Henry: "Were all the games that ''over 50% of the game players'' play created by the small minority of women in the game programming industry? If not, then the men in the game programming industry must have been pretty damn good at creating games that appeal to women even though they supposedly lack the ''female perspective'' that female game programmers are supposed to bring to the industry."

Sure, guys make great games that women love. I wonder why they don''t do it more often! There are quite a few games that appeal to women out there (mostly gender-neutral), online and off. There are really only specific genres that leave women out (strategy, shooter, action ... basically all of the "fiction" genres). The gaming magazines also tend to leave women (and gender-neutral games) out, by focusing on these specific genres. It doesn''t seem logical, since non-gender oriented game genres make plenty of money. The shelves of computer stores are filled with these very narrow genres, leaving little room for other things, even though people buy other things. I think even fans of these genres are beginning to feel restless, because games have become very cookie-cutter. Or I''ve heard a lot of people complain, anyway.

Absolutely, men can make games that women love. They don''t usually make them specifically for women (except if they work for Barbie), but they often do make games that appeal to them anyway. However, they seem to limit themselves in certain genres by making games that are specifically aimed at certain age groups (8-12, and teenager) and a certain gender (male). Anyone else gets left out. It''s a shame.

"In other words, if the two statements above are true you can not make the generalization that games created by men appeal more to men than they do to women (if that was the case, the percentage of female gamers would be proportional to the number of female game programmers)."

I think there actually are more women programmers who work for gender-neutral or female-oriented game companies (such as Barbie, or a company that makes computer card games) than work for male-oriented game companies, but I have no figures to back that up so consider it a guess.

What I was saying was that games made by guys for guys, advertised towards guys, packaged for guys, and featuring guys, are more likely to attract male players and distance female players than other games are. I was saying all of those elements were present in specific genres (the "fiction" genres). If the only element present is that a game is made by a guy (but otherwise it is gender-neutral or female-oriented), then it may be quite appealing to women. A game is not for guys just because a guy makes it. I hope I did not infer that I thought this. Though I do feel like guys are more inclined to make games that appeal to guys; but then, I feel like girls would be inclined to make games that appeal to girls. I think this, but don''t really criticize it.

"Now, This would not go well with Ack''s theories though since she seems to belong to the school that puts social influence over genetical heritage."

I''m glad you said "seems to". I think people are influenced when they let themselves be influenced. As for genetics, I don''t really know what you mean by "genetical heritage" and I have a feeling that that would be a different subject matter for a different conversation.

"She writes about how people are influenced subconsciously by the opinions in the society etc."

I write how people can be - not "are forcibly" - influenced subconsciously by the world they live in and the people they live around (aka society). And I consider the depths of the subconscious to be plummable (sp). Meaning, we are perfectly capable of understanding what we do on a subconscious level (such as let other people influence us) and we are perfectly capable of changing how we behave (if we want to). But I think one has to recognize first that one has a subconscious and what it contains. Ah, but that is another subject. It applies here because my concerns were that people are keeping girls both out of gaming and out of programming subconsciously. Now my belief actually boils down to that I think the girls are keeping themselves out of gaming, because they are perfectly capable of doing otherwise. However, I see no reason for them to find their way alone, even if they can; it would be of great help to them if they had mentors, examples, and teachers leading them - some of their own gender and some who understand their gender, whether or not they are of it.

"This is a THEORY, not FACT and"

Absolutely. I wouldn''t have it any other way.

" Personally I believe that the whole debate is pestered by
overgeneralizations."

Indeed, I made far too many generalizations in my second post. Sometimes I start conversations by making really vague, sweeping statements that aren''t what I mean and are quite foolish. Then I get upset when I''m not understood, realize that I didn''t phrase things as I could have, and end up having to start from scratch. Then I finally say what I really meant all along.

J2xC: "I asked a few of my female friends at school (I''m 16) about whether they liked computer games and if not, why the most common responses were they were boring or too expensive to be worthwhile."

Here is the next question to ask them, I wish I could ask them myself: "What kind of games *would* you find interesting?" I''d love to hear their responses.

"However the console games market is less "gender-biased" (whatever that means) and it''s not uncommon for some of my female acquaintances to play them on occasion..."

Yeah. I haven''t said much about consoles games, since they are less narrow. They are far more gender-neutral and often have many female players to play. And they are far more popular with girls than computer games. I''m not sure, but they may even be advertised more for both genders than for one gender.

Null: "I''m just pointing out that being individuals is a large part of (but certainly not all of) gender."

Absolutely! Utterly! Totally! I agree with what you said in this line.

"learning how to (correctly) interact with women is quite a struggle for men."

So they tell me! :-)

"I can only guess that it''s very difficult for women to learn how to (correctly) interact with men..."

Yes! I grew up with 5 boys and a father and do I understand men? No. I relate to them ... sometimes. And I get them ... sometimes. Though the irony for me is that I often get men more than I get women. My own sex is quite a mystery to me. Maybe I will learn more about them if I do try to make games for them (rather than just gender-neutral games, which I prefer) ... hmmm ......

Sheesh. Took forever to read all those. Miss checking GameDev for a day and you have to read for an hour and a half to make up for it

Anyhow, I might as well throw in some thoughts.

I certainly identify with the poster who mentioned how rough it is to be a teenage coder right now. I get flack about it from all kinds of people. Not just kids my age, adults as well. When I ''waste my time'' in front of the computer for 5 hours coding something, I usually get told to go ''do something productive.'' Have any idea how frustrating it is to feel at one point that you are showing initiative by persuing something extracuricular, and then get told it''s a waste of time? Not to mention that great stereotype we can thank the media for that makes anyone involved in computer programming, or anything of a similar nature, an ugly nerdy kid with no personallity, no friends, and no social life. Don''t tell me it doesn''t exist. As a sophemore in highschool I can tell you it does.

What has this to do with the thread? Plenty. This is, in my opinion, a contributing factor to why there are so few women in the programming industry. At my age, I get flack from people for just knowing about computers, and I''m a *guy*. Imagine what a girl in my position, at my age, would probably get? What I''ve noticed as a nasty fact of teenage social life is, when you get a group of people together, for instance a highschool class, the majority finds a few people who are worthy of singling out, and those few people are constantly tormented. It''s not just the ''nerds'', sometimes it''s some unlucky kid who is placed in the position of the proverbial punching bag just *because*.

Let''s face it. In today''s society, stereotyping is a predominant factor. And it starts early. I''m perfectly aware of the fact that girls can think for themselves. They''re people, so that really goes without saying. It''s ashame it even had to be specifically stated. But anyone can be affected by peer pressure, and it''s most definately not ''cool'' to be a computer nut, especially if you''re a girl. I don''t know any female coders. But the truth is, the *only* coder that I knew personally was arrested a while ago for lighting the back of a K-Mart on fire.

Mabye other teens have had better luck, but I haven''t found a single person I can relate with. The only person I can think of is a 40+ guy that teaches the computer classes at my school. Not only does he teach so poorly that every single person in the 4 classes he tought hated programming, he made us coders look bad. He would ''show off'' by doing demostrations on the board of how fast he could add two 64-digit binary numbers. I''m serious here.

For fear of digressing, let me try to make my point concise. It seems to me that a major contributing factor to the lack of females in the computer industry is due to some extremely strong stereotypes among teenagers. Now that I think of it, this may have been less of a problem a few years back, but I wouldn''t know. Consider my comment applicable to my generation of programmers.

(I really wish I didn''t have to add disclaimers to get people to think, but...)
Don''t take this post as an attack on anyone''s views. I just want to generate some thought on this issue. Think about it for a bit. Think a bit longer if it''s been a while since you were in school. Then try to imagine how vicious teenagers can be.

-Lutrosis

In this entire line of posts, there has only been one single comment made that really bothers me. I haven''t noticed anyone else touch upon it, and that bothers me to. Basically in one of Ack''s posts she said...

Nah, they aren''t sexist. They''re just looking for the best programmer to do the job. I really meant that I, specifically, would hire women if my company was a majority of men -- even if the women were less qualified. That''s my issue. I''d probably be happy to see others do it, too, but I see no reason to pressure them. And I don''t expect it of them.


Ok, at least I think Ack said that. If I''m wrong, then I appologize, but to comment... Selecting a woman for a job that is less qualified simply because she was a woman is the most blatant example of discrimination that exists. But you say no, that''s reverse discrimination because women are the minority. Reverse discrimination is a bunch of crap. There''s no such thing. Discrimination is discrimination, period. To use a cliche, two wrongs don''t make a right. I''m a firm believer of that.

Discrimination will ALWAYS cause resentment on the part of those being discriminated against, no matter which way it goes. That resentment can potentially grow into a prejudiced view, and THAT is exactly what we want to avoid.

In your comment, you say Nah, they aren''t sexist... but based on the rest of your words, I have no choice but to believe that you are. And once again, that is a bad thing no matter which way it goes. You''d only be hurting your own cause by doing such things. I personally believe that ALL forms of reverse discrimination are more harmful then helpful. But then, we''ve always been a society that chooses to ignore the real problem and look for ''easy'' solutions.

theRaskell: Ack was just talking about something someone else had said to her specifically. Here's the whole thing:

quote:
"If you think that because people don't specifically look for female programmers on their project means they are sexist, then you have another thing coming."

Nah, they aren't sexist. They're just looking for the best programmer to do the job. I really meant that I, specifically, would hire women if my company was a majority of men -- even if the women were less qualified. That's my issue. I'd probably be happy to see others do it, too, but I see no reason to pressure them. And I don't expect it of them.

Actually, I agree with you about "reverse" discrimination, but let me say it a different way. (And I may go a little bit farther, so hang on to your seat!)


To Ack, and everyone else who wants to quote me:

(I don't know why it's so hard to get people to debate my paragraphs as units -- everyone splits them up and quotes my sentences here and there when they reply. Please quote the paragraph as a unit , and debate it as a unit . That's why I arranged them into paragraphs. The sentences make little or no sense outside the context of the paragraph in which they were written.)

I try to do that as much as possible with other's posts, too.


As for purposely hiring females instead of males for programming jobs, that's just silly. That only engenders (sorry, bad pun ) bitterness in both groups. People should eliminate prejudice, not create more to compensate!! (And remember, programming talent is the ONLY concern here, not whether the person's male or female! So, logically, you can't be un-biased and still hire women over men simply because or gender). Eliminating prejudice is kind of like driving and hitting a patch of ice -- the worst thing you can do is to stomp on the brake and swing the wheel hard around Just bring it to a stop gradually and then move in the right direction.

Also, I don't think there's so much bias as you seem to claim -- I think it's more a case of women being told they shouldn't do thing instead of being told they can't do things. To confuse one with the other is to get offended. I believe that the way society is now, people don't have much to identify their gender with, so they try to find some kind of "perfect" in-between -- a mix of the best qualities of both.

(The easiest way to test a principle is to take it to the extreme; principles don't change with circumstances.)

So, we'll take the complete gender neutrality theory and test it by taking it to the extreme. If it holds up, it's correct. Here goes: If we could completely blur the "gender gap," there would be no distinct differences in gender. Imagine a world where there are absolutely no restrictions -- perceived or otherwise. Little boys play with barbies, little girls play with toy machine guns and plastic grenades. No, that's not entirely correct -- both genders would play with both types of toys. No, that's not correct either -- gender neutrality means not having any toys that one gender would like and the other wouldn't -- one gender would find such things offensive. So, there wouldn't be any of those kinds of toys; people would just have to settle for puzzles and jacks and things that are gender-neutral. You'd have women with crew cuts and army boots, men with long hair (no offense meant -- just mean it would be completely accepted) wearing skirts, or whatever they wished. No, that's not correct either, there wouldn't be any clothes or haircuts that are desired commonly by one gender and not the other; that would be offensive. Instead, there would have to be "unisex" clothes. No more ponytails, or hair accessories, or pastel clothing -- everything would have to be white (or black). Nothing that's gender-specific and could possibly be offensive to the other gender. There would be absolutely no restrictions on what people could do, what they could look like, etc. But that doesn't mix, does it? In order to eliminate things that might offend the other gender, we have to have everything gender-neutral. Gender differences would have to be minimized as much as possible.

But, if there are no perceived differences, there is no gender ! Unfortunately, such a world cannot exist without creating exponentially more problems than it solves. Women don't have to act like men to feel fulfilled as women . Men don't have to act like women to feel fulfilled as men . Women don't have to do everything men do, simply because it can be done. The issue is not what men or women can or cannot do -- it's about gender identity. As long as there is gender, there will be gender-specific games. When you provide the three varieties (female-specific, gender-neutral, male-specific) of a particular thing, be it clothing or hobby or whatever, men will tend to buy more of the male-specific things. Women will tend to buy more of the female-specific things. They will both buy some of the gender-neutral things, but not nearly as much. As long as there is gender, there will be gender-specific games .

It's not simply the physical differences that make men and women naturally different; it's differences in thinking, too. Thinking is influenced only a little by society. People will basically do what they want to do, and what they want to do comes from deep inside them. As long as there are genders, there will be gender-specific games.

You still haven't said one word on what women do like to do -- it's all been "they're being told they can't." If you don't know what women tend to like, how do you know there's a conflict between what they're being told they can't do and what they really want to do? Further, if you don't know what women tend to like, how can you expect the people here to make games for them? Please elaborate on the natural (mental) differences -- without them this topic won't accomplish much. The idea that gender itself (i.e., simply being a man or a woman) doesn't cause people to like certain things and thus doesn't enter into the discussion, will only exacerbate the problem. In other words: define woman.

Good Luck!


- null_pointer



Edited by - null_pointer on 3/8/00 7:52:42 AM

Ack,

Your basic argument boils down to women being ''pushed away'' from gaming by gender biased
games. The problem is that the numbers you bring up do not agree with this statement. If
50% of the gamers are female, you can not say that games keep women out or appeal less to
women than to men! Assuming that your statement that 50% of the gamers are female is true,
a fact. That fact invalidates your theory about gender biased games that keep women out (or
pushes them away). One of them has to go, which one?

Personally I believe that the number, more than 50% female gamers, is tautological, true if
you overgeneralize but false/useless to this discussions. You have several generalization
that I think are too broad to be useful for this discussion and that is why I believe you
have problems making your theories agree with reality. The discussion seems to be about the
gaming industry but you seem to refer to any programmer who has created a game as a game
programmer (most people who have a degree in CS have created simple games as assignements
in their courses) and you make no difference between games ''computerized real-world games''
(solitaire etc.) and games that would not exist without a computer (Quake etc.). It might
also be useful to separate games that are created by people in the gaming industry (both
amateurs and professionals) and games created by people who are just ordinary programmers
with no special interest in games.

I know why you desperately want to keep the 50% figure though. If you were to drop that and
make your theories consistent, some people might see it wise NOT to hire female programmers
since they might gives games a female bias that would make the game sell less in the huge
male-dominated computer game market (it is male-dominated if you use the definitions of
''computer game'' in the last paragraph).

Btw, I do not believe in gender-neutral games, it''s obvious that Sim City is for women and
feminine guys.

Henry

Raskell: "I haven't noticed anyone else touch upon it, and that bothers me to."

I'm pretty sure others have touched on it.

"Selecting a woman for a job that is less qualified simply because she was a woman is the most blatant example of discrimination that exists. But you say no, that's reverse discrimination because women are the minority."

I sure hope you read all of my posts to put this into context before you pulled it out. If you reread them, you will see my view on this subject and why I have it. :-)

"Reverse discrimination is a bunch of crap. There's no such thing. Discrimination is discrimination, period."

I'm not familiar with the term "reverse discrimination" but I can guess what it means. Absolutely, if I hired one gender rather than another, simply because it was in the minority, it would be discrimination. I never said it wasn't.

"In your comment, you say Nah, they aren't sexist... but based on the rest of your words, I have no choice but to believe that you are."

Please tell me which gender I am sexist against. I know you might be inclined to say "guys", but if you did I'd think you hadn't read my posts very clearly. I'd be saying the same things about guys right now that I have about girls, if the guys were in the minority. I'm really speaking about minorities here, not genders. You may call me minority-biased, if you like.

Null: "I don't know why it's so hard to get people to debate my paragraphs as units"

In RL people don't talk in units; so it's unlikely they'd do it online. Anyone who wants to read your whole paragraph, can go back and look it up. People quote exactly what they want to comment on and nothing more. They don't always include the whole "idea" of a statement, which I think is better than including a paragraph. For example, you quoted a paragraph of mine, but not the whole idea, since that one paragraph was only part of my view. It doesn't bother me, though, since people can go back and read the whole post for themselves if they want to be clear on my views. :-)

"Also, I don't think there's so much bias as you seem to claim -- I think it's more a case of women being told they shouldn't do thing instead of being told they can't do things."

There's probably both. They both concern me, regardless of which is most prominent. What also concerns me are the possibilities that girls are being told/telling themselves tech stuff is boring before without trying things out the make sure. There may also be a problem with the way females are taught. Females may (but it's not certain) learn differently than males, and the way certain subjects are currently taught (math, science, CS) may alienate them because they don't understand how they are being taught. These are possibilities, and as possibilities, they concern me.

"So, we'll take the complete gender neutrality theory "

What gender neutrality theory?

"Nothing that's gender-specific and could possibly be offensive to the other gender. There would be absolutely no restrictions on what people could do, what they could look like, etc. But that doesn't mix, does it?"

No, it doesn't, but I'm not sure why you've brought all this up? Was someone here saying the world ought to be gender-neutral? What a boring world that would be!

"Women don't have to act like men to feel fulfilled as women . Men don't have to act like women to feel fulfilled as men ."

I've often thought this myself, when I've seen a person of one gender behave like another gender just to get peer approval. I didn't get to act much like a girl in the surroundings I grew up in (five boys) and I think it affected how I felt about girls. Then, it was hard to behave like a girl and feel "worthy" of my male counterparts. Now, I see that my gender can stand its own ground, and always could! And, ironically, it's because I grew up around boys that I was finally able to realize this. I saw that they were human, and as humans, neither better nor worse than girls.

"As long as there is gender, there will be gender-specific games. When you provide the three varieties (female-specific, gender-neutral, male-specific) of a particular thing, be it clothing or hobby or whatever, men will tend to buy more of the male-specific things. Women will tend to buy more of the female-specific things. They will both buy some of the gender-neutral things, but not nearly as much."

I don't know about that. As long as there is gender, gender may want gender-specific things. That doesn't mean there will *be* gender-specific things. Where were the barbie computer games five years ago? There were no female-specific computer games then, even though the female gender existed then. However, I think there was and still is the desire to have gender-specific computer games. And gender-neutral is pretty popular itself.

"You still haven't said one word on what women do like to do"

That's because I don't really know. I *have* said that I don't understand my own gender, and am trying to.

"-- it's all been "they're being told they can't.""

It's "all been" many different issues, one of them being: "I worry that girls are getting the idea that they can't or shouldn't or will be bored by playing computer games or making them." It's all theory, as I have expressed. It's all possibility, as I have expressed. I do not say it is an absolute, because I don't know it to be an absolute. So you are misquoting me to say that I am speaking in such absolutes.

"If you don't know what women tend to like, how do you know there's a conflict between what they're being told they can't do and what they really want to do?"

I have a vague sense of what they don't like. And I'm a woman myself, even if I don't always realize it. Also, I'm turning to others to find out the information that I lack. Here, I have gotten information on this issue. And in many other places. I talk to everyone I can about it, and hear as many viewpoints as possible. I have been told by girls who have not played computer games that computer games are boring. Where did they get that idea, if they never played a game? I have many such questions swirling in my head and I have been finding answers for them through study, observation, and research. Also, I don't "know" that there is a conflict; I *believe* that there is one. It's not a fact, it's a belief.

"Further, if you don't know what women tend to like, how can you expect the people here to make games for them?"

That's easy. I don't expect people to come to me to find out what girls like. They can ask other girls, lots of other girls. They can find out themselves what women want, if they want to make games for women. If you asked me what girls want out of a game, I would tell you, "go ask your sister, mother, or girlfriend; it's a start."

"The idea that gender itself (i.e., simply being a man or a woman) doesn't cause people to like certain things and thus doesn't enter into the discussion, will only exacerbate the problem."

Does gender cause things? Doesn't it? This is an issue unto itself! This is also something I'm still trying to figure out, so I can't speak like an expert on it. I can say I see differences, or sense differences, in my every day interactions between men and women, but I don't know *what* they are. Can you tell me?

"In other words: define woman."

I can't. But I'm not here specifically to define woman, even if I do in the process of doing other things. I'm here to figure out why woman isn't here. If it's because she has no motive to be, that's that. If it's because things are preventing her from being here, I'd like to know what those things are and how they can be altered and share what I've learned with others. So far, I've gotten more of an indication that there are things preventing women from being here than I have gotten an indication that women simply have no interest in being here. So I'm following up on the indication. Who knows where it will take me? The more I learn, the more my p.o.v. may change.

Edited by - Ack on 3/8/00 1:10:10 PM

Ack: The general idea of my last post was to show my thoughts on society causing all the problems. I sincerely believe it doesn''t. Whether you stated that or not (and I think you didn''t) some people here got the mistaken impression you did, and I was simply "speaking my piece" on the subject.

Also, there is a considerable amount of bias against males among female circles -- maybe you don''t see it. I think that it''s not good for either gender to pick apart the natural traits of the other gender. Male-bashing is kind of common these days -- I see it as more common than female-bashing, probably because I''m a man (or will be one soon ). So, I''m guessing that both are equally common.

I don''t mind telling you something that really scares me: when I walk into the local mall or the supermarket or any store around my area, the females are extremely unattractive. Not that I go there looking for attractive women and I don''t mean their figures or anything like that -- every woman can look beautiful in her own way. What I do mean is manners, attitude, speech, thinking, and things like that. Women in general just don''t seem to know how to be feminine these days... I also noticed the same thing about men; they just don''t know when to be assertive and when to be gentle or how to treat women. Scary.

Just more random thoughts on the subject.

(maybe the subject''s just too worded too general for me )

Good Luck!


- null_pointer

The basic idea behind reverse discrimination (and the justification of such) is giving minorities priority and ''aid'' based exclusively on the fact that they are a minority. The most popular examples being college minority quotas to qualify for federal and state grants or aids of some sort. And you know what, I don''t give a damn that our Government is sanctioning such things. It''s just plain WRONG, period. The overall goal should be to attain equal opportunity. Equal representation should ONLY happen if all groups concerned are interested in such, and no one individual has any right to decide that the group as a whole is interested. With equal opportunity, there will be equal representation WHERE it should be.

Maybe you''re right Ack, maybe the lack of female developers in the Gaming industry is a result of discouragement, but that is NOT justification for any sort of discrimination towards females. Job positions should be filled based exclusively on qualifications, no exceptions at all. Doing so would be prejudiced and sexist. You''ve put forth your reasons for feeling the way you do, and yes I have read them. I understand them. I know where you are coming from. Now know where I am coming from. There are NO good reasons for discrimination, prejudice, sexism, or racism. Every single person who exhibits any of those things in any way always has a reason for doing so. The think they have good reasons for doing so, and they think they are justified in their stance, but they are always wrong. ALWAYS. Our Government is wrong when they require schools and/or businesses to maintain certain minority and/or gender percentages. You would be wrong in hiring a less qualified woman over a more qualified man simply because she was a woman. You worry about women being overlooked by the industry, yet you would overlook a potentially talented male programmer in your Crusade to increase the female game development population? Who do you think that''s really going to help? There is no easy way to fight discrimination. The ONLY way is to attack it at it''s roots. Take steps to eliminate the discouragements that you feel are causing this gender disparity. Cultivate and work on the female portion of the market. Foster proper un-biased views towards other by way of example.
I can tell you without doubt though, that if you work your way into a position of power and use that power to make the path easier for other women, you are going to gain yourself the resenment and disdain of every man that witnesses such actions, and they will be completely justified in their feelings. More then likely you will also breed some resentful views towards women in general, and in the end only generate more of the very discrimination you are trying to fight. That''s why two wrongs don''t make a right. They only promote more wrongs. Those men would certainly be unjustified in their actions, but no less so then you would be in yours.
Bottom line, your ''answer'' to the problem will only add to it. People need to realize that before we''ll ever be able to break out of this gender-biased society we all live in.

You are a woman right Ack? So tell us what women like, Don't give me this crap that you don't know, You are a woman, so tell me what YOU like in games. You seem to be qualified to share this point of view among us.

We want your oppinion Ack, I don't care if you grew up in a house full of guys... You know what you like, Tell us...

I agree with Null, Male-bashing on tv ads is on the rise, Mostly showing how much smarter the woman is over the guy, how she proves him wrong, embarrasses him ect ect...

~Trev



Edited by - Kavos on 3/8/00 8:46:57 PM