Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "China’s first triple-A video game sparks controversy" video.

1:29 "A lack of diversity or inclusivity"? In what? The characters? Or the staff? Either way, the game is meant to be as close to the original story as much as possible, which the main characters are all male. And the staff? Since when were there a lot of women working in the gaming industry to even be hired?
80
@cmck1777 Why are you talking about STEM? Im specifically talking about the gaming industry. Only the E (engineering) in STEM is relevant for this industry. How many women engineers are there? And out of those women engineers, how many are specifically software engineers that again, work in gaming? Almost non-existent. Which was what I was trying to say, theres no much women in the gaming industry to even hire to begin with. And no, women "perform better" in university is because there is a higher proportion of women in STEM choosing to further their studies in research, ie a PHD degree. Thats why they "perform better" academically on paper. But in reality, when it comes to practical performance, its men that perform much better. Even women CEOs in tech that originally wanted to hire women (because equality) ended up hiring men instead because men far outperform women in these fields, especially when it comes to coding (software engineering) where everything is highly logical, which men tend to excel in.
7
"It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored" And that doesnt apply to men? See the bias? "By comparison, predominantly male...Recent game developer unions also have more male than female members" You are speaking of absolute numbers...In an industry where the M/F ratio is like 10:1. Obviously there are more M reporting, and more M in unions. Thats a disingenuous comparison. You have to look at the proportions. Even if 1 in 5, or 20% of M reported (and joined unions), and 100% of all F reported (and join unions), there would still be more M reporting (and in unions). I just did a quick search. One of the top results show "Men are more likely to work longer hours at work, but women are more likely to complain about it. Check out this survey". So basically, proportionally speaking, women speak out more. And men tend to zuck it up and deal with it. Which was what I said. I just didnt add the word "proportionally" previously thats all. I assumed that would be a given (given the obvious) but apparently not. You just had to use the absolute numbers to rebut me in an obviously male dominated field. Proportionally speaking is what I meant.
4
@cmck1777 And your "trend of active misogyny" is biased. In all male dominated fields, the "new guys" quite often experience contempt towards them. Its not only towards women. But only women voice their opinions out because theyve never experience it before. Whereas for men, men just zuck it up and deal with it.
3
"don't feel bad that I look more closely at sources..." Are you gaslighting or you misinterpreting my words? I dont feel bad at all. Not one bit. And it doesnt matter how "close" you look at the source if you only look at source that suits your narrative, ie biased. You may be right that "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored". But did you "look closely" at the data for men too? And provided a balanced assessment in your post? If you dont look at the data for men, then from the conclusion youve made youll also receive an F if you wrote a thesis on our topic of discussion. "You've stated that you're comfortable with the idea that proportionally more women complain" Ok now dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that. I could very well be stating something Im very uncomfortable with, uncomfortable that theres some much complaint from one side but not the other. It baffles me how you keep misinterpreting things. I truly question your ability to interpret information. As a "researcher", you lose credibility every time you misinterpret something. And youve done it many times now... "If you were doing a thesis in...and you submitted work that compared the behaviour of one woman to that of 9 men, you would be heavily penalised, and possibly even fail. You would be using mismatched sample sizes but comparing them; this is a big no-no" I honestly surprised how you keep coming up with obvious misinterpretation after obvious misinterpretation. For someone that supposedly interprets information and what information CAN mean, thats certainly surprising. That is obviously not what I meant. Youre talking about "reports" and "unions". I did not give an absolute number of 9 to 1. I gave a ratio of 9:1. The numbers could very well be 9 million to 1 million. If the sample size is big enough (which it is when it comes to reports and number of people in unions) and if the data has a sound level of consistency (which again is, based on data) then the conclusion is valid. Yet youre somehow trying to discredit that? Again, thats so disingenuous of you to do that. "The point I was making to you earlier, about women self-reporting that they don't make complaints because they feel it isn't worth it, cannot be compared to male experiences within the workplace because the female employees are made to feel uncomfortable through their gender" Youre moving goal posts here. "Uncomfortable through gender" is not "misogyny" - the very word I was refuting. Do you know the definition of the word youre using?
3
@cmck1777 It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored" And that doesnt apply to men? See the bias? "By comparison, predominantly male...Recent game developer unions also have more male than female members" You are speaking of absolute numbers. In an industry where the gender ratio is like 10:1, obviously there are more males reporting, and more males in unions. Thats a disingenuous comparison. You have to look at the proportions. Even if 20% of the males reported (and in unions), and 100% of all females reported (and in unions), there would still be more males reporting (and in unions). I just did a quick search. One of the top results show "Men are more likely to work longer hours at work, but women are more likely to complain about it. Check out this survey". So basically proportionally speaking, women speak out more. And men tend to zuck it up and deal with it. Which was what I said. I just didnt add the word "proportionally" previously thats all. I assumed that would be a given (given the obvious) but apparently its not. You just had to use the absolute numbers to rebut me in an obviously male dominated field. Proportionally speaking is what I meant.
1
@cmck1777 "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored" And that doesnt apply to men? See the bias? "By comparison, predominantly male...Recent game developer unions also have more male than female members" You are speaking of absolute numbers...In an industry where the gender ratio is like 10:1. Obviously there are more males reporting, and more males in unions. Thats a disingenuous comparison. You have to look at the proportions. Even if 20% of the males reported (and joined unions), and 100% of all females reported (and join unions), there would still be more males reporting (and in unions). I just did a quick search. One of the top results show "Men are more likely to work longer hours at work, but women are more likely to complain about it. Check out this survey". So basically proportionally speaking, women speak out more. And men tend to zuck it up and deal with it. Which was what I said. I just didnt add the word "proportionally" previously thats all. I assumed that would be a given (given the obvious) but apparently its not. You just had to use the absolute numbers to rebut me in an obviously male dominated field. Proportionally speaking is what I meant.
1
@cmck1777 "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored" And that doesnt apply to men? See the bias? "By comparison, predominantly male...Recent game developer unions also have more male than female members" You are speaking of absolute numbers...In an industry where the M/F ratio is like 10:1. Obviously there are more M reporting, and more M in unions. Thats a disingenuous comparison. You have to look at the proportions. Even if 1 in 5, or 20% of M reported (and joined unions), and 100% of all F reported (and join unions), there would still be more M reporting (and in unions). I just did a quick search. One of the top results show "Men are more likely to work longer hours at work, but women are more likely to complain about it. Check out this survey". So basically, proportionally speaking, women speak out more. And men tend to zuck it up and deal with it. Which was what I said. I just didnt add the word "proportionally" previously thats all. I assumed that would be a given (given the obvious) but apparently not. You just had to use the absolute numbers to rebut me in an obviously male dominated field. Proportionally speaking is what I meant.
1
@cmck1777 Couldnt tag and comment for some reason
1
@cmck1777 "don't feel bad that I look more closely at sources..." Youre gaslighting at this point. I dont feel bad at all. Not one bit. And it doesnt matter how "close" you look at the source if you only look at source that suits your narrative, ie biased. You may be right that "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored". But did you "look closely" at the data for men too? And provided a balanced assessment in your post? If you dont look at the data for men, then from the conclusion youve made youll also receive an F if you wrote a thesis on our topic of discussion. "You've stated that you're comfortable with the idea that proportionally more women complain" Dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that. I could very well be stating something Im very uncomfortable with, uncomfortable that theres some much complaint from one side but not the other. It baffles me how you keep misinterpreting things. I truly question your ability to interpret information. As a "researcher", you lose credibility every time you misinterpret something. And youve done it many times now... "If you were doing a thesis in...and you submitted work that compared the behaviour of one woman to that of 9 men, you would be heavily penalised, and possibly even fail. You would be using mismatched sample sizes but comparing them; this is a big no-no" I honestly surprised how you keep coming up with obvious misinterpretation after obvious misinterpretation. Not sure if thats deliberate or not. For someone that supposedly interprets information and what information CAN mean, thats certainly surprising. That is obviously not what I meant. Youre talking about "reports" and "unions". I did not give an absolute number of 9 to 1. I gave a ratio of 9:1. The numbers could very well be 9 million to 1 million. If the sample size is big enough (which it is when it comes to reports and number of people in unions) and if the data has a sound level of consistency (which again is, based on data) then the conclusion is valid. Yet youre somehow trying to discredit that? Again, thats so disingenuous of you to do that. "The point I was making to you earlier, about women self-reporting that they don't make complaints because they feel it isn't worth it, cannot be compared to male experiences within the workplace because the female employees are made to feel uncomfortable through their gender" Youre moving goal posts here. "Uncomfortable through gender" is not "misogyny" - the very word I was refuting. Do you know the definition of the word youre using?
1
@cmck1777 "don't feel bad that I look more closely at sources..." Are you gaslighting or you misinterpreting my words? I dont feel bad at all. Not one bit. And it doesnt matter how "close" you look at the source if you only look at source that suits your narrative, ie biased. You may be right that "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored". But did you "look closely" at the data for men too? And provided a balanced assessment in your post? If you dont look at the data for men, then from the conclusion youve made youll also receive an F if you wrote a thesis on our topic of discussion. "You've stated that you're comfortable with the idea that proportionally more women complain" Ok now dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that. I could very well be stating something Im very uncomfortable with, uncomfortable that theres some much complaint from one side but not the other. It baffles me how you keep misinterpreting things. I truly question your ability to interpret information. As a "researcher", you lose credibility every time you misinterpret something. And youve done it many times now... "If you were doing a thesis in...and you submitted work that compared the behaviour of one woman to that of 9 men, you would be heavily penalised, and possibly even fail. You would be using mismatched sample sizes but comparing them; this is a big no-no" I honestly surprised how you keep coming up with obvious misinterpretation after obvious misinterpretation. For someone that supposedly interprets information and what information CAN mean, thats certainly surprising. That is obviously not what I meant. Youre talking about "reports" and "unions". I did not give an absolute number of 9 to 1. I gave a ratio of 9:1. The numbers could very well be 9 million to 1 million. If the sample size is big enough (which it is when it comes to reports and number of people in unions) and if the data has a sound level of consistency (which again is, based on data) then the conclusion is valid. Yet youre somehow trying to discredit that? Again, thats so disingenuous of you to do that. "The point I was making to you earlier, about women self-reporting that they don't make complaints because they feel it isn't worth it, cannot be compared to male experiences within the workplace because the female employees are made to feel uncomfortable through their gender" Youre moving goal posts here. "Uncomfortable through gender" is not "misogyny" - the very word I was refuting. Do you know the definition of the word youre using?
1
@cmck1777 Cant tag and comment again
1
@cmck1777 No, my main qualm is people making biased or misleading statements, and throwing words like "misogyny" out there even when it isnt misogyny. No one cares about men. Heck even I dont as a man. And thats technically misandry (misogyny for men), but we all dont care about men thats why people dont see it as misandry. We brush it off as nothing. But not for women, because women are "special" and we need to take special care in the way we speak to them, otherwise its misogyny... Regardless, the only reason I brought up men was to counter your worldview that the work place was "against" women, when in fact both sexes suffer. Men just zuck it up and deal with it. The number 1 reason why theres less women in STEM, more specifically T and E, is because theres simply less women (proportionally) interested in these fields. Men tend to be more interested in working with "things" and women tend to be more interested in working with "people". Our biologies are different so our interests are also different. Interest/biology is the #1 thing deterring women from this field, not "misogyny".
1