Blizzard activey supports Woman and minorities to get into the gaming industry

[Zython]

Because there's too many jobs women don't want to do at all - mining, oil drilling, security, sewage, plumbing, garbage disposal, etc. So even if you have a 50/50 distribution in the fields women want, fuck it - let's say 60/40 for the female side - even then the workforce will be ATLEAST 50% male.

So...you're assuming women don't want to work in STEM fields?

[citation needed]

[The One Percent]

Hiring unqualified people for positions based on their gender and race. Yup, great idea.

[Livnthedream]

The...the graph shows women's share of physical science majors going up, while CS majors went down. Did you actually click the link, or are you responding to what you imagine is in the link?

Yes I clicked the link. I have seen the NPR link rather often. What does that have to do with my assertion that the link is cherry picked to hell and back. Like so much of what NPR puts forth as holy writ.

- - - Updated - - -

So...you're assuming women don't want to work in STEM fields?

[citation needed]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...s-not-switches

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07...d-differences/

[Freighter]

Why do you assume a meritocratic system would lead to them hiring mostly men?

He didn't, if you can read.

[Seranthor]

Are you really claiming that the world was more equal in "the good ole days"?

Is that what you REALLY understood from what I wrote?

[TehTemplar]

So...you're assuming women don't want to work in STEM fields?

[citation needed]

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Nowhere did I mention women not wanting to work in STEM.

None of those jobs I listed as undesirable to women is STEM. And even if STEM was mostly filled with women it'd still be mostly men in the overall workforce.

[Kuntantee]

Why do you assume a meritocratic system would lead to them hiring mostly men?

I said IF. I didn't assume anything.

[Uoyredrum]

1. Right here, fam.
2. The bolded right here. You're making that assumption again.

1. There's several problems with what you just linked, including the fact that the game industry is not simply programmers, and the fact that programming is nothing like what it was in the 70s, nor is the game industry (which barely even existed going into the 80s anyway, especially compared to now). I was simply seeing what you'd link as evidence of your assertion. All your graph shows is that female computer science majors declined after '85 as a total percentage. Can you even explain the correlation between that and what you're trying to prove here? Just linking an NPR article with a graph that has nothing to do with the subject isn't really good enough.

2. What's the assumption, that qualified candidates are applying? Of course they are, it's a highly competitive industry with TONS of people trying to break into it. Therefore hiring people based on gender and not qualifications is always going to push better qualified candidates out of available jobs because there's such a limited number compared to the amount of applicants. It's just math and common sense. If you have 2000 applicants and 200 positions, and out of the 2000 applicants only 200 are female and 1800 are male, but you want 40% (for example) of hires to be women, you're bound to hire less qualified people based on gender. The fact that gender is even considered is ridiculous.

If Blizzard wants to be a part of programs that help encourage women and minorities to study various disciplines to get into the industry then good, there's no harm in that. Encouraging people to learn and get into various programs they might not otherwise consider is a positive thing. But when they are directly looking at gender of their workforce and saying it's a problem that they only have x% of women, there's no positive to that. Even if their intention isn't to pander to women and minorities, by instilling that mindset into hiring managers that they need to make x a bigger number, it's going to become a problem where someone with more experience and more knowledge is going to be passed up by someone else because they have a vagina or different color skin. To me, that's fucked up.

[Rudkobing]

/plays smallest violin th the world.

[Deleted]

Sexism at its finest. If its okay to call one group "socially stunted, inexperienced, kissless virgins" then it is also okay to call the other group "whores". You see, its all nice that you can call people names, but in the end it isn't all that helpful. So before that happens, maybe, just maybe its an idea to, you know, not start out by insulting other people.

Technically either men and women can be "socially stunted, inexperienced, kissless virgins". If we're going down the sexism alley, isnt you assuming that it's specifically referencing men inherently sexist as well?
Or are you now going to quote context as to why it isnt? Then surely I could redirect you towards the context of my posts and point you towards the fact I am using terms provided to me for lack of better words. There is a reason why I put it in quotation marks. I explicitly stated that I do not agree with the sentiments of the woman from the reddit post from which I took the words.
I've also had my fair share of experience dealing with socially inept women in this curriculum (such as one who thought it was a brilliant idea to share with me that she had a gangbang and yaoi fetish in in our first and only meeting, and another who argued that committing suicide was the only way to rebel against the machine that is society in our second conversation. Yes, these were real people, I couldn't make this shit up.)
However, for every woman of that kind, you have 20 guys, because game dev courses attract such individuals like moths to a flame.

Or are you now shouting about this imaginary sexism and tell me it is "not nice to call people names" because I somehow offended your feelings? Look, I did not insult anyone initially, I was merely sharing my observations, experiences and conversations with women who were either interested into getting into the game industry or are already working in the game industry.
It is a fact that tech industries, and especially at the college education level, has a higher saturation of people who could be perceived as "creeps" compared to other programmes. Calling them socially inept isn't exactly insulting, it's what they are for a lack of a better term. And because of this perception, it either discourages women from enrolling into those courses or push them towards other courses that has a higher female demographic where encountering such individuals is less likely.

That is not sexism. Sexism is outright discrimination or handicapping people based on gender. It's perfectly fine to call a woman a whore when she solicits sex for money or material gain. Because that is what a whore is by the very definition of the word.

Throughout this entire thread I have argued in favour of a meritocracy, hiring people based on merit and completely ignoring gender and skin tones should be the way forward. However, there are reasons as to why several women i've spoken to have chosen for a graphic design or fine arts bachelor programme rather than going into VFX or game art despite having an interest in it. And one of those was that both VFX and Game dev programmes have a higher percentage of individuals they'd rather not deal with.
You find those individuals everywhere, men and women, but it is just a fact that game dev courses have a higher concentration of those of the male sex. And I cannot blame women for choosing another field of study based on that because those people are a pain to deal with, whether they are male or female.

Should we get more women into game development. Absolutely, but doing it at the hiring stage is too late.

[istroxpro]

Don't really care about developers gender or race as long as they are competent around their work field.
But, as ME:Andromeda shows, having too many lesbians is bad trend for business.

[Babadoo]

I rather have the most qualified person taking the postion. I don't care if it's 99% white males. Woman and minorities have to step up their game if they wanna compete.

[shimerra]

Just look at the new Ghost Busters and Wonder Woman movies - when one tanked they just blamed white men being misogynistic. You will never win with logic when it comes to SJWs blaming their failures on men and their "victories" are always in spite of men.

Also, there aren't that many studios that make games - just look at BioWare we went from Neverwinter Nights, Kotor, Jade Empire to Dragon Age CisQuisition and Mass Effect: Andromeda. So yeah, SJWs are literally ruining video games just because it's a thing men enjoy.

While I didn't care to see the new Ghost Busters because I figured it would suck and I'm generally pretty picky about what I see in theaters unless my gf wants to go, not because of the women cast but because comedy remakes like this seem to always suck, let's not pretend little ragers like yourself weren't throwing a gigantic cry baby tantrum about the fact that it was women instead of men with the usual "They're just doing it to force diversity on us Damn SJWs!". And you don't even have to go past a thread on this very website to see all the people pissing and whining about the Wonder Woman movie before it came out with a nice sprinkle of misogynistic douche baggery.


Case in point with your little butt hurt comments about Andromeda and Dragon Age Inquisition. I bet you blame SJWs with you stub your damn toe. Long story short you absolutely reek of hypocrisy.

Hiring unqualified people for positions based on their gender and race. Yup, great idea.

The number of men in here reinforcing that women tend to do better on reading comprehension for standardized testing is crippling. Find the place where it says they're magically unqualified.

[Eleccybubb]

One day people will look back and be like "remember when you used to get hired off good qualifications rather than who you are or what gender you are?"

- - - Updated - - -

I rather have the most qualified person taking the postion. I don't care if it's 99% white males. Woman and minorities have to step up their game if they wanna compete.

This. Well kind of.

Why should someone with better qualifications be less considered over someone who is a woman or minority?

I mean I have no issue with this but I mean if you want to work in that field then bring the qualifications. Not your personal background/gender.

If I was hiring someone right now I'd hire them based on their qualifications. Simple as that really.

[Deleted]

So...you're assuming women don't want to work in STEM fields?

[citation needed]

Doesn't matter if they WANT or not, it's they DO NOT ENROLL and get a STEM degree to then work in a STEM field. And if you look at US, uni's are like the most absurdlly progressive space out there, the would have ZERO issues attending a uni and getting a STEM degree. But they don't, the majority of them that is!

[shimerra]

One day people will look back and be like "remember when you used to get hired off good qualifications rather than who you are or what gender you are?"

I think people will most likely look back and go "Man a lot of butt hurt people not inconvenienced in the slightest raging about something that helps others because they perceived it as a slight against them".

We're not and have never been a pure meritocracy and folks like yourself actually reinforce that that's the case.

[Eleccybubb]

I think people will most likely look back and go "Man a lot of butt hurt people not inconvenienced in the slightest raging about something that helps others because they perceived it as a slight against them".

We're not and have never been a pure meritocracy and folks like yourself actually reinforce that that's the case.

Read what I posted after.

I'm all for everyone working in a field. Just bring the qualifications. Why would I hire someone with lesser qualifications over someone who spent the time studying to earn the qualifications that I am asking for?

Someone should not be hired because of their personal background/gender at all. They should be hired because they worked hard in life to get to that point where they are in that interview and being considered for the position.

[Zigrifid]

exactly. nice avatar btw. Mon*Star was the shit.

At last someone who knows my avatar

[shimerra]

Read what I posted.

I'm all for everyone working in a field. Just bring the qualifications.

I did read, but I'd recommend you take your advice. And I never said you weren't. But bullshit tripe like what you posted is exactly why programs like these get implemented because other factors drive people away from certain fields. There's a reason to this day that women dominate the nursing profession and Men Doctors and it has fuck all to do with "qualifications" or some innate biological factor but any time steps are taken to correct the imbalance we get a lot of pissing and whining about muh merits or muh qualifications.


Qualifications in the context most of you are using it means shit because it's generally used to imply that the women/minorities are magically going to be massive incompetents stealing ur jerbz.

[Eleccybubb]

I did read, but I'd recommend you take your advice. And I never said you weren't. But bullshit tripe like what you posted is exactly why programs like these get implemented because other factors drive people away from certain fields. There's a reason to this day that women dominate the nursing profession and Men Doctors and it has fuck all to do with "qualifications" or some innate biological factor but any time steps are taken to correct the imbalance we get a lot of pissing and whining about muh merits or muh qualifications.


Qualifications in the context most of you are using it means shit because it's generally used to imply that the women/minorities are magically going to be massive incompetents stealing ur jerbz.

Well you clearly didn't read.

I said I'm fine with people applying for jobs as long as they bring their qualifications. Why would I hire someone who potentially has no experience over someone with experience in the field?

Good thing I never mentioned any "biological factors" though. Seems you brought that up for some reason.

When you want to have a discussion feel free to let me know.