@armaan8014: I don't know where you heard that, but it is pretty similar to the US as far as I know. You need to have a "purpose" for being there for both (and pretty much any other country). As I said, that could be studying or working (through sponsorship in most cases), but there is definitely no free pass to Canada or an easy way. In my opinion, you should stick to the US if that is where you want migrate to, it doesn't make much sense to migrate to a country just so you can then repeat almost the same process again and migrate to another one.
Demokk's forum posts
@armaan8014: If you are able to then definitely! Make sure you do your research well and are actually interested and motivated to join that school too.
Unfortunately tuition tends to be super expensive for this kind of courses and I'd say it is not entirely worth it in some cases, but as an international it will help you immensely in building your contact list and could add a lot to your paperwork/resume. I am not familiar with the US immigration streams, but in most cases having studied in the country helps a lot when applying for visas/permanent residency/green card not to mention that it gives you a much better perspective on how the industry and all that works in the US.
Do your research and examine your options in detail. You will be essentially trying to achieve two different and pretty big milestones at the same time, so you have to think thoroughly about how to best approach both. Immigrating is a pretty big commitment, so have that in mind as well.
Have a look at this link too: http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english.html
I've dealt with migrating and immigration issues/processes for a couple of years now (not the US though), and all I can say is that it all boils down to being a pretty good candidate for a specific role within a company (regardless of the industry). So it depends heavily on your potential employer (and all the bureaucracy it entails).
The creative industries hiring process doesn't differ too much from other kind of jobs in the fact that you need credentials, just add a good portfolio to the mix. Companies nor immigration officers know/care about who you are (or you say you are), what you've done or anything that can't be deduced from a diploma/credential/paperwork. Have in mind that you are competing against local-born candidates, which companies usually prefer because they are cheaper/safer, so being familiar with the culture is kind of irrelevant in that case.
If you haven't started the film program yet I suggest that you look into studying in the US instead, going from an international student to a foreign worker is way easier than trying to find a job overseas. If not, look for "working holiday" visa programs and such, those are usually pretty good when it comes to avoiding a lot of the immigration barriers that companies have when hiring foreign workers.
From my experience, migrating to another country is not easy in the least, you'll have to deal with a lot of barriers. There are a lot of bureaucratic barriers in place to deter employers from hiring foreign workers and, on top of that add some dehumanization and biases to the mix. In most cases you will be just a name on a paper for the companies/officers.
All in all, do your best, keep looking and don't give up! Prove to them that you are really passionate about it and work hard!
The depiction of gore in games is pretty much "harmless" per se (as far as we know, as it is only correlational data), especially in this day and age where we have all been bombarded by graphic violence in media throughout our entire lives (at least in the west). Gore is nothing more than the overused way of representing the conflict and obstacle part of game design.
What we should worry about is the glorification/spotlighting of antisocial behavior and the dismissal of empathy (two of the most important characteristics of psychopathy). Fortunately, very few games do that. That is the reason why a child playing Mortal Kombat X is nowhere near the same as a child playing Manhunt, RapeLay and such.
@gamefreak9: There is still a gap, regardless of how much you want to play with statistics. Also, you seem to be forgetting that the world doesn't revolve around US, and most girls don't even have the opportunity to study in other countries.
That study lost me when it tries to justify the income gap with "mothers should take care of the children", with even no research on the subject. What happened to lesbians, asexual women, single/divorced/widowed women, childless women, and so on? You can't just generalize. Failing to recognize the uniqueness of each individual within a society is the biggest failure of modern "democracy".
By the way, saying that everything revolves around free will and then contradicting by talking about genes and tendencies is a giant red flag of the double standard that I was talking about. To think that we are free of any influence and that everybody makes choices in a vacuum is extremely naive. We wouldn't even dress, talk, move, act, think, and socialize this way or study in particular fields if we weren't born in the west to begin with. Even seemingly neutral things like language affect how each individual thinks, there are concepts that aren't even present in some languages. It is just baffling to think that individuals somehow exist in and make choices vacuum.
Where are you seeing active discrimination against women? If anything the only hypothesis I can draw from this article is exactly that men are being discriminated against its worth looking into why they have so many of the computer science degrees but so little of the computer science jobs, are the remainder unemployed?
Throughout my entire career, studies, and life in the western culture. Just because you don't want to admit that psychology and culture studies are valid doesn't mean it isn't happening. It is quite easy to tell from a privileged position that it isn't happening, after all, you are not the one being discriminated. Denial is so effective as a defense mechanism against responsibility indeed.
If anything, the recent movements initiated by many individuals, organizations, and even the government point to it. Not to mention that the gender income gap supports this as well, I'd love to hear how the genes also somehow justify that women should be paid less.
Here is another study in relation to gender bias in science.
I love how you use the word "research" and then send me links to articles of journalists opinions pieces. It looks like it makes a good living to talk about why there should be more women in tech but not so good to think about the issues with a little bit more rigor. Before answering the question of how do we get more women in tech, you must properly answer the other question. Given that women have the choice to join techy fields and then of their own free will, don't(as far as any real evidence is concerned), should we have a top-down movement to force them into it?
if you actually read the articles, you'll see the obvious links to sources and research. And they choose not to join because of people that keep telling them that they are not welcome and that keep telling them that "empirical work" says that women shouldn't be interested in those fields or that they won't be as "successful". Of course "empirical work" would say so, if culture has always been biased against them in the STEM fields. That is like saying that "empirical work" shows that black are more prone to be more incarcerated, when there is an obvious bias towards them in comparison with white people that get prosecuted less.
Women can't succeed in a field if society actively discourages them to try their hand at it in the first place.
On the computer science articles I have a similar sentiments as the first. I can come up with plethora of other theories that fit the facts just as well if not better. Given the realities of programming, people become obsolete faster than ever before its not enough anymore to just study the degree, being a good programmer is now a lifestyle of constantly checking the latest algorithms, just ask anybody working on Unity how much new stuff comes out every year. In addition, the way languages have become of higher and higher levels there are now some pretty serious non-linearities in programming, where a single person can be more productive than an army of programmers, a programmer who spends twice as much time in learning than another is much more than twice as productive. My cousin who is in web design can make a website more complex than most newsites in less than 20 minutes. So no its not surprising that given the profession is more demanding now and women on average put in less hours than men(table 21, this is full-time workers, if you want the part time workers that's table 20) that they would choose not go into it as much.
That is a poor excuse, honestly. People learn at different rates, time means nothing if you consider the attitudes and aptitudes of the individuals. Not to mention that degrees are pretty much meaningless, anybody who is worth their salt knows that learning happens as much, if not more outside of "full-time work" as inside it. Constantly checking algorithms or however you frame it isn't as hard as you think. Every career is a lifestyle, there are new developments in literally every field every day.
As it turns out, I work on Unity (at a mid-size studio) and program everyday, and I happen to work with female programmers too. Not a single one of them shows any of your projected biases, but they are still outnumbered by men 1:10 in the studio. I also happen to know a couple female PhD students that were lucky enough to have support from their peers and not steered away from the STEM fields by culture, and still none of your biases show.
Well yeah if you keep telling women they are not welcome then that's bad, but that's not really what's happening. Nobody is telling women not to play games, its true that the online community is mean but you first become a gamer and then you deal with them, not the other way around(most people who play games for the first time don't start with voice chat games that have lots of trolls). The first games ever made were asexual(pong, space invaders, etc), and it so happened that most of the players were men so the industry used that knowledge to make them the user base. Because the first games were asexual we know(probably) that its not because women were discouraged that they don't play as many but because they just don't like games as much as guys do.
Actually, it is much more complex than just that. It has to do with many more fields such as marketing, computer science and the gender biases in those fields. I'll link a couple of articles that explain the history much better than what I could:
To me the line is fairly clear, violence. As far as rewarding in society, generally you get paid according to how much (relative) value you add to the world, genes may affect your efficiency at this value but it is your will that is the main determinant...I think the off-topic ness is getting out hand...
Sorry, but "how much value you add to the world"? Are you implying that actors, PewDiePie (and most youtube stars), CEOs of monopolies, politicians, athletes, models, religious leaders, mainstream musicians, oil workers and such add more value to the world than scientists, engineers, agricultural workers, social workers, doctors, charities, etc? Who defines this arbitrary value? Let me guess, is it money?
In regards to @sanj's point, he nailed it. Education doesn't stop once you get out of school nor starts in the classroom. Whether people like to learn or not, we recognize and absorb patterns, we imitate the newest trends. We love to be part of the group, wherever that group may be going.
Of course this doesn't mean the environment didn't affect some women to like games a whole bunch. It just means that for women who weren't put in an environment(whatever that may be) that encourages gaming, they are less likely to get into it.
Bingo, so what happens if those women are unlucky enough to be born in an environment that keeps telling them that they are not welcome? Same thing could be applied to any of the diversity issues. What happens if an Asian person is unfortunate enough to be born in a culture/environment that tells them that they are inferior over and over? What happens if a boy is born in a culture that tells them to go and kill people overseas for glory and patriotism over and over?
By double standard I meant that America's culture just loves to claim about how meritocratic they are, and how free they are. American dream and yadda, yadda; yet they also claim that the questionable things about their culture happen because of genetic predisposition. If somebody is smarter than someone else supposedly because of genes, where is the merit in that? If someone abused their children because of genes, then what purpose is there in stopping it? There are going to be more people with the "abuse your children" gene anyway, right?