...the ubiquity of the results still represents a systematic failure to address the gender wage gap....

The loudest sides of the argument that I've heard are:

- Statistics: Women are paid less on average (but the sample data doesn't indicate why).
- Feminist: Men are in power, and they're often arrogant pricks who treat and pay women worse (but they don't explain why).
- Apologist: Everyone is paid according to their perceived performance; perhaps women just don't perform as well? (this is just speculation and has no hard data to back it up either -- performance, especially in software, is a highly subjective measure).


The reality is this:
- Employers treat employees as resources.
- Employers need to make a profit and salaries are one of the biggest expenditures, therefore the most important to minimize.
- Employers worry that their top performers will leave to join a different company who is offering better pay. This is the only real reason to increase someone's pay.
- Employers will (attempt) to evaluate employee performance in order to prioritize raises.

- There are additional (basically sexist, yet often realistic and backed up by statistics) considerations taken when evaluating the return-on-investment of employing women: Will they quit when they have children? When their kids get sick, will they take the day off to take care of them? When they get sick with something "minor", will they take a sick day when a man would just come into work anyway? A few men would also apply in each of these situations, but employers don't typically have the time to accurately evaluate every single individual, so they fall back to easy-to-identify categories (gender, race, etc). It's unfortunate, but it's the same reason why people become racist - it becomes too expensive to evaluate every individual fairly. Some of these considerations are technically illegal, but whether they are used in a particular instance is extremely difficult for a plaintiff to prove in court.

it's the same reason why people become racist - it becomes too expensive to evaluate every individual fairly

That's not an excuse for sexism, any more than it would be for racism.

The question of 'why' sexism in the workplace occurs is only relevant insofar as it contributes to a solution. A solution might involve legislating equal pay for all employees at an equivalent level, it might involve training managers in specific techniques to fairly compensate and promote female employees - I don't know.

But hand-waving and saying 'it's just the way things are' isn't doing anyone any good.

So, I had started a longer diatribe and lost it in an unexpected reboot. Most everyone has touched on some aspect of what I wanted to say, and in greater detail. But to summarize my thoughts -- Change will come slowly, and must come from within. GamerGate is confounding the issue and who, even, 'the industry' is -- is it devs, artists, journalists, retailers, players? Regardless, the best thing you as an individual can do is work to make games, as an industry and as a hobby, an inclusive and safe space for everyone. Don't participate in the biases, and don't passively let them stand unchallenged.

There's more work to do societal, encouraging and enabling more than just men to funnel through STEM and into technical work in general, and once there that they have equal pay and equal opportunity for advancement. Be aware of those issues and make them something you support (with awareness, time, dollars, votes), but simply living and standing up for equality really is the most essential step any individual can take.

On a case-by-case basis, yes.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with an entire segment of the population, who all end up with lower salaries, then one is forced to admit that there may be a specific root cause for the imbalance. Regardless of whether that root cause is something along the lines of 'women are less confident in workplace negotiations', the ubiquity of the results still represents a systematic failure to address the gender wage gap.

At best, it indicates that the employers are ignorant of the issue. At worst, they are taking advantage of their female employees, by making lowball offers in the full knowledge that those employees are unlikely to demand the same salary as their male counterparts.

I think the "at worst" is absolutely what happens, but I don't think it is an "at worst" situation as bad as you describe.

Employers know VERY WELL that some people will accept an initially low offer. That is exactly why they make the offer.

Trying to keep it on topic, the fact that women are less likely to negotiate is not discriminatory. Employers will often make a low initial offer to both males and females. It only happens that women are less likely to negotiate. Now if you could demonstrate the lowball offers were substantially lower when made to females then males, you may be on to something. But I don't see that.

One reason the average pay in the games industry is relatively low (compared to similar tech fields) is that so many beginning workers are willing to accept low offers. I have heard from multiple people that when a low offer was made, they essentially replied "Yes, and I'll voluntarily take even less money if you want, just let me make games."

Imagine the conversation. A hiring manager writes: "We would love to hire you. Will you accept the legally required minimum wage?" and the candidate answers "yes". It may seem harsh, but I'm going to claim the employer is not taking advantage of them. The worker accepted the value of the exchange. Note that I didn't mention the job. If a burger flipper accepts a minimum wage offer, or if a skilled professional accepts a minimum wage offer, or if a senior executive accepts a minimum wage offer, it what they negotiated. They accepted that as a fair wage for their time and talents.

Last month a bunch of fast food workers went on strike for a few hours in a 'demand' to earn $15/hr when they were earning around $8/hr. The employer will set the wages to the lowest value the workers will demand. Employers didn't really notice, and there was no change. If the employer can fill the job for $7.50/hr, they will. If they cannot they'll raise it to $8/hr. Then $8.25/hr. Then $8.50/hr. Then $8.75/hr. And eventually someone will take the job at that rate.

Game studios will usually interview a bunch of candidates, and then identify the ones they really want. Then they try to negotiate salary. Those with experience will know the value they provide and they will demand money. I've had companies who said they wanted to hire me ... right up until it came to salary negotiation. I've turned down offers. One came back multiple times asking "what about this offer?", "What about that offer?" "What if we offer a bonus instead?" (Bonuses are garbage, many businesses do a round of firing right before bonuses are calculated.) It is in their interests to pay the minimum possible, it is in my interests to negotiate the maximum. You may feel they are taking advantage of me or I am taking advantage of them, but I disagree. We are both using market forces.

Having seen wages, it is pretty clear who either accepted low values or was hired during employer-powerful times (e.g. glut of workers so they can offer less, worker is getting desperate to accept a job) versus workers hired to fill a specific need (e.g. willing to pay a premium for an experienced network developer, or an experienced recently-released platform developer). You might (as example numbers) see a larger group of programmers with a similar hire date and similar job title all paid in the $65K-$75K range as they were picked up cheaply during a glut, a few people with the same job title hired sporadically for around $85K then see someone with the same job title hired in the middle of a hiring freeze making $110K. It is entirely about supply and demand. If the supply is willing to work for less money, that is what will be paid. If the supply demands a bigger salary, that is what will be paid.

TL;DR: It is not the employer's responsibility to ensure they are paying top value. Employers will tend to pay the minimum amount required to get workers.

But that is only one issue in the "industry misconception" for gender.

TL;DR: It is not the employer's responsibility to ensure they are paying top value. Employers will tend to pay the minimum amount required to get workers.

In game development that might be the case - I don't work there, I wouldn't know. But in much of the tech industry, that simply isn't the situation: qualified engineers are ridiculously difficult to hire, and all of the top tech firms compete over the same pool of candidates. Far from paying the minimum possible, they are falling over each other to offer better salaries, benefits and stocks in the hopes that they can edge out their competitors.

And if all employers take the tack you suggest, then it's only a matter of time until they are forced to pay higher wages across the board. It might take decades, but sooner or later, equal pay legislation will be enacted, just as the minimum wage will be raised. And as with the recent minimum wage hike in Seattle, such changes are likely to start with local legislation in tech hubs, due to their relative affluence and liberal tendencies.

Game developers have largely flown under the radar in the current debate over the gender gap in salaries, but the recent reports by Google, Microsoft, etc, as well as the outcry over Satya Nadella's remarks at the Grace Hopper conference, indicate that the large tech firms know that the writing is on the wall, and that they need to clean up their act in the not too distant future.

TL;DR: It is not the employer's responsibility to ensure they are paying top value. Employers will tend to pay the minimum amount required to get workers.

In game development that might be the case - I don't work there, I wouldn't know. But in much of the tech industry, that simply isn't the situation: qualified engineers are ridiculously difficult to hire, and all of the top tech firms compete over the same pool of candidates. Far from paying the minimum possible, they are falling over each other to offer better salaries, benefits and stocks in the hopes that they can edge out their competitors.

It definitely depends on the employer and the job. Where I am, I see both: Offering top dollar and headhunting for the rare high-level people and minimum wages to the flood of entry-level applicants.

This isn't really a games industry problem. It isn't even a Tech industry problem. You could quite easily replace Games Industry with Automotive Industry, Film Industry, Legal Profession, Politics, Company Directors etc.. and see that there are far fewer women in these roles.

Am I the only one who doesn't really care if in a work place/study place/real life place/etc.. there are more man or woman? Fuck off to gender's quota, work place it's not a porn movie scene.

Gender A generally prefer some type of studies and works.

Gender B generally prefer other type of studies and works.

Deal with it.

And as for the feminists who are calling for removal of sexualized women in games, I think they are in the wrong. The games represent a fantasy world. In this case, a fantasy world aimed for teenage boys and young men. That's what they want. Women want the harlequin romances, the romantic TV dramas, the philanthropic billionare who support women in their crusades against the world. That's the equivalent. But even in those romance TV shows my wife has me watch, yes, the women are strong characters in their fantasy lands yet often they do what they want all day while their men go to work to pay the bills. Either that or the men appear as handsome, wealthy props in the female fantasy.

I freaking hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate to keep hearing that.

Did I copy paste enough of the word hate? The thing is, boys and young men can manage fine with robots or aliens.

Interestingly...

http://jezebel.com/5798986/what-makes-a-perfect-female-action-hero

In my opinion, Lara Croft, as played by Angelina Jolie in the original Tomb Raider movies, was a fairly good action hero. Modern! Smart, fearless, physically and mentally strong, with a career and a libido. Too often, strong women in TV and movies are rendered sexless. They're either buttoned-up business ladies, stoic workaholic cops, or girls under the age of 18. Lara Croft was definitely a grown-up. Her enormous breasts and short-shorts may not have been essential to the story, but I liked that she was unabashedly sexy while kicking ass. Some of my favorite action heroines are tinged with sensuality. Pam Grier was bikini-clad while wielding a gun in blaxploitation film Coffy. Faith on Buffy fought vampires in tight vinyl pants.

Italics and bold are mine. This is a case of having cake and eating it too, by blaming teenage boys for it. Maybe games should just remove all female in games with robot / alien and call it a day. Maybe we can hear who would scream loudest, teenage boys or feminist themselves.

Gender A generally prefer some type of studies and works.
Gender B generally prefer other type of studies and works.
Deal with it.

Except that it is nowhere near as cut and dried as that. Sweeping generalisations of this sort are just contributing to the problem.