Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 2, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 2, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


For women in games, getting to the top is only the beginning
For women in games, getting to the top is only the beginning
March 19, 2014 | By Brandon Sheffield




In an impassioned talk debunking several myths about women in game development, Elizabeth Sampat, designer at Storm 8, cautioned women against complacence once they make it to the top - or even to a comfortable position within the game industry.

"For women, simply existing in a male-dominated industry is a rebellious act," says Elizabeth Sampat, designer at Storm 8. "It's hard to be the only woman, especially if you're in the middle. You need to win the approval of your male superiors, and the trust of your male inferiors."

But once you get there, it can be tempting to think that existing is enough. "There's something that feels intensely good about proving people wrong, isn't there?" she says. "It's amazing, you're special!"

That's not the end of the journey, though. "Even when you get to the top, even when you're running your own company, you're still working for approval," says Sampat, as higher level execs are still seeking approval from the press, investors, and other c-level execs. "No-one can blame you for occasionally stopping to take in the view."

Sampat urges women to not stop there though. "Yes, existing as a woman in a male space is rebellious, but existing isn't subversive," she says. "We risk getting swallowed up, kicking down the ladder behind us."

Women at the top can be tempted to blend in. "We're not like those other women who complain, and can't take a joke. We're the good ones," she jibes. And it can be tempting to take the praise that comes with being "good." "We need to cut a swath," she says. "It's so much easier to call out problematic behavior when it's directed at you. When someone says something shitty about you, your shackles go up! Any woman who has fought for acceptance knows what this feels like."

But women should be going to bat for other women, as well, says Sampat. Still, she acknowledged that it gets tiring. "It's anger fatigue," she says. "You're sad, and then you're mad, and then you get numb, because this is how the world is like all day, every day."

And people rely on your voice of anger, and almost step back to watch the show when something bad goes down. "Your righteous indignation gets batted around like a party trick," she says. "We disembody outrage ... we are not voices, we're people. And the world is content with our emptiness,"

If someone tells you you're "not like those others," then "the urge to smile and let it pass is really really understandable," she says. "When you're that high up, everyone looks like ants. This may sound like I'm putting everything at the feet of women eating their own - I'm not - this is a learned, programmed response to oppression."

"When you're saying 'I'm not like them,' whose words are you repeating?" she says. "And I'm going to say this as clearly as possible - if there isn't room for you in the game industry, then fuck the games industry. I don't want to be here if you can't be here. And this is something we need to tell each other constantly."

"We need to remind each other that we're not imposters, we belong here," she says. "Every day, every single chance we get, we have to make space for each other."


Related Jobs

Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States
[10.02.14]

Character Artist-Vicarious Visions
Sucker Punch Productions
Sucker Punch Productions — Bellevue, Washington, United States
[10.01.14]

Concept Artist
Red 5 Studios
Red 5 Studios — Laguna Hills, California, United States
[10.01.14]

Web Developer/Web Architect
Halo
Halo — Kirkland, Washington, United States
[10.01.14]

Senior AI Engineer










Comments


Dane MacMahon
profile image
I was once the lone male in an office of 5 women and I felt pretty intimidated and isolated most of the time. I later did a volunteer program overseas where there were a few men and about twenty women, and the three males stuck together like glue. I don't think much of these social adaptation issues are gender specific, just situational.

The trick of course is to get more women into the industry to make everyone more comfortable and to get their valued input, but we can't deny "hardcore" games are still a male dominated industry in a lot of ways, both socially and economically. It's just going to take time in my opinion, for the market to open up to the point more and more women want to be a part of it.

Ian Griffiths
profile image
When I worked at EA Playfish we had an almost 50/50 split between Men and Women, moving into a more traditional studio amazed me because there are just so few women, it's beyond odd.

"For women, simply existing in a male-dominated industry is a rebellious act,". I just don't buy this because I don't think the industry is male dominated through some grand design or women-excluding culture. I honestly believe that it's a cultural selection and education issue over a hiring practice one.

Personally I've never met anyone who works in the industry who thinks that women shouldn't be in the industry or considers their gender as a factor in considering what that person does. Maybe it's a generational thing.

I think there should definitely be more women in the industry across all levels. For me, gender isn't even an issue when considering suitability for a job or the quality of work. Ultimately you should be judged on ability and results and being in games is about how passionate you are for them, not who you are or what you look like.

Juliette Dupre
profile image
That's a really nice sentiment (I mean that genuinely), but the unfortunate reality is that the games industry made a pointed decision to market to males in order to capitalize on exclusivity in the 80s and 90s. Below is an article that does a good job of explaining it (though it is rather long and you really have to read the whole thing). Females within the games industry have been fighting the fallout from that decision ever since. The good news is, it wasn't always like that and it doesn't have to be - and Playfish sounds like it was a great example. Unfortunately the statistics are far more bleak at the vast majority of game companies and across the greater industry.

As far as candidate judgment goes, I believe that most men in games are not out to actively discriminate against females! They just want the best talent. The problem is that when you have a group that is considered to not "get it" or that communicates in very different way than the majority group, those folks tend to get overlooked or be tagged as "not the right fit" - that phrase is the kiss of death in hiring. The effects can be subconscious even, as with what's called "hidden bias" in some spheres. That results in women who never even make it through the entry level phase to be able to show what they can do, even after graduating from great game dev programs. The numbers show that increasingly, the pipeline of women in quality game degree programs is substantial, but they simply aren't getting jobs.

Anyway, thank you for being a part of the conversation. I hope the article is useful for you.

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowe
d

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
@Ian Griffiths:

"cultural selection and education issue" boils down to a women-excluding culture.

"Personally I've never met anyone who works in the industry who thinks that women shouldn't be in the industry or considers their gender as a factor in considering what that person does. Maybe it's a generational thing."
There will always be injustice and discriminiation. This becomes really dramatic, when the discrimination is inbred into our culture and, in this case, leads to such an evident lack of women in technology jobs. For sure, there is a cultural shift, but this shift can be accelerated by supporting discriminated individuals and constantly standing up against discriminating behavior, also when it is done unconsciously.

I recommend this talk: Modern Discrimination: Subtle but Significant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkbzQpmNrlk

Johnathon Tieman
profile image
@Christian Kulenkampff:

"'cultural selection and education issue' boils down to a women-excluding culture."

Yes and no. The context of Ian's post was that within the games industry itself, there isn't any evidence of a widespread anti-women agenda. That matches with the real world data about a lack of women in the hiring process, graduating with technical degrees, and so on. It needs to be addressed at an earlier stage, most specifically grade school, which in turn will propagate on to the collegiate level. Unfortunately, this takes time (roughly sixteen years) before any changes will reach an industry, and we aren't going to be able to fix the education system overnight. It sucks to have to tell any discriminated group of people that they must be patient for a fix to an issue, but nature is often cruel and in order to fix some issues, that is exactly what must happen.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
Discrimination rarely happens just in one place of society. The debates of the last year(s) and the talk mentioned in the article show pretty drastically that there is *a lot* to stand up for.

Also, I don't get why people constantly relativize these deficits in our society. There is simply nothing to loose, even if we overdramatize the situation.

As a side note, there is a pretty easy way to get better quotas: Just enforce them by law (e.g. tax penalties). I guess there would be much more engagement in any industry, almost instantly. I am happy that there are at least some minor attempts of this (at least in Germany), of course these attempts are actually not even worth mentioning and the situation in Germany is by all means distressing (see http://www.wkgt.com/presse/international-business-report/weiblich
e-fuehrungskraefte-deutschland-letzter-platz/).

Dave Bellinger
profile image
@Christian

More government involvement in private industry is not the best way to convince people of change, at least not in the US. In reality, there's a very big thing to lose: credibility for the change. Push and push, suggest tax penalties for not meeting a gender quota, continue talking down the position of your opposition and there's no other way to look than the antagonist. The perception behind a gender-blind industry should not be antagonizing in any way.

"Doing things the right way" is just as important as doing things that are right.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
@Dave:
I believe in more government involvement. Liberalism and neo-liberalism alienate me in this regard. Most Western nations engage even in war to stop discrimination in other countries, but there is an outcry of hypocrisy when it comes to status quo at home.

Dave Bellinger
profile image
Double post :(

Mark Velthuis
profile image
This is the worst idea ever. I've heard plenty of horror stories about places where they allready have quotas. This results into important positions being left open for months and longer, just because it neded to be given to a female. Encouraging is great, enforcing is bad.

Besides, isn't hiring someone because she's female just as sexist as not hiring someone because she's female ?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
"Besides, isn't hiring someone because she's female just as sexist as not hiring someone because she's female ?" No, if it enriches the company culture and helps society as a whole, I think it is very responsible to do so.

Dave Bellinger
profile image
@Christian

It's fine to have those beliefs, but I don't think you'll see much success in the way you want to make change, and you may just end up hurting the cause more than helping. Solving these problems needs to be something everyone wants to happen, to do that we need to work together to figure out what people want and why.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
"Solving these problems needs to be something everyone wants to happen, to do that we need to work together to figure out what people want and why."
Yeah, but we could approach the change just the other way around. In this case changing status quo makes people upset as well as not changing status quo. But not changing status quo is unethical.

The people that defend status quo are privileged. Albeit I know it won't happen, I think it would be more ethical to just remove privileges by all means humankind can afford, instead of slowly wasting away. I believe in this not just in regard to gender-based discrimination.

Of course, I am an idealist and maybe radical, and for sure I don't always practice what I preach. I am in a very privileged situation and I don't want to loose economic status. But I believe there is a future where everybody can live that way without excluding and discriminating people, especially when it comes to gender-based discrimination.

Dane MacMahon
profile image
Most women I know wouldn't want to be hired just because of their gender being needed for some quota. The best person should get the job, regardless of race or gender.

If we want more women in the gaming workplace we need to socially work to make women feel that games are important enough to make a career out of. That starts in middle-schools honestly, not the state house.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
Especially in the games industry, where you create *cultural products*, I cannot believe such "meritocratic" hiring strategies are a good idea.

Personally I would also be happy to be chosen by a company when the sole reason for my employment is the fact that I bring fresh air and new cultural perspectives.

Johnathon Tieman
profile image
@Christian:

I never said discrimination happens in just one place - just that there isn't any evidence of widespread discrimination in the video game industry in general. If you have to put words in other people's mouths in order to make a point, you're doing a poor job of it.

Second, you assume that the goal should be "better quotas". I don't want to work in an industry that "meets quotes", I want to work in an industry that has no discrimination. Your goal explicitly enforces discrimination. If there aren't enough women to meet that goal, are you going to force women who *don't* want to work that job to do so, just so the quota is met? Fine a company who can't even find a woman to take the job? Force employees to work with other substandard employees hired simply to meet a quota?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
Gender-based discrimination is inherent to our "current" culture. There is more than enough evidence. You often can directly observe it in terms of male dominance.

"I never said discrimination happens in just one place - just that there isn't any evidence of widespread discrimination in the video game industry in general. If you have to put words in other people's mouths in order to make a point, you're doing a poor job of it."
Sorry, I didn't want to make a straw man argument. It's just that I don't believe discrimination is less present in the games industry, when there is clearly a male dominance in many positions of the game development process.

Second: To me lopsided quotas are a symptom and a cause. I don't think it hurts our society, when we enforce certain requirements for diversity in companies. Every company profits from society in such extreme manners that I can't see some "diversity taxes" as an unbearable burden.

BTW I urge you to not get distracted by my wild political speculating. I hope you can find truth in the article and maybe even in some of my comments...

Johnathon Tieman
profile image
@Christian:

You say you don't "believe", but belief has no place in it - the existence of discrimination in a industry is a question that science can answer, and I've yet to see you point to anything that proves it. I think the problem is you are making the false assumption that any trait seen in a society as a whole is reflected in all its discreet parts. A place that has more of one gender than another is not automatically discriminatory, and if you do believe that, then are you equally spending time ending the male discrimination that exists in the nursing and education industries, and should those industries be forced to pay your "diversity tax" as well?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
People in the games industry don't magically resist the pressures of society. At least the United Nations acknowledge a deficit regarding the empowerment of women. There is a special entity (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women) that is explicitly commissioned to work for the empowerment of women.

Thus I think the probability is much higher that there is some kind of gender-based discrimination in the games industry. This is why (beside my laziness) I think it is a valid request that you find scientific evidence that there is no gender-based discrimination in the games industry instead of me doing the opposite.

Regarding diversity taxes, a nice video game related analogy (no offense intended): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh-P7cjCQAEgFss.jpg

Johnathon Tieman
profile image
@Christian:

Actually, yes, people do resist pressures of society (although I haven't seen any evidence there exist widespread social pressure to discriminate against women either) - it's called self-control. As far as your UN reference, that's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, as it does not have anything to do with the video game industry at all. Again, you mix large-scale societal problems with specific industries.

You can think whatever you want about probabilities, but as I said before the fact is we have ways to answer those questions, and that way is science. You are the one positing a specific position - that the video game industry is discriminatory against women. That places the burden of proof on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Second, I've never once said there is no gender-based discrimination in the games industry. Again, you have to put words in my mouth in order to try to make your point, so I am going to call you out on it again. I stated that there is no evidence of a wide-spread anti-women agenda in the games industry. That is the *only* fact I've stated, and you can't prove a lack of something.

Your argument is no different than the ones I've had with people who believe in a god. I can't prove no god exists just like I can't prove no anti-women agenda exists (the old "you can't prove a negative" argument). All I can do is point out a lack of evidence for those specific positions. You can believe what you want, but once you start forcing your belief on others, you very much go into the wrong.

As far as your analogy, it falls apart because life isn't a race, it isn't a competition, and there is no winner. Frankly, even the best analogy has many issues, so if you are looking to persuade people, I would suggest staying away from them entirely.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
You should really watch the lecture (made by a scientist) I linked in my first post. It contains explanations how discrimination works and how it is omnipresent in our society.

I disagree with you regarding the irrelevance of confessions made by the UN. Those guys normally act based on scientific evidence.

The burden of proof is not a one-sided thing. I make a claim, the speaker cited in the article makes a claim, you make a claim.

I never said there is an agenda. If you agree that there is systemic gender-based discrimination, it is enough for me to see a collective obligation to act. The way you are defending the status quo of the games industry (for what reason ever) reminds me of the typical way ideas of feminism are constantly criticized and relativized.

The analogy is of course meant tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless I think you should be able to deduce in what way I propose a diversity tax (I think there is a right way, we can pay millions to find this way, I hope I pay my taxes also for such endeavors).

Phew, enough funpain for this article :) [I assume this is mutual]

If you don't agree, we can agree to disagree...

Mark Velthuis
profile image
So if it wouldn't enrich the company or society, it would be ok to not hire someone just because she's a woman ?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
As I understand your question, in this case gender should have no relevance for the decision.

Mark Velthuis
profile image
So when it's good for women, it's ok to be sexist. When it's bad for women, it's not ?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
It is simply not sexist when you consider diversity as an additional value in the hiring process. Especially in cultural industries diversity can be considered as an important factor for innovation. Beside this, monetary success is not the only valid business objective you can pursue.

Mark Velthuis
profile image
"It is simply not sexist"

Actually it is. hiring someone based on gender is sexist. Wether it is to accept or reject them (no matter what the result is). And enforcing it by law (like you said a few posts above) is practically forcing people by law to be sexist.

Imagine the following scenario. You're looking to hire someone, and someone applies. This person has the absolute perfect resume, experience and attitude. But you aren't allowed to hire the person because he's not female and you haven't met your male/female quota. Would you consider this a responsible hiring process ?

And how about this. Imagine you're a female. You apply for a job knowing you're not the perfect candidate for it. But hey, it's worth a shot. And what do you know, you're actually hired. But it turns out it was not because you were the best applicant, but because you were the only female. Wouldn't you feel cheated ? How do you think other people will look at you, knowing they could have gotten someone better if it wasn't for that quota ?

Isn't independence one of the main things women want ? To not need approval or help of men to do things ? Being treated as equals and such ? Don't you think enforcing quotas is completely ignoring if not insulting these beliefs ?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
"Actually it is. hiring someone based on gender is sexist." No, no, no - not in every case. The gender of a person usually indicates a special cultural perspective. This perspective has a value. If you have only a few or no women in your company a new cultural perspective might easily outweigh any more skilled male applicant. Skill is something you can acquire while specific life long socialization is not. This logic is of course also true for other cultural perspectives that are underrepresented in a company.

As I said before: "Personally I would also be happy to be chosen by a company when the sole reason for my employment is the fact that I bring fresh air and new cultural perspectives."

I know what I want. I am against discrimination and I know there are many people who think like me (e.g. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/213634/Making_games_is_easy_Be
longing_is_hard_1ReasonToBe_at_GDC.php). I believe you people curl up in status quo and behave unethical.

BTW I believe in your creativity to think of regulated hiring processes that work out and respect diversity in a special way. I don't think I have to propose a fully fledged draft law to make a point.

Ian Griffiths
profile image
@Christian - ""Actually it is. hiring someone based on gender is sexist." No, no, no - not in every case. The gender of a person usually indicates a special cultural perspective. "

WHAT!? By definition making an assumption on someone based solely on their gender is discrimination. You can't complain about gender inequality then promote its usage. Also, are you genuinely suggesting that women have better 'socialization' skills than men? If you argue that members of a gender have unique cognitive skills irrespective of them as an individual then you are condoning the very thing you claim to be against - discrimination based on gender.

If you argue that deliberate inclusion of women in the workforce, irrespective of skill, can create more value through culture changes then you would have to accept that their exclusion could also have the same effect. All of what you are saying is just promoting sexist behaviour and policies, just because it's being applied against men in a male dominated industry doesn't make it acceptable.

I'll quote you directly - "I am against discrimination" clearly all evidence is to the contrary. You seem to be against the discrimination of women but not men. I know I'm hammering the point home a bit but you must see that means you do believe in discrimination.


Furthermore, I can't believe how offensive this is - "I believe you people curl up in status quo and behave unethical." Under what circumstances do you think think you have the right to call me and the other commentators here unethical? What evidence do you have the we are involved in or have orchestrated the status quo? Generalising people in the games industry as advocates of sexism simply because we have a male dominated industry is wholly unfair. It's clear that society is the biggest factor involved in this imbalance and that there isn't some orchestrated implicit or explicit women-excluding element or movement in the games industry.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
Wow, so many straw men. You should reread what I said.

I disagree with you.

edit: When we discuss ethics and disagree, it is inherent to the disagreement that one party thinks the other party behaves unethical, even when it's just about the spoken word.

Mark Velthuis
profile image
"As I said before: "Personally I would also be happy to be chosen by a company when the sole reason for my employment is the fact that I bring fresh air and new cultural perspectives.""

And what if that sole reason is to meet a law enforced quota ? Nothing else, just that.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
Then I would question the law.

Mark Velthuis
profile image
But you proposed it a few posts back.

"As a side note, there is a pretty easy way to get better quotas: Just enforce them by law (e.g. tax penalties)."

Did you change your mind or did you mean it in a more nuanced way ?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
No. "I believe in your creativity to think of regulated hiring processes that work out and respect diversity in a special way. I don't think I have to propose a fully fledged draft law to make a point."

BTW you all might find some tricks here (of course I am part of the privileged group, but nevertheless): http://www.derailingfordummies.com/ ;-)

Mark Velthuis
profile image
It doesn't work that way. You can't go propose something this absolute then expect someone else to figure out what point you actually mean to make. You proposed a law enforced quota. Literally. Yet now you say you would question that same law, just like I and many other people you called unethical did.

You proposed it. Is it wrong to expect you to be more specific about that proposition when misundertandings like this come up ?

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
I just think there is room for top down approaches to fight discrimination. I just say that I believe it could work and that I would happily support an expert team with my tax money. We can spend billions to find a solution. How should I be able to come up with something in my free time? I am not willing to spoon-feed you with my ideas. This is futile when you are not even willing to invest some constructive creativity yourself. As I said before in Germany we will get (limited) law enforced quotas by 2016, I am really positive that this is happening. First English Google hit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-germany-coalition-wo
men-idUSBRE9AH0D320131118

Mark Velthuis
profile image
But didn't you say it was "a pretty easy way" ? Certainly you don't need billions to find a solution for something "pretty easy" ?

You come up with an idea, you talk down on anyone who critisizes that idea, then you question the literal interpretation of your own idea, and refuse to give any more info on it.

I'm looking forward to see how well germany's law enforced priviledge helps beat sexism. I especially wonder how well respected the top people will be if they got the job because of their gender. I'd wager those people will need to work even harder than they allready do to get the respect they deserve (and often need to have in order to do their job properly).

EDIT: From the article you linked "Norwegian companies can be liquidated if they fail to reach the target". Do you realy think this is a good idea? Liquidating companies for not having enough women ? Call me pessimist but I can only see this increase sexism.

Christian Kulenkampff
profile image
"But didn't you say it was "a pretty easy way" ? Certainly you don't need billions to find a solution for something "pretty easy" ? "
Simply introducing quotas is pretty easy (under the condition you have the power to do so). Quotas *done right* is probably not that easy, but much easier than convincing the masses.

"You come up with an idea, you talk down on anyone who critisizes that idea, then you question the literal interpretation of your own idea, and refuse to give any more info on it. "
I didn't talk down the guys who criticized my idea for quotas. I always just stated that I *believe* it would work.

"I'm looking forward to see how well germany's law enforced priviledge helps beat sexism and racism."
Me too :-), but to me it's not a "law enforced privilege" but rightful support against discrimination!

edit: ""Norwegian companies can be liquidated if they fail to reach the target". Do you realy think this is a good idea?"
Yes, as far as I know Norway is a very nice country to live in. I think there are many studies and reports that support this impression. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/norway/

Gary LaRochelle
profile image
@Johnathon

"I never said discrimination happens in just one place - just that there isn't any evidence of widespread discrimination in the video game industry in general."

Age discrimination is fairly strong in the game industry. But that's a whole different topic.

Genna Habibipour
profile image
There's an interesting difference between being told you're "not like the others" and thinking that you're "not like the others".
I'm sure the conscious intent is to be a compliment or statement of superiority (a whole big issue on its own), but instead it serves to increase the sense of isolation and loneliness.

Being told I'm different leads me to question what's "wrong" with me. If I'm not like other women, and I know that I am not a man, then who am I? Where do I fit in? This comes from both men and other women...

Telling myself "I'm different" tends to generate self-loathing that is also projected outward toward other women. Not healthy for the individual, and not healthy for the community.

Dave Bellinger
profile image
That sounds tough, but it sounds more like a self-image problem on some level. If you are different, or the perception is that you're different (in-so-much as what context "different" is being used here) would you really want nobody telling you? I'll use an innocent example that I hope you won't take as me minimizing your issue here; if you smelled bad, do you want an environment where nobody ever tells you, or where people feel comfortable enough to tell you that so you can do something about it?

That doesn't equate to gender issues of course, and an appropriate situation is subjective - in some cases. I think the best perception to have on it is whether or not that difference is something you can alter, how that change would affect you, and whether it's something people can instead adapt to. If I'm told I should get nicer clothes in order to fit in, I take that as a fair suggestion; I won't do it :D, but it's certainly not an observation I feel bad about other people making. If I'm told I would fit in more if I weren't so fat - while probably true, certainly not appropriate as everyone can agree.

I don't pretend to know your situation and I do hope things get better if they are not so, but I am personally a fan of open communication and input. Helping each other conduct ourselves in a more civil, respectable, and professional environment while still maintaining the casual vibe we all likely thrive on and enjoy is great. If that means I might suggest "you're a lot gloomier than the rest of the team, you should smile more!", I'd expect an honest reply if you really don't feel that's something you want to do. Not sure I put into words how I really feel about that situation, but, :\

Genna Habibipour
profile image
It's generally not productive feedback, but reducing people down to 2-dimensional stereotypes, and then informing you that you're not 'normal'.

Generally that conversation with men (or other women that see themselves as "not women") goes something like:
"You're not a real girl."
-Why? / What does that mean?
"I can actually talk to you. You like things that girls aren't supposed to like. You're not bitchy or stuck up. You're actually smart. You're tough."
And other negative generalizations that assume that women are mean, self-absorbed, dumb, weak, and have very narrow interests- yet I am not those things which makes me not a "real girl".
That particular phrasing (along with "Girls are ... Except for you, but you don't really count!") labels me as some kind of imposter.

Or from other women:
"That's so weird that you picked a job where you're on a computer all day. Isn't that really hard? I can understand (male) having a job like that, but wouldn't you rather do something nicer? Didn't you ever want to be (generalized female profession) when you were growing up? What happened (implied traumatic experience) to make you do this? Do you not want kids? Wouldn't you rather want to have a family? You're just pretending to be the way you are to get attention, but you should know that it's okay if you want to be a little more girly and take care of yourself."

Which is all geared toward trying to whittle down some kind of dysfunction or defect that makes me "not like them", trying to "fix" my values, or the whole imposter accusation again.

My own personal self-image and worth is fine. My interests make me happy and I don't indulge in them solely to impress other people. I don't need others to coach me to have the 'correct' personality.

However I see other women aggressively identifying themselves as "not a woman" or "better than women", and sometimes becoming quite hostile over it - Either towards others, or themselves.

In any case, there are a lot of negative external influences and pressures to behave a certain way, and it adds a layer of exclusion and isolation beyond the simple skewed ratio in the workplace.

Simone Tanzi
profile image
I never had the chance to listen to the whole speech, but the part quoted here sounds really wrong, as many other feminist speeches.
Of course .. being just a part of the speech it could be easily misinterpreted. but it really seems to promote a "us vs. them" kind of mentality.
Especially when it says "But women should be going to bat for other women, as well".
I totally understand that the piece is about women working in gaming and feeling they are treated in an inadequate way... but that statement is wrong.
Women and men should be going to bat for every other colleague.
That is the main point ...
Nobody can expect to be treated respectfully by everyone if she starts playing teams.
people who is treated unfairly should be defended by everyone, and it doesn't matter if he is a guy or she is a girl, and it doesn't matter which one you are.
That would be a respectful working place.
A place were the men and the women have their own gang and they strike at each other with the support of their own group is not.


none
 
Comment: