[imgabe]

And I wholeheartedly agree that those are lousy PR reps. But what's the takeaway here? The people who are actually reading this article likely overwhelmingly agree with her.

If you address your complaint about someone's action, not to the person doing that action, but to a large anonymous audience, how do you expect it to be rectified?

[Mystitat]

I take issue with the specific wording in your comment, "...but why wouldn't you just say..." It makes it sound like discrimination is not a big deal, because if you were just "taught to be assertive," you could handle it.

There is nothing she could have done to prevent the discrimination other than being a man. The entire article is set up to emphasize the way that anyone should be able to tell she's a gamer from the way she holds her hands on the keyboard, and yet they still treated her like someone who does not belong in the industry.

The point of the article is to increase awareness of discrimination among the "large anonymous audience." It is offensive to suggest that victims of discrimination should just act differently to prevent it.

[imgabe]

So, if we're all aware of discrimination it will go away? Maybe, the PR guy she talked to will see her article and make the connection that it was him she was talking about. Maybe.

If she had spoken directly to him about it, we could be certain that he knew his behavior was not appreciated. If he's not hopelessly clueless, he might even modify his behavior in the future. The number of people acting in a discriminatory fashion would then be decreased by one. That is something that could be considered progress.

I'm on your side here. I would also like to live in a world where there's no discrimination. I don't think we get there by "raising awareness" among people who are largely already aware of the problem.

I honestly don't see how it's offensive to suggest something a person could do to bring about the change that they want to see. Yes, you shouldn't have to. Yes, in a perfect world, nobody would ever encounter a jerk. But we don't live in that world. You have little to no control over how other people act. The only control you have is in how you act. Simply acknowledging that discrimination exists is not going to change anything if you don't confront the people who are doing the discriminating.

[goldensaucer]

It's offensive because, even if you're on her side, you're displacing responsibility from the offender. It's not her job to individually confront and educate every condescending PR rep. That's a grind, and also only effective on a micro-level. By writing another piece on sexism at E3, she contributes to the ever-growing pool of them; the more the community is aware of such behavior, the better equipped they are to recognize it when it happens.

[kilian]

But isn't that just practicality? Stepping completely away from this specific case, I have found that people that are the most effective in changing things are the ones that say 'I think it's your fault, but I'm going to fix it anyway'.

Naming it like this article is obviously important and I also don't think anyone thinks she is in any way responsible or in the wrong (quite the contrary) but the most effective way to make an offender change his (or her) ways is to simply communicate with him (or her).

[goldensaucer]

Yes, but there are a lot of factors that play into that communication. We make assumptions that the other party is amenable to change, or that the offended is an effective communicator in these one-on-one scenarios. I think it's unfair to think that these ideal conditions are in place for all of her interactions.

The article shares an experience of being marginalized, and we're focusing on what she could've done to feel more welcome where she felt unwelcome. By continually suggesting that she stand up for herself, we're creating an atmosphere that basically says, "It's on you," which further marginalizes her. Despite best intentions, it's treating her like a problem and distracts from the greater problem of condescension towards women in games.

[imgabe]

I don't mean to suggest that it's somehow her fault that that's how the PR guy thinks. Obviously, that's preposterous. I'm also not saying that she needs to give a 15 minute presentation on sexism in the video game industry to every PR rep at E3. A simple "Dude! Give me back the keyboard!" would probably suffice to solve the immediate problem of not getting to play the games she needs to play.

Yes, the article is an important part of effecting a macro-level change to the industry culture, but it's of minimal help in solving the micro-level problem at hand. That's all I'm saying.

[goldensaucer]

She didn't write this article to complain about not getting to play games. The point is that there is a common problem amongst male game employees, and people should know about it. I'm saying that it's legit to want to take on the macro over the micro, and that she has no obligation to address the latter. I believe in picking your battles.

[roguecoder]

> So, if we're all aware of discrimination it will go away?

Yes. Discrimination doesn't happen magically: is is perpetrated by people. If people are aware that they may be subtly discriminating they can stop themselves. If people around them are aware of the dynamics at work, they can speak up or intervene. This is the way to change things: not to focus on each individual person, but to raise the general consciousness.

On the other hand, demanding that victims confront discrimination in the way you expect them to isn't fair, and it sounds like you're saying she shouldn't be complaining. I think you failed to understand that this is a systematic problem, and it sounds like you just don't want to have to listen to her.

If even two PR people read that article it will have had a broader reach than if she had stood up to the guy in the moment, and it additionally brings attention to the culture so that other people confronting these issues know that they aren't the only ones. She would have been entirely within her right to stand up to the dude right then and there, but she is not required to. Saying that she must is like saying if you don't punch the guy with the knife you deserve to have your wallet stolen and shouldn't complain: it makes no sense.

Citations that awareness of gender issues is directly linked to actual sexist behavior: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6204116h3k45494/ http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/13/1/70.short

[anigbrowl]

The entire article is set up to emphasize the way that anyone should be able to tell she's a gamer from the way she holds her hands on the keyboard

That's kind of egotistical. I have played computer games since I was a kid and WASD is natural for me too, but I don't think of myself as 'a gamer' because I probably devote less than 1 hour/week to games.

[UnFleshedOne]

A bit unrelated to the article: first thing I do on any game is change WASD to arrow keys (and swap the mouse to the left). Without much thinking I would assume people who don't do that are at most casual gamers. :) I definitely wouldn't see somebody going for WASD and think "this must be a serious gamer".

[batemanesque]

because there is a great deal of sexism across the whole culture; it's hardly an issue caused or presented by a single person.