Bay 12 Games Forum

What are you going to do?

Maybe public education and awareness building around the issues? Try to get those who create such media to be more concious of the sexist tropes and issues so that they can avoid them? To do the same for those who consume such media?

Well you have all the neuroscience too, that backs up there being differences correlated with gender, whereas the "identical gender" people just have "because I said so".

Erm, what?

For starters, the science far from supports such strong innate gender differences. While there have been some bodies of work that make such suggestions, they nearly all start from the assumption that such differences exist. I'd strongly recommend this paper on the issues with assuming 'hardwiring' in neuroscience. It's actually a great paper beyond that, because it explores the unethical effects of using such assumed innate differences;

Hardwiring is an unethical metaphor because it says 'what is, must be'. That would be scientifically unsatisfying even if sex/gender were simply a domain of difference, rather than a domain of power relations and marked inequalities. But the continued existence of sex/gender inequalities adds an additional problem. The hardwiring paradigm erases the effect of the social world in producing sex/gender differences, so that sex/gender hierarchies appear natural. Neuroscientific explanations of sex/gender differences have added a new allure to an old fashioned sexism

There is also a citation of this paper which looks at a wide range of studies examining gender differences. It finds that the vast majority show either close-to-zero difference (30%) or a small difference (48%). Again, these are mostly involving studies where such a difference was assumed, so I'd actually expect there to be a strong bias towards showing even differences that don't exist, although I feel the analysis nicely accounts for this.

From what I have seen, there are far more males in this category than females. Not that I mean to imply that females don't want in on games development, presenting an argument in this fashion would be dishonest. I'm just wondering does my experience reflect reality, and if so why this is.

I'd think two factors here.

1) Women are discouraged from entering computer programming at all by a culture that is similar to that surrounding games, in formal education, on the internet and in industry. That cuts down massively on the number of casual female programmers with the experience to make a go of a successful (and so noticeable) indi game. To me this broader sexist culture is part of the same problem, helping create the barriers surrounding the gaming industry that in turn help keep the illusion that gaming is still a boys club.

2) Those that could are discouraged by the potential of becoming a visible woman online. See the subject of this thread. Or a more subtle example from this week.

This is why the onus of progress must be put on those who are being stepped on. Because it seems an industry that continues to produce, market and consume visual media that is primarily dominated by men isn't going to be shaken with strong words on the Internet or in an e-mail. It's going to be shaken with money (or the lack thereof) and a shift of the internal demographics.

Except that those demographics have shifted. The money is flowing in new and worrying ways. The industry's response seems to be circling the wagons.

Most of the talk about sexism in games is from those who want to see the industry succeed. People who want to see games die (and I doubt there are really that many, or at least that many who seriously care) aren't going to care about what games are sexist or how or why. They are just going to dismiss the entire form. The people who actually put time and effort into the discussion are the ones who want to see games come out of this demographic change stronger and better.

Oh come now, do you mean to imply that in all of the electronic games medium, you can't find a single example of a game that isn't sexist?

She is doing an educational series on the usage, history and nature of certain sexist tropes within video games. Of which we have only seen the introductory video of one series focusing on one such trope.

If I were teaching a class on, say, the history of Promethian figures in science fiction literature, I wouldn't include books that didn't include such figures.

So the Prop 8 arguments happened. Early thoughts.

There are quite a few possible outcomes possible from this case. After oral arguments some of them seem much less likely. Note I'm going on very limited information as I haven't had time to read or listen to the full arguments yet.

1) Prop 8 upheld.
This seems extremely unlikely now. You definitely have two to four of the conservative justices taking this position, but it looks unlikely that they could get 5 votes. Kennedy all but ruled it out. I'd be shocked if this happened.

2) The court finds finds that those defending Prop 8 don't have standing and the case is thrown out.
This would have similar effects to 3 except removing adding a reset button to the legal process. Prop 8 would remain gone, but it would be possible for someone who did have standing to bring a new case in the future. The suggested example would be a state employee refusing to recognise same-sex marriage in their work. This seemed to be Robert's strategy, but looks near impossible now as both Kennedy and Alito argued strongly that the defendants did have standing otherwise unpopular ballot initiatives could never be defended in court. About as likely as an upholding now.

3) The court explicitly upholds the Californian ruling.
The ruling out of the District Court was a strange one. They essentially ruled that Prop 8 was illegal because it removed a right that had previously been granted. It didn't say that there is an inherent right to gay marriage in the constitution, just that once such a right has been extended to a group it can't be removed again. At least in part it looked like a strategic option to allow the Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 without expanding gay marriage to all states. In my opinion the legal side was a stretch (is stripping a right briefly granted really that different from denying it outright?) and it almost looked too strategic and targeted towards Kennedy, who openly attacked it during arguments. I very much doubt this will happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't have much legal effect elsewhere, beyond making it impossible for states to remove gay marriage once granted.

4) The court dismisses the case entirely.
This seems entirely possible now given Kennedy's words. The effect would be pretty much identical to 3, except that the Californian ruling would have no legitimacy outside California, meaning that other states that tried to repeal a gay marriage law wouldn't be blocked by that ruling. Not that that is ever likely to matter. Right now this is where the smart money is going.

5) The court strike down gay marriage based on the administration's logic.
Essentially the administration argued that having 'separate but equal' civil unions is unlawful, and any state that discriminates in that way must allow gay marriage. Essentially all civil union states become gay marriage states, but those states without such unions can keep gay marriage illegal. The lack of any recognition of gay couples would become a matter for future cases. I don't think anyone was buying this, ever.

6) Prop 8 struck down because gay marriage is found to be a right.
This means gay marriage becomes legal in all states. Always seemed a little unlikely to me. The liberal justices definitely indicated they support this, with all four making comments in this direction. Kennedy made some statements that have been taken as opposition to this, but the quoted ones are not definitive and who knows what will happen. I still think it's a long shot.

As far as outcomes go, 1 would be the bad end. 2 is the good end but with a hint the end boss isn't truly dead. 3 and 4 are the good end. 5 is the surreal good ending you have to work hard for, is a lot of fun to watch but leaves half the people who get it incredibly confused. 6 is the rainbows and unicorns, we're all Californians now party time ending. Again, right now the smart money is on 4, but things aren't set in stone until the ruling is handed down.

So how does the subsidy for pensioners for heating work? Does the government give companies money in exchange for offering a lower price to the elderly? Why isn't THAT handled as grants?

Just because people are calling it a subsidy doesn't mean it is one.

Technically it's the Winter Fuel Payment and it's best categorised as a benefit (or rather a supplementary payment in addition to benefits).