Feminism

[TychoCelchuuu]

One of my friends who is very strongly conservative (mostly in the area of guns and stuff related to the military and money issues) once told me, in all seriousness, that if the government ever outlawed guns, there would be a civil war. He's also all for gay rights and birth control and basically any social issues he's super liberal.

 

I started this post like ten minutes ago and got distracted, so I'm not sure what I was actually trying to say here, but I guess mostly the point was to say that... Um. No I really don't know. Maybe it has some value though so I'll post it anyway.

Your friend sounds like an outlier or a libertarian. In the latter case, he should be all for the freedom of a private business to refuse to provide certain health care services to its employees, because as far as libertarians are concerned, businesses can do whatever they want because the market will sort it out. They don't want the government telling private businesses what they can and can't do.

[Gormongous]

I'm already just sick of seeing this argued around the internet.

 

My most reasonable Republican "friend" on Facebook, a trial lawyer by trade, is insisting that the actual practical effect of the ruling is negligible because it only eliminates four out of anywhere between fourteen and twenty birth control options, without adjusting the amount actually paid by the company to the insurance provider. Fair enough, but the one time I bit and asked about the precedent set by a ruling that allows a private entity to select which parts of a law it wants to follow based on fallacious information and in a way that endangers the rights of other more fundamental private entities, he said that the opinion brief was very clear that this ruling only applies to this specific instance of birth control and medical coverage, so there's no precedent being set. I'm pretty sure this is not how common law has ever worked since the beginning of time (or at least the reign of Henry II of England) but I didn't want to get into that with a lawyer. Legal history is my second least-favorite field of history, anyway.

 

I want to unfriend everybody.

[Twig]

Yeah that sounds possible, maybe even probable. I just know he self-identifies, or identified, as a conservative. Haven't talked politics with him in a long time. At any rate, I wasn't trying to say he was the norm, by any means!

[Bjorn]

I want to unfriend everybody.

 

One of the people I attempted to engage in conversation on FB tonight about this replied to me:

 

If they don't want to be a mother than they shouldn't have sex we as people shouldn't have to pay for there ignorance should your job pay for your gambling debt or there drug addictions I don't think so

 

Another person babbled on about limiting big government, and dodged a series of direct questions. 

 

 

Your friend sounds like an outlier or a libertarian. In the latter case, he should be all for the freedom of a private business to refuse to provide certain health care services to its employees, because as far as libertarians are concerned, businesses can do whatever they want because the market will sort it out. They don't want the government telling private businesses what they can and can't do.

 

Actually, he sounds like some liberal minded mid-westerners I know.  I'm not going to say they are common, but there's an interesting breed developing in my age group and younger.  Love their guns, super socially liberal, but also basically hate the government.  Seems to be an odd combination of holding onto certain parts of the conservative ideas they heard about in childhood along with the liberal ideals they adopted in college. 

[JonCole]

A lot of Young Republicans are very socially liberal - I don't think it'll be a defining issue for conservatives in the future as these things eventually turn over, it's just that for now abortion and gay rights more closely fit the narrative of the GOP establishment (big government overreach) despite what part of their growing constituency believe.

[SecretAsianMan]

I'm one of the most apolitical people you'll meet and couldn't tell the difference between Left and Right to save my life.  I kind of hate it all equally.  I just know what I think and believe.  That said, I might be like a less extreme version of Twig's friend.  I'm not a gun nut.  I don't even own a gun (though I would like to).  But I enjoy shooting them for sport (at targets, not hunting) and as an engineer find them mechanically fascinating.  I don't think they should be outlawed but I'm also a rational enough person that I see the need for gun control.  I also support most social issues and find the SCOTUS ruling to be pretty terrible in a lot of ways.  I have no idea where the places me on the political spectrum and frankly I don't care.

 

That was an extremely self-centered post about nothing really.  Please ignore it and continue on with actual important discussion.

 

Edit: And on a new page too.  Perfect.  I'll just leave now. 

[Twig]

A lot of Young Republicans are very socially liberal - I don't think it'll be a defining issue for conservatives in the future as these things eventually turn over, it's just that for now abortion and gay rights more closely fit the narrative of the GOP establishment (big government overreach) despite what part of their growing constituency believe.

Yeah it kind of feels like a lot of these "controversial" issues will disappear as the grumpy old white dudes in charge start dying off and get replaced by our generation.

 

Or maybe that's just what I want to believe.

[dibs]

Take the quiz Sam! How can we enter an internet discussion with you without immutable preconceived notions and pidgeonholes?

http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/

[Griddlelol]

I did it because I'm bored at work. Apparently I'm the "Next Generation Left" with strong leanings towards a liberal stance on social issues, but also hold core conservative beliefs like personal responsibility.

Not quite how I'd describe my political ideology (I don't associate myself with the left), but close enough. I'm more like SAM in that I'm pretty much apolitical.

 

Edit: This is my favourite fact from that site:

 

Bystanders like the outdoors: 66% think of themselves as an “outdoor person."

[osmosisch]

Shockingly as a European I'm on the far left of that poll

[JonCole]

So, there's a feminism issue I don't know how to parse. Some things like the political stuff are black and white to me, it's about rights and equality in an explicit way which is obviously easier to recognize and combat. 

 

But last night there was a ton of discussion around the hiring of Jason Oestreicher and Dan Ryckert at Giant Bomb. A lot of women in the games industry got quite angry about this hiring, as it essentially added two white males to a staff consisting of almost exclusively white males. I follow a lot of these women and agree with them almost always, but I find myself challenged to hold Giant Bomb at much fault in this.

 

On paper, they are great candidates. Jason was a video guy at Game Informer and Dan was Senior Editor of reviews at GI; they're quite qualified and seem to fit the gaps of the most recent people who moved away from SF. When Vinny left, the lack of enthusiasm over at Giant Bomb West is what threw some people and I feel Dan will add a lot of "love of video games" to mix there.

 

That said, I also had some hopes that they'd hire a woman like Cara Ellison or any number of great female freelance editors out there. That staff could also use some diversity - sure, they enjoy different genres with some crossover here and there, but there is something valuable to the experience of being a different gender, race, sexuality, age, etc than other people writing on staff. 

 

I guess the crux of the issue is that Giant Bomb could have made a major statement that would have benefit the feminist cause by hiring a woman to essentially fill the void left by Vinny. But, they didn't and made a safe, seemingly reasonable choice. Do they deserve scorn for this? I mean, someone eventually needs to be proactive for women to really have a better place in the games editorial space but does a publication's reputation deserve to be attacked over not being proactive in that fashion?

 

For context, just browse the twitter feeds of Samantha Allen and Maddy Myers from last night.

[osmosisch]

I think disappointment is an appropriate response in this case, and there's nothing wrong with expressing it.

[clyde]

This is the first I've heard of it and from Jon's description, I have a problem with it. I doubt Giant Bomb cares about what I think though.

I don't know enough about the circumstances, were there women who wanted the position? If there were, or if Giant Bomb didn't bother to look, then their thinking as an organization is provencial and boring. That may be what they are going for.

[Bjorn]

Patrick Klepak's mea culpa about their E3 coverage seems relevant.  Some people at GB are obviously aware that they have an issue, and this was an opportunity to address that, a failed opportunity.  I think they deserve some heat for that.  When one of your people just two weeks ago writes a big essay about doing a shitty job about including women in your content, and then you have an opportunity to diversify your staff, you fucked up. 

[JonCole]

The part that I actually find most damaging is that this seems to be validation of the part of the community that insists that anyone who wants female staff at GB is an outlier and doesn't represent the culture of the community in general. See the comments on the latest Giant Bombcast as a reference, they're really pretty gross calling Klepek a SJW and the worst thing to happen to GB, etc - http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/giant-bombcast-07-01-2014/1600-915/

[clyde]

Here's my perspective. Podcasts/gaming-websites are not businesses as much as they are communities. The hosts on the podcasts are the leaders of the community whether they want to be or not. Leaders don't need to change their opinions to reflect the perceived opinions of the community, but when adding members to the leadership they should prioritize diversity so that their community can grow wider, not just taller.

I'm sure that when they made the choices they made, they considered who they would be most comfortable working with on a personally selfish level. I can recognize that priority and identify with it, but I have no repect for it. Giant Bomb has become more than what they think it is, I think this happens with creators and creations all the time. The creators think they are the brand long after the community has been using the brand as their flag to gather. And with that status, I believe they have additional responsibilities that individual members or the collected opinion of a small central group may not feel that they have.

[SecretAsianMan]

I don't think that GB deserves to be thrown under the bus just yet (not that I'm accusing anyone here of doing that).  There are a lot of things to consider when making decisions like that and I'd like to give the group at GB the benefit of the doubt in this instance.  Would I have preferred a more diverse hiring?  Absolutely.  Do I think they're terrible people for not doing it?  No.  If someone proves to me that they flat out rejected or denied considering any qualified woman, then I'll be upset.  But I can't blame them for thinking "these two people are talented and will improve our company, we should hire them".

[Dewar]

Before I start, let me say that I'm decidedly biased as I've been a fan of GB for a long time and they're the ones that actually introduced me to the Idle Thumbs. Second, let me also say that I just now, in this thread, found out the identities of the new hires.

 

It seems to me that the primary critera for hiring for these positions would be chemistry with the current staff, since there's a lot of impromptu stage work involved in the job, even for the producers that are supposed to be behind the camera. Not knowing how the interviews went, it makes sense that folks that already have a history with the website are going to have a leg up, and it also makes sense (via the rolodex problem in Patrick's blog) that most of those would be white males. I do find myself wishing that they'd taken a bit more risk and gone for someone unproven, be it a man or woman, just a fresh face of some sort but Patrick was the last fairly unknown hire at the time and they got grilled for it, so I imagine they were looking for someone safe.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know how I feel.

[JonCole]

I don't think the proven/unproven thing matters all that much, I think it's an even better point that there are people just as experienced as admitted veteran Dan Ryckert that just also happen to be women. I've been following Jenn Frank's recent troubles lately and it strikes me as insane that nobody is paying her to produce some of the amazing things I know she's capable of putting together. She's been in this industry longer than I've been following it and I know she can't be the only female with as much experience that's practically homeless as a freelancer.

[Merus]

I think the chemistry excuse is pretty weak tea. Literally the entire point of feminism is that there is a vast cultural artifice dedicated to convincing children and adults that human males and females are, instead of being slightly different, are in fact so completely different that they could be described as coming from other planets. If you are hiring for culture fit, or chemistry, you are by definition hiring people that look a lot like you because otherwise you would have to change your culture to accommodate someone who has a different background.

 

The criticism is not that Giant Bomb hired two dudes, the criticism is that Giant Bomb has a long-standing cultural bias towards white dudes and there is more good evidence of this.

[Reyturner]

Critical Distance's weekly roundup was all about this.

GB is funny. I almost see them more like a band than a media outlet, with everyone needing to be such a polymath; they're the Valve of games media. GB isn't your first job, you need to be well established to fit into their dynamic. Even as young as Klepick was when he started, he had almost a decade of experience.

GB isn't IGN.com but they are super establishment. They could force it for the sake of progress but I doubt that ever would have happened. You can certainly be disappointed, but I don't think you can be surprised.

Edit: removed a stupid thing I said about there not being enough well established women for GB to hire.

[TychoCelchuuu]

If someone proves to me that they flat out rejected or denied considering any qualified woman, then I'll be upset.  But I can't blame them for thinking "these two people are talented and will improve our company, we should hire them".

So, I mean, surely you must agree that somewhere in the world there are at least two women who are qualified for the job, right? You don't think there are literally no women who could do the job, I imagine. So wouldn't it have made sense to hold out for those two women?

[clyde]

So, I mean, surely you must agree that somewhere in the world there are at least two women who are qualified for the job, right? You don't think there are literally no women who could do the job, I imagine. So wouldn't it have made sense to hold out for those two women?

Assuming they would want to work there.

[JonCole]

Maddy Myers said on Twitter that Cara Ellison applied at GB. It's not a first hand account, but Maddy knows Cara well enough that I trust she's not BSing around saying that.

 

Cara's no Dan Ryckert in terms of experience, but she's no greenhorn either and her reputation is super solid. Her chemistry with the GB crew on the E3 podcast was really good, from the perspective of this listener.

 

So, if one of the most visible female freelancer rising stars was not accepted, who else applied who had similar if not better experience but may be less well known and got denied a hiring?

[Twig]

Well up until "Cara Ellison applied at GB", I had no problem with these events. Cara Ellison is fucking awesome how dare you turn down her application. ):<