By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So.. Scantily Clad Women at the IGDA Party Made The Industry Freak Out.. Sexism Again?

Kasz216 on 29 March 2013
mantlepiecek said:
Kasz216 said:

So in otherwords... you didn't read the post i linked to where they specifically said those women who were dancing at GDC were paid by the staging company and brought there without company approval like was written in their contract.

They were paid to be there, they were paid to dress like that, and they were paid to dance on thebar.

 

So the proof had already been provided.

 

As for the last part...  you are again missing the point spectacularly.  It doesn't matter what was in their mind when they organized it.  That's the message they sent.


Generally racist people don't mean to be racist.  They actually believe all that ignorant shit they say.

You still have to prove that it results in the exclusion of women. Maybe you are not getting it.

And you still have to prove that the female dancers were comparable the the gay men scenario you provided. I don't think they are. Which is why I kept saying that your comparison is getting overboard when you compared this to meetings in strip clubs.

And no, that is not the message they sent. The person who sends the message knows about it MORE than the person who receives it. Fact.

The person receiving it can have the wrong interpretation, he can misunderstand it, there are many possibilities, so really. The person sending the message knows more about it than anyone else.

Racist people are determined to be racists based on their actions. Here we are not interpreting actions, we are doing something entirely else - trying to see what "message" they are trying to send because obviously having female dancers mean someone is trying to send a message.

Not every action has a message behind it.

No... i did prove it.  Hell the fact that a ton of people were upset and a bunch of people resigned shows that.

The promoters intentionally hired people that made a bunch of women proffesionals uncomfortable caused mass resignations from the IDGC and an immediate apology explaining why something so sexist and exlcusionatory happened.

You don't get more proof then that man.

 

That your intentionally trying to be blind to it  seems pretty obvious based on the fact that you seem to think gay dancers are more objectable then female ones.


Your logic further falls apart as your say "We're not interperting actions" and then saying "not every action has a meaning behind it."

You can't even stay consistant in a single post.  Which is it... did the actions have no meaning or are we not looking at actions at all?

There are plenty of racist people and sexist people who say and do plenty of exclusionary things and don't mean anything buy it.

You could have a manager about how women are inherently worse at math and that's why you see so few good female accountants.   Now he just believes women inherently suck at math... he doesn't mean any harm by it.   Yet you can damn well be sure he's creating an exclusionary hostile work enviroment for female accountants.

In that case the messsager doesn't know more about the message then the person recieving it.  THAT is a fact.



Around the Network
mantlepiecek on 29 March 2013
WereKitten said:
mantlepiecek said:
 

"A few memebers mentioned gay male dancers... and yeah if gay guys were dancing shirtless and making out.... the majority internet community would lose their collective shit over it... and most developers would be bitching about it because it made them feel uncomforable during an imporatant networking event."

OK now. Proof please. Prove it that the female dancers were not just dancing at the GDC. Because all I have seen about it is people complaining about their clothes. Nothing else.

"Put up with women we paid to perform being objectified or lose out on an important networking oppurtunity."

lolwhat. You seriously think that is what was going through the people's mind when they organised the particular event?

He's not saying that the girls were making out.

He's saying that if something happened in that supposedly professional environment that was sexually charged and considered uncomfortable by the majority of male heterosexual attendants, we wouldn't have heard "hey, it's just the beauty of human body" or "you can not watch it if you don't enjoy it".

We would have heard a big uproar of "this doesn't belong to a professional meeting" and "why should they do it there? I was trying to have a good time with coworkers and establish professional contacts"

And no, the people that organized the performance did not do so with the goal of excluding people. They offered eye candy to the majority of the audience and cared squat about what the result was for those would feel excluded or forced into an uncomfortable situation. They should be made accountable for what they failed to consider and the conundrum in which they put some of the attendees even if they are not an actively plotting sexist spectre organization.

Female professionals in the tech field often lament having to cope with working in a boys club. Sometimes more like a frat house, it seems, and they feel excluded and lessened.

Again, my point was that it is not sexism, and I get confused when people call this sort of stuff as sexism, because it isn't. I couldn't care less if those people were held accountable or if IGDA should or shouldn't apologize.



mantlepiecek on 29 March 2013
Kasz216 said:
mantlepiecek said:

You still have to prove that it results in the exclusion of women. Maybe you are not getting it.

And you still have to prove that the female dancers were comparable the the gay men scenario you provided. I don't think they are. Which is why I kept saying that your comparison is getting overboard when you compared this to meetings in strip clubs.

And no, that is not the message they sent. The person who sends the message knows about it MORE than the person who receives it. Fact.

The person receiving it can have the wrong interpretation, he can misunderstand it, there are many possibilities, so really. The person sending the message knows more about it than anyone else.

Racist people are determined to be racists based on their actions. Here we are not interpreting actions, we are doing something entirely else - trying to see what "message" they are trying to send because obviously having female dancers mean someone is trying to send a message.

Not every action has a message behind it.

No... i did prove it.  Hell the fact that a ton of people were upset and a bunch of people resigned shows that.

The promoters intentionally hired people that made a bunch of women proffesionals uncomfortable caused mass resignations from the IDGC and an immediate apology explaining why something so sexist and exlcusionatory happened.

You don't get more proof then that man.

 

That your intentionally trying to be blind to it  seems pretty obvious based on the fact that you seem to think gay dancers are more objectable then female ones.


Your logic further falls apart as your say "We're not interperting actions" and then saying "not every action has a meaning behind it."

You can't even stay consistant in a single post.  Which is it... did the actions have no meaning or are we not looking at actions at all?

There are plenty of racist people and sexist people who say and do plenty of exclusionary things and don't mean anything buy it.

You could have a manager about how women are inherently worse at math and that's why you see so few good female accountants.   Now he just believes women inherently suck at math... he doesn't mean any harm by it.   Yet you can damn well be sure he's creating an exclusionary hostile work enviroment for female accountants.

In that case the messsager doesn't know more about the message then the person recieving it.  THAT is a fact.

At bolded, intention was to hire. May not have been to make people uncomfortable. May not have been to exclude them from networking.

Not to mention that this in general makes all types of people uncomfortable, not just women. Which is why I thought it was inappropriate, not sexist.

Also mass resignations? So how many (in pure nos) resigned?

I didn't say gay dancers were more objectable than female dancers. I said the scenario you presented was more objectable.

I said not every action has a message behind it. If we did interpret their actions they were not sexist.

As far as the manager is concerned, I don't get that situation.

But I do know that until you see that there is a hostile working environment, you being sure of it is your own opinion that people who think like the said manager create hostile exclusionary environment.



silicon on 29 March 2013

Sexism is becoming a really frustrating issue. I don't think it can practically be resolved if we pander to the lowest common denominators.



oldschoolfool on 29 March 2013

really guys that was it. This thread has nine pages of post over that pic. What the problem is?



Around the Network
allblue on 29 March 2013

Anyone screaming sexism over this, let me ask you - should porn/bdsm/S&M play etc be bannned because a fraction of women deem the action of the OTHER women as degrading to their gender as a whole? What about the individual rights and freedom of those women who actually likes engaging in those activities?

Its the same scenario with those dancers. Paid or not, they had a choice to say yes or no, so it was LAWFUL and within their right to do what they wanted to do. Deemed offensive to other women or not.

Can I say muscular men wearing tiny little speedos in those body building competition offence me? And that I would quit studying my degree in protest, would somebody care?

Edit: This would dancer thing might have been inappropriate, but not definitely sexist in the least.



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

allblue on 29 March 2013

The meaning of sexism has been literally blown out of the water and stretched to ridiculous lengths. I advocate and have full respect for women fighting for equal paid, equal opportunities in work places etc. However, it gets ludicrous when it crosses over to sexual issues between a man and a woman. Of course, when sex is involved there is bond to be a gender differentiation. A guy copulates with his partner, a women. Naturally, he likes to be the dominant one, and "coincidentally" his partner likes to be submissive and wants him to take the lead.

Then comes the feminist extremist, comes running into the room screaming sexism and that men and women should be equal in bed, gender should play no role, and by her definition, a guy should be **** in the *** by his partner all for the sake of equality.

Sexism is no longer about gender equality anymore, its all about elimination of gender altogether now.



Intel core i7 930 OC @ 4.0 ghz

XFX Double dissipation Radeon HD 7950 356 bit 3gb GDDR5 OC @ 1150 MHz core + 1575 x 4 memory

Triple channel DDR 3 12gb RAM 1600 MHz

wfz on 29 March 2013
Kasz216 said:

I couldn't disagree more.   Even if Chris Rock just called someone a cracker in anger.... nobody would care.   Not because of double standards, but because there just isn't a sufficent history there to bug people.  Being called a cracker isn't essentially being equated to property.

You can't get rid of something like sexism or racistm without getting rid of sexist and racist actions and words.   Which means your going to get angry and specific things with racist and sexist commments.  Therefore clearly you are going to get more upset at things which have more context to them, and completely blow off stuff that doesn't make sense or has little context.


I'm going to step off the topic of the thread (sexism) to respond to this. 

Thank you, Kasz. You should be proud of yourself. Your ignorance and double standards with regards to racism is something so much of our society seems to hold, and it is the reason I grew up as a child and was ridiculed, looked down upon, and made fun of for my skin color. In a society that praises dark, tanned skin, I was a "ginger." A completely "pale skinned" boy that certain people loved to make fun of. I was so distraught over my skin and my hair that I absolutely hated going to the beach because I knew I stood out, and I hated going to school every day because certain people would make fun of me for my hair, for my skin. And no one would stand up for me, because I was white and no one saw that I could be hurt by racial comments as well.

 

But it's okay, right? I'm white! I have nothing to complain about. History's on my side! LOL, how fucking ridiculous is that. I don't give a fucking shit about history. I give a shit about how people treat ME, NOW, in the present. And I've heard way too many people laugh at me and call me "ginger." I've heard way too many people demeaningly point out my white skin. And you know what? No one fucking stands up for me. No one gets those kids in trouble. You know why? Because it seems most people are like you. Most people hold dobule standards with racism and believe that it's only bad against blacks.

Well Kasz, fuck you. Fuck you and your double standards to hell. People like you made my childhood a regretful experience. Go ahead and ban me, I don't even give a shit right now.



MoiseHnkel on 29 March 2013

This Sir got a point.



Kasz216 on 29 March 2013
mantlepiecek said:
WereKitten said:
mantlepiecek said:
 

"A few memebers mentioned gay male dancers... and yeah if gay guys were dancing shirtless and making out.... the majority internet community would lose their collective shit over it... and most developers would be bitching about it because it made them feel uncomforable during an imporatant networking event."

OK now. Proof please. Prove it that the female dancers were not just dancing at the GDC. Because all I have seen about it is people complaining about their clothes. Nothing else.

"Put up with women we paid to perform being objectified or lose out on an important networking oppurtunity."

lolwhat. You seriously think that is what was going through the people's mind when they organised the particular event?

He's not saying that the girls were making out.

He's saying that if something happened in that supposedly professional environment that was sexually charged and considered uncomfortable by the majority of male heterosexual attendants, we wouldn't have heard "hey, it's just the beauty of human body" or "you can not watch it if you don't enjoy it".

We would have heard a big uproar of "this doesn't belong to a professional meeting" and "why should they do it there? I was trying to have a good time with coworkers and establish professional contacts"

And no, the people that organized the performance did not do so with the goal of excluding people. They offered eye candy to the majority of the audience and cared squat about what the result was for those would feel excluded or forced into an uncomfortable situation. They should be made accountable for what they failed to consider and the conundrum in which they put some of the attendees even if they are not an actively plotting sexist spectre organization.

Female professionals in the tech field often lament having to cope with working in a boys club. Sometimes more like a frat house, it seems, and they feel excluded and lessened.

Again, my point was that it is not sexism, and I get confused when people call this sort of stuff as sexism, because it isn't. I couldn't care less if those people were held accountable or if IGDA should or shouldn't apologize.

... yes it is. That's a clear textbook case of sexism.