Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 09:36:16 PM

So what I hear you saying

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 14, 2023, 09:31:11 PM
That's false too.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1250206/gender-marketing-north-america/

You can always tell someone who is defending an ideologically motivated assumption.  Their arguments change as they are shot down but their conclusion never shifts no matter how much contradictory evidence is presented.

I mean, you can argue about causality. But I am entirely correct about women in financial positions in corporations.
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2023/feb/the-number-cfo-women-hits-all-time-high.html

Quote
Women made up 16% of CFOs last year, which is up from 6.3% in 2004, when Crist Kolder began tracking the data.

Wow! So woke!

I thought the connection of all this to the thread was when you (pawsplay) were saying that women (Who make up most of marketing and advertising, so it threw me for a loop that in the rpg sphere this wouldn't be the case. Though on average prior to now I could maybe believe it due to numbers of specific nerd demographics in the hobby.) were underrepresented in WotC, or (Somehow? Despite actively curating authors by race and trumpeting inclusivity initiatives.) in its hiring practices.

Either numbers matter, and marketing has a numeric bias in that sense towards a female perspective more generally... or they don't and I'm not sure what that would really imply within the context of the original claims. Which again, kind of confused me, because WotC has actively minority preferential hiring practices. To the point of making it a job requirement to have specific ethnicities as the only ones allowed for authoring certain books.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 09:44:23 PM

I mean, you can argue about causality. But I am entirely correct about women in financial positions in corporations.
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2023/feb/the-number-cfo-women-hits-all-time-high.html
Wow! So woke!

If you cherry-pick carefully enough and shift the goalposts enough times.  The sources I found indicate anything from a slight minority (46%) to a slight majority (53%) to a significant majority (60%)

Of course you have now moved the goalpost from women in financing to women in that specific position.  There's also the general assumption that any statistical disparity must prove discrimination.  It doesn't and never has.  Statistical disparities, by themselves, prove nothing. 

The finance bit is probably true, given roughly 40-ish percent of finance is women, and something less than 20% in notable leadership positions, though active measures are being taken to shift that in recent years. That said... How many efforts at building a glass escalator for men in female dominated industries have been lauded as opposed to maligned on parts of the left as a negative sociological factor? I will ask. Because if equal representation only goes one way, that's arguably a problem. And I would personally argue that would be woke policy, to make it only go one way. Or to assume truly equal outcomes, as opposed to opportunity, are required, if preferences and causality do differ. I do agree that opportunities should be made more meritocratic and equal. I may have differing views in certain areas and disagreement with respect to particular demographics being made "more" equal than others. And with discrimination in hiring being seen as a good thing under any circumstances.

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 14, 2023, 10:01:13 PM
The finance bit is probably true, given roughly 40-ish percent of finance is women, and something less than 20% in notable leadership positions, though active measures are being taken to shift that in recent years. T

The existence of a disparity does not prove that the disparity is caused by discrimination.  People say that "only" 16% of CFOs are women and then leave it hanging as if this proves that this disparity must be caused by sexism.  It doesn't though.  Like the sipposed wage gap, the idea that this is at least partly because men and women have different preferences and make different choices on average is just ignored.  Any reason other than ism is ignored.

Group that progressives promote is massively overrepresented in a field or sport: "This is fantastic! It just shows that they were always better at the thing, but were held back by Istiphobia! We need to up the numbers, 80% isn't enough!"

Group that progressives hate is even marginally overrepresented in a field or sport:
"This is terrible! Super competent people are being kept out of this thing, purely because of Istaphobia!

Things need to be brought up to a perfect ratio with demographics! Oh we overshot, and the new groups are now way overrepresented? This is fantastic! It just shows that..."

Quote from: Grognard GM on December 14, 2023, 10:16:39 PM
Group that progressives promote is massively overrepresented in a field or sport: "This is fantastic! It just shows that they were always better at the thing, but were held back by Istiphobia! We need to up the numbers, 80% isn't enough!"

Group that progressives hate is even marginally overrepresented in a field or sport:
"This is terrible! Super competent people are being kept out of this thing, purely because of Istaphobia!

Things need to be brought up to a perfect ratio with demographics! Oh we overshot, and the new groups are now way overrepresented? This is fantastic! It just shows that..."

The progressive's concern for statistical disparities is very selective.  Blacks are massively overrepresented in basketball but no one seems to find this a problem and there's no demand for inclusivity and diversity programs to get more whites into the sport.  On the other hand, the NHL has been under pressure for years because of overrepresentation of white in the sport and has recently created a Player Inclusion Coalition To Promote Diversity In Hockey to address the terrible problem of too many white people playing hockey.  The publishing industry has been dominated by women for some time now but this is, apparently, not a problem and there's no need for special programs to recruit more men to address this disparity.  Their concern is also limited to certain, prestigious professions.  No one is bemoaning the fact that ~94% of garbage collectors are men. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 14, 2023, 10:35:20 PMNo one is bemoaning the fact that ~94% of garbage collectors are men.

OMG, that's awful!

6% are women that are made to pick up garbage?

"ONLY 20% OF CEOS IN FINANCE ARE WOMEN! REEEEEEE!"

Yeah, well like only 2% of coal miners are women, but no one gives a single fuck. Because that job sucks ass.

While I tend to disagree with most of what Pawsplay has ever said here, I think you guys misunderstood the post that started this whole tangent.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 12, 2023, 08:25:10 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 12, 2023, 08:11:44 PM
I think my thread is up in the political subforum if folks would be interested in posting on that kind of thing or any counterarguments  there. 

I guess to try to drag things back on track locally, do we think the marketing and sales data is being actively distorted in potentially unethical ways that are aligned with woke values? I feel like if so, that might be proof that the companies are both woke and acting in negative/bad faith fashion.

I think it's more likely that the same old biases suppress participation of women and minorities in marketing research.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on December 12, 2023, 07:37:36 PM
I'm (among other things) a statistician. Fight me.

Like, baseball, or what?

Pawsplay wasn't referring to women and minorities in the profession of marketing, rather women and minorities participating in marketing research. The claim was that the "old biases" were responsible for one or both of the following:

A) Women and minorities weren't the target of studies, polls, etc because it was believed they weren't the audience
B) Women and minorities self selected out of such research because they felt they weren't the target audience

Then again maybe I'm misunderstanding and Pawsplay can come along and correct as needed.

Pretty sure that the broader context was a claim that within mainstream TTRPGs, women and minorities are both kept out of marketing research (as in marketing and advertising more broadly, hence the exchanges on demographics there). Likewise, also that the marketing division does not target them adequately (WotC was used as an example, which struck me as very weird given their values, hiring practices, and marketing strategies).

A would very much not make sense in my understanding of WotC as a company, or I suspect within the context of similar companies within the industry, which make up most of its market share. Not even talking about smaller companies like the Blue Rose folks.

B could make sense, but only if they don't engage with TTRPGs and this mainstream effort towards them. Which, maybe, but I doubt it, and they seem like a more competent and proactive player base to me than that. Also, it would require the literal professionals on marketing at a left leaning company who are targeting them to really drop the ball in ways that don't make sense for highly paid experts at a major corporation to do. Especially one with the values and assumptions that WotC has, from a left-leaning perspective, that would push them to acknowledge any such gaps.

Quote from: rgalex on December 15, 2023, 09:44:04 AM
While I tend to disagree with most of what Pawsplay has ever said here, I think you guys misunderstood the post that started this whole tangent.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 12, 2023, 08:25:10 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 12, 2023, 08:11:44 PM
I think my thread is up in the political subforum if folks would be interested in posting on that kind of thing or any counterarguments  there. 

I guess to try to drag things back on track locally, do we think the marketing and sales data is being actively distorted in potentially unethical ways that are aligned with woke values? I feel like if so, that might be proof that the companies are both woke and acting in negative/bad faith fashion.

I think it's more likely that the same old biases suppress participation of women and minorities in marketing research.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on December 12, 2023, 07:37:36 PM
I'm (among other things) a statistician. Fight me.

Like, baseball, or what?

Pawsplay wasn't referring to women and minorities in the profession of marketing, rather women and minorities participating in marketing research. The claim was that the "old biases" were responsible for one or both of the following:

A) Women and minorities weren't the target of studies, polls, etc because it was believed they weren't the audience
B) Women and minorities self selected out of such research because they felt they weren't the target audience

Then again maybe I'm misunderstanding and Pawsplay can come along and correct as needed.

Let's say you're correct in your interpretation of pawsplay bullcrap, so women and minorities "didn't participate" in marketing research, what pawsplay calls "old biases" I call empirical knowledge:

I'll restrict myself to D&D because the forum is for that and because what's true in one instance for one product might not be true for other products.

QuoteA) Women and minorities weren't the target of studies, polls, etc because it was believed they weren't the audience

Empirical knowledge, D&D comes from Wargaming, the overwhelming majority of wargamers were? Men, sure, there were some women sprinkled here and there but not in numbers.

Of those who participated in wargaming they were middle class and upwards, Speaking of the US, suburban types.

What was (and is) the "racial" majority in suburbia? White people, even more so back then.

So, you have a new type of game emerging from wargaming, whose player base is made of white suburban types, who are you going to market to?

Now, turns out some women do like the game, so you start including women in your marketing in the form of players in your publicity. But you're still marketing the same product, it's a niche product, for a niche audience, who like it because of how it is.

QuoteB) Women and minorities self selected out of such research because they felt they weren't the target audience

Bullcrap, this is the "If you ONLY change X then more (insert "marginalized group" here) will play!" "argument".

How many black athletes you saw on publicity back then? Not many, did black boys still play ball? Because they found it interesting and because the entry price point was lower. You don't even need regulation equipment to play with your mates on the back alley, street, school, etc.

Why is it that among the poor people in México, Brazil, etc soccer is the favourite sport for boys? You can play with ANY ball, even without shoes.

What pawsplay (and all leftards) want is to change X to appeal to Y audience, something you never see in reverse, nobody is demanding that 50 shades of rape gets changed to appeal to men.

D&Ds target demographic was "people who like to play in an adventure game where they get to pretend to be someone else", if said target audience is/was at one point almost 100% male it was by accident not by discrimination.

If the player base is almost 100% white (in the US) it's not by discrimination (or subconscious biases or other leftard bullshit), it's because the black population in the US deems certaing things as "acting white" so there's a social pressure against partaking in those, you want to "keep it real yo". Therefore black kids are less likelly to play D&D to avoid being bullied by other black kids for "wanting to be white".

Now, what happens when a corporation gives in to the woketard demands and changes the Thing to "appeal to a wider audience"? Sales drop, because whatever other racial, sexual, etc demographics were going to buy your shit are already doing so because they like it as it is, so when you change it you lose your base customer and you gain almost zero new ones.

I can cite countles examples but lets just look at comics, Marvel movies, Star Wars, etc. Changed to "appeal to a wider audience" and now their sales are shit.

Now, woketards can keep on chanting their religious mantras all day, reality doesn't care about their feelings.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 15, 2023, 12:10:57 PMIf the player base is almost 100% white (in the US) it's not by discrimination (or subconscious biases or other leftard bullshit), it's because the black population in the US deems certaing things as "acting white" so there's a social pressure against partaking in those, you want to "keep it real yo". Therefore black kids are less likelly to play D&D to avoid being bullied by other black kids for "wanting to be white".

This is also why the base is disproportionately Middle Class.

I grew up in the British equivalent of the Ghetto, and I was hassled several times for having books in my backpack. Not even nerd books, just the fact I had books was enough.

You're damned right I kept my hobby on the Q.T.

Quote from: Grognard GM on December 15, 2023, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 15, 2023, 12:10:57 PMIf the player base is almost 100% white (in the US) it's not by discrimination (or subconscious biases or other leftard bullshit), it's because the black population in the US deems certaing things as "acting white" so there's a social pressure against partaking in those, you want to "keep it real yo". Therefore black kids are less likelly to play D&D to avoid being bullied by other black kids for "wanting to be white".

This is also why the base is disproportionately Middle Class.

I grew up in the British equivalent of the Ghetto, and I was hassled several times for having books in my backpack. Not even nerd books, just the fact I had books was enough.

You're damned right I kept my hobby on the Q.T.

Up until D&D became popular how were nerds treated by women?

Now, maybe some of those really wanted to play with us but there was social pressure to shun us.

Now they are playing and still want to shun us, to expell us from OUR hobbies.