Although I was very disappointed with the new 'revamp' of the storyline and the thinking behind the new Lara.
It isn't really a revamp IIRC... It is actually a totally separate story based on the previous. Sort of like the newer Thundercats. She is meant to be an Amateur not a Seasoned Adventure. I personally prefer this new version.
Without wishing to open up a huge divergance in the thread - in the UK a lot of men report a lack of support from Maternity services - a lot of fathers have very poor experiences in relation to these despite the fact that they often will be undertaking an active caring role for mother and/or child once back home. The services focus (in some parts rightly, and in some parts wrongly) mainly upon the mother.Is there not an institutional model in which men are the minority?
US family courts might also be an area of similar concern.
|
If sexism is macro-level power control, then it doesn't appear that you could legitimately say a person is sexist or that even a company is sexist.
Terminology is not a simple and clear-cut thing in this regard, alas.
I suppose when someone (who is adhering to this definition of sexism, which is not the ONLY definition of sexism as we've seen...) says an individual or a company or an action is sexist, they are using that as a shorthand way to say "This person/company/action is acting in a way that reaffirms the entrenched power structures in our society and I think this is a Bad Thing."
I still call 'Nerf'.
US family courts might also be an area of similar concern.Without wishing to open up a huge divergance in the thread - in the UK a lot of men report a lack of support from Maternity services - a lot of fathers have very poor experiences in relation to these despite the fact that they often will be undertaking an active caring role for mother and/or child once back home. The services focus (in some parts rightly, and in some parts wrongly) mainly upon the mother.Is there not an institutional model in which men are the minority?
Again on this tangent, there was that stupid pundit on the BBC breakfast news implying (in her opinion) "That small businesses (should) employ of male candidate if they have 1 of both genders who are equally qualified". Which sort of wrong thinking, should be shot-down immediately. But could be improved with greater equality in the maternity/paternity options.
Of course, IIRC mandatory US Maternity leave in some states is second only to China & Pakistan in poorness.
If sexism is macro-level power control, then it doesn't appear that you could legitimately say a person is sexist or that even a company is sexist.Terminology is not a simple and clear-cut thing in this regard, alas.
I suppose when someone (who is adhering to this definition of sexism, which is not the ONLY definition of sexism as we've seen...) says an individual or a company or an action is sexist, they are using that as a shorthand way to say "This person/company/action is acting in a way that reaffirms the entrenched power structures in our society and I think this is a Bad Thing."
Which is interesting as it implies that by their very existance men are reinforcing the constraints of a entrenched sexist power structure.
Back to Topic: The new Lara Croft is very interesting, as I've heard it is written and designed (by a female gamer) with some of these topics in mind. Trying to create a strong female protagonist, whilst there is a significant element of vulnerability to her character.
I didn't find her new persona particularly strong, quite the opposite.
Vulnerable, frail, barely hanging on, and pushed to do things out of desparation/survival.
I also didn't like their use of rape as a motivator.
There was a lot to it I just found to be rather backward stepping, and on so many levels any power she could now be said to possess simply has a man at it's core - even if just to survive from said man.
I liked her when she was strong, fun, independent and confident. Not so much as the 'victim that you should feel sorry for'.
Ugh.
|
I've worked at game stores in the past, shopped at them extensively. It's usually men leading a gf around or a mom being led by her son. I wouldn't say it's that common for me to see a woman shopping around on her own for her own consumption.
47% of gamers are women? Must be facebook games or something. I've certainly seen plenty of women playing around on cartoony games on their ipads while riding the skytrain here :/
I'd rather see data on how many women are playing PS3 games, how many are playing Wii U, etc. I doubt I'm in the minority when I say that facebook games are hardly what most of us would consider part of the gaming industry.
Point in fact, my nephews play on Call of Duty on Xbox 360 pretty extensively. I asked how many women play, maybe one in a lobby of 12 at best.
@Shifty: My biggest complaint with the New Tomb Raider is you can't stealth through it.
I also love Ada Wong. Sexy and able to hold her own.
~30% of PlayStation(All Gens) Gamers are Women. ~45% of Nintendo Gamers are Women. ~15% of Xbox Gamers are Women. ~49% of PC (Any non-internet Game) Gamers are Women. ~65% of Internet(Facebook, Kongregate, Silver Games) Gamers are Women.
These are only those who were surveyed.
The problem with doing shop surveys is that some people (not neccessarily women) can feel intimidated, especially if it's out of their comfort zone. Then again there are plenty of larger retailers, on-line retailers and such where it's easier to buy games without feeling any judgement. Much the same way (female) gamers can feel uncomfortable in LGS's.
I have talked to many Female Gamers both C/V & PnP RPGs. Most I know prefer shopping with their friends or online. I have had to go shopping with a group of 3 of them at my local mall it gets interesting seeing a Woman Shop compared to a Man in the same store.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you've walked on the streets of New York as much as I have, the idea that women aren't a significant population of the homeless, gets walked on it's face.
I'm not trying to undermine you here, but I live and work in NYC. In fact I work just off 34th and Park Avenue. I walk from Penn Station every day. I live in Queens along the E & F line and I'm sorry but the overwhelming amount of homeless people that I see are MALE not female.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't find her new persona particularly strong, quite the opposite.
Vulnerable, frail, barely hanging on, and pushed to do things out of desparation/survival.I also didn't like their use of rape as a motivator.
There was a lot to it I just found to be rather backward stepping, and on so many levels any power she could now be said to possess simply has a man at it's core - even if just to survive from said man.
I liked her when she was strong, fun, independent and confident. Not so much as the 'victim that you should feel sorry for'.
Ugh.
While I could go either way on the rape thing, the whole being vulnerable, barely hanging on thing is something I'm perfectly cool with.
As I understand it not having played the older TR games, you never really get an origin for her. You start out with her already a seasoned adventurer. She was, to use a metaphor, a finished sword. Which was fine.
But to me, the most interesting part of a character is seeing how they became strong. That's what this new game is. She's the untempered metal in the smith's shop. Each blow threatens to crack or break her, but she endures. Thanks to what she's gone through, she will emerge strong, the flames having brought forth the strength that was hiding inside.
Having her be strong from the beginning robs us of seeing that transformation.
Now, if she's not a stronger person by the next game, I'll happily join you in complaining.
I didn't find her new persona particularly strong, quite the opposite.
Vulnerable, frail, barely hanging on, and pushed to do things out of desparation/survival.I also didn't like their use of rape as a motivator.
There was a lot to it I just found to be rather backward stepping, and on so many levels any power she could now be said to possess simply has a man at it's core - even if just to survive from said man.
I liked her when she was strong, fun, independent and confident. Not so much as the 'victim that you should feel sorry for'.
Ugh.
I know a lot of people who have argued that the new Lara Croft was a step back for women in video games, for these reasons.
It has been a long time, but I thought Lara originally was suppose to have been the only survivor of a crash in the mountains somewhere. She on her own made it back to civilization and she was not the same woman she had been due to the experience.
|
DSXMachina, by the use of the term in the context I mentioned, no, that man would not be a victim of sexism, although he might be a victim of gender-based discrimination. (See the distinction?)
As for the white man in Zimbabwe, I profess to not being an expert in this area, but my gut feeling is that, as you said, the Imperial overtones and history would probably make "racism" not the correct term to use (although race-based discrimination might be a possibility). Typically this literature is considered from a Western point of view and doesn't apply nearly as neatly to other places every single time.
I'm also a linguist, not a sociologist, so I might not be quite on the mark with all this either. :P
Note, I'm just trying to explain how the term is used academically in the study of social justice, feminism, etc. Whether you agree or not with its use is irrelevant, it's just often important to know HOW it's used in order to follow some arguments that are made (such as Irontruth's).
And it's important to note that the definitions given for both terms are from a left-wing, social justice, feminist view. The left tends to look at groups of people (men, women, white, black, etc) and make universal proclamations about them based on their perceived group... "oppressor" or "victim", "has power" or "no power", etc.
The right, however, looks at individuals. Women can be sexist against men, blacks can be racist against whites, etc. It doesn't matter 1 bit if some people that look similar to 1 party or the other have wealth or power, that doesn't change the situation or actions, and the individual power balance may be opposite anyway (a female boss at a company, for instance). What matters is the actions themselves... discrimination based on hatred of a gender is sexism, discrimination based on hatred of a race is racism. The social justice versions were conceived in order to excuse institutionalized discrimination against whites and males in the form of Affirmative Action.
By the way, the definition of social justice you gave has 1 mistake. It doesn't seek equal opportunity, it seeks equal outcomes, even if it must use institutionalized oppression to get it. There are 2 forms of "equality": the right believes in "equal opportunity", giving everyone a shot, then let the chips fall where they may. Whether you succeed or fail is up to you, and the demographics of those who succeed doesn't really matter. Discrimination would be preventing someone from even taking part in the competition. On the other hand, the left wants "equal outcomes". It cares most about the demographics of those at the end, and if a historically disadvantaged group is under-represented, then they will create UNequal starting opportunities to help engineer the outcome they want.
The best way to visualize this might be a 100 yd dash. "Equal opportunity" folks say "everyone gets a chance to run, all the starting blocks are the same, at it's up to you to cross the finish line. GO!" "Equal outcome"/social justice folks say "Historically, other white males have finished this race first. Therefore, if you are a female, you run 90 yards instead of 100. If you are a non-white person, you also will be able to start another 10 yds closer to the finish line. There, now we have things arranged 'fairly', with the white males in back and everyone else getting a head start, now the outcome should be closer to what we want it to be. GO!"
If you can visualize the difference between those 2 races, it should help illustrate the difference between "equal opportunity" and "equal outcomes", and how they are actually opposites of each other, not synonyms. If you believe in equal opportunity, you likely won't have equal outcomes. If you want equal outcomes, you'll need to create artificial, unequal opportunities and handicap some people based on the race and gender they were born with. And then there will need to be a way to explain why discriminating based on race and gender is ok, so they come up with the notion that "it's different when we do it to THAT race and gender..."
NOTE: Any uses of "you" are the general you, not addressing anyone in particular. Just wanted to offer another perspective on things. Personally, I believe social justice is an Orwellian term and that anyone can be racist or sexist, you don't get a pass or a lesser euphemistic term based on your race or gender, or the race/gender of your target. Actions matter, not the historical inequities between other people a hundred years before you were born.
Of course, that entire rant ignores that discrimination isn't just historical, but ongoing. It's hard to turn into a cute little track race analogy, but if there is discrimination in hiring and in wages and all the other things that affect the outcome, maybe that should be considered as part of the "equal opportunities"?
What is the source of the discrimination you are indicating and how are you measuring it?
|
|
Of course, that entire rant ignores that discrimination isn't just historical, but ongoing. It's hard to turn into a cute little track race analogy, but if there is discrimination in hiring and in wages and all the other things that affect the outcome, maybe that should be considered as part of the "equal opportunities"?
There is always going to be some discrimination, it's human nature. But it goes both ways, black bosses often prefer to hire other black people, women prefer to hire other women, etc. Discrimination in hiring is stupid, because limiting yourself from hiring anyone other than "the best applicant for the job" is hurting your company economically. We need to make sure everyone has a chance to apply, or to create their own business, etc. Requiring defined outcomes is just as bad as (and really no different from) hiring discrimination, it limits the pool of applicants to only those from a particular race or gender. Who cares if it's the company boss or the govt deciding which race or gender gets preferential treatment? It's the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with social justice is that there are a million definitions of it. Quite simply, it is a hooray word useless term. The use of it so far does seem to be sharply focused on pushing for equality of outcome. Those using the term are indeed smart enough to realize that equality of outcome will cost us equality of opportunity, which is a political message they realize they can't sell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, we live in entirely post racism, post sexism society. All forms of systemic discrimination ended decades ago with the Civil Rights movement, which was mostly unnecessary and probably unconstitutional anyway. Any problems minorities or women still have are entirely their own fault or their imagination. </snark>
Frankly, I don't have the time for this. I just failed my will save (or maybe an intelligence check) and couldn't resist responding to that post.
It should be noted your issues (discrimination in hiring for example) is opportunity issue, not outcome issue.
Which is why I asked how it was being measured. If you only use outcome to measure, you can't always judge accurately if there was true equality of opportunity.
Of course, we live in entirely post racism, post sexism society. All forms of systemic discrimination ended decades ago with the Civil Rights movement, which was mostly unnecessary and probably unconstitutional anyway. Any problems minorities or women still have are entirely their own fault or their imagination. </snark>
Frankly, I don't have the time for this. I just failed my will save (or maybe an intelligence check) and couldn't resist responding to that post.
It should be noted your issues (discrimination in hiring for example) is opportunity issue, not outcome issue.
Which is why I asked how it was being measured. If you only use outcome to measure, you can't always judge accurately if there was true equality of opportunity.
Which depends, because tests can be designed in such a way that whites, or males, will be guaranteed a higher score on the test. Then, I would argue, it is once again an opportunity and not outcome issue.
Which depends, because tests can be designed in such a way that whites, or males, will be guaranteed a higher score on the test. Then, I would argue, it is once again an opportunity and not outcome issue.
The racism of the peanut-butter & jelly sandwich, perhaps?
Which depends, because tests can be designed in such a way that whites, or males, will be guaranteed a higher score on the test. Then, I would argue, it is once again an opportunity and not outcome issue.The racism of the peanut-butter & jelly sandwich, perhaps?
You respond sarcasticly, but it is well documented and is currently being intensely studied by standardized test companies so that they can try to control for it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, we live in entirely post racism, post sexism society. All forms of systemic discrimination ended decades ago with the Civil Rights movement, which was mostly unnecessary and probably unconstitutional anyway. Any problems minorities or women still have are entirely their own fault or their imagination. </snark>
Frankly, I don't have the time for this. I just failed my will save (or maybe an intelligence check) and couldn't resist responding to that post.
It should be noted your issues (discrimination in hiring for example) is opportunity issue, not outcome issue.
Which is why I asked how it was being measured. If you only use outcome to measure, you can't always judge accurately if there was true equality of opportunity.
<I need to buy up my will saves>
Sadly, most of the time employment and promotion aren't based on the results of objective tests, but on subjective impressions at interviews or from applications/resumes/etc.
There have been successful lawsuits on hiring/promotion discrimination, which is brutally hard to prove unless someone is told "We didn't hire you because you're a X" or there is a policy promoting that. All you can do is look at broad patterns. If women with equal records and experience are promoted less often than men, is that opportunity or outcome?
There have been studies where minorities with the same resumes were less likely to be hired or resumes or applications with stereotypical minority names were less likely to be interviewed.
I've been told to my face that while I was well qualified for a job and they wanted to hire me, they needed an Asian person to fill that slot. But I guess that's ok.
As to "if X outcome happens, is that opportunity or outcome", the question answers itself... it's outcome. Opportunity doesn't care about outcomes, those are up to individuals, it looks at opportunity. If "no females/males/blacks/whites/Irish/whatever need apply", because they won't even be considered if they do, that's unequal opportunity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You respond sarcasticly, but it is well documented and is currently being intensely studied by standardized test companies so that they can try to control for it.Which depends, because tests can be designed in such a way that whites, or males, will be guaranteed a higher score on the test. Then, I would argue, it is once again an opportunity and not outcome issue.The racism of the peanut-butter & jelly sandwich, perhaps?
Whether it's Barbie leaving her dream house in Malibu and traveling 100mph for 40 minutes, or a big train leaving the depot going 100mph for 40 minutes, people should be able to look past the trappings to the math problem underneath. :)
Original Lara Croft: Canteloupes.
New Lara Croft is my Preference of them all.
Fun fact, Lara Croft's proportions in the first tomb raider were due to a coding error, they decided to keep it.
That was probably an interesting staff meeting though...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to "if X outcome happens, is that opportunity or outcome", the question answers itself... it's outcome. Opportunity doesn't care about outcomes, those are up to individuals, it looks at opportunity. If "no females/males/blacks/whites/Irish/whatever need apply", because they won't even be considered if they do, that's unequal opportunity.But if they're all allowed to apply, then the manager making the decision is biased in favor of one group, but doesn't admit to it, which leads to unequal outcomes, what's that?
Outcome, since that's all we can see? And therefore not something to be worried about.
Or opportunity, even though we don't know why?
What if the company just doesn't promote or hire a certain group past a given level in their management structure? As long as they don't have a policy stating that and don't admit it publicly, is there anyway to tell other than looking at outcomes?
"No X need apply" is functionally no different from taking the application and tossing it in the trash as soon as they leave, or not giving it any consideration but leaving it in the stack. In promotions, it's usually possible to tell whether a better candidate was passed over for a less qualified one. In that case, the other applicant should file a complaint and the person who chose the less qualified applicant should explain their reasoning. In cases where the applicants are very close, it'll be hard to prove, but in cases where a clearly better candidate is passed over, it won't be as hard.
Note that this should apply to places hiring or promoting significantly less qualified minorities and women over whites and men too, not just the other way around. It should be the same for all, and you should be able to defend your choice on merits alone, not "because we wanted a male/female/person of color in that job".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loled so hard at some of Samurai's recent statements, especially that the Right cares only about individuals. I haven't seen anything in recent news that at all gives credence to that idea.
You say that it is okay if white people tend to hire more white people, because black people tend to hire more black people. Have you considered though that odds are the vast majority of middle management and higher level jobs in business, ect, probably have white people? Which means that it will be extraordinarily difficult for African Americans to move into those positions?
I'm not trying to undermine you here, but I live and work in NYC. In fact I work just off 34th and Park Avenue. I walk from Penn Station every day. I live in Queens along the E & F line and I'm sorry but the overwhelming amount of homeless people that I see are MALE not female.
If you've walked on the streets of New York as much as I have, the idea that women aren't a significant population of the homeless, gets walked on it's face.
+1
Also, we have to meet up.
I see quite a few of them in the PATH stations, especially by Journal Square. And I get quite a few requests for "spare change". Unfortunately in this economy, I don't have spare change as often as I'd like.I'm not trying to undermine you here, but I live and work in NYC. In fact I work just off 34th and Park Avenue. I walk from Penn Station every day. I live in Queens along the E & F line and I'm sorry but the overwhelming amount of homeless people that I see are MALE not female.
If you've walked on the streets of New York as much as I have, the idea that women aren't a significant population of the homeless, gets walked on it's face.
homeless men and homeless women hang out in different places. Homeless women can be found more regularly around union square. Still dwarfed by homeless male population though.
“Well, to be concise, sir, we headed out of port on a journey to examine the idea of why we enjoy the image of sexualized, scantily clad women in our gaming entertainment, and as one would natural expect, the ship has gone off course into the waters of, life isn’t fair, I’m telling you you don’t see things clearly, and you don’t understand how it really is, which, inevitably will lead to our ship being dashed upon the reef of locked threads and warnings to revisit the message board rules.”
Funny, yet true. ;D
This leads back to my original point.
I desire "sexy, scanilty clad" female characters in my gaming entertainment.
Since I am a consumer and (probably) a representative of the largest percentage of the customer base.
I feel that I do have some rights as a customer. But what I don't want to do is throw the other consumer groups "under the bus" so to speak.
Lets define sexist in a useful way.
Sexist is useful as a term when applied to things that are meant to demean and discriminate against women.
Is it your goal to attach yourself to that definition?
No. I would not choose to attach myself to that definition.
What I said is that "I desire 'sexy, scantily clad' female characters in my gaming entertainment".
However, I do realize that in the eyes of at least some people this would still be a form of gender discrimination (though, I hope a minor one). If so, I would still be okay with that.
Is that more clear?
“Sir, it would appear the boat is headed directly toward that reef over there.”
“What?”
“Sir, I say, it would appear this boat is headed directly toward that reef, where it is certainly doomed to wreck, endangering the lives of all who are on board.”
“I’m sorry, but what was the problem again?”
“Well, to be concise, sir, we headed out of port on a journey to examine the idea of why we enjoy the image of sexualized, scantily clad women in our gaming entertainment, and as one would natural expect, the ship has gone off course into the waters of, life isn’t fair, I’m telling you you don’t see things clearly, and you don’t understand how it really is, which, inevitably will lead to our ship being dashed upon the reef of locked threads and warnings to revisit the message board rules.”
“How’s that, again?”
“Never mind sir, I’ll be in the lifeboat if you need me.”
to use"life isn't fair" in this context is a poor choice-one could easily use it to justify the behavior that is being railed against. It's the equivalent of "because i said so" ime.
Terquem, how did you channel my good friend Solspiral's stuffy halfing butler Chauncey? The lock is indeed turning for this thread. But IMO, it is OK to like scantily clad ladies in games, however the idea that they are supposed to always be that way is insane. I'll back up a step in my logic. A portion of us here are straight men, myself included. Thus one, the scantily clad lovely lady is mean to attract our eyes to the products. Poorly crafted "lady" armor is a sexual tool as well. I pose the following. Mystery is good, a few parts covered smartly is much more attractive, IMO, than the whole thing right there for the taking. Thus the issue is that many video game companies, and gaming companies, think of the market and all players as boys whom love nothing more than dirty mags their parents don't understand as sexual. I mean for goodness sake, there is a book of erotic fantasy, a clearly male oriented product, and screams this is the kind of old boys club item that attracts the words "creepy" and "horney" to it like flies to honey.
My suggestion: Perhaps for a new age, there should be a new view on women and their sexual role in gaming, both table and electronic. Give the ladies back the power we know they have as men, feminine wiles. Wiles don't need xena's bad breast plate (she should be dead all the frackin' time) or laura's massive chest. Wiles uses a slinky black dress and knows what she wants. It just strikes me as a big difference between the erotic in gaming, and the terribly male influenced "sexual" in gaming. Think some of our fine gaming companies are living in the last age, and we all have to suffer for their lack of finess on a clearly debated subject.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DSXMachina, by the use of the term in the context I mentioned, no, that man would not be a victim of sexism, although he might be a victim of gender-based discrimination. (See the distinction?)
As for the white man in Zimbabwe, I profess to not being an expert in this area, but my gut feeling is that, as you said, the Imperial overtones and history would probably make "racism" not the correct term to use (although race-based discrimination might be a possibility). Typically this literature is considered from a Western point of view and doesn't apply nearly as neatly to other places every single time.
I'm also a linguist, not a sociologist, so I might not be quite on the mark with all this either. :P
Note, I'm just trying to explain how the term is used academically in the study of social justice, feminism, etc. Whether you agree or not with its use is irrelevant, it's just often important to know HOW it's used in order to follow some arguments that are made (such as Irontruth's).
And it's important to note that the definitions given for both terms are from a left-wing, social justice, feminist view. The left tends to look at groups of people (men, women, white, black, etc) and make universal proclamations about them based on their perceived group... "oppressor" or "victim", "has power" or "no power", etc.
The right, however, looks at individuals. Women can be sexist against men, blacks can be racist against whites, etc. It doesn't matter 1 bit if some people that look similar to 1 party or the other have wealth or power, that doesn't change the situation or actions, and the individual power balance may be opposite anyway (a female boss at a company, for instance). What matters is the actions themselves... discrimination based on hatred of a gender is sexism, discrimination based on hatred of a race is racism. The social justice versions were conceived in order to excuse institutionalized discrimination against whites and males in the form of...
|
|
Terquem, how did you channel my good friend Solspiral's stuffy halfing butler Chauncey? The lock is indeed turning for this thread. But IMO, it is OK to like scantily clad ladies in games, however the idea that they are supposed to always be that way is insane. I'll back up a step in my logic. A portion of us here are straight men, myself included. Thus one, the scantily clad lovely lady is mean to attract our eyes to the products. Poorly crafted "lady" armor is a sexual tool as well. I pose the following. Mystery is good, a few parts covered smartly is much more attractive, IMO, than the whole thing right there for the taking. Thus the issue is that many video game companies, and gaming companies, think of the market and all players as boys whom love nothing more than dirty mags their parents don't understand as sexual. I mean for goodness sake, there is a book of erotic fantasy, a clearly male oriented product, and screams this is the kind of old boys club item that attracts the words "creepy" and "horney" to it like flies to honey.
My suggestion: Perhaps for a new age, there should be a new view on women and their sexual role in gaming, both table and electronic. Give the ladies back the power we know they have as men, feminine wiles. Wiles don't need xena's bad breast plate (she should be dead all the frackin' time) or laura's massive chest. Wiles uses a slinky black dress and knows what she wants. It just strikes me as a big difference between the erotic in gaming, and the terribly male influenced "sexual" in gaming. Think some of our fine gaming companies are living in the last age, and we all have to suffer for their lack of finess on a clearly debated subject.
I'm not sure how your suggestion would be implemented. How would you do it? And doesn't wiliness work better on unsuspecting targets than those who know what to expect? For all we know, women gamers are already using them right now! ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been told to my face that while I was well qualified for a job and they wanted to hire me, they needed an Asian person to fill that slot. But I guess that's ok.
As to "if X outcome happens, is that opportunity or outcome", the question answers itself... it's outcome. Opportunity doesn't care about outcomes, those are up to individuals, it looks at opportunity. If "no females/males/blacks/whites/Irish/whatever need apply", because they won't even be considered if they do, that's unequal opportunity.
So is this article evidence of equality of opportunity? Or equality of outcome? Or both? or neither?