Live data from Hacker News

No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

polygon.com

331–340 of 375 posts

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think you have a case, file charges. But that would be inconvenient if you made up the fiction of harassment to push your agenda or sell your product, wouldn't it?

The cops (not to mention the services themselves - Twitter will close abuse reports if the tweets referenced were deleted, despite undoubtedly having a record of them) have a long history of not taking online harassment seriously. What product is being promoted by this article, incidentally?

Twitter is not the police. You file charges with the police. Twitter has no authority or responsibility to file charges on your behalf.

Sarkeesian alone earned hundreds of thousands of dollars using the fiction of harassment. I'd love to see a police investigation into the veracity of her claims of being threatened. Considering how her claims of being a lifelong gamer were exposed as a complete fraud, I think we all know how her claims of being threatened will turn out.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#332

Wow, I'm really glad I read this. I'm making a video game myself right now, and this such a relevant issue that I never even thought about. It never occurred to me that women in the gaming industry were mistreated, but it kind of makes sense-- video games often cater to young males, and often the easiest way to cater to those young males is by over-sexualizing women. I'm not going to say that that strategy doesn't wo…

You just spent a few paragraphs breathlessly and remorselessly gender shaming heterosexual men.

How do you feel about that?

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got downvoted because you posted an honest description of your own state of mind in a feminism thread. It happens elsewhere as well, not just on HN. Eventually, you learn to just avoid participating in those conversations. Never mind downvoting for individual disagreement; on certain topics you will be downvoted for disturbing the acoustics of the echo chamber. Mammalian brains are hard-wired to notice reproducti…

The major problem is that there are no outward physical signs of outstanding competence in your niche of economic s specialization Expensive tailored suit, fist-bitingly expensive wristwatch, huge house in an expensive area, very new luxury car... I could go on and on.

That only works for business management and financial services, and possibly politicians. A grandmaster potter and glazer is not going to look like that. A grandmaster soil bacteriologist is not going to look like that. A grandmaster oil painter is not going to look like that. The best butcher on the entire planet might not have a hundredth as much money as the most useless hotel heir.

Besides that, your house, car, and clothing does not leave an indelible and unfalsifiable mark on your outward appearance. Expensive decorations can be faked, borrowed, or stolen. Even if the balance of your bank account appeared as a birthmark across your forehead, ownership of resources is not always a sign of competence. Wealth can be inherited or acquired by chance.

Now, the first thought in your head when seeing someone might be "she's got huge... tracts of land!" But that will probably be because you live in a swamp.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death and rape threats are not protected speech.

If you think you have a case, file charges. But that would be inconvenient if you made up the fiction of harassment to push your agenda or sell your product, wouldn't it?

I guess I know how you like to spend your free time. Maybe you should get a life instead of harassing women.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#335
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch. That's weird. When I see them I think they are good (or at least interestingly) looking and have pleasant voices. I would never think of them as brilliant or accomplished (even though I know they are) because they do something I have no idea about. Just the same when I saw worlds best…

An attempt at a more useful response than logfromblammo's "because feminism" answer. There's a couple things that probably rate a down vote in some people's minds: - "I would never think of them as brilliant or accomplished (even though I know they are) because they do something I have no idea about. Just the same when I saw worlds best CEO, lawyer, window cleaner, bus driver, mercenary or whoever. I have no idea and…

> An attempt at a more useful response than logfromblammo's "because feminism" answer.

Thank you.

> This honestly is kind of a weird stance to take.

Not so much of a stance. I'm just describing the way I feel.

> You don't think about anyone in any way other than aesthetics (look and voice) if their life experience doesn't completely match your own?

When I look at people and hear them say something that does not convey information relevant to me that's exactly what I'm thinking. How they look and sound. I never heard any of the mentioned actors saying anything relevant to me although in more private conversation I don't doubt they say things that would make me also think about what they said.

I'm just saying that I don't think of people as accomplished or brilliant in disciplines I have no idea of. I know they are by proxy of recognition of their peers. For example I know Brian Cranston is accomplished because Antony Hopkins sent him a congratulatory letter by his own initiative. But knowing something and thinking/feeling/believing in something is not exactly the same.

> - "I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain." > This is: > a. Pretty insulting to anyone who has gone into management, which is, believe it or not, sometimes something that does involve your brain.

Please note I didn't say "waste of a good brain". I don't think that management is brainless activity. I just think that best thing a men can do is to develop technology. Because it triggers advances in all the other aspects, most importantly in science, but also medicine, social interactions, wealth and everything worthwhile. So if you take a bright person who has a chance to push technology further and give him/her the task of dealing with politics instead then it's a loss in my book.

> Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas.

Bright engineer such as for example Bram Cohen can singlehandedly push technology further. I value very highly awesome project managers as they can join engineers together and direct the technological effort but anyone above this level is just not doing anything that counts for me as advancement of civilization. Similarly sideshows as HR, Legal, Accounting, Sales and such. You don't make progress but shoveling what you already have back and forth and consuming a little bit every time you do it.

If women tend to keep away from engineering that's just bad and I don't really want to comfort myself with the 'at least they are close to engineering'. I'd rather see them hack on technology because in my opinion that's the best use of any persons time.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#336
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> b. Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas. This is a blatant twisting of his words. Women are even less represented in tech management than they are in other tech roles, and throwing in a few roles that he didn't mention at…

Higher level management, yes, they are. But it's fairly common to track women into middle management roles because they're "good with people" - and then write them off as not being engineers. There have been posts about that on HN not all that infrequently. And hell, even if you don't want to consider that, it's not a blatant twisting of his words. She's the CEO of Yahoo . That's not a "waste of a good brain".

> She's the CEO of Yahoo. That's not a "waste of a good brain".

How can you be sure? What a CEO of Yahoo can do? Hire some people, fire some people? Pick some project to develop and some to abandon? You could say that this has some value but you can't predict which project will turn out worthwhile. "Predictions are hard especially about the future." What's sure that there is one smart person less actually working on those projects.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got downvoted because you posted an honest description of your own state of mind in a feminism thread. It happens elsewhere as well, not just on HN. Eventually, you learn to just avoid participating in those conversations. Never mind downvoting for individual disagreement; on certain topics you will be downvoted for disturbing the acoustics of the echo chamber. Mammalian brains are hard-wired to notice reproducti…

The major problem is that there are no outward physical signs of outstanding competence in your niche of economic s specialization Expensive tailored suit, fist-bitingly expensive wristwatch, huge house in an expensive area, very new luxury car... I could go on and on.

> Expensive tailored suit, fist-bitingly expensive wristwatch, huge house in an expensive area, very new luxury car... I could go on and on.

Yeah. Right. Because there is no such thing as credit.

People that display expensive things don't project outstanding competence. They project just that they value displaying expensive things.

And that's usually something (I just speak from my experience) that inversely correlates with thoughtfulness and competence.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please show me precedent of a successful discrimination suit based on nothing more than a joke.

"Jokes" are commonly used as evidence in employment lawsuits: http://www.boardmanclark.com/reading-room/it-was-just-a-joke... http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/161026 http://www.fox19.com/story/26069939/wings-with-a-side-of-rac... Please note that the vast majority of employment lawsuits settle before they ever go to trial.

> based on nothing more than a joke

None of your examples demonstrate this.

The joke is always a footnote to some other, primary complaint.

You failed your burden of proof.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think you have a case, file charges. But that would be inconvenient if you made up the fiction of harassment to push your agenda or sell your product, wouldn't it?

I guess I know how you like to spend your free time. Maybe you should get a life instead of harassing women.

How does that answer the objection I raised?

It doesn't. It's pure ad hominem. And for that, you lose by default.

Thanks for your time, anyway.

Re: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry

#340

We need to fix this. Whenever someone feels like they are in a position of power, things like this happen. This power can come from anonymity (eg: the internet), it can come from a position of authority (boss), or sometimes it can come from just being dominated by an in-group with a much smaller out-group. What's happening here seems like a mix of the power of anonymity on the internet mixed with the fact that women…

How would you feel if a government agency or ISP or some other adversary used such technology to censor all your online communications -- so you couldn't ever contact anyone, through any protocol -- because it considered you to be undesirable/objectionable/dangerous for its own reasons?
Post reply on HN