Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Why presentation of gender matters

Hmm, thanks for trying to clarify.

I disagree, of course, as this has not been my mother's experience so far. In college, there were tangible incentives for her to become an engineer, and that's actually how she believes she's gotten some of her jobs. But the sexism is definitely still there. Not to mention, how blatantly sexist the whole "incentives" thing is. Sexist or no, though, the last time she showed me a chain email from work displaying a very questionable comic strip and comments on women's roles in the workplace, I completely lost faith in all of the "efforts" and "initiatives" that are taking place. Because all they address is the disparity itself, not the cause of it. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, as Skallewag mentioned, the primary reason for the disparity in many areas nowadays is that just not enough women are applying themselves. But I feel that there are societal and cultural reasons that they are not doing so which are not being addressed.

It's [CURRENT YEAR] people! I literally can't even! I can't even, man! I'm literally shaking!

Haha! Nothing to do with the year. Just very surprised by the perspectives and opinions of others.

I guess I see what you mean, but, honestly, whether you dislike what others find as a sexist joke..it shouldn't be enough of a reason to not apply or to leave. When you stick a bunch of guys together, they're gonna do guy things: like talk about women, and butts, and tits, and make jokes about their girlfriends and all that jazz that I'm sure is very offensive and upsetting to some women or maybe even a large portion of women. Remember, though, girls do the same thing: I've been there to see it and experience it. It's a two way street.

According to Lady V (from what I read) and my own reflections though it just seems like men are willing to put up with crap they dislike or hate. We'll more likely resign ourselves to it and trudge on.

In fact, if you google it I'm sure there's probably studies on it *shrug*

EDIT:
Also, yes -> affirmative action is bias and thus sexist/racist in it's own ways which is ironic

EDIT:
EDIT FOR THE EDIT: ....*tilting head* Not the place to discuss my life so getting rid of it

Yeah, I know it's a little thing to be upset about. But if it upsets her, I can see how it upsets others. Personally, I know what it's like to be the subject of a woman's "girl talk". It's kinda creepy and weird, and just makes me want to leave. I can certainly see why women would feel the same way when men do it, and it's kinda inappropriate to do in the presence of the other gender regardless, especially in a professional setting.

Oh it certainly is un-professional. I prefer lax work environments though; it's what I'm use to and I find it keeps me from stressing more than I have to. There's pros and cons to it though. My housemate disagrees with me and likes really professional places: suit and all. I look at her like she's crazy when she says that's her idea IT work enviroment

I wouldn't know about inappropriate *shrug* I grew thick skin. Others can do the same. I'm not overly concerned about peoples feelings when I don't know them personally.

Like I said, human bastard -> which describes lots of us.

Personally, if you're willing tp put up with my crap, I should with yours and vice versa

Fair enough. Glad to see that we can see eye to eye!

No, SlamPow.

We can't have you agreeing with aj0413.

You have to fight. You have to struggle. The forums demand blood.

Also, aj0413, sexism definitely exists in tech it just depends on where you are working. Bay Area? That place is riddled with entitled fuckbois and bro/rape culture. It's not necessarily the norm though. Also, some issues of sexism are pretty much buried underneath culture as an expression of survival or a means to gain power in a system that may or may not favor them.

Since you're playing nice with SlamPow, I am going to say that moral relativism is actually a memetic virus designed to kill the ego and thus, somehow into nuclear war.

As for you SlamPow, since you're playing nice Imma have to fight you.



What you're saying is an impossibility to address to the differences in genetic expression and cultural/societal reasons have adapted over thousands of years to best take advantage of these differences maximiing societal efficiency.

I love you.

You totally lost me, so I don't necessarily know what you're saying, but I agree completely and will gladly take your side.

All these gender talks and topics are just nonsense in my opinion. Players who really enjoy gaming don't care about those issues. Games are fantasy worlds and they have nothing to do with reality. And as long as we will have some people out there trying desperately to make their own gender everyday fights being a thing in our games, we will have such stupid and pointless threads all over the internet.

If you don't like a game because you find it offensive, don't play it. But please, stop bringing your own life issues into the fray and create some drama where there should not be any. We don't want it and we don't need it.

Real talk now: That crab had it coming...

Don't underestimate fantasy worlds and games, breh. Dungeons and Dragons is probably is the number one threat to the Christian American youths.

And while it may seem like nonsense to you, I kind of like seeing it as a battlefield where viral ideologies thrive; a victory here may lead to a victory much later down the line or perhaps synthesize into a new virus.

Also, these discussions are entertaining and it's what you take away from it at the end of the day that matters. To you it's drama, but to me it's a challenge and an interesting note in the slow march of history.

Let a thousand flowers bloom etc etc.

To me, it's even more than nonsense actually. It's overreaching the bounds of what a player and a game studio should have between them. The narrative and the art style of a game should be treated as an intellectual property owned by the studio, such as the story is for a novel or the scenario for a movie. As such, a gamer has the right to say he or she doesn't like the narrative or the game design because he or she finds it offensive, but in no way he or she has the right to say something should be changed about it.

It would be exactly the same as going to Mr Tolkien and tell him he should add some dwarven females in the company Bilbo is having a journey with because not doing so is utterly sexist. How do you think Mr Tolkien would have answered to such a plea?

Those kind of issues brought into the game industry are a hindrance to creativity and bring the whole narrative of gaming into some boring political correctness we certainly don't need. Games shouldn't be the place for social issues to have a good fight. It's an entertainment and should remain one in my opinion.

It really only matters that Larian Studios understand that.

lol I dont necessarily disagree with you ya know?

@Ayvah
No, I'm not saying that sexism isn't a problem, I'm saying your country (I'm persuming its the US or a somewhat comparable western country), is not generally sexist.

Sure we can find examples of some people who are sexist, just like we can find some examples of people who are racist, or stupid, or psycopaths, or nazis, or murderers. But if I say that americans in general are not sexist, racist, psycopathic moron nazi murderers, I am sure you would at least agree with me somwehat. This leads us to asking why it is you think they are sexist. There are invidivual examples of all of these, but its not true in general and all of them are behaviors that are frowned upon.
If what area women chose to work in is caused by sexism, how did you arrive at that conclusiuon? If I remember correctly you did earlier in this thread acknowledge men and women being different,
but if that is the case, why would you expect them to make the same career choises in life?
Also, even if the default would be that despite mens and womens differences they still prefered the same jobs, how did you concluide that the reason they don't make the same career choises is because of sexism?

I am by no means saying there are no individual examples of sexism. I am simply saying that society is not generally sexist, games are not sexist, just like men are not somehow "forced" to do all the dangerous work because of sexism.

@SlamPow
So you think that women are strong and independent, but the sexism is just too much for them in certain places and their womanly nature makes them avoid their dream jobs in favor of something else because its just too hard for them in certain careers?

I think women are equally capable of pursuing what interests them in life. I think they can deal with work place adversity. Not because they are women, but because they are adults. Just like men deal with adversity in their careers, not because they are men, but because they too are adults.
In some cases men and women face different problems, but I believe both are capable of dealing with them.

While you have not made a compelling case for society being sexist, you could convince me that you hold some sexist opinions about women, maybe you should try to quit doing so?

You are not correctly interpreting what I am saying.

Since my grandmother, with her degree on the subject, is not here to talk to you, I'll just cite some articles, like you asked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/sexist-workplace_n_2718249.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-broken-the-glass-ceiling-of-diplomacy/

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR2015/cover.pdf

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088931

https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515760

http://www.alternet.org/books/why-i...mination-even-when-its-painfully-obvious

https://hbr.org/2014/10/hacking-techs-diversity-problem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-63cf-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/09/27/lean-in-study-women-in-the-workplace/91157026/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sm-often-comes-with-a-smile-study-finds/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._america_is_a_product_of_favoritism.html

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

Obligatory wikipedia link:

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

And since you specifically mentioned STEM being nice to women, here's a study that very clearly, with facts and figures, proves otherwise:

https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem

And another:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html

I could go on and on about why I think you're wrong. But you've yet to cite any sources. You've yet to prove a point. And you've stooped so low as to attack me directly. You're a strawman at this point - not worth arguing with.

As someone who got her PhD in one the STEM subjects last year and is a postdoctoral researcher now, I can give you a few reasons why so few women decide to pursue a scientific career:

- The start as a scientist is VERY hard. You have no security of a job place for at least the first 10 years. Postdoc positions are limitted for 2-3 years so you need to apply for a new job every few years (and always hope that you'll get the next one)

- There are significantly more applicants than free positions: the ratio of >50 applicants for one job is quite normal.

- You have absolutely no choice as where you are going to get your new job. If it is in New Zealand, then you'll have to move to New Zealand, if it is in Alaska, then be prepared to buy warm winter clothes. Good luck with it if you have small children or want to start a family. Oh, and if your partner is also a scientist, then be prepared for a never-ending long-distance relationship.

- Be prepared to have a salary which is significantly smaller than e.g. in other jobs which require a university degree

- You are under constant pressure to produce results: an extended period of time without a publication which gets cited is your death as a scientist

- You need to grow a very thick hide. The field is exceptionally competitive so all your colleagues are going to find even the smallest fault with you and your work. Be prepared to get looked upon (not because you are a man or a woman but because other people will look better if they can make you look like an idiot) and to get aggressive remarks. Once you get your paper back from the peer-review, you'll start questioning not only your own abilities but the world as a whole.

- You need to become aggressive yourself and feel entitled to any money which you can apply for from any funding source. You'll need the money for your research.

- Do you like your home? Then you should stop doing it - not only will you move to another home in 2 years, but you'll be away from home a lot on conferences, meetings and symposiums. And be prepared that you need to fly a lot.

So, in view of all this, it is not really surprising that so very few women apply for it. Not because of any gender issues (in fact, I have never been pampered so much because I am a woman), but because the job is hard. At some point you have to decide whether you like to strive for some scientific ideals and ideas or whether you should stay down-to-earth, get a proper job with a decent salary and found a family. Oh, and just keep in mind that after the 10 years of your postdoctoral career, it is quite a large chance that you won't get one of the few professorships out there and that you'll need to start anew somewhere outside of science.

eek. I couldn't do that. Even if I could do that, I wouldn't. It's bad enough being a programmer and sysadmin, and when I describe that as toxic, it's mainly just down to idiot managers and take-overs. My sometimes errant career path sounds like bliss compared to life as a researcher.

Although IT has got much worse over the years, it's still a lot better than what you describe. I'm impressed with your fortitude.

@SlamPow
Nice way to make a spam post, quote a really long post for no purpose and then basically go "this bunch of links says I'm right". You do not seem to get the point of citations. Perhaps try to refer to something from the material you are citing?

Oh well, lets have a look then

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/sexist-workplace_n_2718249.html
How hillarious, besides not bothering to make any specific points based on your citations, your first citation is to another list of citations, most of which are feminist "researchers" looking at data and concluding everything is sexism. Wage gap, CEO positions, the same tired old nonsense.
Just the fact that the first thing you decided to cite was the huffington post says it all really.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...g-of-diplomacy/
Ok, not a lot of women are ambassadors. Did you notice how this link doesn't investigate the cause, just the number of women serving as ambassadors? Do you understand how that does not support your claim that its sexism?

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR2015/cover.pdf
Oh, this 387 page PDF proves your point does it? Care to elaborate how? Did you read it? What pages are you refering to? Are you asking everyone here to read this 387 page report in order to disagree with your point? Jeez, how disingenuous can you get?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088931
Now you want me to watch some documentary about women in politics?
How about you try making a point instead. Instead of trying to copy paste others to compliance, try focusing on the basics of debating.

https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515760
You are linking to some commisioners speech to prove your points about sexism? Are you even for real? It is very cute, I'll give you that. Remember the thing I said about focusing on the basics of debating? Consider this a second recommendation.

http://www.alternet.org/books/why-it-sti...infully-obvious
You found a blog by someone complaining that sexism is hard to prove despite the authors really stong feeling that its super obvious that women are oppressed? Oh mate, you are just priceless!
Checking your links is like reading dragon ball. As fights and special attacks get more and more exaggerated you think they could not possibly top this. But here you are, finding increasingly hillariously flawed reasons to support your point. Sorry but the wage gap is a myth.
There is a gap in average income, but its not caused by sexism. Try again.

https://hbr.org/2014/10/hacking-techs-diversity-problem
Nice one. Here is a fun citation from your citation:
"Organizations need to find out how, if at all, these four patterns affect women’s careers internally."
The very fact that they uncritically frame it as a problem that an industry does not have a 50/50 male female workforce is kind of telling. Why is it inherently a problem if men and women are not equally interested in the same things?
And I do find it interesting that these people interested in "representation" only ever seem concerned with representation in high status jobs. Why do we never see this kind of article about sewage workers, or the lumber industry, or why we have so few fisherwomen working alongside the fishermen?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...f3f5_story.html
Omg, yet again you are citing increasingly hillarious things. Allow me to simply quote the headline of your cicted article:
"At NIH, one woman says gender bias has blocked promotions"
O my! One woman says there is gender bias, quick! Someone call Emma Watson! No wait, call the new ghost busters! They should be able to catch this elusive patriarchy slithering its tentacles into everything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/09/27/lean-in-study-women-in-the-workplace/91157026/
Yet again, allow me to cite your citation back at you:
"There is an ambition gap, according to the study, which found that 80% of men desire a promotion, compared to 74% for women. Overall, 56% of men say they aspire to become a top executive. By contrast, some 40% of women do desire the same goal."
I think I se one of many possible contributing factors for why fewer women might become CEOs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...le-study-finds/
Oh another article by an opinionated journalist. Its funny how you like to cite this particular type of "evidence". Dies it match your serachwords easier than other material since it usually has some sort of splashy title about how evil and ever present sexism is?
Oh by the way, can you comment on the aparant representation disparity in your cited material? I can't help notice that whenever you cite a news article or blog, the writer tends to be a woman. According to your logic, that has to be because you are sexist, right?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...favoritism.html
Another woman blogging thinks men are sexist pigs, well color me suprised. If we examine her academic credentials how likely do you think it is we would find a gender studies degree in there somewhere?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/uno...why-it-matters/
Finally you actually cite some research. Well, you cited an article written about the research, but still. So a group of scientists have measured that both men and women display some bias when rating the hierability of an aplicant in their field.
First of all why did you not lead with this? Why are you citing speeches and blogs and all manner of crap before you even try citing something serious? Are you under the impression that whoever has the most random citations "wins"? Sorry but that's not how it works.
But good job about finally getting to an actual citation from a study that actually atempts to look at the possible causes behind gender disparities in the workplace.
You still have a long long way to go befoire you can point to this study and claim it explains everything. Among other things you have in the above cited stuff shown that men and women have differing attitudes towards striving for high positions.

With all your copy pasting you managed to produce one credible source that might actually point towards a mechanism that could be causing a gender representation disparity and that could be considered sexist. Then again you also produced evidence of a mechanism that shows women applying their free will leading to fewer women in leadership.

As for the finding of hierability by gender, what the study showed was a bias (equally found in both men and women) towards who they would hire. This still does not prove the cause was sexism. It could be a bias based on differences in how men and women behave in the work place.
One of them for example is more likely to take an extended period of parental leave.
That could affect how desierable someone is for hire.

Anyway you really need to figure out how this discuission thing works. To begin with this is a forum about a video game alpha, so if you really desire an academic debate I suggest you search for the correfct forum. Before you do that however you still need to work on how to actually debate. Spaming links to huffington post articles will make people laugh at you just as much as on a video game forum.
Finally you might want tp practice your reading comprehension skills as I have indeed given you citations when relevant.

So in short, try to learn when it fills any function to quote a post or when to simply reply.
Learn to make relevant citations. Link spaming is not being serious, and if you seriously don't understand what you're doing wrong when you throw a book at someone and go "read this, it says I'm right and you are wrong", well... if ytou really don't understand that I just feel sorry for you.