I realize he's capitalized greatly on being the writer/director of The Avengers (everything he's done previously is cult-popular), but he's really not the be-all end-all nerd king. Love him or hate him, Cameron trumps him for technical merit, even if his stories lack a little soul. (IMO I've never gotten "soul" from Whedon, just a lot of hipster cynicism and shallow grandstanding.)
In fact, if we're trawling the Disney network for names, I'd go right ahead and put my vote (useless though it is) towards John Lasseter. If not, Neil Blomkamp or Guillermo del Toro.
All of those guys have a distinct track record for both visuals and story concepts (execution is certainly debatable). I'm just really tired of the idea among my peers and fandoms that Joss Whedon's the answer, when there are far superior writer/directors in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.
I have a minor interest in social engineering, partly due to my run-ins with sociopaths, but psychology has always been an interest of mine in general.
If there's one thing I, without fail, lecture my less-tech-savvy friends on anytime I ever have to fix anything computer-related, is that they are always the weak link in computer security.
At least once a year, when I become sufficiently annoyed with other people because they post things on Facebook that get my security nerves up, I will post messages like: stop telling people you're not home, or be careful with screen shots and signatures that reveal what kind of device you have.
Though the biggest anecdote I tell my friends, which in general seems to make them stop and think about things, is that if I really wanted to take up as an identity thief, I'd probably become a hairdresser. Think about how many small-talk questions they ask (it's alarming how often they ask if I have any plans for the weekend; my answer is always "staying home and cleaning the house"). Of course, I lie like a bastard if I want to be polite that day (other times I give short answers in a tone that indicates I'm not much in the mood for chit-chat) and tip generously regardless.
Point I'm making is that you should always kind of assume that everyone is at a risk for cyberattacks. There are just different vectors to get there.
I was getting the "we've scanned your computer and there were errors on it" call from "Microsoft", and I played along for a little while. And then when I challenged the guy about actually working for Microsoft, he said something to the effect of the fact that he can't lie because he's from Microsoft.
They reassert the lie as if it somehow becomes truer and less absurd the more they say it.
I mean, the best possible thing ever would be absolutely no reboots ever. I generally don't like reboots on principle because it kills the chance for new stories with new characters to be told in new worlds.
I'm not really on board with idea that because it isn't YOUR generation's Star Trek, it isn't Star Trek at all.
The problem is, if rebooting is unavoidable, you have a generation consuming the product that didn't grow up in the generation that produced it. Consequently, they don't need the franchise to be the thing that back in the day you had.
And I say this as a Trek fan, lamenting for the morality plays of yesteryear. There's new ground that can be broken in that arena, for sure, but audiences don't really want that. I have to check myself and remember that I'm older now, and nobody's making that movie for me.
So this puts the filmmakers, who I want to be optimistic about (they make it difficult, I know), in a terrible position: they either have to fail at being Gene Roddenberry (or George Lucas, as we shall see at the end of the year), or sink/swim at being themselves. I'd prefer the latter, because at least I always have reruns.
"Netflix, which has forcefully advocated carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users.... Neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system."
Neutrality, to the best of my understanding, is handled at the service provider level.
Service providers don't have any responsibility for the apps that developers create, and it would be impossible to regulate such a thing. Not figuratively impossible. LITERALLY impossible.
Blackberry's a dying brand, and with a CEO whose believes the mountain should come to Mohammed, it's no wonder.
So, giving my personal experience is "karma whoring" and I should just shut the hell up until I've taken my lashings like everyone else?
What's your benchmark, then? When do I get to say there ISN'T a problem with sexism?
And what's the problem with being a "gender egalitarian"? I've watched sexism happen in my life, I've watched reverse sexism happen. To me and to others. Maybe it's time MORE people came out as gender egalitarian, louder and stronger, so that people can actually engage with the notion that today's feminism isn't about equality but about how women are beyond reproach when accused of things like abuse?
The fact is, I HAVE experienced harassment and discrimination, but I'm not calling it a "universal problem" anymore, because it isn't. I had to learn to pick up and move on and find places where there isn't discrimination, because there are plenty of places where there isn't, and I know plenty of women that are doing just fine, thank you very much.
And there are plenty of places in gaming where women aren't harassed and discriminated against. I never said there weren't any places where that happens, just that it's not near the problem many feminists make it out to be.
What you're talking about is like saying there's a crime epidemic everywhere because a few bad neighborhoods are overrun by thugs and gangs. Yes, those things are bad. Yes, people are never going to stop committing crimes. But that doesn't mean there's a crime epidemic. The same way there isn't a rape culture (except for the inconvenient truth of rape culture happening in prisons among male populations, but rape is only a sensitive issue to women, apparently).
So yeah, I'm going to be a little patronizing here, but sorry if my enthusiasm for my own personal experience is kind of a bummer to you and doesn't meet up with the notion of the terrible experiences of women (myself included) you're characterizing here, but it's never going to get better if we don't acknowledge that there IS an upside and yes, we ARE getting there.
Well, yeah. If there's one thing I've had repeatedly beaten into my head having been a corporate monster at least for a couple of years, it's: "He who has the gold makes the rules", or, complimentary-wise: "The victor writes the history books."
So, if you want to "win" at the popularity game, you always have to stay ahead of what's popular at the time.
Or, do what I did and stop giving a shit. That worked wonders for my stress levels.
I have pro-vax people that I'm friends with on Facebook.
Same with anti-vax.
They've been passive-aggressively cross-posting articles on vaccination against each other for quite some time (they know each other as well in addition to knowing me).
I think I'd find it funny if they started slamming each other with "false" flags. It's merely one more bitchy move in the Facebook meta-narrative.
"Flag false if you disagree!" will be the new "Like and share if you agree!"
I don't disagree that it's a stepping stone. And that's good. I believe in continuous education.
I just don't like the simplistic promise from the President that the OP quotes. "[H]igh-paying jobs like coding" is the part that rankles me especially. It's an overly-simplistic view of the state of high-paying jobs. They're frequently inaccessible to most people for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that a few community college courses are not the key to that door.
It gives the impression that a high-paying job is relatively easy to get, and that's just not true.
Community colleges are not equipped to train people for high-paying coding jobs. They can teach you the basics, sure, but any kind of advanced programming skill comes from interning, mentorship and/or *gasp* actually sitting home and coding, coding, coding. All night, non-stop, my-brain-is-a-compiler-now coding. Most people aren't fit for that, and it's not a crime to point that out.
The real experts are well aware that a few non-elite college classes aren't going to fill the advanced skill level, high-paying, rock-star-coding-ninja slots, and the President is doing a vast disservice in painting a rosy picture that communicates to people that all you need is a couple of entry-level courses and you too can be a professional coder, when the real problem here is access to the jobs that will get you the experience and the status.
And where are those slots advertised? Hint: not in the community college placement offices.
(Apologies if I sound glib to the parent poster; I mean only to be glib towards the original quote.)
I've waffled for years about whether or not I should consider myself a feminist, especially considering the personal stakes involved (female, engineer).
The GamerGate business shoved me the hell out of it, particularly since I have Atheism+ bullies as friends-of-friends. They're the type who are not gamers, have done no research into gaming journalism, but sure-as-hell sided with Quinn without so much as a lick of involvement in gaming culture (or science fiction, BDSM, Heavy Metal music, etc...).
They're the kind of SJWs who squat on any subculture with whom they can come up with a beef that on the surface looks like sexism, and rely on the subculture under scrutiny to be too far into the realm of "the other" for normal people to disagree because of stereotypes. So, people without the time or the inclination to research, or find it terribly inconvenient just fall in line, or in the case of ABC's Nightline profile last week, just keep mentioning things in the same breath to reinforce the association without there actually being a tangible association to make.
(I defy anyone who watched Nightline's "harassment in gaming story" to truly PROVE that gaming culture as a whole is really behind the harassment without cherry-picking examples from games.)
In all fairness, harassment is wrong, and Quinn should not have received it, but the correct response would have been "find the individuals responsible and hold them responsible to the fullest extent of the law", not "WAAAAAH! Neck-bearded man-children want to keep me...umm, US, I mean, US, that's right, WOMEN out of gaming because they hate WOMEN. MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY!", while using their sympathetic media friends to bolster their story.
Victims, of course. Victims who happen to have the media on their side already.
They aren't gamers. They just want the moral high-ground over low-hanging fruit.
And that's lazy. That's not hard work.
Feminism, if it were truly about the equality that women just don't have yet, should be about hard work. About changing the perceptions of what women are and what women want, not about scolding men until they're cowed into the "right" way of thinking by blunt-force messaging or peer pressure.
So, I'm a gender egalitarian, and anti-feminist. There.
As someone who's both read "The Zoe Post" and who has been in abusive relationships before (which is ultimately how she came to my attention, not the gaming stuff), let me offer a different perspective.
It seems to me that Quinn was a rather nasty piece of work. Putting aside anything to do with gaming journalism, I'd say she was a full-on sociopath. And it isn't misogyny to point out that she was an emotional abuser. Based on everything I've seen, and lack of refutation on her part, or anyone else's for that matter, to the contrary, I can't even give her the benefit of the doubt.
Now, you can err on the side of "personal business, don't air dirty laundry" here, but the thing about sociopaths is that they know there is always someone around the corner to manipulate.
Maybe what Gjoni did was wrong, and maybe the response to it was disproportionate (and NO, I am not anti-GamerGate; in fact, I have a problem with every single woman who's come out and said "it must be GamerGate" every time they are threatened...I am a believer in personal responsibility, and with that comes assignment of personal responsibility to others as well).
BUT, let me pose this question: how do you fitfully punish a sociopath so that the consequences take real effect? Particularly since emotional abuse is difficult to prosecute and damn near impossible when it's a woman committing the offense (yes, dammit, women CAN be abusers, and it is deeply frustrating when I see so-called "feminists" hide behind "misogyny" and the "weak little woman" stereotype to get out of jail free; it's truly funny how feminism is about equality but not at all about personal responsibility)?
Well, if you let a sociopath know that there's nobody left to manipulate, that they ALL know now what your game is, maybe they have incentive to change, to seek help, to become better people?
It's a dream, of course. It's a dream of abuse victims like me. That abusers have no outlets left. That all potential targets are now on their guard and won't play the game. That abusers get frozen out and realize that it is upon them to change. That there's a true reckoning involved, not more potential victims down the road.
You may not like what Gjoni did, that's certainly your right. But remember, when you deal with sociopaths, the ideal of a polite society flies right out the window.
Rosa Parks was an activist, not a Social Justice Warrior.
The difference (alas not mine):
An activist fights for a ramp into a building for handicapped people.
Social Justice Warriors fight to remove the stairs, for the misbegotten fear that someone might be offended because a handicapped person can't use them.
I read this site for news about technology and my rights.
When society imposes upon me the way in which I choose to raise my children, especially when that imposition results in a legal liability, I think that sort of thing matters.
Personal problems are way too broad a spectrum for teachers to have to deal with - that's why colleges have counselors, no?
On the other hand, there's a finite number of ways that students react to not getting the grade they want (all of which have been observed by teachers since time immemorial), and then there's whether or not they can uncouple not understanding the material from not liking the teacher and coping strategies for both of those things.
That's fine and dandy. I actually tried that approach, and was met with the stubbornness of "nope, sorry, not even going to try" replies. They were there because someone told them this was a class they had to take. They were dead set against being there and no amount of support was going to fix the problem.
It worked for you, and I concede that it works for some that are motivated enough to try. I offered up front to help students who said they "didn't like" math, but you can't help anyone that doesn't want to be helped.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the educational process is a two-way street. If you're willing to learn, I'm willing to teach. Both sides have got to put in the effort.
If I can't get through to you and you're just going to sit there and ask me to hold your hand because you decided you weren't going to bother, I can't help you, I can't fix you, and I am not a failure because you decided that you were never going to learn no matter what.
Now hold on here, let's not generalize to the point of absurdity.
Just because everyone gets an education, does not necessarily mean they come out of it educated.
Not everyone who walks into a classroom does so because they have an appreciation for education. Many do so because they think that's what they "have" to do. Ask any college teacher, and I'm sure they'll tell you about experiences with students who have made it almost antagonistically clear that don't really want to learn, they just want the job that comes with the piece of paper. It doesn't make for a competitive or in fact competent work force. It only makes a work force that's flooded with cheap, subpar labor.
If in this country we had a better attitude towards education, I might be inclined to agree with you. But I've been on both sides of the professor's desk. I've been in classes for certifications. I've been a student in online courses. If there's one thing I've learned is that there's no great vigor for education for its own sake and for the sake of improving the fields in which people are studying.
There's more vigor for making sure as many people pass the classes as possible for profiting schools, for profiting industries that enjoy a marketplace of cheap labor, for people who think the piece of paper is the only real goal and to hell with actually -caring- about what they spent so much time studying.
You want a cultural revolution? You make sure that every child wants to learn. You make sure every child remembers that when they study and gets the facts wrong, it isn't because they're the wrong color or sex. You make sure that every child remembers that life isn't fair and they don't deserve cookies for simply showing up.
You make sure that every child has it drilled into his or her head that the world owes them nothing, and they will invariably put in more than they are ever going to get back.
I too would love an educated society. But the educated society I want has to want it just as much as I do.
Former algebra-based science CC teacher here. (Admittedly, I wasn't very good, thus "former", but I don't think that nullifies the experience of student attitudes.)
I had at least one student per semester tell me they "didn't like" math. Wasn't my problem, but I was discouraged from pointing that out to students. Also had students try and haggle with me for transferable credits at the end of the semester (that they didn't earn...I had one try to go to the department head and say that the established system of grading was wrong and that based on her system, she would have passed the class.)
Now, let's talk about what college was like when I was a freshman in the mid-90's at a four-year college for EE. I had to take a "Freshman Seminar" (a forced-to, no-credit class) wherein we discussed the Dewey Decimal system (stuff people who are in college should already know), rather than, say, strategies for getting good grades and checking yourself for bad behaviors when you don't get the grades you want.
There were even classes structured around the concept of "Test Anxiety Syndrome", again, something that, if you can't cope with taking tests, college is not for you.
Were I queen for a few years, I'd have a mandatory class at every college for freshmen entitled: "You think you're the first person to have that problem?"
So, it isn't just community colleges. And it isn't a recent problem. Students have had bad attitudes and expected to be catered to long before now, it's just that we're starting to feel the long-term effects of such initiatives.
Or maybe they're trying to promote the theory that the guns CAN'T be controlled, and that maybe if people actually see them and not see them as some sort of amorphous threat that Government is shouting down as bad, maybe people will also ask questions about the ability of the guns to shoot, and to kill, and to be better educated about the brand new thing they're pushing as a supposed threat?
I mean think about it, the worst thing for any lawmaker trying to regulate 3D printers is for people to know exactly what a hobbyist with a Makerbot is actually capable of.
I'm only going to comment on this as you failed to digest my entire post, as the one point I made is part of a larger set of problems I find with Sarkeesian as a whole.
You can disagree with one post, you can disagree with my entire post, but to say I don't really understand based on that point alone shows that you either have no interest in actually arguing and shutting me down because I disagree with you, or because you don't understand that Sarkeesian really IS a pretty big hypocrite, and the gender signifiers thing is a small part of that problem, and you don't like the fact that I pointed it out.
Let's put GamerGate aside and get to the real issue here.
We're dealing with someone who:
-Calls particular "gender signifiers" sexist, but insists on wearing them throughout her videos -Claims to want open discussion, but disables comments and ratings on her videos -Claims to want academic acceptance of her materials as part of classroom curricula, but would rather do this on the strength of public opinion rather than professional peer review -Claims she played video games as a kid, but then later claimed she didn't really play video games -Makes wild claims about the pervasiveness of sexist tropes in video games in wagging-finger tones, but then caps off her monologues by saying "you can enjoy them anyway", which comes across like a guy who's been making advances at you all night, and when you tell him he's not interested, he says "oh, I was just kidding". -Makes her claims of victimhood (and ascribing them to all women, thus creating a self-perpetuating system of usefulness for herself) the frequent centerpiece of her discussions instead of solutions for solving the problems of sexism in video games
I'd like to tell you, while I shouldn't have to, I will, that I'm a gender egalitarian, I'm female, non-white, and an engineer.
I also think that both sides of the GamerGate debate are woefully off their rockers.
I wasn't offended by Dr. Matt Taylor's shirt. I wasn't scared out of STEM because of it. I HAVE experienced sexual harassment. I currently do work in an environment where there's plenty of opportunity for me to succeed and where I have not, nor have other women in my group felt threatened or abused, so I don't feel systematically oppressed.
Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I'm lucky. But the fact is, I believe that in the United States, women have far fewer problems than they used to, and the few problems they have left aren't going to be solved by jamming the gender divide into every topic, but rather globally engaging and not accusing men, and finally, just by proving you can do what they do just as well and provide products that sell.
Anita accuses, by virtue of her constant victimhood. If that's "not giving up" and "fighting the good fight", then I take personal offense because she gives a bad name to me, who does more for women - maybe locally, if not globally - day in and day out.
Slashdot Mirror
"Foggy memories and the halo of nostalgia have a way of turning crap into gold"
I've never been able to bring myself to watch full episodes of the old Thundercats cartoons.
They were my favorite thing growing up, but a few YouTube clips later and I feel really old and weird.
Joss Whedon? No thank you.
I realize he's capitalized greatly on being the writer/director of The Avengers (everything he's done previously is cult-popular), but he's really not the be-all end-all nerd king. Love him or hate him, Cameron trumps him for technical merit, even if his stories lack a little soul. (IMO I've never gotten "soul" from Whedon, just a lot of hipster cynicism and shallow grandstanding.)
In fact, if we're trawling the Disney network for names, I'd go right ahead and put my vote (useless though it is) towards John Lasseter. If not, Neil Blomkamp or Guillermo del Toro.
All of those guys have a distinct track record for both visuals and story concepts (execution is certainly debatable). I'm just really tired of the idea among my peers and fandoms that Joss Whedon's the answer, when there are far superior writer/directors in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.
I have a minor interest in social engineering, partly due to my run-ins with sociopaths, but psychology has always been an interest of mine in general.
If there's one thing I, without fail, lecture my less-tech-savvy friends on anytime I ever have to fix anything computer-related, is that they are always the weak link in computer security.
At least once a year, when I become sufficiently annoyed with other people because they post things on Facebook that get my security nerves up, I will post messages like: stop telling people you're not home, or be careful with screen shots and signatures that reveal what kind of device you have.
Though the biggest anecdote I tell my friends, which in general seems to make them stop and think about things, is that if I really wanted to take up as an identity thief, I'd probably become a hairdresser. Think about how many small-talk questions they ask (it's alarming how often they ask if I have any plans for the weekend; my answer is always "staying home and cleaning the house"). Of course, I lie like a bastard if I want to be polite that day (other times I give short answers in a tone that indicates I'm not much in the mood for chit-chat) and tip generously regardless.
Point I'm making is that you should always kind of assume that everyone is at a risk for cyberattacks. There are just different vectors to get there.
Oh, they love to be challenged.
I was getting the "we've scanned your computer and there were errors on it" call from "Microsoft", and I played along for a little while. And then when I challenged the guy about actually working for Microsoft, he said something to the effect of the fact that he can't lie because he's from Microsoft.
They reassert the lie as if it somehow becomes truer and less absurd the more they say it.
I agree with you...sorta.
I mean, the best possible thing ever would be absolutely no reboots ever. I generally don't like reboots on principle because it kills the chance for new stories with new characters to be told in new worlds.
I'm not really on board with idea that because it isn't YOUR generation's Star Trek, it isn't Star Trek at all.
The problem is, if rebooting is unavoidable, you have a generation consuming the product that didn't grow up in the generation that produced it. Consequently, they don't need the franchise to be the thing that back in the day you had.
And I say this as a Trek fan, lamenting for the morality plays of yesteryear. There's new ground that can be broken in that arena, for sure, but audiences don't really want that. I have to check myself and remember that I'm older now, and nobody's making that movie for me.
So this puts the filmmakers, who I want to be optimistic about (they make it difficult, I know), in a terrible position: they either have to fail at being Gene Roddenberry (or George Lucas, as we shall see at the end of the year), or sink/swim at being themselves. I'd prefer the latter, because at least I always have reruns.
FTFS:
"Netflix, which has forcefully advocated carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. ... Neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system."
Neutrality, to the best of my understanding, is handled at the service provider level.
Service providers don't have any responsibility for the apps that developers create, and it would be impossible to regulate such a thing. Not figuratively impossible. LITERALLY impossible.
Blackberry's a dying brand, and with a CEO whose believes the mountain should come to Mohammed, it's no wonder.
Citations, please.
No, really. I'd like some citations.
So, giving my personal experience is "karma whoring" and I should just shut the hell up until I've taken my lashings like everyone else?
What's your benchmark, then? When do I get to say there ISN'T a problem with sexism?
And what's the problem with being a "gender egalitarian"? I've watched sexism happen in my life, I've watched reverse sexism happen. To me and to others. Maybe it's time MORE people came out as gender egalitarian, louder and stronger, so that people can actually engage with the notion that today's feminism isn't about equality but about how women are beyond reproach when accused of things like abuse?
The fact is, I HAVE experienced harassment and discrimination, but I'm not calling it a "universal problem" anymore, because it isn't. I had to learn to pick up and move on and find places where there isn't discrimination, because there are plenty of places where there isn't, and I know plenty of women that are doing just fine, thank you very much.
And there are plenty of places in gaming where women aren't harassed and discriminated against. I never said there weren't any places where that happens, just that it's not near the problem many feminists make it out to be.
What you're talking about is like saying there's a crime epidemic everywhere because a few bad neighborhoods are overrun by thugs and gangs. Yes, those things are bad. Yes, people are never going to stop committing crimes. But that doesn't mean there's a crime epidemic. The same way there isn't a rape culture (except for the inconvenient truth of rape culture happening in prisons among male populations, but rape is only a sensitive issue to women, apparently).
So yeah, I'm going to be a little patronizing here, but sorry if my enthusiasm for my own personal experience is kind of a bummer to you and doesn't meet up with the notion of the terrible experiences of women (myself included) you're characterizing here, but it's never going to get better if we don't acknowledge that there IS an upside and yes, we ARE getting there.
Well, yeah. If there's one thing I've had repeatedly beaten into my head having been a corporate monster at least for a couple of years, it's: "He who has the gold makes the rules", or, complimentary-wise: "The victor writes the history books."
So, if you want to "win" at the popularity game, you always have to stay ahead of what's popular at the time.
Or, do what I did and stop giving a shit. That worked wonders for my stress levels.
I have pro-vax people that I'm friends with on Facebook.
Same with anti-vax.
They've been passive-aggressively cross-posting articles on vaccination against each other for quite some time (they know each other as well in addition to knowing me).
I think I'd find it funny if they started slamming each other with "false" flags. It's merely one more bitchy move in the Facebook meta-narrative.
"Flag false if you disagree!" will be the new "Like and share if you agree!"
I don't disagree that it's a stepping stone. And that's good. I believe in continuous education.
I just don't like the simplistic promise from the President that the OP quotes. "[H]igh-paying jobs like coding" is the part that rankles me especially. It's an overly-simplistic view of the state of high-paying jobs. They're frequently inaccessible to most people for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that a few community college courses are not the key to that door.
It gives the impression that a high-paying job is relatively easy to get, and that's just not true.
No, I don't believe it's an actual plan.
I just feel like I have to actually say something like this from time to time so that the words are out in the universe.
If I transmit, maybe someone will receive.
Community colleges are not equipped to train people for high-paying coding jobs. They can teach you the basics, sure, but any kind of advanced programming skill comes from interning, mentorship and/or *gasp* actually sitting home and coding, coding, coding. All night, non-stop, my-brain-is-a-compiler-now coding. Most people aren't fit for that, and it's not a crime to point that out.
The real experts are well aware that a few non-elite college classes aren't going to fill the advanced skill level, high-paying, rock-star-coding-ninja slots, and the President is doing a vast disservice in painting a rosy picture that communicates to people that all you need is a couple of entry-level courses and you too can be a professional coder, when the real problem here is access to the jobs that will get you the experience and the status.
And where are those slots advertised? Hint: not in the community college placement offices.
(Apologies if I sound glib to the parent poster; I mean only to be glib towards the original quote.)
I've waffled for years about whether or not I should consider myself a feminist, especially considering the personal stakes involved (female, engineer).
The GamerGate business shoved me the hell out of it, particularly since I have Atheism+ bullies as friends-of-friends. They're the type who are not gamers, have done no research into gaming journalism, but sure-as-hell sided with Quinn without so much as a lick of involvement in gaming culture (or science fiction, BDSM, Heavy Metal music, etc...).
They're the kind of SJWs who squat on any subculture with whom they can come up with a beef that on the surface looks like sexism, and rely on the subculture under scrutiny to be too far into the realm of "the other" for normal people to disagree because of stereotypes. So, people without the time or the inclination to research, or find it terribly inconvenient just fall in line, or in the case of ABC's Nightline profile last week, just keep mentioning things in the same breath to reinforce the association without there actually being a tangible association to make.
(I defy anyone who watched Nightline's "harassment in gaming story" to truly PROVE that gaming culture as a whole is really behind the harassment without cherry-picking examples from games.)
In all fairness, harassment is wrong, and Quinn should not have received it, but the correct response would have been "find the individuals responsible and hold them responsible to the fullest extent of the law", not "WAAAAAH! Neck-bearded man-children want to keep me...umm, US, I mean, US, that's right, WOMEN out of gaming because they hate WOMEN. MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY!", while using their sympathetic media friends to bolster their story.
Victims, of course. Victims who happen to have the media on their side already.
They aren't gamers. They just want the moral high-ground over low-hanging fruit.
And that's lazy. That's not hard work.
Feminism, if it were truly about the equality that women just don't have yet, should be about hard work. About changing the perceptions of what women are and what women want, not about scolding men until they're cowed into the "right" way of thinking by blunt-force messaging or peer pressure.
So, I'm a gender egalitarian, and anti-feminist. There.
As someone who's both read "The Zoe Post" and who has been in abusive relationships before (which is ultimately how she came to my attention, not the gaming stuff), let me offer a different perspective.
It seems to me that Quinn was a rather nasty piece of work. Putting aside anything to do with gaming journalism, I'd say she was a full-on sociopath. And it isn't misogyny to point out that she was an emotional abuser. Based on everything I've seen, and lack of refutation on her part, or anyone else's for that matter, to the contrary, I can't even give her the benefit of the doubt.
Now, you can err on the side of "personal business, don't air dirty laundry" here, but the thing about sociopaths is that they know there is always someone around the corner to manipulate.
Maybe what Gjoni did was wrong, and maybe the response to it was disproportionate (and NO, I am not anti-GamerGate; in fact, I have a problem with every single woman who's come out and said "it must be GamerGate" every time they are threatened...I am a believer in personal responsibility, and with that comes assignment of personal responsibility to others as well).
BUT, let me pose this question: how do you fitfully punish a sociopath so that the consequences take real effect? Particularly since emotional abuse is difficult to prosecute and damn near impossible when it's a woman committing the offense (yes, dammit, women CAN be abusers, and it is deeply frustrating when I see so-called "feminists" hide behind "misogyny" and the "weak little woman" stereotype to get out of jail free; it's truly funny how feminism is about equality but not at all about personal responsibility)?
Well, if you let a sociopath know that there's nobody left to manipulate, that they ALL know now what your game is, maybe they have incentive to change, to seek help, to become better people?
It's a dream, of course. It's a dream of abuse victims like me. That abusers have no outlets left. That all potential targets are now on their guard and won't play the game. That abusers get frozen out and realize that it is upon them to change. That there's a true reckoning involved, not more potential victims down the road.
You may not like what Gjoni did, that's certainly your right. But remember, when you deal with sociopaths, the ideal of a polite society flies right out the window.
Rosa Parks was an activist, not a Social Justice Warrior.
The difference (alas not mine):
An activist fights for a ramp into a building for handicapped people.
Social Justice Warriors fight to remove the stairs, for the misbegotten fear that someone might be offended because a handicapped person can't use them.
Matters to me.
I read this site for news about technology and my rights.
When society imposes upon me the way in which I choose to raise my children, especially when that imposition results in a legal liability, I think that sort of thing matters.
Personal problems are way too broad a spectrum for teachers to have to deal with - that's why colleges have counselors, no?
On the other hand, there's a finite number of ways that students react to not getting the grade they want (all of which have been observed by teachers since time immemorial), and then there's whether or not they can uncouple not understanding the material from not liking the teacher and coping strategies for both of those things.
That's fine and dandy. I actually tried that approach, and was met with the stubbornness of "nope, sorry, not even going to try" replies. They were there because someone told them this was a class they had to take. They were dead set against being there and no amount of support was going to fix the problem.
It worked for you, and I concede that it works for some that are motivated enough to try. I offered up front to help students who said they "didn't like" math, but you can't help anyone that doesn't want to be helped.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the educational process is a two-way street. If you're willing to learn, I'm willing to teach. Both sides have got to put in the effort.
If I can't get through to you and you're just going to sit there and ask me to hold your hand because you decided you weren't going to bother, I can't help you, I can't fix you, and I am not a failure because you decided that you were never going to learn no matter what.
Now hold on here, let's not generalize to the point of absurdity.
Just because everyone gets an education, does not necessarily mean they come out of it educated.
Not everyone who walks into a classroom does so because they have an appreciation for education. Many do so because they think that's what they "have" to do. Ask any college teacher, and I'm sure they'll tell you about experiences with students who have made it almost antagonistically clear that don't really want to learn, they just want the job that comes with the piece of paper. It doesn't make for a competitive or in fact competent work force. It only makes a work force that's flooded with cheap, subpar labor.
If in this country we had a better attitude towards education, I might be inclined to agree with you. But I've been on both sides of the professor's desk. I've been in classes for certifications. I've been a student in online courses. If there's one thing I've learned is that there's no great vigor for education for its own sake and for the sake of improving the fields in which people are studying.
There's more vigor for making sure as many people pass the classes as possible for profiting schools, for profiting industries that enjoy a marketplace of cheap labor, for people who think the piece of paper is the only real goal and to hell with actually -caring- about what they spent so much time studying.
You want a cultural revolution? You make sure that every child wants to learn. You make sure every child remembers that when they study and gets the facts wrong, it isn't because they're the wrong color or sex. You make sure that every child remembers that life isn't fair and they don't deserve cookies for simply showing up.
You make sure that every child has it drilled into his or her head that the world owes them nothing, and they will invariably put in more than they are ever going to get back.
I too would love an educated society. But the educated society I want has to want it just as much as I do.
Former algebra-based science CC teacher here. (Admittedly, I wasn't very good, thus "former", but I don't think that nullifies the experience of student attitudes.)
I had at least one student per semester tell me they "didn't like" math. Wasn't my problem, but I was discouraged from pointing that out to students. Also had students try and haggle with me for transferable credits at the end of the semester (that they didn't earn...I had one try to go to the department head and say that the established system of grading was wrong and that based on her system, she would have passed the class.)
Now, let's talk about what college was like when I was a freshman in the mid-90's at a four-year college for EE. I had to take a "Freshman Seminar" (a forced-to, no-credit class) wherein we discussed the Dewey Decimal system (stuff people who are in college should already know), rather than, say, strategies for getting good grades and checking yourself for bad behaviors when you don't get the grades you want.
There were even classes structured around the concept of "Test Anxiety Syndrome", again, something that, if you can't cope with taking tests, college is not for you.
Were I queen for a few years, I'd have a mandatory class at every college for freshmen entitled: "You think you're the first person to have that problem?"
So, it isn't just community colleges. And it isn't a recent problem. Students have had bad attitudes and expected to be catered to long before now, it's just that we're starting to feel the long-term effects of such initiatives.
They made up a new term by attaching "cyber" to one of their existing term to denote the 'foolishness' of their patients
I have a hard time taking anything titled with "cyber" in it seriously.
Everytime I hear "cybersecurity" I keep thinking we're getting a call from several decades back and science fiction is looking for a lost prefix.
Or maybe they're trying to promote the theory that the guns CAN'T be controlled, and that maybe if people actually see them and not see them as some sort of amorphous threat that Government is shouting down as bad, maybe people will also ask questions about the ability of the guns to shoot, and to kill, and to be better educated about the brand new thing they're pushing as a supposed threat?
I mean think about it, the worst thing for any lawmaker trying to regulate 3D printers is for people to know exactly what a hobbyist with a Makerbot is actually capable of.
I'm only going to comment on this as you failed to digest my entire post, as the one point I made is part of a larger set of problems I find with Sarkeesian as a whole.
You can disagree with one post, you can disagree with my entire post, but to say I don't really understand based on that point alone shows that you either have no interest in actually arguing and shutting me down because I disagree with you, or because you don't understand that Sarkeesian really IS a pretty big hypocrite, and the gender signifiers thing is a small part of that problem, and you don't like the fact that I pointed it out.
Given up what exactly?
Let's put GamerGate aside and get to the real issue here.
We're dealing with someone who:
-Calls particular "gender signifiers" sexist, but insists on wearing them throughout her videos
-Claims to want open discussion, but disables comments and ratings on her videos
-Claims to want academic acceptance of her materials as part of classroom curricula, but would rather do this on the strength of public opinion rather than professional peer review
-Claims she played video games as a kid, but then later claimed she didn't really play video games
-Makes wild claims about the pervasiveness of sexist tropes in video games in wagging-finger tones, but then caps off her monologues by saying "you can enjoy them anyway", which comes across like a guy who's been making advances at you all night, and when you tell him he's not interested, he says "oh, I was just kidding".
-Makes her claims of victimhood (and ascribing them to all women, thus creating a self-perpetuating system of usefulness for herself) the frequent centerpiece of her discussions instead of solutions for solving the problems of sexism in video games
I'd like to tell you, while I shouldn't have to, I will, that I'm a gender egalitarian, I'm female, non-white, and an engineer.
I also think that both sides of the GamerGate debate are woefully off their rockers.
I wasn't offended by Dr. Matt Taylor's shirt. I wasn't scared out of STEM because of it. I HAVE experienced sexual harassment. I currently do work in an environment where there's plenty of opportunity for me to succeed and where I have not, nor have other women in my group felt threatened or abused, so I don't feel systematically oppressed.
Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I'm lucky. But the fact is, I believe that in the United States, women have far fewer problems than they used to, and the few problems they have left aren't going to be solved by jamming the gender divide into every topic, but rather globally engaging and not accusing men, and finally, just by proving you can do what they do just as well and provide products that sell.
Anita accuses, by virtue of her constant victimhood. If that's "not giving up" and "fighting the good fight", then I take personal offense because she gives a bad name to me, who does more for women - maybe locally, if not globally - day in and day out.