723 réponses à ce sujet

[Panda]

Hardcore male fans that were bothered by BW's new direction already left a long time ago. Some stayed because of other reasons (lore in my case). CDPR's formula works really well and there is no reason to change it because it works so well. If women and/or SJWs feel excluded they have their BW games. Male and female players generally want different things so this division in marketing is natural. DAI for example is a high fantasy setting with an admixture of 21st century progressive values whereas Witcher 3 is a late medieval setting, low magic setting that is brutally unfair to everyone in it. Completely different approaches and to an extent audiences.

 

I just don't quite agree. Well I do agree that some hardcore male fans, well those who can't stand that BW even thinks about non-male gamers have left.. rest of them seem to love complaining about how video games should be escapism for them in the forums though.. but I don't think male and female players do have that different kind of interests overall, or at least these interests aren't that tied to gender.

 

I know many women who like playing Witcher, but it's just for me that although I find it interesting in some aspects, Polish mythology and elf+dwarf vs human situation for example, I just can't stand the blatant fanservice in the game and how sexist the universe. I think that without as much fanservice (or more equal fanservice) and sexist universe majority of male players would still like Witcher and it would just gain more players than lose them.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Yes, that's the article! Thanks!

That article is a mess. It suggests that the reason why there are so few female electrical engineers is sexism, rather than natural inclinations to do other kinds of work. It also uses social constructionism as a serious term, something that has no place in real science. It does have some decent and rather obvious points that there is no naturally occurring intersexual competition, e.g. men compete against men for female approval, there is no point in men competing against women.

[maia0407]

Hardcore male fans that were bothered by BW's new direction already left a long time ago. Some stayed because of other reasons (lore in my case). CDPR's formula works really well and there is no reason to change it because it works so well. If women and/or SJWs feel excluded they have their BW games. Male and female players generally want different things so this division in marketing is natural. DAI for example is a high fantasy setting with an admixture of 21st century progressive values whereas Witcher 3 is a late medieval setting, low magic setting that is brutally unfair to everyone in it. Completely different approaches and to an extent audiences.

I was told that Witcher has made some changes in response to criticism. Is it true that they removed the cards that could be collected for each woman Geralt slept with and admitted that the cards were a mistake? If so, sounds like CDPR is responding to feminist criticisms. I still haven't played the game as I'm not interested in playing a male character but I might play future games if they offer a chance to play as a woman.

 

ETA: Oh, well, maybe not if the game is as sexist as Panda says.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

I just don't quite agree. Well I do agree that some hardcore male fans, well those who can't stand that BW even thinks about non-male gamers have left.. rest of them seem to love complaining about how video games should be escapism for them in the forums though.. but I don't think male and female players do have that different kind of interests overall, or at least these interests aren't that tied to gender.

 

I know many women who like playing Witcher, but it's just for me that although I find it interesting in some aspects, Polish mythology and elf+dwarf vs human situation for example, I just can't stand the blatant fanservice in the game and how sexist the universe. I think that without as much fanservice (or more equal fanservice) and sexist universe majority of male players would still like Witcher and it would just gain more players than lose them.

The Witcher universe is not sexist. It is realistic. No one has it good in the Witcher, not men, not women and certainly not elves and sorcerers. Some people appreciate reality more than a progressive fantasy. Men and women evolved under radically different selection pressures which have an effect on just about everything they do. I already pointed out the fact that technical combat issues are rarely a prime interest of women, or playing on maximum difficulty for that matter. If we pretend that men and women are the same we cannot get anywhere in a discussion.

[lynroy]

Her old username was actually GrizzlyAdamsGurl, we only settled on the new one after a long night chugging unprocessed fuel at the local topless bar.

Stop giving away my secrets! You, sir, are a treasure.

[maia0407]

That article is a mess. It suggests that the reason why there are so few female electrical engineers is sexism, rather than natural inclinations to do other kinds of work. It also uses social constructionism as a serious term, something that has no place in real science. It does have some decent and rather obvious points that there is no naturally occurring intersexual competition, e.g. men compete against men for female approval, there is no point in men competing against women.

So, you just assert that men are more 'naturally' inclined towards engineering and that's why there are so few women in the field? You don't think that gender expectations, like the one's you subscribe to, don't self select for men and discourage women?

 

It's interesting to note that there used to be more women computer programmers until salaries rose and computers began to be marketed towards men (thus, biasing people to believing computers were for men). The following article explains the phenomenon in more detail although I expect you to dismiss the entire thing with an assertion and no facts.

 

http://www.npr.org/s...-stopped-coding

[WildOrchid]

I think that without as much fanservice (or more equal fanservice) and sexist universe majority of male players would still like Witcher.

 

Yeah, it could seem insulting to some men that they only play the game for the boobs and the frigging, even though as I've said all games have some pandering to them. The Witcher's story is great, the characters too, though i'll admit I disliked Geralt in the first games but in W3 he won me over, probably because it focuses on his softer side. I also like his sarcasm. The whole game, at least W3, has great setting, nice gameplay and it would be ridiculous to play it just for the boobs.

 

So yeah, the game would still be good if the fanservice wasn't so... blatant? Even if I do like seeing beautiful women.

 

Edit, forgot to add. To be fair, the game isn't nice to either gender, not just women. Everyone suffers there.

[Ieldra]

But I have been mistaken with many here, for example until this thread I thought that @Ieldra was woman..

I take that as a compliment, because it means that most likely I haven't expressed any disagreeable male stereotypes. I appreciate being able to confuse the issue, but it's mostly accidental: my avatars are my characters, and I play mostly female characters.

[Panda]

I was told that Witcher has made some changes in response to criticism. Is it true that they removed the cards that could be collected for each woman Geralt slept with and admitted that the cards were a mistake? If so, sounds like CDPR is responding to feminist criticisms. I still haven't played the game as I'm not interested in playing a male character but I might play future games if they offer a chance to play as a woman.

 

ETA: Oh, well, maybe not if the game is as sexist as Panda says.

 

To be fair I have only played Witcher 1 and things likely are better later on games. I'm under impression that you can play part of Witcher 3 as woman called Ciri.

 

On being sexist, I think the universe is, but game might not be, meaning that the game often shows women in weak positions and being victims of the sexism, but I don't think game allows main character to be like that and there is scenes where Geralt calls rapers out (Witcher 1) or kills them (Witcher 3, from what I have heard). So at least it's not something promoted or seen as good in the game, but I still don't quite like such strong bias against women being in my games.

 

And fanservice in first one is just ridiculous.

 

The Witcher universe is not sexist. It is realistic. No one has it good in the Witcher, not men, not women and certainly not elves and sorcerers. Some people appreciate reality more than a progressive fantasy. Men and women evolved under radically different selection pressures which have an effect on just about everything they do. I already pointed out the fact that technical combat issues are rarely a prime interest of women, or playing on maximum difficulty for that matter. If we pretend that men and women are the same we cannot get anywhere in a discussion.

 

Realistic can be and often is sexist. Some perhaps do, I find the trope overdone and annoying myself and I think there is others who do as well. Overall I don't think sexist universe is something must have in the games and something that men can't play without.

 

I have quite hard time with these claims of women and men being so different in many ways, since really.. individuality has lot to done. Surely there is woman who is closer in playing style to another man than me for example and so on.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

To be fair I have only played Witcher 1 and things likely are better later on games. I'm under impression that you can play part of Witcher 3 as woman called Ciri.

 

On being sexist, I think the universe is, but game might not be, meaning that the game often shows women in weak positions and being victims of the sexism, but I don't think game allows main character to be like that and there is scenes where Geralt calls rapers out (Witcher 1) or kills them (Witcher 3, from what I have heard). So at least it's not something promoted or seen as good in the game, but I still don't quite like such strong bias against women being in my games.

 

And fanservice in first one is just ridiculous.

 

 

Realistic can be and often is sexist. Some perhaps do, I find the trope overdone and annoying myself and I think there is others who do as well. Overall I don't think sexist universe is something must have in the games and something that men can't play without.

 

I have quite hard time with these claims of women and men being so different in many ways, since really.. individuality has lot to done. Surely there is woman who is closer in playing style to another man than me for example and so on.

When one speaks of differences, one speaks of distribution curves, not absolute universals, however these trends describe the majority of people within the distribution curve. I am not sure how much of evolution you understand but once again, men and women had very different selection pressures put on them due to reproductive needs, which have affected them on many different levels. Put as simply as possible, men and women are very different because they had different reproductive requirements.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

I take that as a compliment, because it means that most likely I haven't expressed any disagreeable male stereotypes. I appreciate being able to confuse the issue, but it's mostly accidental: my avatars are my characters, and I play mostly female characters.

I never thought you were a woman based on your writing style and means of expression alone.

[Ieldra]

The Witcher universe is not sexist. It is realistic. No one has it good in the Witcher, not men, not women and certainly not elves and sorcerers. Some people appreciate reality more than a progressive fantasy. Men and women evolved under radically different selection pressures which have an effect on just about everything they do. I already pointed out the fact that technical combat issues are rarely a prime interest of women, or playing on maximum difficulty for that matter. If we pretend that men and women are the same we cannot get anywhere in a discussion.

I think the main reason why many people are so obtuse about this is that they don't understand how statistics work. If I say that there is a statistical tendency towards certain kinds of behaviour for men or women, people way over-interpret this, think I'm going for a universal truth, and many think I'm being prescriptive, or that any observation about things like this results in a prescriptive norm, rather than just a descriptive one that doesn't even apply to every individual.

Sometimes I want to shout: To say how things are is not an attempt at vindication, and everyone who uses facts to justify the facts themselves as desirable is using them out of their domain. From my point of view, it is *always* desirable to free ourselves from programmed behaviour, whether by society or biology, but in order to do that, we first have to accept that such programming exists. The attitude "There is no problem" didn't ever solve anything.

[Donk]

Ah, and here I thought ceasing my participation in the thread would stabilize it a little.

 

 

Ah the typical female "argument" of insulting a man's sexuality. Whatever narrative you want. 

 

Oh women do play video games. Most of them are just attention whores about it and few actually care about the games they play

 

I am married thanks

 

Ah.. no.

 

There is a reason I switched voice chat off whenever I played Elder Scrolls: Online. Hint: There were no women around..

 

Also, please send your wife my condolences.

[Panda]

When one speaks of differences, one speaks of distribution curves, not absolute universals, however this trends describe the majority of people within the distribution curve. I am not sure how much of evolution you understand but once again, men and women had very different selection pressures put on them due to reproductive needs, which have affected them on many different levels. Put as simply as possible, men and women are very different because they had different reproductive requirements.

 

Did some biology during high school so I know basics at least. I wouldn't really use evolution in this topic though, I rely on more on society and social sciences with question like this, I think they are more fitting, but I have observed that some BSNers here like to disregard social sciences as non-scientifical nonsense, which of course I can't agree with being Social Science student myself.

[Ieldra]

I never thought you were a woman based on your writing style and means of expression alone.

I can see how that might be the case. I'm curious about your observations though. Would you mind explaining, perhaps in a PM?

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

I can see how that might be the case. I'm curious about your observations though. Would you mind explaining, perhaps in a PM?

I'll PM you sure.

[maia0407]

Did some biology during high school so I know basics at least. I wouldn't really use evolution in this topic though, I rely on more on society and social sciences with question like this, I think they are more fitting, but I have observed that some BSNers here like to disregard social sciences as non-scientifical nonsense, which of course I can't agree with being Social Science student myself.

There's also the problem that stating that differing evolutionary pressures resulted in such vast differences among gender lines that there 'naturally' aren't many women engineers. How do you get from here to there? What evolutionary pressures are we talking about exactly that create these differences? By what mechanism do they work on the human brain to cause these differences? This line of reasoning sounds more like a 'just so' story concocted to sound scientific but in reality is just tailored to fit a sexist narrative.

[Ieldra]

Did some biology during high school so I know basics at least. I wouldn't really use evolution in this topic though, I rely on more on society and social sciences with question like this, I think they are more fitting, but I have observed that some BSNers here like to disregard social sciences as non-scientifical nonsense, which of course I can't agree with being Social Science student myself.

Social sciences are extremely useful, but they often ignore the fact that human society is built on a biological foundation. For instance, IMO you really can't discuss gender comprehensively without touching biology, and so I question the social sciences' predominance in gender research. Their results may be valid to some extent, but they will always be incomplete if the biological roots of human society are disregarded.

[WildOrchid]

Also, please send your wife my condolences.

 

 

Amazing.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I see somebody completely ignored the advice about reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender that I offered many pages ago . (It's a really good book! Scholarly, funny, informative!)

 

Anyway, to be briefer than I was on the previous occasion: seems likely that human behaviour is influence by biological sex as well as by gender. Exactly which behaviours and by how much is something we cannot separate from cultural influence. We'd need humans who were raised without any culture, and we're not likely to find any of those any time soon. (And if we did, we couldn't interview them because they wouldn't have acquired a language.)

 

I already pointed out the fact that technical combat issues are rarely a prime interest of women, or playing on maximum difficulty for that matter.

 

Oooo, is this where I get to tell my story about the time my warrior Hawke soloed Malvernis's dragon form on Nightmare?

 

(OK, I admit it, I didn't mean to solo the second half of the fight, it's just that everyone else died. And Dog helped.)

[Donk]

 

Amazing.

 

*Bows*

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

There's also the problem that stating that differing evolutionary pressures resulted in such vast differences among gender lines that there 'naturally' aren't many women engineers. How do you get from here to there? What evolutionary pressures are we talking about exactly that create these differences? By what mechanism do they work on the human brain to cause these differences? This line of reasoning sounds more like a 'just so' story concocted to sound scientific but in reality is just tailored to fit a sexist narrative.

No. Men and women have very different brains, differing patterns of distribution of grey and white matter for example as well as volume. men typically have more grey matter than women and different connections. Men tend to be better at spatial tasks from day one, which suggests selection pressures that led to that, which is reflected in the data on male and female brain differences. Greater spatial ability is correlated with a greater affinity for engineering. If you are genuinely interested I will post a link.

 

http://www.cam.ac.uk...rain-structures

 

Unfortunately researchers are terrified of talking about this because they are attacked by progressives claiming "neurosexism".

[Fredward]

There's also the problem that stating that differing evolutionary pressures resulted in such vast differences among gender lines that there 'naturally' aren't many women engineers. How do you get from here to there? What evolutionary pressures are we talking about exactly that create these differences? By what mechanism do they work on the human brain to cause these differences? This line of reasoning sounds more like a 'just so' story concocted to sound scientific but in reality is just tailored to fit a sexist narrative.

 

Plus stuff's sorta self-reinforcing. Brain's are pretty plastic so this thing happens where men and women have some  natural inclinations and talents that are separate from one another. People pick up on this and it becomes things Men Do and things Women Do, it gets culturally entrenched and we do stuff like reinforce our male children with legos and cars and **** and females with dolls. The both reinforce already present biological inclinations. Then these people grow up and they just happen to fit very nicely into the boxes they're supposed to and so it goes.

 

There are measurable brain differences between men and women but that doesn't have to mean we have to conform to them, it doesn't mean we 'should' be that way. We've evolved to a point where we can at least semi-objectively eye the way evolution affects us and our behaviour and can choose to define ourselves too.

 

Not sure that tied entirely with what you said but heeey.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

I see somebody completely ignored the advice about reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender that I offered many pages ago . (It's a really good book! Scholarly, funny, informative!)

 

Anyway, to be briefer than I was on the previous occasion: seems likely that human behaviour is influence by biological sex as well as by gender. Exactly which behaviours and by how much is something we cannot separate from cultural influence. We'd need humans who were raised without any culture, and we're not likely to find any of those any time soon. (And if we did, we couldn't interview them because they wouldn't have acquired a language.)

 

 

 

 

Oooo, is this where I get to tell my story about the time my warrior Hawke soloed Malvernis's dragon form on Nightmare?

 

(OK, I admit it, I didn't mean to solo the second half of the fight, it's just that everyone else died. And Dog helped.)

Cordelia Fine is not a neuroscientist and there is a massive and do mean massive amount of data showing us that men and women have different brains. She had a political agenda, not a scientific one.

[Panda]

There's also the problem that stating that differing evolutionary pressures resulted in such vast differences among gender lines that there 'naturally' aren't many women engineers. How do you get from here to there? What evolutionary pressures are we talking about exactly that create these differences? By what mechanism do they work on the human brain to cause these differences? This line of reasoning sounds more like a 'just so' story concocted to sound scientific but in reality is just tailored to fit a sexist narrative.

 

Personally I'd say that it's likely that social things have more impact in jobs people divide themselves in nowadays society than biological, but that's just me.

 

Social sciences are extremely useful, but they often ignore the fact that human society is built on a biological foundation. For instance, IMO you really can't discuss gender comprehensively without touching biology, and so I question the social sciences' predominance in gender research. Their results may be valid to some extent, but they will always be incomplete if the biological roots of human society are disregarded.

 

I guess these things depend a bit, there are those (within common people and scientist/researcher of different subjects) who thinks humans are mostly biological, those who think societal and those who think both in certain degree, I think it's quite contested still. Including gender differences of course, are they mostly biological, societal or both.

 

Personally I think biological points tend to be overemphasized compared to social points in terms of genders, since I think society and uprising has lot to do with gender differences.

 

Overall I think multidisciplinary (not sure if right word though) is encouraged, meaning that many different subjects: biology, sociology, psychology etc. are tried to take into research and benefit from them all, though of course this can be hard cause it would require expertise from many fields.