They sure showed that strawman who’s boss

imageAt CES Intel unveiled a program to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try to get more people into technical fields, particularly women and minorities.  This is great news! In fact, I can’t think of anyone who would be against this.

During the event, Intel even featured the Feminist Frequency logo which, to me, implies that she’s either compromised her position or surrendered it outright if she’s now in favor of more people getting into game development rather than arguing how bad games are for society.

The more diversity in the people who make games the more diversity there will be in the types of games being made. I hope. If that happens, maybe there will be less pressure on people like me to insert socially conscious robot wizards into my space ship games.

Meanwhile…

What I found particularly strange is how some in the media have covered this. The Verge has made a very odd article literally entitled “Intel opposes Gamergate as part of $300 million effort to fix diversity in tech”. I’m not sure what that has to do with GamerGate one way or the other.

Last time I checked, the issue GamerGate had was with journalists choosing who and what to cover based on their politics and personal relationships along with misrepresentation their critics as misogynists.  Getting more people to become engineers instead of say, communications majors, would be something I suspect most people who identify as supporting GamerGate would want.

If someone else wants to show their opposition to GG by giving hundreds of millions of dollars to something everyone wants then please, do so. I’ll build the strawmen myself to help.

46,852 views 11 replies
Reply #2 Top

It's because they desperately want to 'beat' Gamergate. Various people in games media have been calling for it's death since it began to no avail.

Reply #3 Top

It was disappointing to see Intel partner with them.  I'm not really sure what FF has to offer in regards to all of this as their two members are anti-capitalist and one in particular has an issue with "repugnant white men" in San Francisco tech.

 

Reply #4 Top

That's been kind of the funny thing about the whole GamerGate issue.  Despite some of the ugliness that's transpired from both sides (as will pretty much always happen anytime there's some form of internet pissing match going on), you ask just about anyone in GamerGate what their thoughts are on women in the industry, or as video game characters, etc...and we're pretty unanimously all for it.  Some of my all time favorite game developers have been women, starting with Lori Cole and Roberta Williams in the Sierra days.  (Lori Cole is working on a new game in the Quest for Glory setting btw!)

Brad pretty much gave the essence of my issues with Femfreq in a handful of words:  "misrepresentation their critics as misogynists."  Having more and stronger female characters is something I can get behind, as can everyone in GG I've ever seen discuss it.  Misrepresenting games and gamers as misogynist is not the way to do it.  I think Anita is being counterproductive toward her stated goals by putting people on the defensive who would otherwise be open to her ideals.

So I have no issues with Intel spending money to bring more women into tech and game development.  I'm skeptical if it'll have any real success, especially considering some of the partners seem counter productive toward their goal, but more power to them if they can pull it off.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting Island, reply 3

It was disappointing to see Intel partner with them.  I'm not really sure what FF has to offer in regards to all of this as their two members are anti-capitalist and one in particular has an issue with "repugnant white men" in San Francisco tech.

 

I see it at the other way around.  Intel's move is largely about diversity in the workforce, something that many people, such as myself, have been talking about for years as being a problem.  As a civilization, we should be striving to get as many minds into technical fields as we can provided they're qualified.

But Sarkeesian's videos are focused specifically on gaming culture, NOT the workplace. Which means, in essence, Intel used her as a prop.  It kind of exposes what her underlying motivations really are.  

Given how openly anti-capitalism she and her partner are, I can't help but smile.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Belkoreth, reply 4

That's been kind of the funny thing about the whole GamerGate issue.  Despite some of the ugliness that's transpired from both sides (as will pretty much always happen anytime there's some form of internet pissing match going on), you ask just about anyone in GamerGate what their thoughts are on women in the industry, or as video game characters, etc...and we're pretty unanimously all for it.  Some of my all time favorite game developers have been women, starting with Lori Cole and Roberta Williams in the Sierra days.  (Lori Cole is working on a new game in the Quest for Glory setting btw!)

Brad pretty much gave the essence of my issues with Femfreq in a handful of words:  "misrepresentation their critics as misogynists."  Having more and stronger female characters is something I can get behind, as can everyone in GG I've ever seen discuss it.  Misrepresenting games and gamers as misogynist is not the way to do it.  I think Anita is being counterproductive toward her stated goals by putting people on the defensive who would otherwise be open to her ideals.

So I have no issues with Intel spending money to bring more women into tech and game development.  I'm skeptical if it'll have any real success, especially considering some of the partners seem counter productive toward their goal, but more power to them if they can pull it off.

Misrepresenting their foes as misogynists (or racists) has gotten pretty old.

I've been called a misogynist and not supporting women in games even though according to them, I should be the avatar of what they want.

On paper, I should be everything they want and yet they hate me.

Let's do a checklist:

# 1 Our last game was called Fallen Enchantress, about a powerful female character.

#2 Our female characters are dressed respectfully.

 

#3 We invested a huge percentage of our art budget to ensure that people could design female characters of every race (not just males)

 

This meant having to create armor, clothes, textures, hair, that dedicated to this and remember, we're a small studio.  If we had had only male rigs, we could have literally doubled the number of types of creatures in the game for the player to play as.

 

#4 Our best known game, Galactic Civilizations (both I and II) were primarily coded by a female game developer.

 

#5 The art design for our latest game, Sorcerer King, was done by a woman.  The UI designer for our new game is a different woman and the random map generation c++ code was written by yet a different woman.

 

#6 The dev team at Stardock is made up of people from around the world of all races, creeds, etc.

 

#7 Our management team is highly diverse.

 

#8 Our working conditions involve no "crunch time", an on-staff nutritionist, an in-house personal trainer with in-house gym (did I mention we are an independent company so it's not like we have some huge corporate office to just willy nilly throw stuff into)

 

#9 We have a firm that comes out and discusses issues such as sexual harassment and tolerance of other points of view come a couple times a year. And we have been doing this for many years now (i.e. this wasn't done in response to something even if certain people chose to ignore the policy agreements they signed but I digress).

 

And yet, I'm told that we're bad. We're bad for women. And I'm told this mostly by people who have never hired a woman or minority in their life and work in offices that are 100% male.  And those in the media know who they are.  I've been keeping the kiddie gloves on about that issue the whole time. I've been astounded seeing people wailing about diversity while working in some of the least diverse environments I've ever encountered. They should be embarrassed.  

Go ahead and look at the Dev teams (i.e. the ones who code the websites) for some of these places. Lots of them have it in their about area. All men. At Stardock, it's almost 50/50. 

And we make no special efforts to hire people based on their sex or color. We just don't discriminate. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little skeptical about the people smearing me online who themselves work in the equivalent of a men's locker room. It just makes me think they're trying to compensate.  

They make me think of those people who yell loudly about global warming while driving 40 miles to work each way in an SUV while decrying me as being anti-environment because I don't a carbon tax even though I live in a solar powered house and drive an electric car (powered by solar).

Reply #7 Top

If that happens, maybe there will be less pressure on people like me to insert socially conscious robot wizards into my space ship games.

But Brad, I thought you liked Robots, and Wizards? I guess it's bad when you combine them. If some one makes a robot spaceship wizard would that be super bad?

 

#8 Our working conditions involve no "crunch time",

I don't think people who haven't worked in the industry understand how huge, this one is. Crunch times is one of the most most abused tendencies in the industry. People seem to think it's a joke, or a necessity. "It's just people working hard to get the game done on time". Oh if they only knew. Trust me it's not that simple nor innocent. Crunchtime can resemble human rights violations.

Reply #8 Top

On paper, I should be everything they want and yet they hate me.

Are you one or more of the following:

  • White
  • Male
  • Heterosexual
  • Christian
  • Wealthy
  • Not liberal

If yes to any of these, that's why. The more boxes you tick, the worse you are. Haven't you heard that we need a new game industry in which "cishet white men aren't allowed" to participate? You aren't doing enough to smash the heterofascist patriarchy, pal!

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 6
On paper, I should be everything they want and yet they hate me.

You don't have Intel's marketing team and $300 million to spend on non-core activities.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting DirkBelig, reply 8

Are you one or more of the following:

White
Male
Heterosexual
Christian
Wealthy
Not liberal

If yes to any of these, that's why. The more boxes you tick, the worse you are. Haven't you heard that we need a new game industry in which "cishet white men aren't allowed" to participate? You aren't doing enough to smash the heterofascist patriarchy, pal!

Kinda makes me think of those old bumper stickers...

"Land Rights for Black, Handicapped Gay Whales".

One mustn't discriminate with a bumper sticker...;)

Reply #11 Top

Yes very logical, it makes sense on paper.  Unfortunately it does not work with these people for reasons listed below.  Know your opponent.

Blocks on Twitter do not work, it results in a win for them.  They get a (usually very small) increase in their status resume within the SJW peer group and abroad.  When you effectively answer them and win the argument they just compromised their status appropriately.
It's classic autocrat mentality with zero power, that is why they are so damned completely obsessed with identity, oppression, the sin of pride, preferences for arbitrariness over real 'justice' and due process.

There's complexity involved that would make a long write up but someones going to have to eventually because capitalism's corporate PR still hasn't fully figured things out after all this time despite award winning Milton Feeman touching the subject in his book The Road to Serfdom.