That being said wouldn't it be pointless to listen to any of the claims feminists have made about sexism in the industry? They obviously have an interest in finding sexism regardless of whether or not its presence exists. If women cease to be terribly oppressed victims of society feminism loses its purpose. The same could be said about alot of gamers who dismiss all claims of sexism. Can we listen to them either since they feel like they have to protect games from what they feel is an attack? They all want to recruit you into their camp so they have one more person that agrees with them. I definitely get that vibe from both sides of the argument.Rebel_Raven said:I didn't read it that way. I read it more for the last sentence.wulf3n said:
If you talk to someone that hates a movement to learn about the movement they hate, then their bias will assuredly show through, and possibly make you hate them, too.
That said learning from someone who favors the group will assuredly lead to bias for the positive.
Either way, they likely want to recruit you into their camp.
IMO, learn from both... or just not give a crap about the group, and represent your own ideas.
People can agree, or disagree with any group, but pretending that they're automastically a member, or their views match the rest iof the group is a mistake, imo.
Female movie directors, game devs, sexism in the industry - root causes?
- Thread starter Yuuki
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What you could do, if you have the willpower, and desire for a self-identity, is talk to people both for and against a movement, and keep personal bias to a minimum as you learn.wulf3n said:By that Logic you shouldn't seek knowledge about feminism from feminists in the same way one should not seek knowledge about white supremacy from a white supremacist.Rebel_Raven said:
I agree.Rebel_Raven said:If you talk to someone that hates a movement to learn about the movement they hate, then their bias will assuredly show through, and possibly make you hate them, too.
That said learning from someone who favors the group will assuredly lead to bias for the positive.
Either way, they likely want to recruit you into their camp.
IMO, learn from both... or just not give a crap about the group, and represent your own ideas.
People can agree, or disagree with any group, but pretending that they're automatically a member, or their views match the rest iof the group is a mistake, imo.
Though I generally judge the worth of someones opinion by how their arguments stand up to scrutiny, which is why I don't bother listening to anyone that actively censors discussion.
Whether or not you agree with the Amazing Atheist or Thunderfoot they allow you to challenge their positions.
Or seek out a neutral source on the matter, which will likely be the harder route.
Learn about the movement, and what the detractors say and make up your own mind.
Another option would be to find the general ethics from multiple sources, and roll with those. Coz no matter who you talk to, yopu'll get a different answer.
I.E. if you talked to 10 feminists and 10 MRA members they'd give you 10 different point of views about their group, and opposition.
Most importantly, what ever you learn, have your own opinion, and be open to the opinions of the person you're talking to over what group they represent! Jumping the bandwagon and hating something just coz it seems cool is immature.
To be honest? I said something "challenging" against thunderfoot and my post was downvoted into destruction almost immediately. Youtube is a shitty place to discuss anything. I'm not blaming thunderfoot, I'm blaming the people of youtube in general for that, and maintain my point that youtube is not a good place for discussion, so comments on or not, I just listen to what they have to say, and ignore what group they rep, largely.
I talk about my views in forums.
No, it would not be pointless to hear what they have to say. Why on earth would I imply that?Robert Marrs said:That being said wouldn't it be pointless to listen to any of the claims feminists have made about sexism in the industry? They obviously have an interest in finding sexism regardless of whether or not its presence exists. If women cease to be terribly oppressed victims of society feminism loses its purpose. The same could be said about alot of gamers who dismiss all claims of sexism. Can we listen to them either since they feel like they have to protect games from what they feel is an attack? They all want to recruit you into their camp so they have one more person that agrees with them. I definitely get that vibe from both sides of the argument.Rebel_Raven said:I didn't read it that way. I read it more for the last sentence.wulf3n said:
If you talk to someone that hates a movement to learn about the movement they hate, then their bias will assuredly show through, and possibly make you hate them, too.
That said learning from someone who favors the group will assuredly lead to bias for the positive.
Either way, they likely want to recruit you into their camp.
IMO, learn from both... or just not give a crap about the group, and represent your own ideas.
People can agree, or disagree with any group, but pretending that they're automastically a member, or their views match the rest iof the group is a mistake, imo.
Listen to what is said, then handle your opinion on a case by case process. If it's BS, call it BS. If it's valid, then support it, and to hell with what group is represented.
Look, I have some femimnist views about female representation in videogames, but I will not call myself a feminist, nor will I stand to be called one. I'm -me- and I have my opinions. If I hear MRA views I agree with in games, I'll agree with them, but not call myself an MRA member.
You can hate the sexism in the gaming industry as much as any feminist, or agree with their points, but that doesn't make you a feminist, white knight, or anything but -you-.
If you disagree with the idea there's sexism in the gaming industry, I'd like to show you the evidence I gathered otherwise. To hell with group lables, mind you.
Honestly I can't imagine what draws people to join a group, and draw lines. If you don't want to join, then don't. You can agree, or disagree freely. Judging an entirte group based on the actions of a small sliver of the group is wrong. Not saying you have to hang out with them, or not, just treat them as individuals.
To me that would be like watching a boxing match where each boxer fought a non-existent opponent, then the judges had to figure out who was the better fighter comparing their individual performances against no one.Rebel_Raven said:
But to really tell which is the better boxer they need to compete against each other.
I wouldn't limit it to Youtube, I'd say the internet in general is not a good place for discussion, but I don't think disabling Youtube comments really helps. All it ends up doing is creating a space of a million different opinions.Rebel_Raven said:
I believe challenging an opinion is more beneficial than simply offering a counter opinion.
There's two big similarities between video games and movies, and that's that they're both relatively new mediums, and have high production costs. I wonder if it's because of either of those. I've heard about a lot of the sexism that goes into movie production and it's really frightening. You've generally got old rich guys who're very much set in their way of thinking and gender roles at the head of the funding. So not only is it less likely for progressive representations of women to appear, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people, even if they won't admit it, just don't trust a woman being in charge of that big of a project. I mean seriously, even if it's not good at judging movies as sexist on a singular basis, just look at some of the stats for how many movies pass the Bechdel test. There is very clearly something wrong in that industry. And that's an industry that has no significant difference between the number of male or female viewers.
Kind of got a little lost in talking about the movie industry there, but the big difference between movies and games versus books and music is that the latter are things that can be produced at relatively low cost and risk. Their work can pretty much be judged for quality right then and there. Not to mention that books and music are easier industries for women to get into on their own initiative, they don't need someone's permission or trust to make either. As well, because of the independence they don't need to go into a toxic environment that doesn't think their gender is as suited to music or literature.
At the very least that's probably part of what got the ball rolling with female representation in music and literature. A factor that I think is probably the biggest (particularly in terms of games) is tradition. Even though it's slowly changing, I'll still people act surprised when they see a girl gamer or tell me outright that girls don't play games. They're seen as a boy's club from a lot of people into the hobby, and probably even more outside of it. Let's also not forget that a lot of gamers also have an age long vendetta against the female gender and people who had an easier time socially than them in high school
The thing is that there is a lot of baggage and roadblocks that are getting in the way of a woman getting into the video game industry, or hell, even getting into videogames as a hobby. Their parents think it's for boys, their friends think it's for boys and if despite that they get into it they will be thrown into an almost male only industry where they will be the odd one out. Obviously not everyone is going to run into these problems and they're by no means insurmountable, but it still acts as deterrent. Overall I can see quite a few reasons why games are still being made for and by predominantly guys
Kind of got a little lost in talking about the movie industry there, but the big difference between movies and games versus books and music is that the latter are things that can be produced at relatively low cost and risk. Their work can pretty much be judged for quality right then and there. Not to mention that books and music are easier industries for women to get into on their own initiative, they don't need someone's permission or trust to make either. As well, because of the independence they don't need to go into a toxic environment that doesn't think their gender is as suited to music or literature.
At the very least that's probably part of what got the ball rolling with female representation in music and literature. A factor that I think is probably the biggest (particularly in terms of games) is tradition. Even though it's slowly changing, I'll still people act surprised when they see a girl gamer or tell me outright that girls don't play games. They're seen as a boy's club from a lot of people into the hobby, and probably even more outside of it. Let's also not forget that a lot of gamers also have an age long vendetta against the female gender and people who had an easier time socially than them in high school
The thing is that there is a lot of baggage and roadblocks that are getting in the way of a woman getting into the video game industry, or hell, even getting into videogames as a hobby. Their parents think it's for boys, their friends think it's for boys and if despite that they get into it they will be thrown into an almost male only industry where they will be the odd one out. Obviously not everyone is going to run into these problems and they're by no means insurmountable, but it still acts as deterrent. Overall I can see quite a few reasons why games are still being made for and by predominantly guys
I don't see your point of view on the boxers part.wulf3n said:
Why do they have to compete? Why draw battle lines? can the judges not agree on technique, form, and style? Why not focus more on the "art" than the "martial" of martial arts?
Why not take into account what a person says, process it, and argue if you disagree, or agree if you agree? Finding the middle grounds vs your opponent (And yes I know Anita doesn't allow comments, so just form opinions based on what she says? On that same note, youtube is a shitty place to talk about anything, anyhow.
) then hammering out finer details seems more useful to me. I'm not saying you can't compete, but I am willing to listen, and absorb points made by my opponent if I agree, and combat the ones I disagree with.
It doesn't matter to me what group you repersent coz I'm not joining.
You are you. Not the group you represent as far as I'm concerned.The problem with youtube is who will see your point if it's downvoted so it can't be seen?
The internet is a fine discussion place in some areas. Escapist is pretty nice, imo.
It's merely about comparison. It's much easier to compare two people competing than it is to assess their individual performance and to determine who's better.Rebel_Raven said:I don't see your point of view on the boxers part.
Why do they have to compete? Why draw battle lines? can the judges not agree on technique, form, and style? Why not focus more on the "art" than the "martial" of martial arts?
It comes down to the fact that I'm not perfect. I generally don't have enough knowledge about a given subject to satisfactorily assess what someone says. I may agree/disagree with an opinion but that doesn't mean the opinion was worth agreeing/disagreeing with, and that bugs me.Rebel_Raven said:Why not take into account what a person says, process it, and argue if you disagree, or agree if you agree?
Finding the middle grounds vs your opponent (And yes I know Anita doesn't allow comments, so just form opinions based on what she says? On that same note, youtube is a shitty place to talk about anything, anyhow.
I'm not saying you can't compete, but I am willing to listen, and absorb points made by my opponent if I agree, and combat he ones I disagree with.
It doesn't matter to me what group you repersent coz I'm not joining.
So I rely on collective knowledge of the masses to pick apart an opinion. If the holder of said opinion can address said criticisms then the opinion is more likely to be "valid"
The Escapist is one of the better places I've seen, though I still feel "discussion" where 2 or more people criticize the finer points of an opinion to reach a consensus is the minority compared to the "collective agreement", and "don't address issue, just insult person".Rebel_Raven said:
Maybe I'm just jaded
I find that HIGHLY unlikely actually. Particularly in the writing area of films. There are probably more females interested in writing than males, at the very least I've met far more women interested in writing than men. Just look at the number of people writing on fanfiction sites. As I understand it there are a lot more women than men. That is one of the few areas where you can get stories out without having to get it published, which, as I'm looking into it now, seems to be another area where women have more difficulty. I'll try to find sources though.Desert Punk said:
Using gender populations in industries as a gauge of interest is based on the assumption that there aren't deterring factors impairing one gender from getting into the industry
Gender role perceptions make women think they aren't fit to be technology workers. There are few female mechanics, just as there are few male nurses. Gender perceptions are alive and well, as much as people think they aren't.Yuuki said:
Babysitter. Are you picturing a female when you read that word? Them's the breaks.
As someone who has worked in the software industry for years, female technical specialists are treated like gold; and often, due to many companies being equal opportunity employers, will be selected over MORE qualified male candidates. I've been involved in the interview process at a very large technology company before and they basically made us take on any female programmer that was even moderately qualified, so long as we thought she could do a satisfactory enough job.
Now this doesn't mean you could just walk into the place with a pair of breasts and smile; you had to be able to do the job obviously, but if you were average, you were practically guaranteed a spot.
But that 6% is the entire industry, not just writers for films or cinematographers. Are you sure it's a much larger industry? I mean, I was always under the impression that apart from Hollywood and like, Bollywood, the film industry isn't really all that large.Desert Punk said:
I do think you're probably right that the vast majory of women aren't interested in working in the gaming industry. Considering how the lifestyle for people in the gaming industry largely is, I certainly can't blame them.
Sorry but that doesn't mean anything. Just because more women enjoy writing as a hobby doesn't mean they therefore must make up a majority of those who write professionally, and this is especially true because writing for TV and movies is very different than writing books and short stories. Additionally, what evidence do you have that women have a harder time getting stories published?The Almighty Aardvark said:
I mean hell, look at some of the most successful book series of the last two decades: Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Hunger Games, all written by women.
Just because someone assumes there aren't any deterring factors a: doesn't necessarily make them wrong, and b: doesn't necessarily mean that there are. You can't simply say "women only make up 22% of writers, therefore the industry is sexist". Men only make up about 24% of all teachers in the US, but that hardly means teaching is sexist.
There are many factors that explains why. You can start by the evolutionary process and the different biology of the 2 genders. Now, that we can shape our surroundings and can escape our biological constraints we have two problems:
Firstly, we are still biologically constrained. It is widely known, that mostly, a person of one sex has different traits and interests than a person of the other but people tend to generalize (which is a product of evolution), so this knowledge tends to be reinforced and we come to the second problem, that individuals are pushed by others into more or less specific roles and if they don't fill them, they meet resistance.
Firstly, we are still biologically constrained. It is widely known, that mostly, a person of one sex has different traits and interests than a person of the other but people tend to generalize (which is a product of evolution), so this knowledge tends to be reinforced and we come to the second problem, that individuals are pushed by others into more or less specific roles and if they don't fill them, they meet resistance.
Doing. Consistently talked down to by my male peers and have to spend at least three times the time rooting out dependable, honest people to work with on projects who won't act and behave poorly based on their sexist values. Unable to speak out against such unfairness for fear of proving the 'point' you're trying to make here.Sleekit said:
Funny little catch 22 going there.
Also Once I changed my CV to read Charlie, rather than Charli. I surprisingly got much more frequent calls for my talents. I was almost considering a voice changer for my phone interviews for fear of being told sheepishly that they weren't aware I was a female and try to shuffle out of giving me a chance to prove myself.
Talent cannot be proven without a chance. And those chances are not offered nearly at the 50/50 standard that it should, precisely because of ideals like that.
But then again maybe my opus project when it's finally made some headway years from now might prove my abilities, I'm still debating hiding my gender though, lord knows something in it doesn't work right or it flops I'll get enough threats of rape or beating for making a mistake and daring to possess a uterus. (Is it any wonder females are afraid to DO?)
Thing is, I'm not sure if I'd want to call this a "who's performing better" issue.wulf3n said:It's merely about comparison. It's much easier to compare to people competing than it is to assess their individual performance and to determine who's better.Rebel_Raven said:I don't see your point of view on the boxers part.
Why do they have to compete? Why draw battle lines? can the judges not agree on technique, form, and style? Why not focus more on the "art" than the "martial" of martial arts?
It comes down to the fact that I'm not perfect. I generally don't have enough knowledge about a given subject to satisfactorily assess what someone says. I may agree/disagree with an opinion but that doesn't mean the opinion was worth agreeing/disagreeing with, and that bugs me.Rebel_Raven said:Why not take into account what a person says, process it, and argue if you disagree, or agree if you agree?
Finding the middle grounds vs your opponent (And yes I know Anita doesn't allow comments, so just form opinions based on what she says? On that same note, youtube is a shitty place to talk about anything, anyhow.
I'm not saying you can't compete, but I am willing to listen, and absorb points made by my opponent if I agree, and combat he ones I disagree with.
It doesn't matter to me what group you repersent coz I'm not joining.
So I rely on collective knowledge of the masses to pick apart an opinion. If the holder of said opinion can address said criticisms then the opinion is more likely to be "valid"
Even if you don't agree with the issue of sexism in the gaming industry, I think what a lot of the people who do agree it's there aren't trying to harm the gaming industry, rather they have the goal of seeing more variety from it.
Personally, even if a person doesn't agree with feminists talking about the gender issues, or anyone talking about the gender issues regardless of faction, the important part, variety, is still worth fighting for, no?
IMHO, People are far too willing to break off into tribes on this issue. Some let their disdain for feminists, or a feminist in particular get in the way of what points are being made, and fight against issues brought up by feminists and a certain feminist based solely on the disdain, and not their points. I see so many personal attacks, and stuff not related to the issue at hand at times. :/
I'm not perfect either. Lacking the knowledge is sometimes why I argue, and it's why I generally try not to talk about things aside from videogames as far as gender issues go. I'm not likely all that strong in more general knowledge, or passionate enough on of the subject of gender issues as a whole.
I section these larger issues off, and generally focus on one part at a time.
I get some insight from asking, and debating. It may or may not affect my opinion evolution, though.
It's up to you to judge what you do with the opinion's worth. Handle it case by case is my advice.
Dismissing a person's opinions entirely because of some disagreements is not the way to go as you might end up in agreement with part of it, and thus seeming like you don't agree with what you'd normally agree with.
Still don't torture yourself listening to/reading their opinions either.
If it's not important, ignore it for now. If it stirs some passion, go for it, and think about where you stand and why. If it can't be contested directly, then contest it with a person who brings up a similar point at a later time.
Relying on the masses' opinions is okay. We gotta get information somewhere, but I'd hope that what info you garnered from the masses congeal into an opinion of your own that feels right, and becomes your opinion to argue, and not a cobbled together mass of opinions from others that you have little invested in. I find it hard to argue what one is not very passionate about.
It's okay if someone pokes holes in an argument, IMO. Learn how they did it, and shore it up with something deemed reasonable if at all possible, or just admit you can't contest the point, and move on, or just leave it alone.
I get what you mean about wanting to have a conversation, and contest points to test their validity. Personally, if I can't contest it, or research it, then I generally disregard it until it can be talked about later.
Also, if it makes sense, even without solid proof, I can genarally accept it, and research a bit on my own.
@_x rambleyness. Sorry if I wandered off too far.
I understand where you're coming from.wulf3n said:The Escapist is one of the better places I've seen, though I still feel "discussion" where 2 or more people criticize the finer points of an opinion to reach a consensus is the minority compared to the "collective agreement", and "don't address issue, just insult person".Rebel_Raven said:
Maybe I'm just jaded
http://www.ade.org/reports/adhoc_major.pdfIhateregistering1 said:
Page 3, look at the distribution of english degrees. This should at least be in general a good gauge of those interested enough in the field to want to write professionally
http://www.vidaweb.org/vida-count-2012-mic-check-redux
Scroll through and see that women are published or reviewed a good deal less frequently than men
So, what remains is that women are just bad at english, yet still interested for some reason. If you want to argue that case let me know. I doubt you will though considering the bestsellers you listed (although Stephanie Meyer really doesn't do much to support this cause)
and
It's good that I didn't say this, that would be a stupid argument. All I said is that if there ARE factors making it more difficult for women in the industry (which it looks like there are) then just looking at the people working in the industry is not necessarily a good estimate of interest. There has to be an equal playing field for that
EDIT: Left out an "if"
EDIT 2: Actually, there are social stigmas for women teaching, which leads to a lot of people in the job who hate it but do it because it's something strongly considered a job for women. I have nothing backing this up, but I wouldn't be surprised if there would be more equal distribution if it wasn't seen as a gender specific job
Sorry, but still, all basically irrelevant.The Almighty Aardvark said:
Someone who studied English may simply want to be an English teacher, a publicist, a literary critic, or a myriad of other jobs (to give a personal example, my mom was an English Major but never really used it) so that stat is basically meaningless. And, again, you were talking about people who write in the video game and movie industry, which is very different than writing books and short stories.
I'm sure you're going to use your second link to attempt to prove that there is also a bias against women in the book world, but again, the statistics cited by this site (which, let's face it, clearly has its mind made up) are meaningless. Just saying "x number of books by men were reviewed, and y number of books by women were reviewed, x>y, therefore sexism", or "there are more male book reviewers than females, therefore sexism" is ridiculous, because you'd have to know exactly how many books were submitted for review by each gender, which is not given, and you'd have to know how many people applied for those book reviewer jobs, by gender, which is also not given.
Likewise, books aren't published at random, they're published based on whether the publishing company believes they're going to sell or not. For example, Timothy Ferris, author of the best-selling "The 4-hour body", was rejected by 24 publishers before he finally got published, and his book was a mega-hit. Is this sexism? If more women submit books that the company deems won't sell well enough to justify publication, that's not sexism from the company, that's a desire for profit. Further, the fact that those three aforementioned female authors have basically dominated the industry for the last 15 or so years pretty much drives the final nail into this proverbial coffin (oh, and I forgot about "The Secret", which also had a female author).
Also, this is the list of the NYT best-sellers for 2013 (admittedly only in the fiction category though). 4 out of the top 5 are from female authors. If that's a "barrier to entry", sign me up!
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/29970.2013_NY_Times_Best_Sellers_Fiction
Hmm this is a complicated subject.
First let me be very clear, I think women have a lot to give to any industry, I believe it is better when ideas are shared openly so that whatever is produced has more depth and a richer, stronger ideological backbone.
That said, I find that a lot of it comes down to evolutionary psychology. This sounds a bit far fetched maybe, but apart from some very specific cases, from the origin of mankind ( and mammals and other even more primitive species ) women have been in charge of giving birth, and being the main caretaker of the newborn. On the other hand, males have varying degrees of patriarchal dominion over the whole family, that may or may not require them to protect, collect and provide for the family.
Of course, this is not true 100% of the time, and it has lost a lot of its validity in our society, but it is not hard to see how the instinctual behaviors still permeate the psychology of individuals. Insecure men, tend to isolate themselves, while insecure woman tend to seek for approval in a group. Men tend to question instructions and seek open confrontation far more commonly than women. And women tend to chose far more traditional careers and follow more established plans(often linked to the pursuit of safety).
In contrast, general creative endeavors are often sought out by generally less "socially adequate" beings: -nerds, geeks, bohemians, artists, philosophers, mad scientists- Through history, they have always been more or less stigmatized because of their aloofness to the status-quo. Through history, both highly specialized technical work, and deeply artistic searches have been regarded as slightly undesirable. Often people devoted to this field profoundly tend to disregard other established social rules. Funnily enough, most deep discoveries and advances come from these efforts.
And this rebellious personality trait is obviously not distinctive to males, but for some reason, may it be biological, psychological, or cultural (or anything else); Women present it in far less occasions. There have been many interesting experiments about it, women are naturally less prone to "adventuring", and have certain biological triggers that prompt them to be more protective, understanding and dependable. There are even involuntary protective responses in most women just by hearing a baby crying that don't present themselves in men. In the classroom, girls tend to follow their teacher's advise much more than boys..
So what does this matter; What does it mean? Well, male irresponsible nature causes men to seek out their own interests disregarding what is the "most secure option to success", in many ways males are more "passionate" and lack restraint to stop these impulses ( maybe it is connected to the external genitalia from the start).
On the other hand, females are prone to be more careful and make more "selfless" decisions. They tend to overlook and weight more possible outcomes more carefully, but also tend to make more traditional choices (possibly the reason why still up to today, psychologically a lot of women pick very childish, secure, less obsessive men as partners).
Of course this also comes from a patriarchal society, so I couldn't really tell you if these ideas are not distorted by the traditional male view that I simply can't shake..
All I know is that I sincerely wish that there was a much stronger female participation on games... It will probably take a while, since I believe the change requires a profound shift in the general mindset. But although video-games are still far from a traditionally respectable occupation, they have gradually become closer to the mainstream, arguably even more so than books or movies ever have. So this is probably the best time to jump in, make something meaningful that can modify the somewhat stagnated views of the general audience about Games.
woopsy, long post... but I think everyone is posting pretty long, so.. that, cya around.
First let me be very clear, I think women have a lot to give to any industry, I believe it is better when ideas are shared openly so that whatever is produced has more depth and a richer, stronger ideological backbone.
That said, I find that a lot of it comes down to evolutionary psychology. This sounds a bit far fetched maybe, but apart from some very specific cases, from the origin of mankind ( and mammals and other even more primitive species ) women have been in charge of giving birth, and being the main caretaker of the newborn. On the other hand, males have varying degrees of patriarchal dominion over the whole family, that may or may not require them to protect, collect and provide for the family.
Of course, this is not true 100% of the time, and it has lost a lot of its validity in our society, but it is not hard to see how the instinctual behaviors still permeate the psychology of individuals. Insecure men, tend to isolate themselves, while insecure woman tend to seek for approval in a group. Men tend to question instructions and seek open confrontation far more commonly than women. And women tend to chose far more traditional careers and follow more established plans(often linked to the pursuit of safety).
In contrast, general creative endeavors are often sought out by generally less "socially adequate" beings: -nerds, geeks, bohemians, artists, philosophers, mad scientists- Through history, they have always been more or less stigmatized because of their aloofness to the status-quo. Through history, both highly specialized technical work, and deeply artistic searches have been regarded as slightly undesirable. Often people devoted to this field profoundly tend to disregard other established social rules. Funnily enough, most deep discoveries and advances come from these efforts.
And this rebellious personality trait is obviously not distinctive to males, but for some reason, may it be biological, psychological, or cultural (or anything else); Women present it in far less occasions. There have been many interesting experiments about it, women are naturally less prone to "adventuring", and have certain biological triggers that prompt them to be more protective, understanding and dependable. There are even involuntary protective responses in most women just by hearing a baby crying that don't present themselves in men. In the classroom, girls tend to follow their teacher's advise much more than boys..
So what does this matter; What does it mean? Well, male irresponsible nature causes men to seek out their own interests disregarding what is the "most secure option to success", in many ways males are more "passionate" and lack restraint to stop these impulses ( maybe it is connected to the external genitalia from the start).
On the other hand, females are prone to be more careful and make more "selfless" decisions. They tend to overlook and weight more possible outcomes more carefully, but also tend to make more traditional choices (possibly the reason why still up to today, psychologically a lot of women pick very childish, secure, less obsessive men as partners).
Of course this also comes from a patriarchal society, so I couldn't really tell you if these ideas are not distorted by the traditional male view that I simply can't shake..
All I know is that I sincerely wish that there was a much stronger female participation on games... It will probably take a while, since I believe the change requires a profound shift in the general mindset. But although video-games are still far from a traditionally respectable occupation, they have gradually become closer to the mainstream, arguably even more so than books or movies ever have. So this is probably the best time to jump in, make something meaningful that can modify the somewhat stagnated views of the general audience about Games.
woopsy, long post... but I think everyone is posting pretty long, so.. that, cya around.