Support NeoGAF

[Valonquar]

So the writer basically cherry picked like-minded people with hilarious credentials to agree with a viewpoint they share in their ever growing social vacuum. Let's get a group of (ok mostly) women to tell everyone why men are the way they are! Makes sense to me!

Are male gamers toxic, or are you just thin skinned? Maybe a bit of column A and a bit of column B? I'll tell you this much, my wife & I play games together and enjoy playing them together. One of my best friends met his wife through Battlefield 3! Maybe this is the gamergate equivalent to "I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

There's assholes everywhere, and these shit writers and laughable"PH.D" titles are writing shock essays in order to survive. It isn't a matter of feeling persecuted, it's a matter of how obvious they are just hyper inflating an issue to mostly draw attention to themselves and their clickbait articles for page hits, at the cost of smearing shit all over a hobby many of us enjoy. It's confirmation bias that way too many people are agreeing with. It's no different than CNN saying Mass Effect had rape and pornographic sex in it, or Lieberman/Gore/Clinton trying to censor everything in games/movies/etc based on very ignorant ideas of the actual content.

I guess I'm just an angry old white dude that isn't meant to understand.

 

[NickFire]

So the writer basically cherry picked like-minded people with hilarious credentials to agree with a viewpoint they share in their ever growing social vacuum. Let's get a group of (ok mostly) women to tell everyone why men are the way they are! Makes sense to me!

Are male gamers toxic, or are you just thin skinned? Maybe a bit of column A and a bit of column B? I'll tell you this much, my wife & I play games together and enjoy playing them together. One of my best friends met his wife through Battlefield 3! Maybe this is the gamergate equivalent to "I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

There's assholes everywhere, and these shit writers and laughable"PH.D" titles are writing shock essays in order to survive. It isn't a matter of feeling persecuted, it's a matter of how obvious they are just hyper inflating an issue to mostly draw attention to themselves and their clickbait articles for page hits, at the cost of smearing shit all over a hobby many of us enjoy. It's confirmation bias that way too many people are agreeing with. It's no different than CNN saying Mass Effect had rape and pornographic sex in it, or Lieberman/Gore/Clinton trying to censor everything in games/movies/etc based on very ignorant ideas of the actual content.

I guess I'm just an angry old white dude that isn't meant to understand.

LOL but spot on. Also, what reasonable solutions are they proposing? Any at all? I didn't see them.

 

[DeepEnigma]

LOL but spot on. Also, what reasonable solutions are they proposing? Any at all? I didn't see them.

Get rid of (mostly white) men.

 

[Petrae]

Many journalists have been pouring gasoline on the fire for a few years now when it comes to demonising gamers and fostering a "them and us" divide. It used to be that these outlets would stand up for gamers. Now gamers are entitled, they're racist, they're sexist, their identity is dead, blah, blah, blah. They'll stand up for you if you have the right opinions and identity, otherwise they will shit on you.

I pointed this out in another thread, but it bears repeating here: The gaming press hates its readership. There’s quite the superiority complex that the gaming press enjoys holding over readers, too, to remind the plebs just how much worse they are in pretty much every respect. It also helps that shitting on your readers only fosters more engagement, rather than less; people can’t ignore when they’re being shit on, and they get defensive. This increases important metrics, which is a win for websites that publish this nonsense.

It’s a big reason why I don’t visit gaming websites anymore. I don’t reward this kind of behavior.

 

[Valonquar]

I really like how the whole article attacks male gamers and then goes on to say male gamers have a persecution complex at the same time.

 

[Achelexus]

Honestly I find it weird, having watching "drama" unfold in the gaming industry related to things like Anita Sarkeesian or the overreaction to Gamergate. What I've noticed is that toxicity/entitlement/persecution complex in gaming come primarily by women.

The article itself is a good example of that, frankly, I'll never understand why some women melt down the way they do because a new thing arrived (gaming) that isn't made entirely for them.

 

[ruvikx]

Pro tip @ Polygon: posting a character assassination piece against "male gamers" (aka a rather large group of people) won't exactly suddenly make the aforementioned male gamers give a shit about anything you're saying. It's a terrible hearts & minds tactic, i.e. "I think you people are horrible & suck balls, so I demand you listen to me!".

How about fck off? No prize for guessing how most male readers will respond to their article.

 

[Zog]

Honestly I find it weird, having watching "drama" unfold in the gaming industry related to things like Anita Sarkeesian or the overreaction to Gamergate. What I've noticed is that toxicity/entitlement/persecution complex in gaming come primarily by women.

The article itself is a good example of that, frankly, I'll never understand why some women melt down the way they do because a new thing arrived (gaming) that isn't made entirely for them.

It's interesting isn't it that calling male gamers toxic and/or misogynistic based on their gender is not considered...toxic.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's interesting isn't it that calling male gamers toxic and/or misogynistic based on their gender is not considered...toxic.

"You know son, you should not argue with your mother, or women in general, because they are always right."

Remember those sayings growing up? That article was literally a full display of that mentality.

 

[The Wise Old Man]

Gaming is meant to be an escape from all the irritating bullshit of day-to-day life. It’s completely unacceptable to me that a service that I pay for that I derive entertainment from is under pressure from people with an agenda to limit what I can say and what others can say. I wholly support being respectful inclusive and caring to people in real life and on the Internet. But sometimes it’s fun to crack jokes. I don’t see anyone campaigning to have Mel Brooks brought up on charges for making the movie “blazing saddles”. As a responsible parent however I wouldn’t let either of my kids see that movie until I feel they’re old enough. This all starts in the household the fact that a gaming magazine feels the need to lecture us like this is absurd offensive and belittles our intellect. I refuse to be lectured to buy anyone at this point on the sorts of things. I have earned the right not to be lectured by people like this.

I’ve never read polygon and I never will based on this nonsense. I have no idea what these people at polygon do or what value they add to my enjoyment of games. I don’t think there is any so frankly I could give two fucks about what any of these people say but I am concerned about Society as a whole being misled into thinking that this is a problem. If you want to change the discourse it starts with a look at the family dynamic. It all flows from there. As long as games continue to provide adequate filters for parents and controls to block toxic behavior then there’s no problem. True toxic trolls will eventually find themselves completely alienated and isolated and not part of the gaming society as a whole. The rest of us can all enjoy and have a good time. There is no problem here. We should all just move along and get on with our lives.

 

[ilfait]

It's interesting isn't it that calling male gamers toxic and/or misogynistic based on their gender is not considered...toxic.

The definition of sexism is very complicated and elusive. That's why we need experts like the ones sourced by the article to teach us.

 

[Cranberrys]

I always had a problem with Sarkeesian specifically. Is she talking for all women ? Because we I read her stuff it seems that everything is offensive.

Because my wife and some close female friends weren't offended when I played the Core Design TR games and was revoicing Lara when she was saying "HAAAA" everytime she picked up a medkit or because I was telling my girlfriend at that time that Lara was a cutie in her shorts. My GF understood tacitly that I was joking and that it was a fantasy she also knew that I wouldn't ask her to go to work in tight shorts because I played Tomb Raider because she knew that I wasn't a crazy person.

My wife has a crush on Chris Hemsworth but I know tacitly that she doesn't need me to go hit the gym 4 hours a day. It's a fantasy. As a guy, if Lara is a fantasy woman for me, that doesn't mean that I disrespect women and the fact that my wife has the hots for Chris isn't a sign of disrespect for men either. It's a healthy thing in a marriage to be able to laugh about those things plus you can make great jokes ("honey quick there's Chris shirtless on TV !" but then she comes running and it's a random guy ).

When things started to be so complicated ?

 

[Cosmogony]

But if white males become a lower percentage of the leads in games (as an example going from 75% of the time they are the lead to 50%), would that be a problem with you?

If the reason were not tied to competence but rather to the excluded candidate s being white and male, I would certainly have a problem.

If you're recruiting and the 10 best candidates happen to be black females, hire them all, I say. No hesitations whatsoever. Hire the best. Always.

But not hiring someone based off on his gender or ethnicity must be the mother of all ironies, which, nonetheless, seems to be escaping some individuals.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I always had a problem with Sarkeesian specifically. Is she talking for all women ? Because we I read her stuff it seems that everything is offensive.

Because my wife and some close female friends weren't offended when I played the Core Design TR games and was revoicing Lara when she was saying "HAAAA" everytime she picked up a medkit or because I was telling my girlfriend at that time that Lara was a cutie in her shorts. My GF understood tacitly that I was joking and that it was a fantasy she also knew that I wouldn't ask her to go to work in tight shorts because I played Tomb Raider because she knew that I wasn't a crazy person.

My wife has a crush on Chris Hemsworth but I know tacitly that she doesn't need me to go hit the gym 4 hours a day. It's a fantasy. As a guy, if Lara is a fantasy woman for me, that doesn't mean that I disrespect women and the fact that my wife has the hots for Chris isn't a sign of disrespect for men either. It's a healthy thing in a marriage to be able to laugh about those things plus you can make great jokes ("honey quick there's Chris shirtless on TV !" but then she comes running and it's a random guy ).

When things started to be so complicated ?

When people were rejected by certain people, places, or things in life. It is the utmost definition of entitled and privileged to speak as if you are speaking for everyone, and society as a whole needs to adopt your worldview.

P.S. They will say your wife has internalized misogyny and your patriarchy over her is helping to curate that.

 

[tkscz]

So I've given this another read ( dont know why , just alot of gibberish with no substance ) and something stood out to me , and this happens in a lot of this type of articles when they need to push an angle , what you don't ever see is the journalist/ Bloggers actually coming up with realistic answer to the problems . like How do we stop harassment , or how can we put tools in place to minimize harassment.

You see if they got a High Quality IT professional who could articulate how placing an algorithm in a game to spot unsavory language would benefit the end user . That would be a very interesting article and would be worth a read.

However what happens they roll out the same left leaning chatterboxes , who repeat the same talking point's , phrases like " Punching Down " " Challenging Societal norms" " Privilege" and " people with European heritage don't see people who don't look like them as equals" ( even tho the people who complain about to many whites in media are upset that the new Buffy is black women ) . This article really doesn't add anything new to a discussion not anything i haven't heard or read a hundred times before.

It will always be like this as long as those who seek attention not solutions are writing the articles. These are people with victim complexes. They always want to be the victim and thus, coming up with a solution would solve the issue and no longer make them a victim.

I know by this point people have suggested to mute, and/or ban the problem people, and the same counter argument of "it won't solve the issue" has come up. Thing is, NOTHING will solve the issue that is less than mind control. As long as an asshole has the free will to be an asshole, they are going to be an asshole. They will talk shit and say anything vile because they are able to and it affects those who listen. Muting and banning is all you can do as anything else would be nothing less than removing a person's free will to be an asshole.

"But couldn't we make an algorithm that prevents a person from joining the game in the first place?" That is literally a perma-ban or IP-ban. All you have to do is report the assholes and if they get reported a lot, they get permanently removed from the game (sans finding ways back in, but that account will be locked soon as well). All you have to do is mute and report. If others agree with you that the person's behavior is terrible, get them to report as well. If the person is reported a lot, they get perma or IP banned. That's the best solution you'll get.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

That's very interesting choice of experts to voice their opinion.

Kate Miltner (Miltner is a Ph.D. candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, specializing in technology and culture.):
Anita Sarkeesian (Sarkeesian is head of Feminist Frequency and best known for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, an examination of misogyny in games. She is a frequent target of harassment and abuse.):
Dr. Kishonna Gray (Gray is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Gender and Women’s Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago):
Soraya Chemaly (Chemaly is director of the Women’s Media Center Speech Project and organizer of the Safety and Free Speech Coalition. She is a writer and activist whose work focuses on the role of gender in culture, politics, religion and media.):
Mattie Brice (Brice is a game designer, writer and speaker whose work focuses on the central role of individual experience in art.):
Bridget Blodgett (Blodgett is an associate professor at the University of Baltimore. Her recent publications include “Hypermasculinity & Dickwolves: The Invisibility of Women in the New Gaming Public.”):
Thom Avella (Avella is a YouTube creator whose work focuses on the intersection between politics, games and online toxicity. As a teenager, Avella sympathized with GamerGate.):
Carolyn Petit (Petit is a prominent transgender woman working in games journalism. She is managing editor at Feminist Frequency, where she offers an intersectional feminist view on games and gaming culture.):
Kahlief Adams (Adams is the owner and producer at Spawn On Me, a popular podcast that investigates games culture, society and politics.):
Jen Golbeck (Golbeck is an associate professor at the University of Maryland. Her books on internet and entertainment culture include Introduction to Social Media Investigation: A Hands-on Approach.):
Paul Booth (Booth is an associate professor of media and cinema studies at DePaul Univesity. He researches fandom in new media and games. His books include Crossing Fandoms: SuperWhoLock and the Contemporary Fan Audience.):

No wonder people think games journalism is a joke - even political journalism is better at least you get someone to represent other side there.

What "other side"?

There is no academic field for MRAs. "Whiteness Studies" was a thing for a split second until they got run off the stage at their own conferences when their arguments crumbled under scrutiny. Now they take to the blogsphere.

 

[michaelius]

What "other side"?

There is no academic field for MRAs. "Whiteness Studies" was a thing for a split second until they got run off the stage at their own conferences when their arguments crumbled under scrutiny. Now they take to the blogsphere.

Someone who doesn't belive male gamers are evil monsters trying to defend their last remaining stronghold.

 

[Dontero]

To me there is simple explanation.

1. Most of gamers are men. (That excludes time wasters players on mobiles who are mostly women) and generally speaking any avenue of internet that is competetive or deals with precise argument is predominantly male.
2. Most of men treat each other as shit as proof of friendship. It is competition based friendship where each one point out how one is stupid, dumb etc. but they don't mean it actually and you are supposed to respond in same way. The bigger craftier insults the better friendship gets.
3. Women do not behave like that with other women. Insults are strictly reserved for actual conflict.
4. Men while online without visual factor and legit chat treat other women like men.
5. Women are not used to men treating them like men so they treat it as attack on them.
6. Men when they see someone actually getting angry follow straight men like behavior of increasing ante as this is seen as competitive behavior among his peers which increases their status.

So online "toxicity" is just clash of cultures breed between men and women, while there are outliers that cross the line majority of supposed toxicity is just men treating women as men.

While online toxicity is simple issue and there is nothing wrong with it (as it is basically male dominated culture playing in medium that mostly is consisting of men), clash of men&women cultures is something that is far more complex than what you can take at face value and games are one of few aspects of life where men don't treat women differently than men. Take any other scenario, sport, work, school etc. and men treat women differently than men.

Male socialization nature is competition while women socialization nature is more sedimentary.

 

[Dunki]

What "other side"?

There is no academic field for MRAs. "Whiteness Studies" was a thing for a split second until they got run off the stage at their own conferences when their arguments crumbled under scrutiny. Now they take to the blogsphere.

How about people who do not their bullshit lies and are not brainwashed by a feministic cult? So basically resonable people. But I love how you go MRA another sign that only extreme views are accepted.

 

[Cosmogony]

What "other side"?

There is no academic field for MRAs. "Whiteness Studies" was a thing for a split second until they got run off the stage at their own conferences when their arguments crumbled under scrutiny. Now they take to the blogsphere.

So you think women studies are the greatest thing since sliced bread but the male equivalent would offend your sensibility?

Interesting.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How about people who do not their bullshit lies and are not brainwashed by a feministic cult? So basically resonable people. But I love how you go MRA another sign that only extreme views are accepted.

Everything is binary now. Just think in 1's and 0's.

 

[BANGS]

Women do not behave like that with other women. Insults are strictly reserved for actual conflict.

Actually women do the exact same thing, except behind each other's backs...

 

[NickFire]

To me there is simple explanation.

1. Most of gamers are men. (That excludes time wasters players on mobiles who are mostly women) and generally speaking any avenue of internet that is competetive or deals with precise argument is predominantly male.
2. Most of men treat each other as shit as proof of friendship. It is competition based friendship where each one point out how one is stupid, dumb etc. but they don't mean it actually and you are supposed to respond in same way. The bigger craftier insults the better friendship gets.
3. Women do not behave like that with other women. Insults are strictly reserved for actual conflict.
4. Men while online without visual factor and legit chat treat other women like men.
5. Women are not used to men treating them like men so they treat it as attack on them.
6. Men when they see someone actually getting angry follow straight men like behavior of increasing ante as this is seen as competitive behavior among his peers which increases their status.

So online "toxicity" is just clash of cultures breed between men and women, while there are outliers that cross the line majority of supposed toxicity is just men treating women as men.

While online toxicity is simple issue and there is nothing wrong with it (as it is basically male dominated culture playing in medium that mostly is consisting of men), clash of men&women cultures is something that is far more complex than what you can take at face value and games are one of few aspects of life where men don't treat women differently than men. Take any other scenario, sport, work, school etc. and men treat women differently than men.

Male socialization nature is competition while women socialization nature is more sedimentary.

There is a lot of validity to your 6 points, especially 1 - 5. But a lot of people will hate you for saying it, because it cuts against the narrative that men are specifically trying to target women. And also, and probably more so, because they despise the notion that men and women are different by nature. Which is a real problem when trying to resolve conflict.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Actually women do the exact same thing, except behind each other's backs...

And they will allienate your ass out of the clique real fast. Mean Girls, while it was a comedy, is legit as fuck with how females act towards one another, and trying to "fit in".

But then again, it's the patriarchy. Not biologically human (and animal) nature since even our very own cells are in competition with one another half the time. No, can't be that.

 

[mckmas8808]

If the reason were not tied to competence but rather to the excluded candidate s being white and male, I would certainly have a problem.

If you're recruiting and the 10 best candidates happen to be black females, hire them all, I say. No hesitations whatsoever. Hire the best. Always.

But not hiring someone based off on his gender or ethnicity must be the mother of all ironies, which, nonetheless, seems to be escaping some individuals.

I think most people would agree to that. As long as the minorities don't have to present credentials proving that they were the best candidates.

Actually women do the exact same thing, except behind each other's backs...

Men do it behind each other's backs too. We act like we don't though.

 

[Zog]

Actually women do the exact same thing, except behind each other's backs...

Yes they do, gossip is a thing.

 

[BANGS]

Men do it behind each other's backs too. We act like we don't though.

Ummmm... not sure what guys you're hanging out with... I mean yeah maybe we talk shit about our boss or something behind his back for obvious reasons but never our friends...

 

[Cosmogony]

I think most people would agree to that. As long as the minorities don't have to present credentials proving that they were the best candidates.

And here you' are mistaken or simply disingenuous. Because under the current corporate climate, yes, hiring people based off on their gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation is indeed welcomed, instigated via institutionalized so-called Diversity teams and then celebrated on social media.

This, of course, if the ill-favoured candidates are of a certain background. If they happen to fit the disgraced profile, then sorry, no-can-do.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And here you' are mistaken or simply disingenuous. Because under the current corporate climate, yes, hiring people based off on their gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation is indeed welcomed, instigated via institutionalized so-called Diversity teams and then celebrated on social media.

This, of course, if the ill-favoured candidates are of a certain background. If they happen to fit the disgraced profile, then sorry, no-can-do.

And tax breaks. Some state's were giving out heavy tax breaks to business hiring certain demographics with your workforce being a certain %. The turnover was insane in that last job I will add.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

The article is absolute trash. It is a bag of fallacies.

It uses Mind Projection. Appeal to Authority. Begging the Question, False Dilemmas, Fallicy of many questions, cherry picking and more I can’t be bothered to remark more on.

It is a remarkable piece worth it’s weight in shit covered gold.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

My wife has a crush on Chris Hemsworth..

My wife would like to politely and respectfully notify your wife that there is a queue.

Speaking personally, I'm in the Tom Hardy queue.

Ahem. Carry on.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ummmm... not sure what guys you're hanging out with... I mean yeah maybe we talk shit about our boss or something behind his back for obvious reasons but never our friends...

They do man. Lots of men lie and play tough like they weren't talking crap about their friend at the pool hall or bar. It happens. Maybe less than women, but it happens alot.

And here you' are mistaken or simply disingenuous. Because under the current corporate climate, yes, hiring people based off on their gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation is indeed welcomed, instigated via institutionalized so-called Diversity teams and then celebrated on social media.

This, of course, if the ill-favoured candidates are of a certain background. If they happen to fit the disgraced profile, then sorry, no-can-do.

I literally got a job before because the company was looking to diversity in the workplace. I was also qualified. If 95% of the workforce is white, is it wrong for a committee to think about hiring outside of that same race going forward would be a good thing? Why would anybody want to work for a company that only tends to hire the same type of people?

 

[BANGS]

They do man. Lots of men lie and play tough like they weren't talking crap about their friend at the pool hall or bar. It happens. Maybe less than women, but it happens alot.

Must be a cultural thing... doesn't happen with us at all...

 

[mckmas8808]

Must be a cultural thing... doesn't happen with us at all...

Who is us? I thought you were born in America....

 

[Zog]

They do man. Lots of men lie and play tough like they weren't talking crap about their friend at the pool hall or bar. It happens. Maybe less than women, but it happens alot.

Men striving to be more like women?

 

[Cosmogony]

(…)

I literally got a job before because the company was looking to diversity in the workplace. I was also qualified. If 95% of the workforce is white, is it wrong for a committee to think about hiring outside of that same race going forward would be a good thing?

It'd be a terrible thing if by doing so they'd be dismissing the most competent candidates. Why should race, gender or sexual orientation be a factor in cases where it can't be shown to impact the performance in any meaningful way?

Why would anybody want to work for a company that only tends to hire the same type of people?

By same type you mean the most competent people they can get their hands on? Then it's the only kind of company I'd want to work for.

I'm wondering whether or not I'd be able to respect a co-worker who'd be there not because of skill, proficiency, competence, team spirit, etc., but because she or he merely came in handy to help management meet that arbitrary quota.

 

[DragoonKain]

I generally hate the whole culture of looking for the negative in everything. Combing through everything in life looking for problems, negativity, and injustice. Speaking of toxicity, that's pretty toxic, because it doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot of good. It's just causing a whole lot of anger and dividing people. IMO, that's the definition of toxic.

 

[Zog]

I generally hate the whole culture of looking for the negative in everything. Combing through everything in life looking for problems, negativity, and injustice. Speaking of toxicity, that's pretty toxic, because it doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot of good. It's just causing a whole lot of anger and dividing people. IMO, that's the definition of toxic.

Some people need the controversy to continue as they make money from it.

 

[off duty ninja]

I think it’s laughable that people in here, in 2018, think this ISNT an issue. BUT this piece is unbalanced - spoke to the wrong people IMO. It’s not balanced in terms of journalism. They should have spoken to behavioural psychologists mainly

While I agree that there are shitty people on the internet and online games I think that the panel they enlisted to interview about the subject is all completely biased and frankly, are not experts in behavioral psychology as you stated. I don't need any of those folks telling me what I already know.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I mean, this is the non bias pool they drew from.

 

[mckmas8808]

Men striving to be more like women?

Believe it or not, gossiping isn't a woman trait. It's just something that humans do.

It'd be a terrible thing if by doing so they'd be dismissing the most competent candidates. Why should race, gender or sexual orientation be a factor in cases where it can't be shown to impact the performance in any meaningful way?



By same type you mean the most competent people they can get their hands on? Then it's the only kind of company I'd want to work for.

I'm wondering whether or not I'd be able to respect a co-worker who'd be there not because of skill, proficiency, competence, team spirit, etc., but because she or he merely came in handy to help management meet that arbitrary quota.

Well, see that's the problem with having the discussion of diversity. Because the first and last thought is how people that don't look like "person X" probably isn't qualified in the first place. It's very possible that a company can diversify their workforce AND also maintain competency.

 

[Guileless]

"This complex social problem can be completely explained by my good vs. evil worldview. PS my political opponents are the evildoers."

 

[Cosmogony]

(…)

Well, see that's the problem with having the discussion of diversity. Because the first and last thought is how people that don't look like "person X" probably isn't qualified in the first place.

You seem to ignore basic facts. Nothing is more conducive to rational decision making than a free market, where companies tend to pay a high price for systematic irrationality, such as repeatedly passing on the most competent person they could bring in. Generally speaking, the market selects for competitive companies and not hiring the most competent person you have the opportunity to recruit is neither competitive nor rational.

You would also have to show that what you describe is a) significant and transversal across businesses, b ) has measurable impact on hiring decisions and c) negatively effects the same groups over and over

It's very possible that a company can diversify their workforce AND also maintain competency.

If, given a choice between hiring the most competent of two candidates and hiring the least competent of the two but who just happens to be have X,Y or Z irrelevant attribute, the decision falls on the latter, then it is not.

 

[B_Signal]

Believe it or not, gossiping isn't a woman trait. It's just something that humans do.

the worst gossips I've ever encountered were the warehouse staff at my old place. As soon as one person got better treatment or was seen to be slacking off all the knives were out

 

[Berek Halfhand]

I pointed this out in another thread, but it bears repeating here: The gaming press hates its readership. There’s quite the superiority complex that the gaming press enjoys holding over readers, too, to remind the plebs just how much worse they are in pretty much every respect. It also helps that shitting on your readers only fosters more engagement, rather than less; people can’t ignore when they’re being shit on, and they get defensive. This increases important metrics, which is a win for websites that publish this nonsense.

It’s a big reason why I don’t visit gaming websites anymore. I don’t reward this kind of behavior.

Bingo. And unfortunately, we're starting to see this in video game podcasts too. It's important to realize that these so called journalists will never actually be taken seriously for anything. And the only thing they can hate besides their lives are their readers/listeners. They're stuck. While most of us who actually consider video games more of a hobby will move on to better things.

 

[mckmas8808]

You seem to ignore basic facts. Nothing is more conducive to rational decision making than a free market, where companies tend to pay a high price for systematic irrationality, such as repeatedly passing on the most competent person they could bring in. Generally speaking, the market selects for competitive companies and not hiring the most competent person you have the opportunity to recruit is neither competitive nor rational.

You would also have to show that what you describe is a) significant and transversal across businesses, b ) has measurable impact on hiring decisions and c) negatively effects the same groups over and over



If, given a choice between hiring the most competent of two candidates and hiring the least competent of the two but who just happens to be have X,Y or Z irrelevant attribute, the decision falls on the latter, then it is not.

- History has proven your A. B. and C. points.

- And to the last quote there's plenty of times when the last 2 or 3 candidates are all about the same quality wise. 2 could be white and the 3rd could be brown. If 90% of your company is white, it wouldn't be a bad thing to hire the brown guy if his credentials are equal to the other 2 white interviewers.

 

[Cosmogony]

- History has proven your A. B. and C. points.

- And to the last quote there's plenty of times when the last 2 or 3 candidates are all about the same quality wise. 2 could be white and the 3rd could be brown. If 90% of your company is white, it wouldn't be a bad thing to hire the brown guy if his credentials are equal to the other 2 white interviewers.

Contemporary society doesn't fit that ABC picture of yours. Appealing to what happened mid 20th century won't fly.

I gave you an specific example to test your case. Evidently, you decided against addressing it.

But without a shadow of a doubt, you are also calling for more white males to be hired in areas where they are currently underrepresented, even if that means recruiting, say, less females or Asians.

 

[Dontero]

Actually women do the exact same thing, except behind each other's backs...

It is completely different. They do it as part of conflict which is negative while men do that as part of friendship which is positive. While they say mostly the same thing intention is completely different.

When men calls other "you fucking dumb motherfucker" it is mostly something to laugh about.
Switch that to woman scenario and it only can be read as actual insult in conflict.

edit: rewrote response

There is a lot of validity to your 6 points, especially 1 - 5. But a lot of people will hate you for saying it, because it cuts against the narrative that men are specifically trying to target women. And also, and probably more so, because they despise the notion that men and women are different by nature. Which is a real problem when trying to resolve conflict.

I think males know this but can't really articulate this as this is just "normal" for them. Also there are naturally outliers that do not share that culture. What i noticed is that those people usually are loners or just badly socialized.

 

[kingbean]

I was told on another forum it's okay to be toxic and intolorant if you're "right".

No one had an issue with that and its scary.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I was told on another forum it's okay to be toxic and intolorant if you're "right".

No one had an issue with that and its scary.

The Right Side of History™ rhetoric.