They wouldn't have to cancel an event that was exclusive, if they organized an inclusive event in the first place

I don't think anyone is in disagreement with this statement. Clearly, a more diverse panel would have avoided this issue.

However, it is worth reflecting that the panel as designed is roughly in line with the diversity in industry. The last figures I have to hand are from 2005, when the industry self-reported as 88% male. Which makes a 10 person panel with a single female member representative of the industry as a whole...

Well, if the goal is not merely to reflect the current demographics of the industry in the various panels, but push for a more level "playing field" and have more women feel joining the industry would be a good option for them, "overrepresenting" them in such panels should actually happen. Especially when the size is so small that "12%" means "1.2 person" :)

They wouldn't have to cancel an event that was exclusive, if they organized an inclusive event in the first place

I don't think anyone is in disagreement with this statement. Clearly, a more diverse panel would have avoided this issue.

However, it is worth reflecting that the panel as designed is roughly in line with the diversity in industry. The last figures I have to hand are from 2005, when the industry self-reported as 88% male. Which makes a 10 person panel with a single female member representative of the industry as a whole...

Well, if the goal is not merely to reflect the current demographics of the industry in the various panels, but push for a more level "playing field" and have more women feel joining the industry would be a good option for them, "overrepresenting" them in such panels should actually happen. Especially when the size is so small that "12%" means "1.2 person" :)

However, it is worth reflecting that the panel as designed is roughly in line with the diversity in industry. The last figures I have to hand are from 2005, when the industry self-reported as 88% male. Which makes a 10 person panel with a single female member representative of the industry as a whole...

Realistically, I can see how this seems fair, and logistically, its sometimes the best you can achieve -- but its also the minimum you ought to be able to achieve -- literally, by the numbers, if you don't at the very least match a representative sample of current industry demographics, then you have almost certainly not tried hard enough.

And when we know that the industry under represents certain groups -- in fact, basically everyone except white males (over-represented) and maybe asian males (probably closer to even representation than any other group) -- then a certain amount of deliberate, restorative action is prudent.

If we only do the minimum, and aim only to represent things as they are, its unlikely to be enough to move the needle. In a utopian sort of ideal, the diversity of high-profile industry events would reflect the level of diversity that we should be seeing today, based on wider demographics. Realistically, because industry has fallen short to date, there aren't enough people from under-represented groups to always achieve this (especially not without foisting the title of minority-spokesperson on people who maybe don't want to carry that cross that industry built), but we really can't accept that just matching the status quo is good enough -- its not.

@Wavinator: Dude, I sure hope to god you're not a white man, because otherwise you did a major whitemansplaining in that post. :P

LOL. Although I'd rather my ideas be judged based on what they are than who I am I think I'm safe.

That sums it up nicely. You have the privilege of simply being judged on the merit of your work. Others can work even harder and produce better quality, but that is still not good enough because they are judged on who they are rather than what they do.

That is what privilege is all about, for you guys who get triggered by the word and automatically turn a deaf ear. That is the root of the problem and why everyone is responsible for resolving the problem. It's not us vs. them, it's just us.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with privilege, it's a desirable thing. It's your attitude towards those who don't have it that makes what you do offensive and what you all get so defensive about.

Instead of automatically rejecting the ideas raised by the discussion, just check what your reaction is and why. If you're capable, think on it. That's all that's being asked.

You seem to be attributing an emotional response to what is, in fact, a logical refutation-- which is simply demonstrated: Who am I? How did I get hired in the game industry? What neighborhood did I grow up in? What hardships did I face? What demographic do I fall into?

Your calculus of privilege is missing these terms, so why do have any confidence that you can derive any conclusions from it?

The answer is simple. Privilege is a baseless concept. It is the phrenology of the 21st century, purporting to explain reality and failing. And all too often, rather than dealing with the failings of the concept, proponents simply double down and insist it must be true or (more shamefully) lash out against those that raise issue with it.

And if you believe that it is worthwhile to contemplate privilege, I also invite you to contemplate original sin. Both concepts are equally valid.

privilege

I had a reply forming until I got to this.
Do you know what this word has become?
A Shut Down.
A single word to enforce "I don't agree and I don't think your views matter because of your background".

There is no debate to be had, no point to be made, because 'privilege'.

I guess I should thank you; it'll stop me wasting any further time trying to engage in any sort of conversation with closed minded "rah rah we are right!" people in this thread.

Um... you just fulfilled your own prophecy: you literally just chose to shut down in the presence of a word. Talk about being triggered :P

If someone mentions privilege as part of a discussion, and they're trying to ask people to consider how social/economic/racial/cultural/sexual/etc backgrounds could be influencing different viewpoints on the issue. If that line of thinking makes you so uncomfortable that you walk away with your fingers in your ears, then you're the problem.

If someone uses the word out of place or over-zealously, then they're giving you the opportunity to legitimately shut them down via superior debate, by actually calling their bluff and explaining why their ad hominem is irrelevant to your logical position. Or, more likely, privileged probably is a valid part of the discussion, so you can mention how it does impact your position and move on, leaving them disarmed.

The difficulty here is that while it may be useful to speak of generalized groups when we are talking of people's lived experiences (and even then cautiously so because of the myriad exceptions) it is not very useful at an operational level.

Consider specifically, "How do I become a programmer in the game industry?"

While there are many paths to this destination it's a fact that regardless of race, creed, color, orientation, etc. certain things are universally true. You should get a STEM degree, preferably a Comp Sci degree. You should get experience coding. You should interact and learn from those with superior experience (the opportunity denied for political reasons to these students).

Are there specific issues with who has access to what schools, mentors, resources and the like? Absolutely. We should be as a society focusing with a laser on that problem. Berating people for advantages they may or may not have does not do this. Contemplation of privilege all to often is nothing more than navel gazing and expiation of guilt.

At best it is unhelpful. At worst it is divisive and undermines the very goals those proposing the concept claim to want to address.

The answer is simple. Privilege is a baseless concept. It is the phrenology of the 21st century, purporting to explain reality and failing. And all too often, rather than dealing with the failings of the concept, proponents simply double down and insist it must be true or (more shamefully) lash out against those that raise issue with it.

And if you believe that it is worthwhile to contemplate privilege, I also invite you to contemplate original sin. Both concepts are equally valid.

I'm supremely irritated when the word "privilege" is thrown around as a means of silencing people, and doubly so when it comes from people are in the majority of said privilege. But lets not pretend its not a tangible thing. Study after study, after study show that certain minority groups, women, LGBT persons systematically face greater discrimination, greater rates of violence, and have fewer economic opportunities for lesser pay. That's hard data, peer reviewed, and a position held by the overwhelming majority of sociologists who've studied it. Frankly, its plainly visible to anyone who hasn't preconceived that it cannot be so.

Denying outright that privilege exists is tantamount to denying climate change -- Its easy enough to do from an air-conditioned apartment, meanwhile those along the coast are left to drowning. We can argue about symptoms vs. causes, root causes, who to blame, and what precisely to do about it until we're blue in the face but that doesn't achieve anything and is energy wasted to inaction.

We all have a set of privileges we were born into -- men have privileges that women don't have, whites have privileges that blacks don't have, women have privileges that men don't have, blacks have privileges that whites don't have. Its not all or nothing, its shades and degrees along as many axes as you can name. But generally, if you're a white male who had access to a quality education and quality healthcare, the playing field is tipped greatly in your favor for no reason other than the circumstances of your birth -- and that you can identify distinct demographics that by-and-large aren't born into similarly smooth-sailing by virtue of their skin, or gender, or economic class -- well, being a white dude is a privilege to be damn sure.

And having privilege doesn't make you a villain, and it doesn't mean you've never faced hardship or overcome a hand you were dealt. Having or lacking privilege is not pre-destiny, it just means the course of different parts of your life are swimming with or against currents you don't control.

So none of us should feel bad for having the privileges we do -- the place we want to get to is a place where greater equality is achieved extending privileges to those who go without today, not by taking them from those who enjoy them today. Lets all become richer, not poorer -- basic dignities are not a commodity in a zero-sum game.

While that work is going on, the least we can all do is stop dismissing one another's trials, and try to understand them instead.

Um... you just fulfilled your own prophecy: you literally just chose to shut down in the presence of a word. Talk about being triggered :P

Yes, after running any counter arguments I might have had and doing simple analysis (based on previous posts in this thread) leading to the conclusion that anything I say, counter to the position of 'they did the right thing', was going to result in 'you are a white male; you are privileged, your opinion is wrong' response.

When someone pulls the 'privilege' card in a discussion their mind is made up; they are right.
Game over.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect £200 because you are privileged enough already.

(Also 'triggering' is a bullshit phrase too frankly... 'waah! someone said a thing I don't agree with! they have triggered me and should be made to go away!' is all I see when someone pulls that word out too...)

This. "Privilege" is essentially an ad hominem. "You're ____[, so nobody should bother to listen to you]". That underscore has substituted for a lot of words over the years and "privileged" is just one of many. It's no different from someone calling someone else a "liberal/conservative mouthpiece".

Regardless of whether you agree with someone, you should attack the argument, not the person.

The answer is simple. Privilege is a baseless concept. It is the phrenology of the 21st century, purporting to explain reality and failing. And all too often, rather than dealing with the failings of the concept, proponents simply double down and insist it must be true or (more shamefully) lash out against those that raise issue with it.

And if you believe that it is worthwhile to contemplate privilege, I also invite you to contemplate original sin. Both concepts are equally valid.

I'm supremely irritated when the word "privilege" is thrown around as a means of silencing people, and doubly so when it comes from people are in the majority of said privilege. But lets not pretend its not a tangible thing. Study after study, after study show that certain minority groups, women, LGBT persons systematically face greater discrimination, greater rates of violence, and have fewer economic opportunities for lesser pay. That's hard data, peer reviewed, and a position held by the overwhelming majority of sociologists who've studied it. Frankly, its plainly visible to anyone who hasn't preconceived that it cannot be so.

Denying outright that privilege exists is tantamount to denying climate change -- Its easy enough to do from an air-conditioned apartment, meanwhile those along the coast are left to drowning. We can argue about symptoms vs. causes, root causes, who to blame, and what precisely to do about it until we're blue in the face but that doesn't achieve anything and is energy wasted to inaction.

We all have a set of privileges we were born into -- men have privileges that women don't have, whites have privileges that blacks don't have, women have privileges that men don't have, blacks have privileges that whites don't have. Its not all or nothing, its shades and degrees along as many axes as you can name. But generally, if you're a white male who had access to a quality education and quality healthcare, the playing field is tipped greatly in your favor for no reason other than the circumstances of your birth -- and that you can identify distinct demographics that by-and-large aren't born into similarly smooth-sailing by virtue of their skin, or gender, or economic class -- well, being a white dude is a privilege to be damn sure.

And having privilege doesn't make you a villain, and it doesn't mean you've never faced hardship or overcome a hand you were dealt. Having or lacking privilege is not pre-destiny, it just means the course of different parts of your life are swimming with or against currents you don't control.

So none of us should feel bad for having the privileges we do -- the place we want to get to is a place where greater equality is achieved extending privileges to those who go without today, not by taking them from those who enjoy them today. Lets all become richer, not poorer -- basic dignities are not a commodity in a zero-sum game.

While that work is going on, the least we can all do is stop dismissing one another's trials, and try to understand them instead.

Yeah, I agree. Privilege is definitely a tangible, as you said, thing, and generally, whites do have more privileges than all the other races, men than women, etc. I don't think denying this is constructive - we must at least recognize that it exists, so we can solve it, because it's a problem obviously - people having advantages merely because of their skin color, or gender, or sexual orientation, etc. It would be ideal if we all were considered just individuals and had the same opportunities and faced the same obstacles, thus relying only on our personal merit, but we don't live in such a society; and the opportunities and obstacles are not exactly "randomized" either - they tend to "accumulate" in disproportionate qualities in certain demographic groups.

However:

1) There *is* a thing called class privilege too. Do we keep forgetting it lately? I recently saw a tweet from a pretty well known woman director that is on the front of social justice(and she really should be applauded for that, women are so underrepresented as film directors it's not even funny) saying "Batman's superpower is white male privilege". This is really a minor and unimportant example, but I remember it, because I was like, WTF? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure his privilege is being filthy fucking rich. Did you go out of your way to *not* list the one privilege that is actually relevant to the case, for crying out loud? If the "classical" Left has put too much emphasis on class in the past and neglected all other "axes of opression", that doesn't mean the solution is to erase it entirely from now on. I've even seen nonsense like trying to determine whether "race > class" or "class > race". Bloody hell. What is this, a contest? This doesn't come from people that consider both important problems that need to be addressed, this comes from people who want to assign oppression points so they can easily decide who wins the debate without actually having to have it.

I touched subtely on this in the case of the students that didn't really have the luxury of spending money, time and possibly days off work in order to get a valuable lesson on gender diversity by the means of a mere cancellation. If your family has the money and connections, you might not mind so much and consider it a lesson. If you're a working class kid, you might not be that ecstatic for being punished for other people's screwups, and being asked to consider your waste of very finite resources as a great opportunity to "reflect on your privilege". I'm constantly reminded of Pasolini's scathing remark about the '68 protests: poliziotti figli di proletari meridionali picchiati da figli di papà in vena di bravate ("policemen, sons of proletarian southerners, beaten up by arrogant daddy's boys"). While I may not agree that this was what May of 68 was, boy sometimes these words sound true, and he was a true badass for saying this, especially since he was a freaking communist.

2) And again, as you said, the term is thrown around so much by people that just want to win the debate, get applause by their in-groups, and call it a day. Especially obnoxious when it comes from people that have said privilege in spades, maybe more than the people they're pointing fingers at(again, we're not living in a classless society, okay?). Just tone it down for god's sakes, especially if you're a white dude.

waah! someone said a thing I don't agree with! they have triggered me and should be made to go away!

We've reached top stupidity methinks.

What does that mean anyway?

"Privilege" is essentially an ad hominem. "You're ____[, so nobody should bother to listen to you]". That underscore has substituted for a lot of words over the years and "privileged" is just one of many. It's no different from someone calling someone else a "liberal/conservative mouthpiece".

Regardless of whether you agree with someone, you should attack the argument, not the person.