LÖVE

If you're referring to me, I'm not trying to make anyone mad, I'm trying to make people realize that this debate is pointless without data to support their claims. The onus is on them to bring evidence to support their arguments, not me. I'm in favour of the status quo, so unless there is a compelling reason to disrupt the status quo, that simply will not happen.

While only a few of the probably thousands of apps displayed there were sexist or belittling to females, that's still 100% more than ones aimed at men.

Less than 0.1% is a pretty decent statistic in most cases. Of the thousands of developers who presented at this forum, only a VERY small handful made childish/offensive apps. That actually shows that the VAST MAJORITY of developers have better things to do than waste their talents on fart apps or whatever. Sure, you can focus on the 3 or 4 apps made by buffoons, but that does a discredit to the thousands of folks who made seemingly useful or novel apps.

If less than 0.1% of a particular population is doing something you're against, then that's absolutely fantastic. Cities that don't necessarily have a crime "problem" are still within 0.01-0.1% crimes per person.

Given that there were likely significantly less women than men (hence this entire topic) at the hackathon, you're less likely to see the outliers and statistically insignificant data occur. If you boosted the presence of women to the same scale, I wouldn't be surprised if you had someone out of the thousands create "dickstare". It might be a weird concept for puritan Americans to understand, but women are totally human, and enjoy things like sex, too.

Sheepolution wrote:I feel like these kind of discussions are hurting a community more than helping it.

I can agree that you have a point there.

Karai17 wrote:If you're referring to me, I'm not trying to make anyone mad, I'm trying to make people realize that this debate is pointless without data to support their claims.

No finger pointing going on here. Just a broad speculation, as mentioned in the post. Maybe not you, but some people are.
As for the data bit, you still need to have feasible data just as much as they do if you want to prove yourself right (still broad speculation here).

Karai17 wrote:Less than 0.1% is a pretty decent statistic in most cases.

True.

Karai17 wrote:Of the thousands of developers who presented at this forum, only a VERY small handful made childish/offensive apps.

Yet all of this very small handful of apps were aimed at women, as far as I know.

Karai17 wrote:That actually shows that the VAST MAJORITY of developers have better things to do than waste their talents on fart apps or whatever.

Also true (granted there are fart apps, but that's another story entirely).

Karai17 wrote:If less than 0.1% of a particular population is doing something you're against, then that's absolutely fantastic. Cities that don't necessarily have a crime "problem" are still within 0.01-0.1% crimes per person.

But crimes were still committed, no matter how few.

Karai17 wrote:Given that there were likely significantly less women than men (hence this entire topic) at the hackathon, you're less likely to see the outliers and statistically insignificant data occur. If you boosted the presence of women to the same scale, I wouldn't be surprised if you had someone out of the thousands create "dickstare".

There could have been plenty more entries made by men (or women) that did not pass. As said in the article, all apps had to be screened before being allowed to present.

Karai17 wrote:It might be a weird concept for puritan Americans to understand, but women are totally human, ...

Which one of us "puritan Americans" ever said that women "aren't totally human"?

Karai17 wrote:... and enjoy things like sex, too.

We never said that they weren't capable of enjoying sex, either.

Honestly, this is just an argument over our opinions, so nobody can win.

davisdude wrote:Honestly, this is just an argument over our opinions, so nobody can win.

That is my ENTIRE point.

Karai17 wrote:

davisdude wrote:Honestly, this is just an argument over our opinions, so nobody can win.

That is my ENTIRE point.

Are you two new to internet forums? The point is not to win anything, it is a debate without judges. Everything we say here are just our opinions. If you don't want replies with disagreement then not commenting is indeed the proper course.

I didn't really feel like participating in this thread, since the lets-call-it-discussion went south really fast, but there are two points I feel need to be mentioned:

1. You are missing the most obvious data point there is: We (STEM fields in general and the LÖVE community in particular) are significantly more men than women. I'm sure that won't change your point of view, but maybe you can try to think about possible reasons for this phenomenon. Corollary: Asking female game devs how they feel about certain issues is of little relevance - ask the ones that are not in this field why they chose not to.
2. It is funny (in a really sad way) how whenever this issue comes up in any way at all, it is immediately followed by a HUGE uproar. People pretend there is no problem, and if there is a problem than certainly not here. Other people do not disagree with the argument in itself, but are outraged that there is an argument to be had in the first place. Of course this completely undermines a fruitful and necessary discussion. It would be nice if we could stop this behavior and start working on - cheesy, I know - a better future.

>Karai and Davisdude support ashukar's point
>Ashkuzar continues to argue, even against his supporters
>wat

ftfy

vrld wrote:I didn't really feel like participating in this thread, since the lets-call-it-discussion went south really fast, but there are two points I feel need to be mentioned:

1. You are missing the most obvious data point there is: We (STEM fields in general and the LÖVE community in particular) are significantly more men than women. I'm sure that won't change your point of view, but maybe you can try to think about possible reasons for this phenomenon. Corollary: Asking female game devs how they feel about certain issues is of little relevance - ask the ones that are not in this field why they chose not to.
2. It is funny (in a really sad way) how whenever this issue comes up in any way at all, it is immediately followed by a HUGE uproar. People pretend there is no problem, and if there is a problem than certainly not here. Other people do not disagree with the argument in itself, but are outraged that there is an argument to be had in the first place. Of course this completely undermines a fruitful and necessary discussion. It would be nice if we could stop this behavior and start working on - cheesy, I know - a better future.

1) I agree that STEM fields have way less women than men, and that we should work towards improving this divide. The problem in this particular case is some people thing the love community's culture of sexual innuendo, specifically, is driving women away. I think that is nonsense and request data to support that theory. As for improving the status of women in STEM in general, I believe that it is Western--or even world--culture that continues to try to shoehorn women into classic gender roles, and drives them away from STEM/trades/etc at a very early age. Trying to fix this at the core of the problem would be AWESOME but I don't really have any solutions to offer.

2) I'm all for a better future, but again the uproar comes from people presenting their personal opinions as fact and not actually proving evidence to support their case. If someone came into this thread with data that said "women who look at love end up not using it because of the sexual innuendo" then I would be the first person to support change. But no one has done that yet, they just say "women probably don't like it", which is a gross assumption about women.

Karai17 wrote:people presenting their personal opinions as fact and not actually proving evidence to support their case.

If you're talking about me, it is neither my opinion nor have I presented it as fact. I basically said the hypothesis seems plausible and is worth looking into, but then it got sidetracked by people who misunderstood the hypothesis and we had to explain what it meant. People like Azhukar have put all sorts of words in my mouth, and we'd really better ignore them if we want to achieve anything.

Robin wrote:People like Azhukar have put all sorts of words in my mouth, and we'd really better ignore them if we want to achieve anything.

Feel free to quote where I have claimed you have written something that you have actually not written.

But bringing up a hypothesis because it "seems plausible" doesn't actually help anybody or anything. If you think your hypothesis is sound, then test it! Survey women not in STEM fields, survey women IN STEM fields, see if there is any evidence to support your hypothesis. If there is, then present it to us and make your case. If it turns out there is no real correlation between your hypothesis and your data, then there is no reason to even have this discussion because the point is moot.

Starting such a polarizing discussion without any real case to be made is just asking to further divide the community and cause some bad blood.