Quote from: Spinachcat;957178Based on what I've seen at game cons and comic cons, women outnumber men in cosplay and equal the men in LARPS.

From what I've seen through my friends in local Renaissance Fair 'guilds' there is a large percentage of women there as well.

I mentioned this discussion to my friend while we were at Michaels tonight, shopping for her scrapbooking/crafting supplies... asking if her friends ever discuss the lack of men in their hobby. She said, "We don't want any more men in it!"
She also said that she thought it was "kinda creepy" that guys seemed so concerned about attracting more women to 'play with'.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;957190You have, at least, managed to spell this non sequitur correctly. So that's improvement. Good work!

How was what he wrote a non sequitur?

Quote from: jhkimAs far as I know, ads like the Green Ronin one from the OP are extremely rare. I can't think of any other cases, so it seems to me that they are not "considered effectively mandatory" as Brady suggests.

Quote from: Trond;957089For RPGs I agree, so let's not lose our heads here. However, I still see why this pisses people off whenever it happens. Whenever someone caters to men specifically or (God forbid) suggests something is 'only for men' you will hear a scream of outrage from good number of people, while women only groups or whatever are applauded. It's a backlash.

At least within this thread, the screams of outrage are from those who are objecting to Green Ronin. GR are not complaining about others in the industry or demanding exact parity - they're doing their specific project.

I don't think it's required that there be 50% women among RPG players or designers, but if people like Nicole Lindroos - or Stacy Dellorfano (of ConTessa) or others want to work on projects specifically involving women, I think that's fine. It's not required, but I personally enjoy seeing diverse gamers and would encourage it.

Quote from: Trond;957089People are still pushing for more women in sciences for instance. I recently told my hair dresser that of all the university science classes and lab sections I have taught each semester for the last three and a half years  (adds up to about 50 classes including lab sections), I have only had one (1) which was majority men. All the others were majority women, and sometimes nearly all women. She instantly thought this was great, and clap clap etc. So.......I had to wonder that there was apparently no notion that this MIGHT become a problem?

Do you think it is a problem?  I'm not one of those who thinks that every field in every locale needs to have exactly even representation. It might potentially be a problem if men were being systematically discriminated against. However, if men simply aren't choosing to go into these science classes, then that's their choice. Men have plenty of choices, and I'd want to see some more specific evidence that they were being oppressed before coming to that conclusion.

Men aren't going into higher education in the numbers that women are in general. Why that is, I have an opinion but no facts to back it up. One possibility is that careers in business and crafts are more readily available to men.

Quote from: Voros;957322Men aren't going into higher education in the numbers that women are in general. Why that is, I have an opinion but no facts to back it up. One possibility is that careers in business and crafts are more readily available to men.

The whole system is heavily female slanted. Although from what I see (as a lecturer) overseas students from outside NW Europe turn up in about equal numbers, 50-50 male & female. The male overseas students haven't gone through a demoralising female-oriented education system where normal maleness is often pathologised. My home (UK) students are about 80% female.

Quote from: jhkim;957265I don't think it's required that there be 50% women among RPG players or designers, but if people like Nicole Lindroos - or Stacy Dellorfano (of ConTessa) or others want to work on projects specifically involving women, I think that's fine. It's not required, but I personally enjoy seeing diverse gamers and would encourage it.

Too bad they can't seem to manage it without dislocating their elbows from patting their own backs and reinforcing a bullshit narrative for publicity and profit.

I have to admit the biggest problem I have with this is Green Robin using a great idea to bring a little diversity and equality into the industry and dressing it up like they're the second coming. It was the same with Blue Rose, a book I enjoyed, they spent more time going on about how awesome and radically non discriminative they were than promoting the content of the bloody book. And whilst it shouldn't it does sour me on buying their stuff.

Hopefully this new project will be great and if there's enough good hype from gamers I'll take a look but I won't bother checking out the shrine of PC that is their website.

Its a callout to a specific perceived audience that time and again its been shown is louder and more aggressive than it is large. I like to think the debacle with the new Ghostbusters taught Hollywood that, though Hollywood has a notorious history of learning the wrong lessons from its failures. Speaking of, whatever happened with the new "feminism edition" of Swords & Wizardry?

Quote from: Tristram Evans;957375Its a callout to a specific perceived audience that time and again its been shown is louder and more aggressive than it is large. I like to think the debacle with the new Ghostbusters taught Hollywood that, though Hollywood has a notorious history of learning the wrong lessons from its failures. Speaking of, whatever happened with the new "feminism edition" of Swords & Wizardry?

Didn't the neq Ghostbusters do fairly well? It wasn't a blockbuster or anything but there is a sequel in the works?

Quote from: Nexus;957389Didn't the new Ghostbusters do fairly well?

Not according to the Hollywood Reporter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/2016s-biggest-box-office-bombs-958780/item/box-office-bombs-hunstman-959598

Quote from: Nexus;957389Didn't the neq Ghostbusters do fairly well? It wasn't a blockbuster or anything but there is a sequel in the works?

Nope - it lost tens of millions of dollars.

It brought in $230m in the box office.  $34m in video.  But the break-even was $300m.  (and the $300m was in reference to the box-office, so I have no idea if they get the same margin from video)

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ghostbusters-(2016)#tab=summary

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-box-office-loss-sequel-unlikely-918515

It looks like the sequel was announced at release to help gin up support - but with losing $ that's not gonna happen.

Edit: Dang ninjas!

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;957391Not according to the Hollywood Reporter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/2016s-biggest-box-office-bombs-958780/item/box-office-bombs-hunstman-959598

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;957392Nope - it lost tens of millions of dollars.

It brought in $230m in the box office.  $34m in video.  But the break-even was $300m.  (and the $300m was in reference to the box-office, so I have no idea if they get the same margin from video)

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ghostbusters-(2016)#tab=summary

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-box-office-loss-sequel-unlikely-918515

It looks like the sequel was announced at release to help gin up support - but with losing $ that's not gonna happen.

Edit: Dang ninjas!

Huh, damn.  Thanks. The story I got was it was moderate success that made money over seas. Should have done the digging personally.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;957392Edit: Dang ninjas!

Quote from: Nexus;957393Huh, damn.  Thanks. The story I got was it was moderate success that made money over seas. Should have done the digging personally.

I think the entertainment industry presents a very specific model of profitability. There is talk of a 'break even' point, and I get that it means something, but maybe it means something specific to them vs 'normal' business.

I worked for a few years for a company that licenses patents. They make investment X. They then charge according to a scale that does cover their R&D rather quickly, but their R&D will get covered, plus profitability, over time. Eventually, even the least R&D investment turns a profit, it just depends how long it takes and from what sources. It is a very specific view of profitability that doesn't always work with the rest of the world. They later made a telephone that entirely flopped because they tried to charge the first six months of customers for most of the R&D costs (total crash and burn) - following the same mentality as they apply to their patent licensing business.

A lot of Hollywood seems laser focused on the first box office weekend, and if they don't make serious bank money during then, they its a treated by some as a complete failure. It could also be that certain key interest holders are compensated accordingly, like extremely hot actors, the director, etc.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;957396

Ninja 4 : The Domination!