Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Some women are put in game journalism roles because they are appealing to their audience for reasons other than their gaming knowledge. PR person misunderstood her silence and made a bad assumption. This misunderstanding could have been easily corrected. Saying, "No thanks I'll drive. What type of damage model do you use?" is plenty to show you mean business.

People shouldn't judge books by covers, but they do. Best you can do is give them one good shot at understanding. This will separate the actual jerks from those who just guessed wrong. Most people don't want to offend you, so don't spend your time walking around with silent resentment over something that's done by mistake.



It's easy to tell someone to give everyone a shot at understanding when you're not on the receiving end of it all the time. She had this happen multiple times, so she rightly assumed what anyone would: These PR reps assumed she couldn't play their games because she was a woman.


Yes and they are right most of the time. Not because women cannot play those games, just because the majority of the women that are sent there do not.

As a foreign developer, I'm on the receiving end of that type of attitude all the time when there is talk about business, marketing, local trivia ... or most generally about a project they never thought I had heard before.

People make assumption, you can set things straight in the first seconds of the discussion. So I say in this case, grow up: they don't know you, swallow your pride and just tell them you mean business.

What would be more worrying is if their attitude do not change immediately after that. That is still a day-to-day problem for women in anything IT related, but I would except big show like the E3 to be quite smooth about that.


What about these PR reps, what if all the other girls they say that day weren't really experienced players of shoot-em-up games, how were they supposed to know she was different right away? Doesn't your comment apply equally to say she assumed things?


There's a simple rule of thumb: Would she have gotten the same treatment if she were a guy? If not, then calling shenanigans is the right response.


What do you mean by calling shenanigans? Blaming the PR people?

The thing is, the guys didn't get the same treatment... but my point was simply that the PR people were exposed to a certain pattern (someone is a girl => they aren't that experienced playing shoot em up video games) and it was repeatedly reinforced through subtle social feedback, that expecting them to just be good at the game was not producing great results for them or for your brand. And since the PR person wants to do their job and give a good impression of the game, they would just assume this girl was like the others, and offer to show her the best parts about the demo, so that she can write about them.


The thing is, you're perpetuating the myth too.

"Those poor PR people, how were they supposed to know that a chick plays video games?"


They aren't poor, I am asking why she is surprised given that they were very likely to do that, and indeed most of them in her story did do that.

What is the alternative? I am not calling them poor, but you are calling them deluded. And I am deluded. Basically we all believe a myth.

What is more likely is that there is an underlying reason for the PR people and others to believe it. It is the reason that should be analyzed and addressed, not the people who are the product of it.

This is starting to sound a lot like http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html


> What is more likely is that there is an underlying reason for the PR people and others to believe it.

You're making the same mistake that the PR guy made (Obviously women don't play games, therefore it's an understandable mistake). Stop doing that, would be a really good start.


first of all he was the one who made the judgment, I simply evaluated his judgment

secondly why do you keep saying that acting based on previously established patterns in one's life is a mistake?

how do you know I'm not a nobel prize winning sociologist, and that you are the one making the mistake


I don't think this is right. If most of the women who come by tell the PR guys that they don't play, then the PR guys are right most of the time when they assume that women don't play.


Most of the time when the IT guy makes sexual jokes, the girl laughs, so how was he supposed to know that this one time the girl was going to be offended?


This is painting all women as non-gamers on the basis of interacting with (probably very few) other women. Unfair but not completely baseless.

Anyway if it's the same man and woman each time it's a different situation.


Here's another simple "rule of thumb": Would she have gotten the same treatment after applying OP's suggestions (saying "No, thanks, I'll drive!") ? If not, then I feel that finally calling shenaningans is the right response.

And, again, quid bono ? She certainly did, a bunch of people who would never ever read her column now just gave her a bunch of pageviews.


She probably would, at the next booth. And the next, and the next[1]. At what point are you going to stop blaming her for other people's idiocy?

btw, it's "Cui bono" - the literal translation being "who benefits"?

[1] - Actually, it did, if you read the article:

  It happened during one of my first appointments of the
  show, a half hour I’d booked to check out the sequel to a 
  well-known military shooter franchise.
..later..

  It continued to happen through the next few days of E3. 
  Upon checking into a booth, I would often be asked by the
  PR rep whether I wanted someone to play my “hands-on” demo
  for me. During booth tours, I would more often than not be
  guided towards the Facebook games.


“I think I better play it for you,” is what she claimed the PR representative said. That is incredibly condescending, bad assumption notwithstanding. If I was a female gamer I would find that insulting, even if I was clueless. The assumption is not really the problem, the problem is the condescending and insulting attitude that the author ran into again and again. I would expect a PR rep for a gaming company to be more professional and be a better communicator. That is his job.

"Would you like me to give you a tour of the game?"

"Do you want me to drive, or just point things out as you go?"

"Do you have much experience with first person shooters?"

"It looks like you know what you are doing. Is there anything you would like to know about the game?"

All those are better ways he could have started the conversation. They do not assume anything, they make it easy for her to let him know her level of experience, and they are not insulting or condescending.


People do and should judge books by covers. They just should be more willing and quicker to correct their misjudgements.


Other people are not books, and they deserve better than to be treated like books.


> for reasons other than their gaming knowledge.

Well said. It's fairly obvious when you see some of the women reviewing games online for famous publications/websites : they play by the looks. That Kotaku writer may be an exception. People reason with rules of thumbs, and the rule of thumbs is that women involved in gaming professionally are not all hired because of their skills and knowledge as gamers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: