default header

Theory

lol @ girls

Moderator: JC Denton

lol @ girls

Unread postby icycalm » 30 Mar 2010 01:35

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/jan/ ... announced/

Femme Fatal — Female participants only SSF4 tournament
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 30 Mar 2010 02:15

Do women get their own separate chess championships?

If so, that would basically provide irrefutable proof that they are stupid.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby EightEyes » 30 Mar 2010 03:45

icycalm wrote:Do women get their own separate chess championships?


They do, I'm afraid.

Bobby Fischer certainly didn't think highly of female chess players:

"They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat."

There's a bit of discussion of this in an article by a Women's Grand Master here:

http://pogonina.com/index.php?option=co ... ng=english

As she mentions in the article, women can (and do) compete in the "men's" chess tournaments - these are basically open competitions for whoever is good enough to compete in them. The women's tournaments are for female entrants only. It's very difficult to spin this in a way that doesn't point to the fact that players and organisers alike feel that women are at some sort of fundamental disadvantage.

There are usually a few women in the list of the top 100 chess players, at least in recent years, but the list is still very heavily dominated by men.
User avatar
EightEyes
 
Joined: 25 Sep 2008 06:31

Unread postby icycalm » 30 Mar 2010 03:57

That article you linked is mostly laughable. I may take it apart tomorrow if I find I have some time to spare.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby NighAligned » 31 Mar 2010 22:06

Yeah, that article's got quite a few howlers. I want to laugh at the following "blank slate" foolishness.

Natalia Pogonina wrote:Different tastes and priorities are probably part of the answer, but they are also closely connected with the other reasons. For instance, priorities are largely affected by social stereotypes and upbringing, so if (theoretically) we change them (e.g. encourage boys to play dolls and girls to study chess), we may see a completely opposite result.


She's right that women have different tastes and priorities than men, but can't bring herself to conclude that that difference is rooted in biology. If men and women really are born with no preferences ("blank slates"), and it's mostly culture which decides what a woman and man prefer to do -- how do you explain that almost every known society has had men and women in the same social roles?

Besides, where did that "social stereotyping" and form of "upbringing" come from? Outer space? It came from people, many of them women themselves.

Also, that second sentence quoted above really is ridiculous if you've ever been around children: has she ever tried to get boys to play with dolls? or tried to get girls to take a competitive sport seriously? Even at a very young age, they're not mindless robots; you can see the differences in preferences already. Yeah, there are exceptions to the rule (girly boys and boyish girls) -- and sure, one could extort some behavior contrary to their instincts if they really wanted to -- but it still is a rule. I think a lot of women, probably Mrs. Pogonina herself, understand this on a gut level but can't bring themselves to say or accept it.

Anyway, I recommend The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature to other Insomnia readers. I read it a couple of years ago, and while it's a "popular science" book and has some bullshit in it, I think it's a pretty good demolition of the blank slate nonsense and quite enjoyable to read. It helped me quite a bit before I started reading Nietzsche.
User avatar
NighAligned
 
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 08:03

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Apr 2010 17:50

Via email:

zinger wrote:Hey icy, how's it going?

Is there some scientific literature that you could point me to regarding women's lacking intellectual capacity? Well anything to help me distinguish sociological effects from biological ones and get a good grasp of how they are related. Good psychology books in other words, I guess?

Thanks man.

zinger


I doubt whether such books exist, to be honest. No scientific man today seems ready to accept the fact of women's intellectual inferiority -- for the feminists would devour him immediately, and scientific men generally lack the cojones required to stand up to them (they lack cojones in general: lack of cojones is one of the prerequisites necessary to become a really scientific man -- Nietzsche sort of explains this somewhat in BGE). And besides, what respectable institution would fund these kinds of studies?

So we are on our own here, I guess.

But hey, if you look around and find any such books be sure to let me know. There could perhaps be one or two maverick psychologists or anthropologists who have written something worthwhile on the subject. It's just far too trite a subject for me to take an active interest in, to the extent of trawling bookshops or libraries to find worthwhole books on it. If someone else does it though, I might take a couple of hours out of my day to have a look at them.

However all of that may be, it would be good for you to realize from the outset that, ultimately, it is impossible to separate sociological effects, as you call them, i.e. environmental ones, from biological ones, i.e. inherited ones, just as it is impossible to separate light from darkness, and so on and so forth. These two apparently different factors are not in fact different at all, they are simply "opposite" ends of one and the same spectrum: i.e. there is no opposition between them at all. And besides, the main problem with women is not that their brains lack something -- although I am sure that to a certain, very small degree perhaps, this must also be true. The main problem with women is that the healthier, prettier among them are too busy caring about how they look, finding attractive and rich sexual partners, making and raising children, etc. etc., to have any time left over for truly challenging intellectual pursuits; while the abortive women, on the other hand, i.e. the ugly, the less obsessed with sex and prettiness, or kids and so on and so forth, DO sometimes find the time to engage with philosophy, but history has shown that they never get very far with it. And this is why: EXACTLY BECAUSE they are ugly, and generally abortive. Their lack of success with men and related-womanly activities (child-raising, etc.) make them psychologically disposed to SLANDER these activities, and to attempt to elevate the status and prestige of their own abortive condition: as "woman-in-herself", as Nietzsche would put it; as woman of equal status with men, and indeed with everything that exists; as women not even needing men in the last resort (and how absurd is a woman that does not need a man? Is there anything more abortive in the world than that? Just as abortive as a man who doesn't need women -- capacity for procreation here being the standard of abortiveness). In the end they even go as far as to demand that men should not like pretty women -- because this makes the ugly ones feel uncomfortable: that's what lies at the bottom of all "gender roles" issues: those who are BAD at these roles, instead of acknowledging this fact and striving to improve themselves (for this takes too much work), opt instead to SLANDER and attempt to bring into disrepute the very idea of roles. This is exactly the same problem that lies at the bottom of all "unfair games" fagotry or all the hatred directed against so-called "competitive gamers" (as if there were any other kind). Those who are crap at games and too lazy to attempt to improve in them simply end up SLANDERING the very idea of winning and competitiveness -- for slandering is the only weapon left to them.

But nothing is to be achieved in this way. If you were an ugly woman at first, slandering pretty women will only make you UGLIER: one has only to see the faces of all the "greatest" feminists, for venom, poison-brewing, slandering etc. do not make people prettier than they are -- quite the opposite in fact. And the same thing occurs with players. The loser who spends all his time whining about the fact that he is losing is not going to become any less a loser because of all the whining -- again, quite the opposite in fact.

So basically, all these abortive sub-humans, whether they be bad players or ugly women or "oppressed" minorites, etc. -- all of them end up using the only weapon that's left to them, the weapon of the weak: the moral judgement.

And, as Nietzsche went to great pains to point out again and again in his philosophy, a philosopher is FINISHED once he succumbs to the disease of moralizing.

Philosophy (and therefore intelligence) is not for the weak.

QED
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Apr 2010 18:11

The above, by the way, also explains why blacks, yellows, greens, browns etc. have never achieved anything in philosophy, and by the looks of things never will. They are all too busy whining about "equal rights" to have any time to grasp the fact that the concept of equality is an absurdity, whilst the real goal of philosophy has always been, and always will be in the OPPOSITE direction: in increasing inequality.

And now observe something hilarious in all this: that all the abortive sub-humans, the ugly women, the gays and the minorities, have in recent years taken to SLANDERING the so-called "dead white European males". It goes without saying of course that the abortives have never yet, nor will they ever, actually provide any sound reasoning for this slandering -- it's all done entirely instinctively, to the point where a few generations hence perhaps it will become internalized to the point of a ruling subconscious drive. And the reason for the slandering? It is simple: these Dead White European Males make the abortives feel UNCOMFORTABLE -- and since the abortives lack the strength and courage to bear with this uncomfortableness and confront if face on, they resort to namecalling, moralizing, absurdities and the like -- which have always been and always will be the weapons of the weak.

So intellectual inferiority is not a phenomenon restricted to women; it is something that, sooner or later, in one way or another, happens to the weak. I will soon be analyzing, for example, the very same phenomenon in the case of journalists, in an upcoming essay titled "On Journalism's Irrelevance". The gist of it is that journalists end up being stupider than philosophers because they submit to the demands of the rabble. It is this submission which ensures in the long run the weakness of their theories, and thus their intellectual inferiority, just as the bad player's submission to his status as "bad player"; or the woman's submission (which occured countless millennia ago) to the subsidiary role of child-rearing; or the minority person's submission to his role as a member of a minority which lusts for "equality", ensure and perpetuate all of these individuals' intellectual inferiority.

One must not submit then -- this is the rule that can be inferred from all of this, for submission leads to slavery of one kind or another, and slavery to stupidity.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Apr 2010 18:32

And the final question in all of this is: Could there be women, then, or homosexuals or people belonging to minorities etc., who, at some future time, will have accumulated enough strength which would allow them to dispense with the "equal rights" fagotry and step forward and simply CLAIM, that is to say FORCIBLY SEIZE HOLD OF, their so-called "rights"? (i.e. their desires: for that is what the word "right" means in this context).

And the answer is:

Who knows! Perhaps so! But by the time that happens, mankind will probably be at such a technological stage that "people" will no longer need things such as "sexes", "sexualities", "races" and the like, so women, gays and minorities will have been ABOLISHED. They will have lost, that is to say, the philosophy game even before they got around to properly start playing it.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Apr 2010 18:49

And I might as well take a moment to explain why women are worse than men at chess. The answer, in fact, is the same one I provided at the end of my hobag article, and which that stoopid Russian bitch who wrote the article EightEyes linked even goes as far as to mention -- but in a playful manner, i.e. being too stupid to take it seriously and realize how true it is.

perhaps [women] are too intelligent to spend more time at something that is just a game. Maybe the question should be, are men too stupid or too immature to quit obsessing on chess? Then maybe we wouldn't have this topic getting abused over and over again. "Chess is a sign of lack of intelligence" -- now wouldn't that be a kick in the head?


Exactly what I said in my hobag article then. Women have better things to do than obsess over videogames, or real-life games, or war, or philosophy, or anything whatever really that is not directly related to finding mates, marrying them and having and raising children. They therefore excel at these activities -- but suck in all the others. The fact that the Russian bitch thinks that this behavior of women is more intelligent, and leads to more intelligence, than that pursued by men is simply another sign of her lack of intelligence -- she doesn't even have a clue of what intelligence is! it is as foreign a quality to her as menstruation is to me.

Like I said, I could take that whole article apart if I wanted to, and will perhaps do so at some point (if I have not, indeed, already done so together with NighAligned to a great extent).
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 12 Apr 2010 22:36

I think I should stop posting shit like this in the forum. I mean people come here to read about vidyageams and whatnot, and then they get this shit instead, and I mean it is easy to see why they freak out. But the problem is that all these issues are so tightly related to one another that it is basically impossible to fully separate them, so I start analyzing one issue, and the deeper I get the more I have to pull in threads from other issues in order to keep going... deeper basically. I mean what are you gonna do? We are either going for it or we are not. If we are not then we might as well close down the theory forum and concentrate on news or high scores or whatever the fuck, as if this place were Kotaku or Shmups.com. But the theory forum must necessarily be, to a certain extent at least, about SERIOUS BUSINNES. So fucking don't click on it if you are not in the mood for SERIOUS BUSINESS, basically, is all I am saying.

So yeah. I guess I could close down this forum and finish my goddamn books, and then we can pretend none of this ever happened and go back to playing games and not-talking about them (because there's really not all that much that can be said about them). I think that might work.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby amadeus » 12 Apr 2010 23:55

First, don't close it just yet. Second, if people freak out about it, they shouldn't even be here. What the heck – they shouldn't even be allowed to be able to read.

Third: In times of overly political correctness (lol) it seems to be normal procedure to not touch 'delicate' subjects. Because of history and what not. One isn't allowed to point out the obvious deficits of the majority of the population. Even though everyone knows it. And why? Because some asshole confused down the line the words égalité and égalitarisme. Which brings us back to your points about the precision of language. So don't close theory. As you pointed out, the matters are closely related – not-talking about them hasn't worked till now and it won't solve anything in the future.
User avatar
amadeus
 
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 14:20
Location: Luxembourg|Salzburg

Unread postby Iris » 13 Apr 2010 01:20

Please don't close down Theory. This place has better discussion than my college, hehe. I haven't been able to contribute yet, but it takes time, you know? I think you'll have a lot of new people to help if you wait it out.
User avatar
Iris
 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009 16:46

Unread postby movie » 13 Apr 2010 01:30

Checking for new stuff here is one of the highlights of my day. It would be shame to see it go.
User avatar
movie
 
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 11:54

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 02:08

Iris wrote:I think you'll have a lot of new people to help if you wait it out.


You are reading this wrong. I am not asking for people to "help" or whatever. I've already solved everything, it's just a matter of sitting down to write it. The kind of help people can give me at this stage is of the kind seen in the "Simulacrum" thread -- essentially by pushing me with their questions to make my answers clearer and more detailed -- for their benefit (but it's a delicate business: you can't push me too hard or in the wrong direction...). So I mean, yeah, people CAN help, but not in the strong sense of the word -- God forbid I actually expected strangers to come in here and "help" me solve the problems I have been wrestling with for years.

No, the main problem is something else entirely. The fundamental problem with this sub-forum, and by extension with the entire site, is that philosophy and videogame theory are not two separate subjects -- the former contains the latter, and the latter cannot be fully analyzed without first having fully analyzed the former. So no matter which aspect of games you begin analyzing: mechanics, aesthetics, narrative, competitiveness, technology, even "meanings", "messages" and the like, you always end up right back at philosophy: i.e. at Nietzsche, Baudrillard and the rest of them. So the problem with these fucking articles of mine, and the threads in the theory forum, is that, at some point in the analysis, I am forced to break it off with a vague promise that it "will be continued...", because if I pursue the thread of reasoning to the end, ANY THREAD WHATEVER, I will be obliged to keep going until I have solved all of philosophy. So I am constantly coming up against this problem, and have to decide on which point exactly it is best to shut up and break the analysis off. Considering how many articles I've got coming up, then, and how many side-issues need to be solved (because no one else can solve them, and because, once they HAVE been solved, they can contribute mightily to one's chances of grasping the big problems), I guess it's natural that we will end up on occasion with threads like this, in which I've run my big mouth a little more than perhaps I should have. But what am I gonna do? Delete it? Several hundred people have already read it -- so that's not going to work. And since they understand fuck-all about philosophy, they will of course think that I am a loon.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby zinger » 13 Apr 2010 07:45

About my request: it was something Jamie Whyte said in that youtube video (about a teacher who got banned for claiming that the reason as for why few women bother with in-depth physics studies is because of their general lacking mental capacity, "although research suggests that it's true").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxqZJw4PtA8

I realize that physics, biology, psychology, sociology are inseparable, what I'm after I guess is any clues to why gender roles isn't an issue of how we bring up our kids alone. Just raising this question, expressing the least doubt about how these things work, will nigh on get you lynched, at least in my country. I don't doubt that Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Baudrillard possess the best clues, but proof-checking every section of The Gay Science with experiences of my own (that I might not even have acquired) takes a lot of time, and I wouldn't mind some help from scientists, experts. Thanks anyway.
User avatar
zinger
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007 16:32
Location: Sweden

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 12:40

zinger wrote:what I'm after I guess is any clues to why gender roles isn't an issue of how we bring up our kids alone.


I don't understand what you mean by this.

It's worth pointing out also that I don't think that a great deal of intelligence is required for "in-depth physics studies". People like Feynman and Einstein were idiots, for example, and they were some of the best in their fields.

I mean, to be sure, physics requires more intelligence than say, cooking, but no other human activity gets anywhere near philosophy in this regard. The sciences, when you really think about it, especially at the extremely specialized stage where we are right now, require mostly a dogged mechanistic determination; a machine-like level of patience more than anything else. It's getting more and more like factory work with every passing decade. Science is for the mediocre.

And note that I am not an outsider who doesn't know how these things work. I have degrees in Aeronautical Engineering and Space Science, and did research for a while in Plasma Physics. All the people I worked with were bona fide idiots. Gosh, I am so glad I am out of that racket!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 12:53

Read, for example, the Einstein-Freud exchange, to see what a moron Einstein is.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ ... hywar.html

He basically spams Freud's inbox with bullshit questions about how to "end war", lol.

And the last letter in the exchange includes this awesome pearl:

Einstein wrote:As long as all international conflicts are not subject to arbitration and the enforcement of decisions arrived at by arbitration is not guaranteed, and as long as war production is not prohibited we may be sure that war will follow upon war. Unless our civilization achieves the moral strength to overcome this evil, it is bound to share the fate of former civilizations: decline and decay.


Decline and decay, according to this moralizing prick's idea, follow in the wake of war, whereas growth and health follow in the wake of peace. A proposition that simply contradicts our entire science of physiology -- as well as history, by the way.

And Freud's replies were not that much better either. But I'll take care of him at length eventually.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 13:03

Freud wrote:In this context we would point out that men should be at greater pains than heretofore to form a superior class of independent thinkers, unamenable to intimidation and fervent in the quest of truth


1932 and Freud hadn't yet learned that there is no such thing as "truth" -- the concept is simply absurd.

Need I say anything more?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 13:04

Here's how his proposition would have to be rephrased to make any sense:

In this context we would point out that men should be at greater pains than heretofore to form a superior class of independent thinkers, unamenable to intimidation and fervent in the quest for power


But, again, a proposition such as this requires a man, and Freud was nothing of the kind.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 17:09

It's worth also asking ourselves and thinking about what zinger is really asking for when he asks for "research" by "scientists" regarding "women's lacking intellectual capacity". What he is basically asking for is numbers. And this is what uneducated people are asking for whenever they ask for "science" -- always numbers. Say for example that the question was "Can pigs fly?" An answer of the kind "Dude, they are fucking pigs", would never satisfy a truly uneducated person. He would demand "appropriate scientific research" which "proves" that "pigs cannot fly". They basically want a dude in a white coat with a stethoscope around his neck to buy 10,000 pigs, drive them up to the edge of a cliff, and then start throwing them over one by one while timing their descent with a chronometer and neatly recording the results in a little notebook. Then, when the last pig has finally been splattered all over the rocks below, they want him to take his little notebook, go back to his lab, muck around with Excel and Powerpoint for a few months (and at best years, depending on how much money the uneducateds have pooled together and given him in exchange for his "research"), then finally make his way to some shmancy fancy conference of shallow-pates and present all this "research" to his colleagues in the form of a paper titled "Can pigs fly?"

Of course, the question will not be answered -- not definitively, at least. The most the "scientist" will be able to offer is (-- and this only if he is one of the more honest ones --) that "It would appear that pigs may not, indeed, be able to fly" -- though he would of course immediately follow it up with a clarification that "since every one of the pigs hit the rocks at a different time interval, it would also appear that some pigs are better than others at, if not flying, then at least at not falling so quickly". And he will no doubt end by recommending follow-up research to clear this matter up, perhaps by using more pigs, or throwing them from a higher cliff, etc. etc.

It is at this point that the philosopher enters the picture. He has heard of all the fagotry that has taken place: the "experiment", the conference and the paper, etc. etc., as well as the "media's" and the uneducated public's stunned reaction to the scientific findings that "even though it would appear that pigs may not quite be able to fly at this very moment, perhaps with some more extensive research scientists would be able to more effectively pinpoint the reasons for this deficiency of pigs, which reasons are no doubt wholy environmental in nature -- since as every decent person knows all animals are equal to all other animals -- so that at some future point, after appropriate affirmative action has been undertaken to redress whatever injustice is at the bottom of this anomaly, pigs would be able to fly as well as, for example, eagles."

The philosopher, it goes without saying, has almost broken a rib from laughing at all this fucking fagotry. It is only when he has exhausted every last lol from it that he will condescend to speak to the dumb beasts just in case there's one or two of them who are not as dumb as they look.

So he will come forward and say: "Perhaps it would have been better before you set out to throw all this time and money at the "problem" (not to mention the poor pigs), if you had sat down FOR A FEW SECONDS and tried to analyze the question you were asking yourselves. "Can pigs fly?" you ask. But what does the word "fly" really mean? Does "floating" count as "flying?" I mean just look at helicopters or the Harrier. And if floating counts as flying, isn't falling as well a kind of flying? So that falling and flying may not indeed be opposites, as the people and the prejudices built into our vocabulary would suggest, but merely different sides of the same coin? And isn't it therefore obvious that ALL animals can fly-fall in this manner, so that the question becomes, not if pigs can fly or not, but how good are pigs at flying compared to other animals? And is it really necessary to throw a billion pigs off a fucking cliff in order to figure out that pigs are worse at flying than, say, hawks or sparrows? Isn't this already a very solidly established fact, through countless millennia of observations by millions of human beings? Isn't the very fact that, at this very moment, as I am saying these words, there are MORE BIRDS IN THE AIR THAN PIGS, a resounding "proof" of the fact that birds are better than flyind at pigs? Is any further research into this matter really necessary? And once this fact has finally been grasped, isn't it even a little mad to desire to turn pigs into birds and birds into pigs, in order to make them "more equal", as you say? Isn't it better to just let the pigs do piggy stuff and the birds birdy stuff, since that is what each of them respectively are best at doing, and therefore enjoy the most?"

A parable.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby zinger » 13 Apr 2010 17:47

I was asking for a different perspective, but I realize now that my questions weren't very well thought through. I'll get on with the reading list, thanks.
User avatar
zinger
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007 16:32
Location: Sweden

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Apr 2010 23:42

I was just watching The 40-Year-Old Virgin and paused it to post this. Half-way through, at the point where he meets Beth for the first time. That's all you need to know about women right there.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby amadeus » 15 Apr 2010 17:39

http://kotaku.com/5517512/a-long-way-to-go

Well... I'm short of words here actually. Dumb site replies to even dumber list perhaps? Take this for example:

Meggan Scavio. Runs GDC.

Is that a reason for getting on a list? As if running GDC would get you a fucking prize.

Kim Swift. Designed Portal.

Well, that may be a valid point. But –- does one really need a list for that?
User avatar
amadeus
 
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 14:20
Location: Luxembourg|Salzburg

Unread postby abe » 15 Apr 2010 19:19

I like how she listed the names:

And I could actually add a whole bunch more ladies doing amazing things with games (Jen, Diane, Cat, Sophie, Robin, Heather, Sarah, Claire, Rita, Susan, Merci, Regina and Tracy, for instance and for starters).


And this hysterical line:

Margaret Robertson
Living legend.


And this retardation:

If it were up to me, in creating any list, I would take a number - say 50, and a field - say games, and then pick out the top 25 men and the top 25 women, highlighting whatever it is they're doing. Because that's called fairness.

the longer we continue to publish lists containing all-men or nearly-all-men, the longer we propagate the broken image and insulting idea that women aren't as good, or as important, as men.

Many women just haven't had the chance yet: they haven't had the encouragement, the education, the freedom, the support, the role models, the contacts, the friends in high places, the opportunities and the finances that their male counterparts often get by default, by tradition and by homophily.

It's not right and it needs to change. Monocultures are evolutionarily a dead end: game people, take note.


Whaaa whaaa poor me nothing's fair it's someone else's fault whaaaa.
abe
 
Joined: 02 Jul 2009 06:19

Unread postby abe » 15 Apr 2010 19:33

Here's an article from the "living legend" Margaret Robertson:

http://lookspring.co.uk/writing/games-that-make-me-cry

Games That Make Me Cry

this is going to be embarrassing.

it’s going to be embarrassing for you.

it’s going to be embarrassing for all of us,

I’m here today to fight a myth.

That myth is this: Games Aren’t Art Because Games Can’t Make You Cry.

If it’s someone with a rather narrow-minded view of the gaming audience, it’ll probably go like this: Games Aren’t Art Because Games Can’t Appeal To Girls.

defeating it requires a terrible, horrifying weapon.

I’m going to tell you about the games that have made me cry, which I hope will lay the myth to rest,

Which means that when Vivi does finally find his home, it’s the place where he also finally understands that he’s not real, that his parents are dead, not missing, that they weren’t his real parents anyway, that he was built to serve the bad guys and that he probably won’t live to see his tenth birthday.

So what happens next? I cry, is what happens next.

The next game that made me cry wasn’t even a game.

but seeing this screenshot, all my hopes for Link’s triumphant return were dashed. The end of Ocarina had stripped him of his home, his love and his only friend, and now the new game was going to strip him of the only thing he had left – his identity. And that was enough to choke me up.
abe
 
Joined: 02 Jul 2009 06:19

Next

Return to Theory

cron