I think that this sort of thing is necessary to visibly encourage and welcome any women out there (who still rightly believe that this hobby is traditionally a mostly boy's only club) to be active participants. I think that the move is a corny, cynical marketing ploy, though, based on the social media battles it has intensified (saw a comment on Facebook from a gal desperate to start punching "those Nazis" who are against Green Ronin's move).

I think that things are getting better, but I despise the way that discourse works these days. So many assumptions of bad faith by both sides of the debate. Including myself, I admit, for only thinking that a company is doing this as much for inclusivity as for marketing. This book will sell more because of both factors, I guarantee it.

Quote from: Baeraad;956851Remember how I said a few pages ago that MRAs turn me off men's rights activism? Well, this is what turns me off progressivism - this endless, pointless, soul-crushing guilt-flinging. Guess what, it wasn't, in point of fact, me - and for that matter, I'm not going to sit here in the midst of all the comforts of high technology and enlightened social attitudes and piously condemn the people who came before me for acting in accordance with the world they were born into. As for my understanding, it's perfectly adequate, thank you - certainly it is no worse than the understanding of all those feminists who tell me with absolute certainty how wonderful my life is and how I've been handed everything on a silver platter and how I couldn't possibly understand what it feels like to not have everything always go my way.

So yeah, I'll do the right thing when called upon. But since I am in fact doing the right thing, you are doing the wrong thing by constantly insulting me.

Acknowledging what is true isn't accepting an insult, it's just acknowledging the facts. White men have fewer barriers than women or minority men. This doesn't mean that you personally have had it easy. It means you could have had it a whole lot harder. That's not a condemnation. That's the truth. I still get pissy about the word "privilege," but I can also acknowledge that it exists, within its context. I can also accept that I've been born with advantages, while knowing that this doesn't diminish any personal accomplishments I might have, because I still had to get out there and do my job, so to speak. I can also honestly say that I have done my utmost to treat everyone I've come into contact with the same, regardless of their background. As I am a public school teacher, and one who has worked at minority-majority schools my entire career, fairness has always been important to me. It would have been anyway, but it became even more important, if only to show those who may not have been dealt with justly that there are more people willing to judge them based on what they do, how hard they work, rather than factors that are not under their control. That's the contribution I am able to make, on a near-daily basis. I think most people are like that, and do that--what they are able, which includes not being a barrier. But I don't think we've quite fixed some of our systemic issues. And I do think there are some reactionaries on the other side of the issue, as well.

FYI, my initial comment was directed at folks who believe no such "privilege" exists, when it obviously does. The best illustration of the point, to me, is when writer Ta-Nehisi Coates said:

"To be president, [Obama] had to be scholarly, intelligent, president of the Harvard Law Review, the product of some of our greatest educational institutions, capable of talking to two different worlds ... Donald Trump had to be rich and white. That was it. That’s the difference."

When you consider Clinton's qualifications versus Trump's, you could also apply the same argument, albeit to a much lesser extent, considering the baggage Clinton took on, some of it her own, some of it whipped up by extremists.

What Obama and Trump have in common is money.

Privilege based on race or gender is meaningless in the face of class privilege.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;956849Of course. It's been known since Warren Farrell investigated the issue in 1990 something. But the idea won't die because of stuff like the... original topic! That if there's a lack of something ("representation" and pay usually), it must be sexism. The notion that women's choices just might have something to do with it has only recently been breaking into the mainstream conciousness. (Along with the rebuttals, I'm sure someone will make them here.)

Well, you know, if women didn't take the time off to propagate the species, none of us would be here. And the fact that a woman may want to marry and have children has cropped up among reasons some execs won't hire women for high level positions, because, "They'll just run off and get pregnant." I would imagine that they say they shouldn't be forced to give up one thing for another due to biology. Men face no such choice or equivalency.

Quote from: Spinachcat;956859That was the goal of the Civil Rights Movement. It was to end divisiveness and see all humans as equal. The success of that movement was amazing. One of the greatest achievements in human history.  The success of modern identity politics is....nothing but division, failure and acrimony. Unless, of course, you consider keeping Hillary out of the White House to be a grand success of identity politics! :eek:

I don't think the civil rights movement is over. And it was obviously closer to a "Black Lives Matter" movement than "All Lives Matter," as this tract from a well-known speech clearly indicates:

"One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.

And Clinton won the popular vote, despite her baggage, which may be a better indicator of where we're headed than the fact that some pissed off rust belt folks voted for The Bloviator Supreme.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;956875What Obama and Trump have in common is money.

Privilege based on race or gender is meaningless in the face of class privilege.

Trump is clearly the prime example of class privilege, having been born into it, never strayed from it, traffics in it, and is completely unable to understand the lives of those who don't. Other than having some money, these two people couldn't be more different.

Quote from: cranebump;956879Trump is clearly the prime example of class privilege, having been born into it, never strayed from it, traffics in it, and is completely unable to understand the lives of those who don't. Other than having some money, these two people couldn't be more different.

In personality, goals, and intelligence? Sure, they are night and day. Clinton is actually closer to Trump than Obama when it comes down to it.

EDIT: Okay, my fault for being drawn in, but this isn't the forum for politics. Lets get back to the misogynistic whinging.

Quote from: cranebump;956877Well, you know, if women didn't take the time off to propagate the species, none of us would be here. And the fact that a woman may want to marry and have children has cropped up among reasons some execs won't hire women for high level positions, because, "They'll just run off and get pregnant." I would imagine that they say they shouldn't be forced to give up one thing for another due to biology. Men face no such choice or equivalency.

I disagree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/02/dont-be-a-bachelor-why-married-men-work-harder-and-smarter-and-make-more-money/?utm_term=.a6b528583e0c

Having a family means providing for that family. Traditionally, men have sacrificed their lives to work in order to provide for their families. That does come with a huge tradeoff as very few of us are privileged to follow our dreams and earn enough money to pay the bills.

Quote from: cranebump;956877Well, you know, if women didn't take the time off to propagate the species, none of us would be here. And the fact that a woman may want to marry and have children has cropped up among reasons some execs won't hire women for high level positions, because, "They'll just run off and get pregnant." I would imagine that they say they shouldn't be forced to give up one thing for another due to biology. Men face no such choice or equivalency.

That's preposterous. Men face many such choices daily. For example, consent to sex is consent to reproduce with equivalent responsibility, whereas with women it is not. They hold all the reproductive cards legally and men must make a choice as to whether it is worth it. I also find it a bit of bigotry of low expectations here, suggesting that women are required to make more compromises than men. NO ONE can have it all. How many men lament the lack of relationship with their children when they find they spent their childhood working to support their family. This is not a gendered choice as such, as everyone must compromise some of their goals to achieve others. I have trouble believing that if women are the strong, capable individuals I know them to be, that it is not a bit insulting to continually insist that they must have a leg up to compete. Seems a strange point of view to me.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;956804Okay, but even assuming that's true, how much does it practically create a barrier of entry for women to create and promote a gaming product? Meaning, I know there are studies that show slight gender biases in many people, but has this been shown to have a demonstrable effect on the consumption of media?

Its contended that there is a large female audience for RPGs that is untapped simply because women aren't creating as many products as men. If that is the point of this Talent Search, then surely any bias actually works in their favour? Apparently the idea is that there are tons of women who really want to be roleplaying, but wont because of the omnipresence of male creators.

I don't know of any studies of perceived gender on media consumption either way. Anecdotally, there are the recommendations that male romance authors use female pen names, or how Joanne Rowling was encouraged to use initials rather than her name. You're assuming the point of GR's talent search is an assumption of "tons of women" - but I don't see that stated in the press release. Maybe they think there are only a few women who are put off by male dominance in role-playing, but that it's still worth trying to reach them in this way.

What sort of numbers are we imagining here? Lacking data, I'm not sure what to expect, but I'll toss out my own guesses. In romance novels, I suspect there is at least a 10% effect on readership based on the perceived gender of the author (i.e. a male author on average would have 10% higher sales or more if using a female pen name). In RPGs, I think it is significantly less - under 5%, but possibly in the 2-4% range.

Regarding the gender gap in general:

Quote from: Ratman_tf;956802I think it depends on which narrative you choose to believe. And results can be interpreted many different ways.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;956816There is no wage gap.  There is an EARNINGS gap.  It's looking at the total earnings for a life time.  And women do earn less, but there are major factors.  Namely marriage, women tend to work less when they get married, whether or not they have children, for example.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;956849Of course. It's been known since Warren Farrell investigated the issue in 1990 something. But the idea won't die because of stuff like the... original topic! That if there's a lack of something ("representation" and pay usually), it must be sexism. The notion that women's choices just might have something to do with it has only recently been breaking into the mainstream conciousness. (Along with the rebuttals, I'm sure someone will make them here.)

Personally, while I have my unconscious biases, I choose to believe based on what the evidence shows - not based on what my politics are. People who think the overall earnings difference must be completely sexism are foolish, but so are people who think that it cannot reflect any sexism. Sexism is a reasonable hypothesis that should be investigated, and many studies have found clear examples within certain fields, and not in others.

As for taking time off when married - much of that is an economic decision. Very often, a wife makes less money than her husband, and takes more time off. However, if a woman makes more money than her husband, then it is much more likely that the husband will take time off for child care or otherwise. Also, workplaces and regulations are often different for maternity and paternity leave. In short, these choices aren't necessarily purely genetic qualities of being a man or woman, but can be influenced by social and economic factors like sexism. There could be purely genetic qualities leading to women taking more time off, but it shouldn't be assumed.

Quote from: cranebump;956874Acknowledging what is true isn't accepting an insult, it's just acknowledging the facts. White men have fewer barriers than women or minority men. This doesn't mean that you personally have had it easy. It means you could have had it a whole lot harder. That's not a condemnation. That's the truth. I still get pissy about the word "privilege," but I can also acknowledge that it exists, within its context.

That said, you frame the context and define terms, and yet those same terms have implied meanings and relevance beyond that context. They are also suggestive of corrective measures based on social norms.

What amounts as an advantage depends on exactly how you define each individual instance and type of advantage, and perhaps more importantly, what you don't. Just like the earlier point someone made of equal pay vs lifetime earnings potential.

Once you drill down into specific sub-groups or individuals, things start to fly apart. But here's the thing. Even if I fall entirely within the scope of your definition, I still have my individual rights, and also personal 'properties' which grant protected status under the law (gender, national origin, etc). And even if you've narrowed the scope of your definition and I happen to fall within the range of 'privilege' it is no protection against pursuing my rights to life, liberty and happiness right into a horrible situation of my own devising, or protection against some random event or encounter or disability.

I don't recognize or accept labels that aren't clearly defined and qualified. "White Privilege" is a social narrative construct and intentionally left without clear, specific definitions of scope, because it is more useful that way to some who use the term to their advantage.

Quote from: tenbones;956741Those are good examples from that era. Do you think that's true of today Sci-Fi/Fantasy market?

Quote from: CRKrueger;956745So you honestly consider the role-playing hobby today to be in the same place that the Science Fiction Literature industry was in over FORTY YEARS ago?

As others in this thread noted, did you not see the dumb fuckers oozing out of the storm drains in the run up to and aftermath of the last US election?

Misogyny is alive and well and if it's not EXACTLY THE SAME as it was FORTY YEARS AGO, it's still just as fucking lame as it ever was.

Quote from: CRKrueger;956745...you're welcome.

Mean Green, that is A Thing of Beauty. Consider it stoled.

Quote from: jhkim;956910As for taking time off when married - much of that is an economic decision. Very often, a wife makes less money than her husband, and takes more time off. However, if a woman makes more money than her husband, then it is much more likely that the husband will take time off for child care or otherwise. Also, workplaces and regulations are often different for maternity and paternity leave. In short, these choices aren't necessarily purely genetic qualities of being a man or woman, but can be influenced by social and economic factors like sexism. There could be purely genetic qualities leading to women taking more time off, but it shouldn't be assumed.

And yet. Whenever I hear the wage gap mentioned by politicans or in the media, it's always portrayed as women getting paid less because all men are sexist assholes.

I mean, for there to be such a widespread, universal wage gap, it must mean that women rarely work in any kind of self-employment, that nearly all bosses are men, and that all of those men are making a conscious choice to pay women less, per hour or per salary.

The truth is that women in self-employment earn less as well. I'm sure someone could chalk it up to "internalized misogyny", but I think the narrative breaks down at that point. Big companies would get assreamed by their competitors if it could be brought to light that they discriminate pay based on sex. And so on.
I think the tiny sliver of the pay gap that can't be explained by women's choices can be explained by sexism. And that can be addressed on the individual level. Any affirmative action style programs aren't going to do diddly bupkus.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;956931As others in this thread noted, did you not see the dumb fuckers oozing out of the storm drains in the run up to and aftermath of the last US election?

Misogyny is alive and well and if it's not EXACTLY THE SAME as it was FORTY YEARS AGO, it's still just as fucking lame as it ever was.

I don't think anyone is claiming that misogyny doesn't exist. I'm certainly not. Right it's not the same, using the examples you cited, in the exact same profession as it pertains to women and people of color, and minorities as forty-years ago. Go to any big Sci-Fi publishing house website, and most of the time you'll see them actively recruiting for "diversity" in sci-fi and fantasy. I'm not making a case for whether it's good or bad - but it certainly isn't like 40-years ago in the publishing world.

Right now approximately 47% of the sci-fi/fantasy and speculative-fiction books published and sent to various magazines/webzines are from women (and this was from figures 3 years ago) compared to the paltry 14% from 1950. Now where you *will* see a discrepancy is not from the publishers - but from reviewers. But this in no way is representative of the publishing industry. Mind you - this has *zero* to do with sales. *Zero* to do with tastes in the consuming public. Almost half of the fiction books in our gaming genre-wheelhouse are by women. But at what point does the oppression-narrative end? When do individual tastes account for anything? When does marketing overtake the political need for the narrative to even exist? The answer is: never. Because too many people begin to benefit from the "movement" that has outlasted its real need. But hey, let's not let that stop us.

Of course racism/misogyny/general assholish behavior lame when it shows up. But I'm saying sometimes it's worth questioning the narrative and examine what is really going on.

As for the fuckers oozing out of stormdrain? I find them commensurate to the non-stop bombardment of regressive SJW narratives flooding social-media free of any logic or discussion - and find them equally cognitively dissonant and/or willfully ignorant. It is the combination of the dynamic between both these tribes of dolts that cause this election to go the way it did. With a an ass-ton of pandering from the media and political self-serving greed of these two parties here that essentially shot themselves in the head to prove a point.

heh, the results... are absurdly laughable.

Maybe I have turned cynical, but I don't really see the horror in this situation. If I wanted to write sugar sweet romances it probably wouldn't hurt sales if I used a female pseudonym.