It is not uncommon for minorities in any group to be encouraged to show solidarity (women only events in tech for instance) while the same is frowned upon for the privileged majority.
This sort of behavior, particularly when used in what should otherwise be a safe space for a minority group traditionally excluded from society (young male gamers), serves only to exclude and already disadvantaged group.
Incidentally, do you also believe black men playing basketball (who often use language similar to gamers) are also bad human beings?
To be fair, those make me uncomfortable as well. But there's a difference between "we're holding an exclusive event for group X only" and "group Y is banned because they have to be protected from group X who we want to be our only audience". There is also the power gap to consider, whether it is real or perceived doesn't matter. Holding an event for the perceived "underdog" is a lot less reprehensible than accommodating the suppressive views of a (minor but) "dominant" group. Also in this case the implied conclusion that "might makes right" ticks a lot of people off.
The intention behind men-only events is to avoid having to support women in technology.
Define non-trivial in this context.
Cite some examples of female only gaming events.
Fundamentalist religious societies often use the same line of reasoning: women are not allowed to walk around unveiled or allowed to do pretty much anything because they are powerless and ostensibly have to be protected from society as much as society needs to be protected from the unrest their public presence causes. The deeper "logic" here is that women are held responsible for the abuse they are provoking just by being around, and also that they're somehow not mature enough to handle themselves.
This is exactly the same reasoning as banning, say, black people on the grounds that they might cause unrest among KKK attendees who might be present.
In one line: this is the most insultingly stupid thing ever and it's happening not only in Texas but all over the world. I just wish it didn't happen in so-called free societies at all.
That said, there are milder scenarios for discrimination and there are severe ones. This one is severe in its stupidity.
But honestly, it seems like you're just nitpicking here because you don't want chicks at your LAN party. Some of us find that pretty hateful.
My strategy, instead of excluding women, would be to make it a 21+ event (or maybe 18+), as well as kicking out anybody who doesn't abide by decency standards.
I think they probably figured out that that would mean kicking 99% of the LAN party out.
It's EA so I'm already boycotting it. :P
What kind of person even wants to host an event for a bunch of immature teenage gamers who can't handle the presence of a female?
People get up in arms about stuff like this because they're offended that people would so boldly exclude someone, but the key here is that it's a private event. Don't like it? Don't support them. Or, create your own private event with any rules you see fit.
As a nonreligious white male, I'm also excluded from minority scholarships, many religious private colleges, jobs with many religious organizations, being a waiter at Hooters, and plenty of other social groups, simply because of my personal beliefs or race or gender.
Women also can't join the Augusta National Golf Club (home of the Masters) for similar reasons as this, but I don't see that on the frontpage of HN.
This is a classic refrain of apologists for bigotry. I belong to a country club that officially excluded blacks up until the 60's, and did so unofficially for years after. The policy changed under pressure from the community, which included bad publicity, public embarrassment, and disdain directed at individual club members from people on the outside. Public scorn for the organization prevailed over the objections of assholes who said, "it's a private organization! Go make your own country club!".
Eventually, Augusta may repent of gender discrimination due to similar pressure. And it still won't make the front page of HN because it has nothing to do with computers.
What is, however, equally legal, is to be outraged about it and to make noise about it. They can hold their event, I can yell at them for doing so. Both legal, so I’m not exactly sure what your point is.
And your broader points are just plain wrong: doing bad things in private doesn't make it OK. Doing things that are legal doesn't make them moral. Getting "up in arms about stuff" that doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean your opinions shouldn't be voiced.
Edit: Did anyone downvoting me bother to read the article? This is exactly the reasoning they are using to ban women from this event.
Edit: Since we're getting pretty deep in the comments here and the timer is in effect... To joshuacc: I did miss that line. Looks like the parent here is right I didn't add anything to the discussion. Thanks!
Just want to make sure people don't automatically leap on the BF3 link and blame the publisher or developer, when this appears to be a privately run event.
Old thread: http://www.powersgaming.com/showthread.php?742-Battlefield-3...
New thread: http://www.powersgaming.com/showthread.php?785-Battlefield-3...
If I was EA or DICE I would not be happy with this negative buzz about the game, especially as it makes BF3 players look pretty bad. (Or at least this group of them.)
I'm not sure if "or" is the right word there...
