal? While we're putting in gender quotas, we should also add ethnicity/race quotas as well, right? Religion? Eye color? Disabilities? Income level? At what point do we stop enforcing diversity once we begin? When it suits you?

Or, on the other hand, we can allow free societies filled with free individuals to freely choose who panels some relatively meaningless competition. They might not always choose a group that meets your [or mine] preferred criteria, but at least we're not enforcing diversity for the sake of diversity. A free society should see the dangers of such force clearly without it needing to even be explained.

The world isn't always going to look like you want it to. Forcing others to obey your mandate is not the solution. There are many other avenues to pursue. Using force to mandate something as meaningless as a judging panel is the realm of bureaucrats and fascists.

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said anything about laws and I certainly didn't suggest forcing anybody to obey. I asked why it's worse? You actually didn't answer that at all. In this thread my focus has been that people should point out instances of inequality to help show the larger pattern. Do you disagree?

This is one of the many problems with discussions like these. People get caught up in black and white extremes. How about you meet me in the grey area and we chat? Like, you mentioned other avenues. What other avenues would you pursue? What goals would you have? What do you see as the problem here that needs to be solved?

 

[$h@d0w]

2 out of 32 is a clear sign of the misogyny of these awards.

Obviously the patriarchy at work here.

I'm absolutely disgusted.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

Representation has to be and in this can probably be more relevant. If there are 32 jurors and only 1 or 2 that are into Japanese games, that would be much more outrageous because it's much more relevant to... games awards. If there were 32 women voting, but none of them were into Japanese games, I don't necessarily need a man to feel represented, I need a weeb god dammit!

 

[Deleted member 126221]

2 out of 32 is a clear sign of the misogyny of these awards.

Obviously the patriarchy at work here.

I'm absolutely disgusted.

Care to make your point more clearly?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

lol at everyone acting like judging the artistic merit of video games over a variety of categories is some mystic art.

And yet people are going to boycott The Game Awards, a show that recognized the importance of Roberta Williams in its very first edition, because of this?

Promptly boycott every single website and game released, then, if that's the case.

We should definitely talk about this, but the pointing of fingers thing is such an infantile way to react to this. It will make you feel better right now and fix absolutely nothing.

Yup. The reaction is warranted. The over-reaction, not so much.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

You're arguing a different point entirely. We're not talking about how the choices to get to this were made -- there, I mostly agree with you. We're talking about the merits of using force to fix that.

You're actively ignoring my point and misconstruing my position on the matter.

Force is not the solution. I don't care how we got to where we are, force is not the solution.

I genuinely can't remember your post word for word, and being on my phone, I can't easily search for it, so I'll simply take you at your word. If I misconstrued your post, that was not my intention and I apologize.

That said, I raise you the following; in Australia, the Aboriginal community was heavily damaged by white settlers and later by forced adoption into white families and guardians, an event whose victims are largely referred to as the Stolen Generation.

This history, as well as a general history of racism, both overt and latent, has heavily disadvantaged the community and left many living in reserves with little advancement opportunity. To help correct this, quotas have been set for Aboriginal people in education and employment, thereby attempting to solve the problem by force. Should force not be the solution? If so, why not and what should be done instead?

 

[JStein0222]

Care to make your point more clearly?

I think that post was sarcastic

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

2 out of 32 is a clear sign of the misogyny of these awards.

Obviously the patriarchy at work here.

I'm absolutely disgusted.

LMAO

 

[ElTorro]

If had to work on staffing groups in my job a few times. We were also given the requirement to achieve a female quota of 40% or so. Most of the time that does not work because in male-dominated fields we simply cannot find the required number of women who have the qualifications or are even interested.

It seems like they could have found more than only two women... But in male-dominated areas of society it's often times hard to find a high number of women for a job, even if you want too. Without knowing specifics, I'd be inclined to cut them a little bit of slack here.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Did each site pick their own rep or did the awards show? It sounds to me like it was each site. I just to confirm cause thats a huge difference.

On the bright side, they have more than 30 jurors which means the though about statistics a bit. Thats a good thing.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I genuinely can't remember your post word for word, and being on my phone, I can't easily search for it, so I'll simply take you at your word. If I misconstrued your post, that was not my intention and I apologize.

That said, I raise you the following; in Australia, the Aboriginal community was heavily damaged by white settlers and later by forced adoption into white families and guardians, an event whose victims are largely referred to as the Stolen Generation.

This history, as well as a general history of racism, both overt and latent, has heavily disadvantaged the community and left many living in reserves with little advancement opportunity. To help correct this, quotas have been set for Aboriginal people in education and employment, thereby attempting to solve the problem by force. Should force not be the solution? If so, why not and what should be done instead?

To further add to your point let me remention this example.

Quotas can be a good thing. They can have entirely positive affects. Let me give you a purely factual example. Where I went to university the medical school sets aside specific seats for people who live in the southwestern region. If you live there your odds of attending this medical school are amplified. This is done because 80% of the schools population lives in a highly dense metropolitan and they have been demonstratably proven to not stay in the area to practice medicine. So in order to better ensure all the talent doesnt leave to the city they specifically choose qualified indivduals located in that area. And it works because positions are about more tham experience and checkmark qualifications.

This isn't a problem for anyone besudes people with entitlement issues. There is genuinely nothing wrong with quotas when used correctly. People just have a "just world" concept which is wrong. Its not an opinion, its statistically proven to be false.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

If had to work on staffing groups in my job a few times. We were also given the requirement to achieve a female quota of 40% or so. Most of the time that does not work because in male-dominated fields we simply cannot find the required number of women who have to qualifications or are even interested.

It seems like they could have found more than only two women... But in male-dominated areas of society it's often times hard to find a high number of women for a job, even if you want too. Without knowing specifics, I'd be inclined to cut them a little bit of slack here.

I don't think anyone is asking for a hard 50% divide, just something less ludicrous than 2.

Additionally, I appreciate the difficulty in finding high qualified people. The position of games journalist however, isn't particularly demanding in terms of qualifications.

 

[viveks86]

You're arguing a different point entirely. We're not talking about how the choices to get to this were made -- there, I mostly agree with you. We're talking about the merits of using force to fix that. Your entire post is completely tangential to the point I was making.

You're actively ignoring my point and misconstruing my position on the matter. Force is not the solution.

Since when did adding criteria for selection become "force"? Is it also "force" to mandate that the journalists should have X years of experience? Why isn't diversity just as important as experience for a judging panel where diverse and subjective opinion is key? Why is one requirement acceptable while the other is "forced"? People call it forced only because it challenges the status quo.

 

[Trogdor1123]

If had to work on staffing groups in my job a few times. We were also given the requirement to achieve a female quota of 40% or so. Most of the time that does not work because in male-dominated fields we simply cannot find the required number of women who have the qualifications or are even interested.

It seems like they could have found more than only two women... But in male-dominated areas of society it's often times hard to find a high number of women for a job, even if you want too. Without knowing specifics, I'd be inclined to cut them a little bit of slack here.

I know guys who work in female dominated fields (nursing and HR) and I've never heard anyone defend them cause its bloody hard to get into those industries and advance but no one bats an eye. Its kind of funny.

 

[autoduelist]

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said anything about laws and I certainly didn't suggest forcing anybody to obey. I asked why it's worse? You actually didn't answer that at all. In this thread my focus has been that people should point out instances of inequality to help show the larger pattern. Do you disagree?

This is one of the many problems with discussions like these. People get caught up in black and white extremes. How about you meet me in the grey area and we chat? Like, you mentioned other avenues. What other avenues would you pursue? What goals would you have? What do you see as the problem here that needs to be solved?

You're right; people do get caught up in extremes, especially on topics like this. And I think that's a significant part of the problem on both sides. It's really easy to have ideals; but there's a problem when not everyone shares those ideals, and some want to force those ideals upon others.


As for this specific instance, and why I responded to you: Someone posted: "Forced diversity is just as bad."

and you responded:
"Why? People say that but they never follow it up. Why is it, exactly, equally as bad?"

The answer is 'force'. 'Force' is used to make people 'obey'. It can be physical, it can be economic [fines, taxes, etc], etc. But in order to have 'forced diversity' some sort of "force" must be in play to make people "obey". It's just how the words work together -- you can't have 'forced diversity' if it's only a suggestion. You can't have "forced diversity" if it's optional.

That's how it's worse. It would require force. That's the answer, and I'm unsure how else to put it.

I absolutely do agree issues of diversity should be pointed out. That's not at all what I've been discussing in my various posts. I'm talking about the practical side of it -- specifically, to those that suggest it should be enforced somehow.

As for goals and alternative solutions? I've suggested some in this thread.

For example, in one of my posts I suggested:

"For example, an alternative solution -- if the issue is that we do not have enough females graduating from CS related fields, then individuals or groups of individuals [not through taxation] in a position to make change should set up scholarships to change that. There is no force involved in that, only individuals freely choosing how to spend their money. Using a government or institution to force 50/50 gender splits in every school, however, would be an absolutely horrific solution to the problem.

For example, creating a Neogaf scholarship to which any member can contribute dedicated to putting a female through college in a CS related field is far more productive [and newsworthy] than all the internet debate in the world."

At issue here is that we have a privately run group. They chose judged using their own criteria. While you may not agree with the criteria or methods they used to select their judges, or may simply not like the results they achieved, the simple truth remains that it's their group. Complaining - even picketing outside their windows - is one thing; suggesting that diversity must be forced upon them is quite another.

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if you want something to be your way, then do it. Create your own organization and choose panel judges via your own methods. I'm sure someone out there will be unhappy with your selections as well, but being the change you want to see is by far the best solution.

Encouraging the use of force [again, be it through legal means, fines, etc] if something doesn't meet your personal definitions of diversity is a very, very dangerous road that has no end.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

I don't think it's "forced diversity" to ask for panels that judge games to at least somewhat resemble the populace that plays games.

I was teaching class today, and during a break, two young women were talking about Life is Strange, a game that doesn't get much play outside of NeoGAF in my travels around the internet. If I ever talk to my students (mostly male students) about games, it's all "Fallout" and "Battlefield" and such.

It's funny because I skimmed the thread and thought of that instance today when some people posting here tried to play off "accurate representation of the audience" as "forced diversity."

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I know guys who work in female dominated fields (nursing and HR) and I've never heard anyone defend them cause its bloody hard to get into those industries and advance but no one bats an eye. Its kind of funny.

It's a separate problem, but I do agree it's a problem. Society largely values masculine roles and devalues feminine roles, which is why a woman who tries to get into law is seen as more noble a goal than a man trying to be a good house husband.

The disparity in how we interpret both scenarios is a problem I think should be fixed, but I don't see its relevance here.

 

[Solemn_In_Berlin]

If they're qualified critics, I see little issue. There could be 32 women and that would be fine.

I agree with this, but putting things into context, it's not an argument that can be put forth seeing as how prominent games criticism is a joke anyway. Kill Screen's the best we have in the field and they're not even gonna be a part of this.

Seeing as how the games criticism sucks anyway, why not just do the other best thing and fight to include more female voices? Let's not forget that the misogynistic nature of the industry is at least one of its biggest problems.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Since when did adding criteria for selection become "force"? Is it also "force" to mandate that the journalists should have X years of experience? Why isn't diversity just as important as experience for a judging panel where diverse and subjective opinion is key? Why is one requirement acceptable while the other is "forced"? You call it forced only because it challenges the status quo.

Well for one, you would be discounting experience for no reason. Maybe a
points approach with different weights would be a better approach.

That being said...

As a supporting argument to this, large companies with more diverse boards of directors tend to be higher performers. Of course, the selection process is far different and most board members in general are already high performers so it may not apply here. It should also be noted that diversity of skills and backgrounds are usually what is measured, gender comes next. I have not ready a study with gender being the key criteria. Could be a good read.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I know guys who work in female dominated fields (nursing and HR) and I've never heard anyone defend them cause its bloody hard to get into those industries and advance but no one bats an eye. Its kind of funny.

Not really. Its an issue. But like its not what the thread is about. And men are far less disadvantaged in the working world compared to women so we don't focus our attention to helping what essentially would be "helping the rich get richer".

 

[BlastProcessing]

Well, I mean, someone posted: "Forced diversity is just as bad."

and you responded:
"Why? People say that but they never follow it up. Why is it, exactly, equally as bad?"

The answer is 'force'. 'Force' is used to make people 'obey'. It can be physical, it can be economic [fines, taxes, etc], etc. But in order to have 'forced diversity' some sort of "force" must be in play to make people "obey". It's just how the words work together -- you can't have 'forced diversity' if it's only a suggestion.

That's how it's worse. It would require force. That's the answer, and I'm unsure how else to put it.

I absolutely do agree issues of diversity should be pointed out. That's not at all what I've been discussing in my various posts. I'm talking about the practical side of it -- specifically, to those that suggest it should be enforced somehow.

As for goals and alternative solutions? I've suggested some in this thread.

For example, in one of my posts I suggested:



At issue here is that we have a privately run group. They chose judged using their own criteria. While you may not agree with the criteria or methods they used to select their judges, or may simply not like the results they achieved, the simple truth remains that it's their group. Complaining - even picketing outside their windows - is one thing; suggesting that diversity must be forced upon them is quite another.

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if you want something to be your way, then do it. Create your own organization and choose panel judges via your own methods. I'm sure someone out there will be unhappy with your selections as well, but being the change you want to see is by far the best solution.

Encouraging the use of force [again, be it through legal means, fines, etc] if something doesn't meet your personal definitions of diversity is a very, very dangerous road that has no end.

I appreciate you explaining your position. I think we have a misunderstanding here and it's my fault.

I took the meaning of "forced diversity" as in "intentionally choosing make something more diverse", not "force people to be more diverse against their own will." I could have been more clear and I apologize.

My question should have been reworded "Why is choosing to prioritize diversity equally as bad?" I am talking about the decisions of the people already in power and not about forcing people into acting in a certain way.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I find pulling out to be dramatic. Polygon did the right thing. Nominate a woman to make a point for everyone else. But it's more of a deep rooted problem in the end I assume with a lack of women in the industry due to lots of other deep rooted issues.

 

[schaft0620]

Maybe that's the sample size of women who work at these places that would qualify to award 2-50.

 

[antone]

So it is to be 32 white dudes voting ?

 

[Trogdor1123]

It's a separate problem, but I do agree it's a problem. Society largely values masculine roles and devalues feminine roles, which is why a woman who tries to get into law is seen as more noble a goal than a man trying to be a good house husband.

The disparity in how we interpret both scenarios is a problem I think should be fixed, but I don't see its relevance here.

It is relevant here though imo. You can't be out raged (not you but people in general) about some perceived injustice when the exact opposite is happening and no one is doing squat.

I tried to get into HR as well for a bit as well. I got passed over by fresh grads and unexperienced women. People that have no where near my qualifications and were often not even meeting the minimum requirements. Its anecdotal for sure but I'm just trying to make a point. I just switched industries.

 

[Kinyou]

I don't think anyone is asking for a hard 50% divide, just something less ludicrous than 2.

Additionally, I appreciate the difficulty in finding high qualified people. The position of games journalist however, isn't particularly demanding in terms of qualifications.

Killscreen is literally asking for 50%

 

[Infinite]

Maybe that's the sample size of women who work at these places that would qualify to award 2-50.

I think you're overselling the qualifications needed to be on a panel to judge video games.

 

[$h@d0w]

Care to make your point more clearly?

I'm outraged at these awards that there are only two women out of 32 jurors.

It is blatant sexism and a clear sign that the industry needs widespread reform.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Maybe that's the sample size of women who work at these places that would qualify to award 2-50.

Again: let's stop acting like judging the artistic merits of a video game is rocket science, or that the qualification for judging anything is based on gender.

And you do realize that you're saying women who work in video game journalism are not qualified to talk about video games, right?

 

[Trogdor1123]

Not really. Its an issue. But like its not what the thread is about. And men are far less disadvantaged in the working world compared to women so we don't focus our attention to helping what essentially would be "helping the rich get richer".

I do see what you are saying, 100%, I am just of the mind set that if you want equality, you want it all the time. If you don't want it all the time you probably really don't care about it. Its an all or nothing approach in my mind. Im sure we will get there though.

That being said, I'm off topic. Im not meaning to drag the thread off topic.

 

[Abdul Hafeez]

In this thread, I learned some people are more qualified than others to have opinions.