Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 30, 2014, 01:14:
Eirikrautha wrote on Mar 29, 2014, 20:07:
Your argument is that if the numbers aren't exactly equal... then racism (or sexism, or insert-ism-here). That's the least intellectual argument in the history of arguments.
Not equal, proportional.
Do you agree that talent in computing is independent of gender and race? Yes or no? If yes, why wouldn't we want to ensure roughly proportional representation in the field, since non-proportionate representation would imply that some talent is going to waste? If no, if talent is dependent on gender and race, how is that not sexist and racist?
And remember: I already acknowledged that it COULD be true that white and Asian men are just naturally and innately more talented at computer science and programming -- I don't believe that, but it is possible. But if that is the case, if the reason computing is mad up mostly of white and Asian men is that those groups are just better at it than other groups, then those that believe that need to be honest and argue that racism and sexism shouldn't be demonized because some races are just better than others at certain things, and that we shouldn't try to get proportional representation in all fields.
Look, hard as this may be for you to believe, I'm not trying to demonize you; I'm trying to get you to be honest and say what you actually mean. You're adamantly against trying to achieve proportional representation, and your stated reason is that it lowers standards. But the only way I can see it lowering standards -- and you haven't offered an alternative here -- is if the underrepresented groups, i.e. women, blacks, and Hispanics, are innately less talented. The implied premise of your argument then is inherently racist and sexist, but when presented with that, rather than offering an alternative premise for the conclusion that proportional representation will lower standards, you whine about being demonized as sexist or racist. If it's that upsetting to you, then don't make implicitly racist and sexist arguments, and instead present your actual premises, which you claim to be unblemished by prejudicial thinking.
edit: As an aside, I do think it is possible to argue that, in some areas, talent is dependent, to an extent, on gender, and possibly race as well. For example, there is a reason we don't see women players in the NFL: the female body, even an outlier female body, simply isn't going to be competitive in that level of play of that sport. Likewise, you don't see many Asian men in the NFL, probably for a variety of reasons, but partly because it's pretty rare that men of Asian descent are built like, well, NFL players. So athletics is an area where I believe it is legitimate to make the argument that talent is dependent, to a certain extent, on race and gender, and thus proportional racial and gender representation would imply a lowering of standards. Are you willing to make that same argument with regard to computing? Or are you going to continue to state the same conclusion, while keeping your premises hidden?
First:
"Do you agree that talent in computing is independent of gender and race? Yes or no? If yes, why wouldn't we want to ensure roughly proportional representation in the field, since non-proportionate representation would imply that some talent is going to waste?"
I agree that talent in computing is independent of gender or race. Period. The rest of this quote then shows where you are mistaken. Who is the "we in the "we want to ensure..."? If the "we" is the women, minorities, space aliens, or whomever's numbers don't "add up," then I've got no problem with it. If the "we" is you, the government, so called "public interest" groups, etc., then I have a BIG problem with it. Were the contest in the OP directed towards finding the best new game designers, with a caveat that encouraged women to apply ("we'd really like to help more women navigate the field, but you've got to be good!"), I probably wouldn't have even posted. But it is exclusive to women, and I find that as abhorrent as a design competition exclusive to men, or whites, or anything. Unless you are looking for the "best," you
are a racist, sexist, or whatever name people want to throw around. But it seems that racism and sexism are ok, so long at is directed at the people "you" (whoever the "you" might be, not directed at you personally) don't like. I find it highly amusing that there are a number of anti-discrimination organizations in western Europe that are dedicated to defeating stereotypes of Muslims... that then go on and say the most anti-Semitic things possible. This is what Balkanization normalizes...
Also, someone deciding that they won't go into game design (even though they are talented) only implies that "talent is going to waste" if you believe that people are one-dimensional. It may be that they choose to do something they are even more talented in. Or they may choose to do something that they are LESS talented in, but that they love more. I don't see a problem with either.
I'll not respond to the second paragraph, as it doesn't apply to me or my argument. As for "lowering standards," that is a product of narrowing fields. If you are looking for the best; you will often get the best (not always, but that is life). If you are looking for the best women; you may get the best women at than time, place, circumstance, etc., but that will not necessarily be the best overall. A lot of it has to do with circumstance.
Show me that the numbers of women in gaming is directly related to systematic selection against them and I might be sympathetic (though my remedy may still not be what you want). But simply noticing a number difference is NOT a priori evidence that such a system exists. Human choice and variability account for the vast majority of said differences. When video games were in their infancy, they may not have appealed to women as much as they do now (based on various cultural or personal decisions WOMEN made... not you or me or
the man). We've seen a growth in women in gaming. It would stand to reason that the numbers of women who want to make games would rise (and it has). I don't see this as a justification for sexism on the part of the OP or other entities, then...