Interesting bit of history: programming was originally a very female-dominated field.

Well, I learned something today.

To then ignore all this, and insinuate that the reason for more males / females in a particular career / interest must be due to 'employer bias' or equivalent, is perhaps a little shortsighted.

I think that's a fair assertion. I'm probably speaking out of inexperience here, to be blatantly honest, but in any field that's "dominated" by a certain group, I feel like that reason isn't largely in the management of those groups but more the will of certain other groups to join that field. I mean, are there really as many women who want to go into game development as there are men? I don't think so.

It may come as a shock to some, but men and women are different.

There is a genetic element to this - a lot of the notable differences come about as a result of hormones throughout their lives (such as testosterone, oestrogen, progesterone), in the womb (where brain development can be affected), throughout their lives, puberty etc. You can get 'in between sexes' where the the chromosomes are XX or XY but the hormones for one reason or another are not in their normal ratios, for instance due to drugs the pregnant mother is exposed to.

There is also an environmental element to this - male and female children tend to be brought up differently.

The relative importance of the genetic and environmental effects in determining the phenotype (how the individual appears, behaves etc) is a topic of much debate.

The end result though, is that men and women, boys and girls, as well as looking different, also behave differently, tend (on average) to have different interests, and find some things more important than others. There are some scientifically well established differences in abilities / interests between the sexes (statistically on average .. there is overlap between the groups in different areas in various individuals).

To then ignore all this, and insinuate that the reason for more males / females in a particular career / interest must be due to 'employer bias' or equivalent, is perhaps a little shortsighted.

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1354843466' post='5007954']What's more interesting is, what's being done to address the problem?

But, is this a problem?

If there were equal numbers of women to men that wanted to work in the field and had equal ability, then I agree, there would be an argument that discrimination was a problem. But are there equal numbers of both sexes that want to work in this field, and are the abilities equal? How can you be sure that the reason for lack of women is not primarily that they are (on average) 'not interested' in the particular jobs?
[/quote]

Social differences, like how children are raised may explain an observation such as the gender composition of the field, but hardly excuses it. Social pressures used to state that women were unfit for nearly all jobs, and as a result there was "less interest" because why think about a job that you can't have anyways? Such social pressures are even worse than employer bias, being more pervasive and implicitly extending that bias to employers anyhow.

If you want to suggest genetic differences, you'll have some heavy lifting to do. Not because genetic differences aren't real, but rather because that same argument has been tortured into legitimizing various forms of discrimination for centuries. If the argument is that there is a group which is inherently worse at or inherently uninterested in some activity, I want to see which genes and processes you think are responsible. Otherwise you're only trying to justify the observation you're describing rather than explaining it.

Statistically we should expect there to be a roughly equal distribution of genders in any given industry. Where that is not the case, there must be some explanation. If that explanation is anything other than specific genetic explanations, well studied and documented I wouldn't be so blase about asserting that there isn't a problem.

This is kind of off topic now, but I'm not a fan of how the feminism in games movement at large lumps in harrassment with marketing to your demographics. They can be related, but being groped at conferences/descriminated against at work is a totally separate issue to having primarily male protagonists in games. The former is imo much more serious.

I find it frustrating and detrimental to the discussion of the issues as a whole to play them as the same card.

being groped at conferences/descriminated against at work is a totally separate issue to having primarily male protagonists in games. The former is imo much more serious.

I'd argue that in the long run, the latter is far more serious.

When you go to the doctor, would you rather he just treat the visible symptoms, or the underlying disease?

When you go to the doctor, would you rather he just treat the visible symptoms, or the underlying disease?

That's assuming they have the same cause though. The latter has any number of causes; market demographics make up a significant amount of it, and I wouldn't consider market demographics a, "disease" per-se. The former is male chauvinism. 'Fixing' market demographics won't fix male chauvinism. I see no reason to assume that they operate on the same cause (descrimination/chauvinism vs. market demographics).

One could reasonably and soundly argue that male centric design is hurting the quality of video games, but it is an entirely different thing to think that the reason games are male centric is because of sexism rather than market demographics.

Say we 'treat' the disease of skewed market demographics; does that solve that some men are assholes to women in the workplace? Generally, no. Say we crack down on men being assholes; does that suddenly make women want to increase their relative make up of the market? I can't see that being the case either. The argument that, "This guy grabbed my ass at a conference because we don't make more games for a small portion of our market," or vice versa is not only silly, but totally detrimental to the solution of either. It's like trying to fit an orange and a Prius into a square hole (this metaphor makes no sense on purpose).

The argument that, "This guy grabbed my ass at a conference because we don't make more games for a small portion of our market,"

You are still dealing with symptoms, not underlying causes. Need to go deeper...

As you say, it is very unlikely that guys mistreat women because we don't make enough video games for women. But why aren't women a major demographic for video games?

You are still dealing with symptoms, not underlying causes. Need to go deeper...

As you say, it is very unlikely that guys mistreat women because we don't make enough video games for women. But why aren't women a major demographic for video games?

I'm not saying there isn't some sort of reinforcement loop. The issues both feed off of division between genders, but I think it's not helpful to so closely tie two things caused by a broad near unfixable problem.

All I know is I am one year into an eighteen year experiment of what it takes to raise a girl interested in science and technology. Although that probably has more to do with me wanting to buy cool toys for her and not barbie dolls.

caused by a broad near unfixable problem.

I don't get why you think the problem is unfixable.

Science fiction was a thoroughly male-dominated genre in the pre-war era, catering almost purely to male tastes, and published in male-oriented publications (for example, Playboy). But in the 60's and 70's that was all turned on its head, and a rising wave of female authors and readers transformed the genre, to the point that it's become quite rare to see modern science fiction that does not at least pay lip service to the genre's feminist influences.

Comic books have been undergoing a similar, if more gradual transition, over the the last few decades. Why should video games not follow suit, at some point in the future?

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1354906793' post='5008192']
caused by a broad near unfixable problem.

I don't get why you think the problem is unfixable.[/quote]
The problem to which I was referring was differences in gender perception. I don't see how that is extraordinarily fixable. Possible to overcome perhaps, but I stand by "near unfixable"; distinctly different from just unfixable.

Science fiction was a thoroughly male-dominated genre in the pre-war era, catering almost purely to male tastes, and published in male-oriented publications (for example, Playboy). But in the 60's and 70's that was all turned on its head, and a rising wave of female authors and readers transformed the genre, to the point that it's become quite rare to see modern science fiction that does not at least pay lip service to the genre's feminist influences.

Comic books have been undergoing a similar, if more gradual transition, over the the last few decades. Why should video games not follow suit, at some point in the future?
[/quote]

How are the demographics in either of those markets doing? From what I've seen from demographic data they are both around 30%, which is pretty much the same as video games. Furthermore, how does that stop men who go to either sci fi or comic book events from being complete dickheads to the women there or stop men in either industry from discriminating against them on the work front? Maybe this gender renaissance is the reason there are so many fewer scantily clad women at comic-cons than at E3?