Sunday, September 2nd 2018
Riot Games Gaffe Results in Sexism Allegations at Pax West 2018
In what ended up overshadowing most of the news coming out of PAX West 2018, Riot Games delivered a masterclass in how not to handle things in a politically-correct environment. The situation in question concerned a series of sessions that were targeted to, and I quote, "women and non-binary folks" which was well intended and meant to be more of an acknowledgement of the minorities in the gaming industry.
Unfortunately, this wording and then poor-execution and follow-up from their part meant that things quickly turned sour. People at the event were quick to notice that the room reserved for these sessions appeared to have volunteers attempt to keep them away. What was intended to be a support session then turned into allegations flying all around, and social media lit abuzz with what seemed to be discrimination against straight men by the company.
These sessions were targeted at increasing the gender diversity in the gaming industry by offering resume reviews, interactions with women employees of Riot Games and were scheduled to be held throughout the event from 10 am to 6 pm. When asked for clarification, a Riot Games recruiter made things worse by saying men were allowed but only after 2:30 pm which was quickly turned into fodder for the ever-growing fire that now added segregation allegations as well. Making things worse were more Riot employees using their social media accounts to double down on this stance by invoking the privilege argument, and calling out some of the complainers as "manbabies". These were primarily targeted at members of the League of Legends subreddit who in turn were, in the author's opinion, extrapolating things beyond reason but ended up being another case study example of how not to handle things. Riot Games ended up having to provide a statement late last night local time, which did little to assuage those who felt that anyone who paid for an event ticket should have received the same treatment as others. This has since resulted in many people, game journalists and industry personnel alike, taking sides and opening up a can of worms that, in this author's opinion, both sides need to acknowledge and work towards a resolution sooner than later.
[Update, September 7 2018: Two Riot Games employees, including one referenced above, have since been let go by the company as reported by The Verge]
Unfortunately, this wording and then poor-execution and follow-up from their part meant that things quickly turned sour. People at the event were quick to notice that the room reserved for these sessions appeared to have volunteers attempt to keep them away. What was intended to be a support session then turned into allegations flying all around, and social media lit abuzz with what seemed to be discrimination against straight men by the company.
[Update, September 7 2018: Two Riot Games employees, including one referenced above, have since been let go by the company as reported by The Verge]
192 Comments on Riot Games Gaffe Results in Sexism Allegations at Pax West 2018
Politics aside, if I defined myself by some setback or something I "lack" all the time, I'd be pretty miserable too. It could happen to anyone.. job, love life, etc.. But politics has a strange allure of keeping you in that angry state. It's always telling to look outside of yourself to fix problems.
I have a mild form of OCD with some things and I sometimes mix up order of numbers (on other hand I can remember hundreds of product model numbers no problem) which is some version of dyslexia which name I forgot right now, but I don't go around and brag about it like it's some sort of achievement or special skill like these people are usually doing and plaster it all over their social profiles and make huge deal out of it. I'm just aware of it and don't really point it out, because why would I? I sometimes jokingly laugh at myself for it, but for the most part I'm keeping it to myself (well, here it is now).
Just because something is called a disorder, it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. "Disorder" literally means "dis" and "order". Something being out of order, out of the usual norm found within entire human population. Like I've said before, being transgender is a disorder, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person or not capable of doing certain things just because of it. It just means your mental and physical parts don't match up. That's literally all there is to it. I don't know, people should watch Blaire White (she's a Youtuber), she's a tranny with spicy attitude. She talked about these things (as far as gender stuff goes) and it's perfectly logical and understandable. And it makes even more sense since it's coming from someone who actually has such condition/disorder. I think she even called it this way in some video.
I've had racist experiences (I'm half Asian, so have some stories to share if I cared to), but this isn't something worth thinking about all the time. There's more to being a person than this. And more to be grateful about.
But they aren't exactly getting in anyone's faces either.
Another important attribute of tribalism that I neglected to mention before is that tribes are suspicious of outsiders. Accepting outsiders can cause the tribe to shift in ways that are unacceptable to established tribe members.
I also don't see identity as a "demon" to deal with. It's something to cherish in my eyes.On a medical form sure. That's about as far as I'd take it.
Besides that, there's also an intrinsic value to diversity in terms of promoting diverse ideas for a company, making it more secure in terms of producing reliably good products. As such, a certain degree of gender (and under other underrepresented groups) quotas makes sense in the long run. And as long as the difference in qualifications isn't large, it's very difficult to make an argument for this being anything near "reverse discrimination", given the systemic (and very well documented) discrimination other groups have faced and still face today.Wait, didn't WWII end in 1945? Because I'm reasonably sure that's quite a while before the 1960s. Men started taking over computer science and programming in the mid-to-late 70s. I sincerely doubt WWII veterans on average took 20-25 years to figure out what field they wanted to work in. In the 40s and 50s, men worked in engineering, not programming - programming was seen as secretarial work, and as such not "good enough" for men. Kind of doubt either secretaries or programmers were shot at often, but that didn't seem to matter. The one attempting to rewrite history here is you, sadly.
As for interest: here in Norway, after a period of very successful campaigns to recruit women into STEM fields, there are actually more female than male students (and graduates) in most STEM fields for the past few years.You seem either unable to or simply in denial of how social dynamics work. This isn't about outright denying anyone anything outright (at least not for the last 30-40-ish years - though this is mainly due to strong women standing up for themselves and letting people know that this is unacceptable), but rather the collection of factors, behaviours, expectations and judgements that have forced people out of these fields. As an example: women studying CS have been ostracised, laughed at, and forced out of the field, essentially left without job prospects because everyone said "men are better" and dismissed or ignored their actual abilities. Being a woman studying anything tech-related in the 80s was ... well, not fun. And their classmates are now the professors and teachers inducting others into this field. Is it strange that these dynamics linger?The problem here is how you define "indisputably more qualified", and how this definition was arrived at. Given that pretty much every field in tech has been shaped almost exclusively by men over the past 50+ years, the criteria for success in the field have also been defined to fit traditional male culture and its trappings. With this in mind, it's reasonable to look at these criteria critically and question what logic lies behind them. Chances are they aren't "neutral" or unbiased, no matter how much they're framed as such. An example, "logical thinking" is typically touted as this neutral, ideal quality - yet it's strongly linked to masculinity, not only leading men to be seen as inherently more logical, but women presenting identical arguments to men are systematically judged as more emotional and less logical. In other words, there's a difference between presentation of an ideal and reality.Oh, is eSports representative for people working in tech? I don't think so, really. Have anything to back that up? And yes, the tech industry in Asia has grown huge over the past 15-20 years, especially in engineering and manufacturing. As such, we could say that there are now two dominant groups globally rather than one. The thing is, this is too localized to be of any real significance - worker mobility simply isn't significant enough. I frankly don't know enough about the Asian tech industry to talk about diversity there, although I don't believe it's any better than Europe or the US, and as such working for diversity in their education and recruiting should obviously also be a focus for them. But I prefer to talk of what I have knowledge of, and Asia isn't that.Wait, what? So if you're designing 20 characters, it's more work to make 10 of those male and 10 female than designing all 20 as men? Yes? No? Sorry, but that argument doesn't add up whatsoever.There's nothing inherently "scientific" in a gendered society, and your use of that word in that manner in itself speaks of you sitting on some noticeable gendered bias.
As for chromosomes: XX and XY are the most common combinations, but there's significant variability, and physical sex expression is not entirely determined by chromosomes. XY-chromosome males have been found to have female reproductive organs far beyond puberty - though not active or "working" ones. Then you have things like Klinefelter syndrome, which affects between 1 in 500 and 1 in 1000 male children born, who then have three gender chromosomes: XXY. This isn't the only variation like this. And, as you can see, it's quite common. If the US has 300 million inhabitants and ~49% of those are designated male, that means ~147 000 people in the US has this condition. That's quite significant.
Then there's the social aspect of this. Babies with very large clitorises have historically often been assigned male sex at birth, regardless of chromosomes or other factors. Surgery is, as mentioned before, still not uncommon to "determine" the sex of children with "in-between"-looking genitalia.
As for saying "if men and women were treated the same, men would kill each other over women", that ... doesn't add up. That's without mentioning that it's an incredibly denigrating thing to say about men. Are we really that irrational and unable to control our "urges"? Not only are you creating a link between social behaviour and biology that you're not backing up whatsoever (which makes sense, as there is no reliable data to back that up), but you're essentially preaching biological determinism. Humans proved thousands of years ago that we're fully capable of social behaviour that trumps any "biological imperative". Heck, our bodies and brains are significantly shaped by social experience and historical social practices, and current research in epigenetics is starting to show that genetics is far more complex and less straightforward than previously thought, with our social and physical environments having a significant impact on gene expression.
I have no problem agreeing that a majority of male-female relationships has historically been seen as a practical necessity to maintain societal structure in an easy way, but the thing is, our current world doesn't require this any more. Science, which you seem to be fond of, has removed any such requirement quite a while ago. Not to mention that it'd have been entirely possible to organize a society more equally than most Western ones even hundreds of years ago - the power dynamics would have needed to be different, as would the economics, but just because history played out one way doesn't mean that's the only possible option."Birth defects" is ... well, a fluid definition. Attempting to define "correct" human gene expression is a very, very, very tricky thing to do, as .. well, it's largely impossible.
As for the second paragraph: no. Neither of those are true. The first has significant variability, while the second sentence is pure nonsense.
And are you seriously saying people are genetically predisposed to rape? Seriously? Wow. Did you study criminality in the 1800s or something? 'Cause that kind of biologically determinist codswallop has long since been disproven. Nobody is "born to be a criminal". Besides, rape largely has near nothing to do with sex, but rather is in most cases an exertion and claim of power by the rapist. This might explain the recidivism rate somewhat, as feeling empowered tends to be addictive (especially if you feel powerless most of the time), but can't either be pegged as the sole reason for this. Human behaviour is incredibly complex. You're portraying it in a grossly oversimplified way, with reasoning that's long since been disproven.Oh boo hoo. Poor white men, losing a tiny amount of the privilege they've had for the past several centuries. Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for us. I guess we'll have to retreat to the 99.9% of society where we're still given preferential treatment.Thank you. About time someone here spoke some sense.While I don't agree with some other parts of what you said, and agree with others, I have to point this out: this is BS. At what point in history has "private sexuality" protected non-straight people? What happened if you were somehow found out to be gay in these times? Persecution of LGBTQI people is in no way a new thing.Luckily, there's a simple cure for this 'misery' you speak of: this wonder-drug called empathy. If you treat people with respect, listen to their needs, explain your own needs and actions and hold yourself open to the experiences of others and willing to compromise to avoid harming others, chances are both you and other people will end up happy. Sure, it's challenging, but it works.As @R-T-B said, Citation very much needed. First off: please define "scientific fact". Which branch of the sciences did it come from? Did it come from a science that analyses society and social conventions? One that attempts to explain behaviour? One that documents and presents current behaviour? Also, please remember that correlation does not imply causality. Do you have any data at all that shows a causal link between competitive behaviour and genetics? Also, how exactly is "career focus" (seemingly regardless of field?) somehow analogous to hunting? Yeah, that's a major leap, which you're somehow expecting genetics to just ... take in stride, with no adjustments needed, apparently. Also, do you have any data showing that social factors and upbringing isn't significant with regard to this? Because this (while I'm sadly too lazy to google this; it shouldn't be too hard though) is something that there is significant scientific data to back up.There's no such thing as a "norm for our species". Norms are societal. Homo sapiens has quite a few societies, all of which have differing norms.
As for the rest of your post: if nobody cared, why are they systematically discriminated against? Why are trans people far more likely to be murdered than almost any other demographic group in the vast majority of countries? Why have homosexuals been beaten, killed, castrated, kidnapped, forced into psychological abuse camps ("conversion therapy")? Yeah, people care. Just in very, very bad ways. All they're asking is really for this to stop. Is that too high an ask for you? You say they're obsessed with showing the world how unique they are. They say they're trying to make people stop killing them. I for one tend to believe the latter.To the degree that MRAs can be said to have any legitimate cause (which is a tiny degree) it's already been spearheaded by feminists. That's the funny thing, with them seeing feminists as harming them, while feminists have been fighting for men's ability to be fathers to their children, most feminists have decades ago started fighting for equality in terms of alimony and child support, and generally for the ability of men to openly be emotional, care for their loved ones, and other extremely human behaviours that are somehow labeled as "below" men. Feminism is about leveling the playing field in all regards, including giving men increased access to traditionally female-coded jobs, behaviours, roles and identities. Of course there are a few extremists still that disagree with this, but they are extremely few and far between - and certainly not ideologically significant in feminism for the past 40+ years.Wow, you have an impressively oversimplified view of how society, social behaviour and human behaviour works. Do you actually believe that our personalities are entirely contingent on hormones? The scientific backing for a claim like that is very, very flimsy. And you're entirely right that sex is biological. It's also mostly split into two groups, but there's significant biological variability. Gender on the other hand is a social construct. Gender norms are definitely affected by our biological bodies, especially as social gender norms have been constructed over the decades and centuries. But saying that gender is equal to sex, or straightforwardly genetically determined, is a gross oversimplification at best.
As for tribes being suspicious of outsiders, that's .. again, not always true. A lot of historical and current tribes are very welcoming to outsiders. That "tribalism" has become synonymous with closed-off societies that shun outsiders is in a large part due to the incredibly racist views of the early explorers and colonists, and has very, very little to do with any sort of actual social structure or societal norm. Also, is it strange that most "tribes" in those days grew to be hostile to Western "explorers" who came and stole their land and resources, killed them, enslaved them, or worse? Yeah, that actually makes sense. But of course, they were "uncivilized" "barbarians" and so on and so forth ...
I guess I ended up with two walls of text today. Oh well. That's enough time spent on this forum for one day.
And that's the problem with all these PC brigades and platoons, they're always against, their base is hate; defending lgbt rights is a weapon for attacking Caucasian heterosexual males.
"Oh boo hoo. Poor white men, losing a tiny amount of the privilege they've had for the past several centuries. "
I love it when people just smear this bogeyman privilege across entire race because some plantation owners from 300 years ago were rich and had slaves. 90% of people have nothing to do with any of that and we don't have any special privileges because we're white. I mean, last time I walked into Aston Martin dealership and I said I want to buy new DB11 with my white privilege and they just laughed...
The vast majority of non-impoverished people with a chance at a good life do not commit crimes. I don't honestly know how you can answer that with a simple "yup" and retain a straight face. Are you telling me if the laws fell apart, you wouldn't try to be a good person and would start stealing and/or killing indiscriminately? Because you're male?
If so, that's not something I can say is universal.