Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Girls Allowed

polygon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 240 posts

Re: No Girls Allowed

#171

Post by alex_c »

k_os wrote: post #3

I myself believe in market dynamics. If girls were interested in what boys had they'd pursue it. If girls hated barbies they would nag parents about getting a train or a car and market demand for barbies would dry up. The fact that toy dolls are a billion dollar industry should make one sceptical about the supposed 'girliness that society instills in girls'. I find that premise as silly as thinking boys were somehow…

Counter-example: can you honestly say that you have never, not once in your life, paused to consider whether an item (a jacket, an accessory, sunglasses, whatever) is for males or females before deciding to buy it?

Re: No Girls Allowed

#173

Post by berrypicker »

xerophtye wrote: post #47
knowitall wrote: post #35

My first girl-friend threatened to leave me in case I bought a game boy. It's not just stereotypes from the media, it's also an experience that lots of men have made in their lives. But that doesn't mean we don't like the idea of women playing games. Quite the opposite. I still remember the first time I saw a woman wearing an Atari T-Shirt. I could hardly believe my eyes... Turns out by then Atari didn't really exist…

Yep, gamer girls = supremely attractive! I always get jealous of gamer couples i encounter on real life and online. My own gf is a hardcode mobile gamer (there hasnt been a single app game that i can beat her at. and i have been gaming all my life!) But i wish she'd try the more complex games... like FPS or top-down strategy or atleast LoL!!

"Girl gamers" are well-known on the Internet for being some of the most obnoxiously annoying people on the planet.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#174

Post by splintercell »

spindritf wrote: post #24

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I hear this a lot lately. Some people believe that media have an almost magical power of shaping culture and behaviours. Beauty? Cosmo propaganda. Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing. Yet when you dig a little deeper, studies on priming usually get wee p-values and barely significant, temporary cha…

> Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing.

But...but...but its so convenient. We won't have wars if there weren't armament industry, we wouldn't have alcoholics if we didn't have brewery, we wouldn't have crappy music if we didn't have Robin Thicke. Humanity is better than what we see around us!

Re: No Girls Allowed

#175

Post by cameldrv »

Thank god. Video game addiction is destroying an entire generation of boys. We see the results in declining male college enrollment and graduation. Games have been tweaked and adjusted until they have become electronic cocaine, and the result is that boys spend virtually their entire time at home playing them. The last thing we need is for the girls to go the same way.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#176

Post by VLM »

twoodfin wrote: post #153
VLM wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although its a bit off topic, the "standard american hearty breakfast" simply didn't exist more than a century ago. Highly processed breakfast cereals are also relatively recent. Corn syrup soda apparently becoming primary/sole source of hydration rather than a special treat. All humans must consume vast quantities of dairy products is fairly recent. Could just say "diet in general". How about "Natural is good for yo…

Going out to restaurants more than once a month or so wasn't a common household experience either. Essentially all of these things are possible due to a rise in living standards and income. That money was going to go somewhere , and no matter where it went, you would inevitably be able go back and tell a just-so story about how it went one way instead of another because of marketing.

"tell a just-so story"

That is theoretically possible, but with some of the more off the wall ideas like highly processed breakfast cereals, it should be easy to run statistical correlation tests.

I do agree with your point WRT established and ingrained ideas like "someone cooks your food for you and someone puts it on a table while you relax" which is not all that weird or new of an idea, just previously too expensive.

In contrast, considering something that's a bizarre idea like packaged processed breakfast cereals, that demand simply had to be manufactured because its too weird to organically grow itself. I mean, you're going to do what to corn, and then put it in a plastic bag, then drown it in cow milk even though you're an adult human not a baby cow, then eat it? Really? That's just weird.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#177

Post by gcb0 »

alex_c wrote: post #166
spindritf wrote: post #24

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I hear this a lot lately. Some people believe that media have an almost magical power of shaping culture and behaviours. Beauty? Cosmo propaganda. Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing. Yet when you dig a little deeper, studies on priming usually get wee p-values and barely significant, temporary cha…

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I think you're overstating how much power the article ascribes to marketing. The article makes two arguments: 1) Video games being mostly "male" is a feedback loop of marketing (targeting) and product design, amplified by most of the industry being male. It's not that marketing has overnight caused everyone to…

No, the article just stirs a lot of empty fox news style outages.

First makes you feel bad because there are a girls toy section. Then right away tries to make you feel bad because there isn't one game girls section.

Anyone with half a brain would notice this paradoxical trolling and ignore this article. The fact it has so many votes is scaring. Nobody reads anymore.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#178

Post by ensignavenger »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #115
AlexandrB wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamonds. > Americans exchange diamond rings as part of the engagement process, because in 1938 De Beers decided that they would like us to. Prior to a stunningly successful marketing campaign 1938, Americans occasionally exchanged engagement rings, but wasn’t a pervasive occurrence. http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-b... I think it's naive to think that marketing doesn't in some way shape an…

30s of research gives me this http://www.google.co.uk/patents?id=0eBEAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=%2... It's a patent application from 1928 which speaks about engagement rings with a bezel for a stone. I'm going out on a limb and saying that diamonds would be one choice for the stone prior to 1928. They certainly are only one amongst many choices in the present day too. Do USA-ians only have diamond engagement rings? The cited…

Nearly all engagement rings in the USA are diamonds- but there are exceptions- my wife's is a blue topaz. I designed and carved the wax mold for it myself :) But from what I have observed, these exceptions are very rare.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#179

Post by yxhuvud »

hownottowrite wrote: post #6

In 1983, North America experienced a massive recession in the video game industry, now known as the video game crash. The crash had devastating effects, bankrupting game company after game company. At its peak, the revenues for video games in the U.S. sat at $3.2 billion in 1983. By 1985, revenues fell a whopping 97 percent to approximately $100 million. There are many factors behind the crash. The key factor is that…

What? No, it sounds a whole lot more like todays blockbuster market with crap titles that cost way too much to produce.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#180

Post by rmc »

spindritf wrote: post #72
rmc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay people. There are considerably more open gay people today than 50 or 100 years ago. Either there are more gay people naturally today, or the societal pressures 50 to 100 years ago to marginalise gay people were successful and were able to convince lots of people to stay in the closet. If society can do that to gay people, can the same happen to gender roles?

> There are considerably more open gay people today than 50 or 100 years ago. There are considerably more people having pre-marital sex, too. My pet theory is that with the increase of wealth and progress in technology, medicine, we can afford more risk including tolerance of risky behaviour. With things like the antibiotics, condoms, hormonal contraception, abortion (that is not likely to kill you) and just generall…

You think that abortion, access to contraception, and antibiotics has resulted in people feeling OK to come out? You think risk of disownment, murder, beating, being fired, being evicted, etc. didn't encourage people to stay in the closet?
Post reply on HN