Giant Bomb News

2517 Comments

Eight Women, Eight Responses, and One Dead Island Riptide Statue

A collection of reactions to last week's questionable marketing tactic from a variety of women in the video game industry.

Deep Silver likely did not anticipate the intense reaction to its UK-specific Zombie Bait bundle for Dead Island Riptide when it was announced last week. The news came alongside other bundles for the sequel, but the Zombie Bait bundle received attention for a statue of a torn apart woman that featured nothing more than her bikini-wearing torso.

Deep Silver’s issued a questionable apology in response to the furor. The company did not discuss how this bundle even came into existence, and still hasn’t said whether it will be sold or not. One would hope not? I’ve asked the company for further clarification on that point, but as of publication, nothing has come back.

Here's the company's previous statement in full:

“We deeply apologize for any offense caused by the Dead Island Riptide “Zombie Bait Edition”, the collector’s edition announced for Europe and Australia. Like many gaming companies, Deep Silver has many offices in different countries, which is why sometimes different versions of Collector’s Editions come into being for North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia.

For the limited run of the Zombie Bait Edition for Europe and Australia, a decision was made to include a gruesome statue of a zombie torso, which was cut up like many of our fans had done to the undead enemies in the original Dead Island.

We sincerely regret this choice. We are collecting feedback continuously from the Dead Island community, as well as the international gaming community at large, for ongoing internal meetings with Deep Silver's entire international team today. For now, we want to reiterate to the community, fans and industry how deeply sorry we are, and that we are committed to making sure this will never happen again.”

The story featured my own opinion on the subject, as do most pieces of content on Giant Bomb. You might have suspected part of my response, based on previous articles I’ve filed at the site, and the reaction was along the lines of the last conversation about #1reasonwhy. When I was mulling a follow-up, I didn’t want to have the same back-and-forth, and hoped to introduce some new voices.

So, I reached out to a number of women members of the video game community, and asked them to provide their individual reactions. There are voices from everywhere in games, from development to fellow writers. I didn't specifically seek out people who had expressed an opinion about Dead Island, I just figured they had one. Some chose to speak directly to what happened, some didn't. There weren't any rules.

I’m also going to start something new here. I won't guarantee it’ll happen every time, but for big features, I want to make sure there’s a dedicated time slot for spending time responding to comments. It won’t happen until the story has been up for a little while, and people have had a chance to digest it. In this case, it’s going to be for 30 minutes at 11:30 a.m. PST. As always, anything I don’t get to can be addressed in PM, on Twitter, or through my Tumblr site.

_______________________________________________________________

Rhianna Pratchett, writer (Tomb Raider, Mirror’s Edge)

I’m both a horror fan, and a Dead Island fan. But my initial reaction to Riptide’s mutilated torso was one of shock, bewilderment and confusion. I wasn’t morally outraged. It was more a deep sigh and eye roll of “Oh come on… really? REALLY?” Yes, horror and sex have been intertwined forever, but there was something about the visual depiction of this one that was unexpectedly disgusting for a number of reasons. A mutilated corpse (of either sex) is pretty disturbing, sure. A sexed-up (and there no other way to describe the perfectly round, barely covered up and non-zombified knockers) female corpse, offered up as a reward, has particularly nasty connotations. Especially when combined with the fact that it’s described as 'bait'--a confusing title for what was apparently meant to be (according to the developers) a zombie’s torso, rather than the mutilated and cut up human torso that it actually looked like. Zombies are not normally known for the penchant to chew down on the flesh of other zombies.

I’m accustomed to game companies marketing towards men. But rarely is it quite so blatantly i.e. "Here are some tits!" It’s a mistake to ignore the legions of female gamers out there, who enjoy their zombie killing just as much as the guys. It’s an even bigger mistake to outright annoy them. Believe me, I know this. I’ve got first-hand experience of being caught-up with a video games "controversy" on Tomb Raider, and so I know that marketing and the way we speak about and depict our characters and games is important. Industry and player debate about how we go about this is also valuable.

I was glad to see Deep Silver apologising for this rather large misstep, although I was a little perplexed by the fact that they seemed to use the fact that players apparently do this in the game (or at least have the option to) as some kind of get-out-of-jail card. I’ve done some horrendous things in games. I don’t particularly want to see them immortalised in statue form.

There’s been a lot of talk about whether it would have been okay if it was a male statue. But the fact that it isn’t (and we can only really talk about what we’ve been presented with, not what we haven’t) combined with the way the torso’s been depicted, strongly suggests that the marketeers would never have done that. A sexed-up male torso (and even with a six-pack it’s not quite the same) wouldn’t have appealed to the intended audience (straight men) in the same way. If they’d wanted to keep up this mutilated torso theme then a male torso and female torso, leaning against each other in zombie-baiting harmony, would’ve been a better way to go about it. And, given that the first game had a 50/50 male to female ratio of player characters and a similar ratio in the AI, rather more in keeping with the general tone of the game.

Better still, something like AMC’s Walking Dead collector’s edition head would have been more appropriate and arguably less offensive.

Follow more of Rhianna's work at www.rhiannapratchett.com and on Twitter.

_______________________________________________________________

Clarice Meadows, writer and former sales operation manager at Take-Two Interactive

When marketing departments come up with various tchotchkes to get people to buy a video game, there are a lot of factors that come into it. Theme, desirability, originality, and more. It's a matter of making something unusual and interesting enough, and yet appropriately themed for the game, that fans will absolutely HAVE to buy it. I like to think that there are focus groups involved in the choice of object, or at the very least more than just a bunch of marketing types being locked in a room for days fueled by caffeine and junk food until they come up with an idea and are let out. Sadly, I am pretty sure the latter is usually the case. The zombie torso created specifically for Dead Island Riptide was, in my opinion, a marketing catastrophe. I've heard many responses to this particular item. From "well women don't play games anyway" to "by getting mad about it and yelling, you guys are giving this company free advertising" to "it's like a classical sculpture of antiquity, but a zombie!" So let's break this down a bit.

1) I am a woman, and I play video games. I am not particularly unusual in my gender group in choosing to play video games. I grew up in the 80s, video games were around, and I liked them. I also happen to know quite a few other women who play games, including games like Dead Island. By ignoring women as a market demographic for a video game, companies are losing out hugely. By assuming women will only buy pink, glittery items or games that are about clothing and boyfriends, these companies are losing money. By putting out a completely sexist and crass marketing ploy, they are losing money. Seriously, isn't the point of triple-A games to make scads of cash? I really don't get making choices that lead to losing it instead, can you tell?

2) By yelling about something offensive, we're making a case that offensive marketing is unacceptable. By not yelling, we're giving silent consent to continuing crappy and cheap marketing choices. And trust me, this is crappy, cheap AND lazy marketing. Oh look, a pair of boobs! How innovative! Apparently these marketers think the only people playing video games are under-sexed pubescent mole men. I mean… seriously? Lazy.

3) The last time I checked, classical sculptures did not have boob jobs. Also, the last time I checked, real boobs did not do that while in a string bikini. There's this thing called gravity… And if we're going to have an argument that this torso is not overly sexed up and has turned a live woman (or live lady zombie) into a bunch of sex organs, then… well… someone is lying to themselves. Is it appropriate? Is necrophilia really acceptable now? Because that's what this feels like it's promoting to me.

Lazy and cheap marketing ploys don't make money, they cost money in PR nightmares and hours of dancing around apologizing. It doesn't take much to be smarter, and who knows? Maybe a new market full of lots of money will open up and be willing to spend that money on video games! I mean, didn't you hear that women have jobs and make money and LOVE to spend it? Think big video game companies. Think about all that cash you're letting slide right through your fingers, and play it smarter.

Follow more of Clarice's work at Plays Like a Girl and on Twitter.

_______________________________________________________________

Kate Lorimer, composer and writer

For my part, yes, I found it offensive, it was “the straw that broke the camel’s back” (though I am sure it won't be the last such incident) after a year of dodgy marketing (Hitman, Booth Babes, Tomb Raider, Girlfriend Mode, Anita Sarkeesian). And from a personal viewpoint, even a close friend expressing his being fed up with online “outrage” and “Feminist point-scoring pandering” from game websites like Rock Paper Shotgun--his words--and his complete (and somewhat deliberate) misunderstanding of the concept of Feminism (being supposedly more about pursuing Women’s interests above male's, as opposed to actually being about equality for both genders).

Unfortunately, amongst teens and younger players in general (but as Jenny Haniver has shown, far from exclusively) there’s likely to be a kneejerk reaction backlash at the outrage and offence caused by it, as kids love a bit of blood'n'gore, and certainly amongst the heterosexual hormone fueled boys that whole “cor... boobies” thing has an attraction. See: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153593/yes-ah-tah

The reasons for it being offensive are obvious to the clear of thought--it's objectification at its worst. Remove the person from the body, inexplicably leaving a pubescent boy’s idea of the perfect female figure, with balloon boobs (mysteriously untouched by hungry zombie snacking) and a peek at a panty enclosed crotch--of course, hiding the vagina within--which would likely be too offensive/edgy to the same boys!

Would the situation have been mitigated had there been an alternative option of a male torso? It might have slightly balanced the equality issue, though of course there is a special obsession with boobies--especially globe-tastic ones on an itty bitty waist! But the fact that it's just a female torso they decided to go with speaks volumes about their marketing, and the usual narrow-minded targeted demographic. It might have been just as grisly but slightly more in line with the zombie ethos to have had a scary looking zombie head?

Follow more of Kate's work at K8-bit and on Twitter.

_______________________________________________________________

Elizabeth DeLoria, staff writer at Gameranx and cosplay photographer

In September last year, Jill Meagher, a 29-year-old ABC employee, went missing while walking the short walk home from a popular Melbourne street. Thanks to a somewhat viral social media campaign, the entire country began to follow the case, people everywhere wanting Jill to be found alive and well and brought home.

When she was found murdered, buried in a shallow roadside grave after being kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a complete stranger, the entire country went from hopefully to angry. Angry that someone would do this, angry that she wasn't alive and well as we'd hoped, angry that she was minding her own business in her own suburb when she was attacked. People were so angry that when the alleged killer's name leaked, social media erupted with people from every walk of life wanting his head. An entire nation was in mourning, and thousands in Melbourne marched in her honor.

I mention this because we know it's not okay to kill people. We're angered and heartbroken when women are violently murdered (and that's just the cases we hear about.) The news of Jill Meagher, as an example, was devastating to thousands that didn't even know her. Yet at the same time, we're sent these messages that sexualize, glamorize and exploit a woman's decapitated torso. That use violent murder for the purpose of sex appeal and thus profit.

When I see the same people who I saw march for Jill, whose heart sank when they heard the news of her death ask me why this torso statue is "such a big deal," I don't even know how to begin to explain to them how they've come so close to the right thing, yet they sit so far from it.

I'm not really offended, I'm just mortified at how easily we seem to forget.

Follow more of Elizabeth's work at Gameranx and on Twitter.

_______________________________________________________________

Vanessa Hunter, artist and game design graduate

We need to start at the beginning if we are to stop the pervasiveness of sexism in gaming culture, and by sticking this statue in a set that will be received by kids and young adults, Deep Silver is reinforcing an already warped attitude toward women held by the gaming community.

If this statue had been reminiscent of Venus de Milo or the statue of David, and posed in a beautiful, creative way, perhaps I could have even admired it. But as a hunk of flesh plopped into a lifeless pose and trussed up in a string bikini, I seriously have to question the thought behind it.

My main reaction to this statue, however, is that it presents a woman as a literal piece of dead meat. It beheads all personality and life and strips away individuality to present the viewer with what is simply a hunk of flesh in a gaudy bikini. This figure gets up and screams "all I am worth is to fulfill your pleasures"

To a woman like me, it's sickening because it represents how some men see real-life women every day.

From someone who has seen firsthand how a monster who holds this attitude can choke the life out of someone beautiful and radiant, this bust is a nightmare come true. And what's worse is that the attitudes behind such an object reinforce this behaviour as okay.

As for Deep Silver's "apology" placing the blame on its fan base, many of whom view them as a role model, teaching them that sexism is okay if someone else has done it before is unacceptable. They need to grow up.

Follow more of Vanesssa's work through Instagram and on Twitter.

_______________________________________________________________

Anonymous

I didn't feel offended by the Dead Island bikini statue. I did, however, find it quite tiresome. I don't think that it can be denied that the statue is an obvious example of sexual objectification--a mutilated torso with perfectly untouched breasts.

Sexual objectification of women is everywhere, and it's impact is a massive discussion that goes way beyond video games. What I found most tiresome about the statue wasn't the objectification but that making a statue such as this suggests a number of things that Deep Silver assumes about their audience. They assume that the audience are young shallow men whose main interests are tits and violence. It's insulting to men and its a common assumption in video game marketing. Women are not even considered as part of the possible audience. It's outdated thinking.

I've been playing video games since I was a kid, and it's probably the main thing I do for entertainment. I have as many female friends as male who play video games. It is tiresome to be constantly excluded--and if I am included then I am considered a novelty. Women who play games are a sizable chunk of the audience and have been around for as long as video games. Objects like this statue show that we are not really considered to exist.

This individual chose not to share their personal information for fear of potential backlash.

_______________________________________________________________

Melissa Cooke, writer for FemmeGamer

Personally, I think that it's rather disgusting that Deep Silver decided to sell this. The usage of a female chest and abdomen I assume was originally used as a shock tactic to grab the eyes of the media, obviously this has worked, but what made it sexist in my eyes was the way it was dressed up and the proportions on the body.

The breasts are very unrealistic in the way they're being held up by a string bikini, not to mention that there are no wounds on the breasts, making them all the more obvious.The stomach is also very flat, and the bust looks almost anorexic, which is a very damaging image to promote.

The bust lacks also a face or any other feature that makes this bust look human, which could be interpreted as Deep Silver saying "Look this isn't a human, it's a woman, look how her breasts are positioned for your enjoyment, isn't that cool?"

Overall, this is a rather shameless grab for attention on Deep Silver's part, and all this sort of stunt does is give the non-gaming public the idea that games and the people who are playing them are immature, and push any progress the industry has made back a few more years.

Follow Melissa's work at Femme Gamer and on Twitter.

_______________________________________________________________

Anna Kipnis, senior gameplay programmer at Double Fine Productions

It's really hard to approach this topic in any kind of novel way. At this point, it's hard to bring round people who have made their minds up that feminism threatens to ruin their entertainment; to convince them that it's troubling to have games openly revel in dismembering decomposing women in bikinis. Yet I don't believe in censorship, either. Personally, I push this sort of thing into the same category in my brain as boob mugs (which I respect more for at least cutting to the chase and showing actual nudity). I'm not sure why someone would want a headless, bloody, dismembered corpse of a woman's upper torso, with grotesquely fake boobs obscured by a sadly implicated union jack proudly displayed on their mantle, but they're not a person I can imagine seeing eye-to-eye with on many things.

I honestly believe you can have sexiness and violence in games, even at the same time, if that's what you want. I can't think of a great example of a game that has done this particularly well (no doubt there is one), but there are many examples in film. For instance, Quentin Tarantino has made plenty of movies over the years that feature sexy women in violent situations. Even women getting dismembered (Kill Bill Volume 1, Death Proof), and yet it's never felt sexist or misogynist to me. I walk away from the theater generally thinking of those women as role models, not victims.

I think it's on us, game developers, to prevent controversies like this one. I'm a game programmer and I would be pretty bummed if I was working on what was essentially a game equivalent of a boob mug. You're appealing to the lowest, most vulgar aspects of your audience at a time when games are widely criticized for being juvenile, senseless, and immature, only to then complain that the medium is not being taken seriously as an art form. We should strive to treat our medium with the respect it deserves.

Follow Anna's work at Double Fine Productions and on Twitter.

Patrick Klepek on Google+
2527 Comments
Posted by Archaen

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Posted by Milkman
@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?
Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Posted by Scotto

Sexism is certainly rampant in games (all media, really), but this Dead Island Riptide thing is just absurd at this point.

It was dumb, and ill advised. I also at no point was confused by what it was supposed to be - a zombie torso in sexy beach attire, because a) I assume "Riptide" is another tropical themed game, and because b) they assumed male gamers would like the boobs.

I AM confused as to why this particular instance of sexual immaturity marketed towards gamers is a national issue, but, say, all of the other games that feature females with ridiculous proportions are not. Why no articles about the latest Dead or Alive game?

The Riptide thing is an easy target, because not only did it play into the usual sexual immaturity tropes the "gamer" community is faced with, it was also just a dumb object to begin with. Nobody wants an obtuse bloody torso to proudly display on their bookcase.

Posted by Coombs

I'm going to do my best to contribute as much to this conversation as everyone else,

So First here is an important public service message to help out the ladies argument.

And now here is a well thought out and very serious opinion on one possibility why women still make less $$$ than men.

I think I have provided at least as much well thought out commentary on this issue as anyone else in this thread,

Except maybe....

@ReaganStein said:

"Please don't use my sexy cleavage shot that I myself use on my public Twitter profile to illustrate my complaints about sexy cleavage statues. Because that might make me look like a hypocrite."

LOL

Posted by EnduranceFun

@Milkman said:

@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?

It's irrelevant because the torso is not sexist. Even if I thought it was, latching onto the fact that I find the "privilege" ideology to be dumb is only dragging out this off-topic argument about feminism.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

Posted by crcruz3

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

Posted by Krullban

@Milkman said:

@EnduranceFun: Instead of saying "lol feminism" like you so enjoy doing, why not tell me why that link I provided is wrong?

A ton of the shit on that list is just fucking stupid..

"My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring."

How the fuck is this a male privilege, that's a persons fashion decision.

"As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often."

I don't even know what the fuck this is?

The list is full of absolutely stupid shit that is either not true, or just fucking dumb.

Posted by Missacre

@Coombs: You. I want to marry you.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Also from the article: "The Department of Labor’s Time Use Survey, for example, finds that the average full-time working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Employees who work more likely earn more." Men also work more days/months/years through their lifetime due to prioritizing child-rearing.

The "pay gap" has been thoroughly explained and debunked. At least in the U.S.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

This article is great.

I think it's also quite related to your comment as well.

Yes, it's basically the same explanation. Block's quote is more succinct because it belongs to an article about a broader subject.

They're both equally terrible explanations, that's for sure.

Posted by Milkman
@Krullban: Even if a couple are a stretch, how can you sit there and tell me that the vast majority of that list isn't true?
Posted by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

Posted by mrfluke

@Missacre said:

I'm just gonna leave this here.
Posted by Moblyn

@august: @august said:

@Dezztroy said:

From my experience, there are quite a few women with fake breasts wearing bikinis at tropical locations. I don't see what's sexist about it.

It's a fucking headless mutilated corpse for you to display in your home.

That it is. Still how is it sexist?

Posted by Bismarck
Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

That is simply not true. Men have an average of two years seniority on the equivalent job, which will produce raises that the woman will not have until two years later. Men also work more hours per week on the equivalent job and therefore have higher paychecks even when making the same amount per hour. It is a fact that when you compare women and men who are single and have not raised children their current and lifetime earnings are basically identical. Women are paid less because of the fields they choose to go into, they hold will work more jobs in their lifetime therefore losing seniority and associated pay raises, and they work less hours and less years overall due to valuing child-rearing over income.

This "pay gap" concept is a myth. At one time it was true but it isn't now.

Posted by jimmyfenix

this is why dead island riptide will sell

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

That is simply not true. Men have an average of two years seniority on the equivalent job, which will produce raises that the woman will not have until two years later. Men also work more hours per week on the equivalent job and therefore have higher paychecks even when making the same amount per hour. It is a fact that when you compare women and men who are single and have not raised children their current and lifetime earnings are basically identical. Women are paid less because of the fields they choose to go into, they hold will work more jobs in their lifetime therefore losing seniority and associated pay raises, and they work less hours and less years overall due to valuing child-rearing over income.

This "pay gap" concept is a myth. At one time it was true but it isn't now.

Did you even check the URL I posted? Women who work the same jobs as men, for the same hours, still lag behind in pay.

Posted by Judakel

@jimmyfenix said:

this is why dead island riptide will sell

Yes, we're all going to buy a sequel to a shitty game because someone wrote an article about it.

Posted by Aussiepowa

IDK.. i like boobs! so much so i got married so i could enjoy my very own big boobies. Unfortunatley this was some time ago and they have now gone a bit saggy

I still play with them from time to time and they still do bounce up and down which is good.

So be proud boobs you do a great job and keep up (as long as u can) the good work ( . ) ( . )

Posted by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

You are angry and misreading two simple paragraphs. Why bother? Most of your arguments are ad hominem attacks anyway.

Posted by jimmyfenix

lets get a doctors opinion on this

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

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

Gonna need you to debunk that male privilege by showing me that men and women have equal pay, son. At least do that much you lazy fuckwit.

Actually, this has been done. This article writes about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ .

The claim is that women get paid less for equivalent work, but the problem is that "equivalent work" does not take into account that in the U.S. the average woman works less than 40 hours per week and the average man works overtime. It also does not take into account men tending to have more specializations in technical fields such as medicine and that men also have worked at their company for an average of two years longer. If you take into account all the above factors women get paid basically the same or even more than their male counterparts when actually doing the same work. Unfortunately the studies usually quoted say that a female doctor 6 years out of school in general practice working 36 hours so she can go home to see her children is doing the same work as a male brain surgeon 8 years out of school that works for 50 hours a week. The fact is that this pay discrepancy is, in fact, a myth these days.

Take a look at my previous post. The discrepancy exists when we look at individuals working the same amount of time in the same fields. http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap What is worse is that even the act of having a child damages your pay-prospects. Hey toots, wanna keep the human race going? Gonna have to make less because of it.

For most people, the largest earnings are in the last years of employment, nominally age 55-65. If a woman takes time off to raise children, she will lose out on those years, which will affect lifetime earnings disproportionately.

Since more women than men take time off when children arrive, there is a lifetime earnings deficit for individuals, and a gender deficit at any given time. Bingo – an earnings gap. ‘Equal pay day’ as described (BLS) is based on a mathematical fallacy.

Even when we look at women who have not taken time off to have children and are in the same stage of their careers as men, we see a gap. We don't have to be looking at the largest earning years in order to see this gap. Besides, the very notion that a woman should be punished for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

Did you even check the URL I posted? Women who work the same jobs as men, for the same hours, still lag behind in pay.

Yes I did and no they do not. You are misreading the statistics. The statistics in your article use "median income" which if you had read the Forbes article you would know is misleading because it does not take into account several factors, including that women work less per hour than men.

Here is another article for you to read about that explains why the statistics you linked to are incorrect: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@EnduranceFun said:

@Judakel: Because gravity is comparable to male privilege. You are a card, aren't you?

Continuing blowing this up to be more than it is. Get it all out there, over these internet comments.

They're both facts. So yes, they are comparable. In that for something to be comparable, it must have at least one similarity. I realize in your cooky world they aren't both facts, but creationists disregard evidence too. That doesn't make them right. Hell, if you could just come up with a sane explanation for the difference in pay between men and women who both have the same job, in the same establishment, and have the same education that doesn't scream male privilege then I am all ears.

Walter Block from the Loyola College Economics Department says (you are going to hate his explanation, for sure):

"As for the pay gap, I made the case that it was due, instead, to the asymmetric effects of marriage. This institution enhances male earnings and reduces those of females. Why? Because wives do the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, shopping, child care. (A survey I took of my Loyola Maryland audience overwhelming supported this contention.) This is an example of the basic economic axiom of opportunity, or alternative costs. When anyone does anything, he is to that extent unable to do something else. Since I was in Baltimore, I illustrated this by use of Michael Phelps, world champion swimmer. I opined that he probably wasn't a world-class cellist, because to achieve that goal in addition to having a lot of talent, you have to spend many hours each day practicing, and he was busy with other (watery) pursuits. Well, women are also busy with activities other than supplying labor to the market, hence their lower productivity in this sector, compared to what it would be if they were never married.

I gave several bits of evidence, or proof, or illustrations, of this. For one thing, when you compare not all men and all women, but only the never-marrieds, the wage gap between males and females virtually disappears. When you take only young people, aged 18—24, again the male-female wage gap cannot be found, since most of them have never been married. And this entirely reasonable. After all, while women's productivity on average may well have been lower than men's in past centuries, when physical strength was important in this regard, in the present century this is no longer true. For another thing, if (all) women really had the same productivity as men, nowadays (they don't, due to marriage), then there would be additional profits available to any firm that specialized in hiring females. Surely this is a situation that could not long endure."

I've hated that explanation for a long time. For one, his statistics on never-marrieds are incorrect. You can check yourself. For another, he assumes that the fact women may do a lion's share of the housework inhibits their ability to supply labor to the market. This is wrong if we're talking about women who work outside the home in full-time jobs. While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees. If he is speaking of full time housewives, then the notion of this being responsible for the pay gap is bizarre, as studies tend to look at individuals who are working outside the home on a full-time basis. In other words, it is completely inconsequential to this issue to claim that there is a pay gap between men and women when we look at the total sum of adults. We don't look at the total sum of adults, we look at the total sum of working (outside the home) adults.

His example involving young people is besides the point, for entry level pay will usually be about the same, but the effects of sexism come into play when we look at those workers that have or should've moved up within their place of employment.

Lastly, this guy is an economist from the Austrian school of thought. Buahahaha. He may as well be a creationist. Not a problem with his ideas of this issue, just a hilarious footnote.

Oh, yes. A creatonist like Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate.

The fact the man won a Nobel Prize does not invalidate another fact: Austrian economics is bunk and anything that comes out of a Austrian-school-of-thought economist's mouth is seriously suspect. Anyway, thanks for addressing my actual criticisms alongside addressing my footnote. I will take it as granted that you concede your point. Or don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than parrot a libertarian.

You are angry and misreading two simple paragraphs. Why bother? Most of your arguments are ad hominem attacks anyway.

Wow, my response was not an ad hominem attack in its entirety and I did not misread your quote. Kindly point out what I misread and realize that only the footnote was an ad hominem attack. I am allowed one. He is an Austrian school economist.

Posted by Coombs

@Sil3n7 said:

You know Patrick, if you don't like a particular games stance on women, don't buy that game. Let the market decide if they agree with your values.

When it comes down to it though I'm going to guess you will play "Sexist murder simulator 2013" like all of us. In fact, why don't you asks these women if they change their game buying habits based on this? If not, their criticism rings hollow.

You want to talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

This.

Posted by LiquidS

@PillClinton said:

So this must be the most commented thing on GB now, right? Patty just keeps on breakin' records!

@CarlosTheDwarf said:

@ReaganStein said:

"Please don't use my sexy cleavage shot that I myself use on my public Twitter profile to illustrate my complaints about sexy cleavage statues. Because that might make me look like a hypocrite."

LOL

Wow, that's fuckin' ridiculous. Just... the whole thing, wow.

Patrick the White Knight strikes again.

That is a perfect example why this opinion piece is a waste of time.

Posted by Barbed_Haywire

@Nettacki: Maybe I'm as pissed off as I am about it because I live in Melbourne (same city Jill was murdered in) but I was completely on board with these women until I read that. I think sexism in games is pervasive and disgusting but using someone's horrible death to score points is abhorrent. All she's succeeded in doing is pissing a bunch of people off and obfuscating the real issues here.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:shed for taking "time off" to do necessary work is ridiculous. People object to it not because they commit a mathematical fallacy, but because it is pretty fucking bold to allow this to lead to a gap in the first place.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

First, let's watch our language, because we're getting into an area of discussion where the language will actually matter. Not for politically correct reasons, but because the rhetoric will actually shape the discourse. What I am implying is that women should not be punished for performing a task necessary to the continuation of our species. Private entrepreneurs should value skilled labor enough to recognize that raising children is a necessary aspect of a functioning society and should not punish their workers for doing so. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS. If the man is raising the child, he should be accounted for just like the woman. Although quite clearly a woman would have to take some time off in order to birth the child.

These women are not "choosing" not to work. If it is a choice, then I pray to God they do because it is about as necessary a task as one can imagine. You speak of this necessary task as if it were truly an option for the survival of our species. Ridiculous.

While the very notion that parts of the workforce should be paid even as they are not working for 2 years at a time may seem abhorrent to your capitalist sensibilities, understand that it is the ONLY ethical and logically sound option. To suggest women should take a hit in their wallets because they "choose" to raise a child, a task that is arguably more difficult than just about any modern job, is unethical. Let's also remember that it is not just a hit to their wallet, but their financial independence and status in a society that judges you according to such parameters. To suggest that they forego child-bearing and that no one (man or woman) take time off to raise a child is illogical. You really have no choice here.

If a business cannot afford to pay someone as they raise their child, then equal government support through higher taxation of said business-owners is always an option. Oh, and before you say anything, yes, it is viable.

Posted by JoshyLee

What is really sad is that none of what we say in this thread matters. When Jeff and the rest of the crew see it, they will dismiss it as internet scumbags. Because we disagree with this sensationalist bullshit being passed off as news.

Posted by saroorhai

I guess it's sort of pointless to argue about it anymore, but I think the thing to do is for those who disagree with Patrick to ignore everything he puts up from now on. If there are enough people who feel the same someone is bound to notice the drop in traffic. To me, he has absolutely no credibility and I have no interest in anything else he has to say.

Edited by Judakel

@JoshyLee said:

What is really sad is that none of what we say in this thread matters. When Jeff and the rest of the crew see it, they will dismiss it as internet scumbags. Because we disagree with this sensationalist bullshit being passed off as news.

The apathetic man's reward.

Posted by Coombs

Sex sells simple as that, The fact that this is for a game about zombies means the bloodied and mutilated part fits

And if you don't believe that you yourself are a pervert please take this quick test.....

Posted by Krullban

@Milkman said:

@Krullban: Even if a couple are a stretch, how can you sit there and tell me that the vast majority of that list isn't true?

"My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed."

Depends on the job, it goes the other way too, there are jobs where men are looked over in favour of women. But sure, I'm sure it exists with some companies.

"If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities."

Never heard a woman failing in her job and in-turn had that turned into. WOMEN CANNOT DO THIS EVER! (Not saying it has NEVER happened, but if it has. It's so incredibly rare it's not even worth noting, and could definitely go the other way too depending on the job.)

"I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female coworkers are."

Yes, definitely.

"If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job."

Nope.

"If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question."

What? Women who don't want children frequently have their femininity questioned? Since when?

"If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home."

Yes people will.

"My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true."

Has literally nothing to do with male privilege.

"When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be."

This is just stupid.. I've had plenty of female bosses, and I've seen plenty of females that are "the person in charge." Speculating that at your job the person in charge will always be male is stupid and not a "male privilege".

"As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters."

Then that's a parenting issue, not a male privilege issue. But in any case, I don't see that to be true in the slightest.

"As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often."

Again, I have literally no idea what the fuck this is even trying to say, and it's not true whatsoever.

"If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex."

Just as much as women, yes it will be.

"If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex."

Sure, the whole "women can't drive" thing is common.

"Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”"

Sure, but I think that's potentially due to the fact that men are more prone to just have sex with anything that moves, while women are not, so when women do, do it, it's a bit more shocking to the average person. But sure, yeah. Men wont really be called anything for being a slut.

"I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity."

Seems more like a self-esteem issue, not a male privilege issue.

"My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring."

Again, this one is just dumb.

"The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time."

Completely wrong. Men are expected by society to be well groomed too, and it's not a male privilege that we don't do as much to look good. That's a choice.

"If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore."

It's the exact same for both men and women. Ugly guys and ugly women both have large disadvantages.

"I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch."

Not true at all. A loud guy will just be called something different, and an aggressive guy will just be called a dick.

"I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc."

This is one of those things that have always never should have mattered. The "man" part in those jobs is completely irrelevant. Especially since man can just mean "an individual human". But sure, I'll just give you this one, because I can see where people could possibly be coming from.

"My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is."

Sure, sometimes this happens

"I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name."

I've never heard anybody get bashed or anything for choosing not to change their name after getting married.

I've become bored and don't want to go anymore. But yes, the majority of things on the list are stupid.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

First, let's watch our language, because we're getting into an area of discussion where the language will actually matter. Not for politically correct reasons, but because the rhetoric will actually shape the discourse. What I am implying is that women should not be punished for performing a necessary task to continuation of our species. Private entrepreneurs should value skilled labor enough to recognize that raising children is a necessary aspect of a functioning society and should not punish their workers for doing so. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS. If the man is raising the child, he should be paid as much as the woman. Although quite clearly a woman would have to take some time off in order to birth the child.

These women are not "choosing" not to work. If it is a choice, then I pray to God they do because it is about as necessary a task as one can imagine. You speak of this necessary task as if it were truly an option for the survival of our species. Ridiculous.

While the very notion that parts of the workforce should be paid even as they are not working for 2 years at a time may seem abhorrent to your capitalist sensibilities, understand that it is the ONLY ethical and logically sound option. To suggest women should take a hit in their wallets because they "choose" to raise a child, a task that is arguably more difficult than just about any modern job, is unethical. To suggest that they forego child-bearing and that no one (man or woman) take time off to raise a child is illogical. You really have no choice here.

If a business cannot afford to pay someone as they raise their child, then equal government support through higher taxation of said business-owners is always an option. Oh, and before you say anything, yes, it is viable.

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

Posted by moondogger

I see we have entered the 'dueling sources' phase of the thread. There are many many opinion pieces out there on either side, but a good place to start is Wikipedia. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

There's been a lot of research done on this. It's worth looking up - there are many research links in this article.

My two cents: the gender gap is real. It hasn't been debunked, any more than 'global warming' has been debunked.

Posted by Missacre

@Coombs: Numbers 4 and 6 are my favorite.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Edited by Krullban

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

Edited by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

Wow, my response was not an ad hominem attack in its entirety and I did not misread your quote. Kindly point out what I misread and realize that only the footnote was an ad hominem attack. I am allowed one. He is an Austrian school economist.

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

Posted by Enigma_2099

My stance is still, "what was the point? Why would you want this?"

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

Edited by Judakel

@Krullban said:

@Judakel said:

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Literally nobody even said that.

What you are saying is that women choosing to stay home with their children should be paid by private entrepreneurs even though they're not rendering as much work, or in the years they decide not to work, any work at all. The pay gap exists because women participate in the act of making money for less time of their lives. There is no way to solve this gap besides paying women even when they're not working, or paying them more than a man per hour for doing the same work and that is sexism. Women will never make the same amount as men in their lifetimes as long as they want to have children and raise them themselves.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

Posted by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

So you fully admit that crcruz3 and I are correct about the pay gap but you still think we should do something about it due to the societal necessity of reproduction. I suppose that's a fine political position, but I don't think you'll get much traction on getting women the same pay for less work or in certain years of their children's lives no work at all. Maternity leave is already law in the U.S. and most people think that's enough. Wanting to raise taxes to pay women when they're not working or working less hours is more sexist towards men who work those same jobs than not paying the women when they don't work.

That is too broad a statement. You two are correct in suggesting that child-bearing has a negative impact on it. You are incorrect about everything else. It isn't more sexist towards men, because those men could be the ones raising the children. I pointed this out in my post. I also laugh at the notion that somehow the individual that chooses to raise the child is "not working" and has it easy compared to the individual that is going to a job outside the home. Yes, that is totally sexist against that poor person who doesn't have to raise a child, probably the hardest gig in the industrialized world.

No, it isn't more sexist.

Would you prefer "not working for an employer"? It's hard to collect a paycheck when you're not generating anything that can be sold to anyone.

Which is part of the problem with unfettered capitalism: It gives absolutely no shits about social stability or the future of a society.

Still waiting for that other poster to point what I misread in his quote of Block.

Check last page.