Can Girls be just as good at guys in smash and other games?

[Dark.Pch]

I wanna know what you guys think about this. Many people think Guys cant be as good as males in this game because.......

- A big about of boys cover the boards in the game of smash then girls

- not that many girls play this game and if so not that good.

- More boys play videogames than girls.

I have a girlfriend and she plays smash. She is just as good as me, and she mains Peach, but she is also good with other characters too. Some guys here think girls are no good and a waste of smash space. and think they would never lose to a girl in smash. And if they do, an excuse would follow like "I went easy on you cause your a girl, etc." Thats another thing, guys tend to go easy on guys in video games cause....thier girls. If guys were to go hardcore in a game I think a girl would pick up pretty fast then own them later. whats your opinions for smash and other video games when girls come into the picture? I dont think girls get a fair chance or respect in video games like smash and a few others out there that some somes might say "are just to hard core for girls, go stick with Mario games or something easy"

 

[Skywalker]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Girls can't play as well as guys?
Guys go too easy on girls?
Girls learn Smash from their boyfriend?
"guys tend to go easy on guys in video games cause....thier girls." What?
"Many people think Guys cant be as good as males in this game because......." ??

Could you please clarify? =)

 

[Dark.Pch]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Girls can't play as well as guys?
Guys go too easy on girls?
Girls learn Smash from their boyfriend?
"guys tend to go easy on guys in video games cause....thier girls." What?
"Many people think Guys cant be as good as males in this game because......." ??

Could you please clarify? =)

I better fix that post.I'll do it in a while, Im asking if you guys think girls can play smash bros melee and any other well know and great games out there just as well as guys, or even better and what are your reasons for think so or not thinking that way

 

[snex]

physiologically speaking, there is nothing preventing women from being as good as men in most things, with a few exceptions that rely on sheer muscle power.

the reason they arent seems to be more psychological. women dont have the same competitive drive that men do, and thus just arent as interested as competing to be the best at something the way men are. there are exceptions, of course, but not enough to fill the skill gap we all observe. this may or may not have a biological basis, but research on the matter is somewhat discouraged due to "political correctness."

 

[Skywalker]

Video Games are not primarily based on gender, but on skill, experience and reflexes. Female Smashers like forkgirl go to tournaments and do fine against guys.

Snex, I've heard of research on psychology with discrimination. To summarize it, a group of women took a test and did well; another group of women were told that they were "women", took the same test, and did much more poorly. If the male opponent slaps in the girl's face that she is a woman, based on that research, she may be less competitive in the match.

 

[Kalypso]

-post deleted-

 

[blazedaces]

I'm kind of at a cross-roads when it comes to sexism arguments today. The only thing I do know is that the PC arguments are all rather worthless, and in some cases downright harmful.

Can a woman to anything a man can do intellectually (Like Smash)?

I think yes, but my observation shows me that women are much less motivated to do these things. More men get higher education, pursue higher careers, pursue tournament-level competition, etc. One of two things is at work. Either men are more motivated for whatever reason to do things to improve, or there is some sort of bias still holding women back. This bias could be in the womens own minds, who knows. But it seems logical that one of those two, maybe both, are true.

Feminism is, in many cases, harmful to women, because instead of equality it's 'Womens Superiority.' Give us all the rights of men, but don't give us any of the consequences.

Example- Woman hits man, joke. Man hits woman, lawsuit. Woman 'sexually harasses' man, sex. Man 'sexually harasses' woman, lawsuit.

That's not equality. There are several reasons for this, but I feel compelled to make a new thread to discuss it instead of doing it here, since I'm going to go very off-topic.

I know you don't mean to, but you're being incredibly sexist and you're just plain wrong. Here's some facts from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics :

-"Women have been more likely to be enrolled as first-time first-year students than men. In 1991 as in 1980, approximately 53 percent of the students enrolled as first-time first-year students were women, and they accounted for just over 50 percent of full-time, first-time, first-year students."

-"The total number of associate's degrees earned by women increased over the decade, from 230,758 in 1981 (55 percent of the total awarded) to 286,254 in 1991, almost 59 percent of the total. (See appendix tables 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6.)" ( http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpdse94/chap4/women.htm )

-Also, take a loot at this chart: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpdse94/chap5/gifs/15.htm

That's natural sciences and engineering. The differences in natural sciences is very small, though it's still quite a difference in engineering.

I'm going to go look for another source, there's so many facts that prove you wrong man:

-"A table of the data is available. Two classes of freshmen were followed from entry through graduation. In both classes, women had higher four-year completion rates (on-time performance) than men. The mean grade point average (GPA) was 4.3 for both men and women who completed their bachelor's degree requirements.

Some have argued that the equal level of GPA's may be partly due to the fact that women major in areas other than engineering or science (the former being considered easier majors than the latter) more often than men do. However, at the university studied, all students are required to pass a minimum of eight science courses and more than three-fourths of each class of women continued to major in science. When GPA's were compared by major, out of each class only one major had a statistically significant difference between men's and women's GPAs.

The authors conclude that for the majority of on-time undergraduates there is almost no difference in the GPAs of men and women, even within the same majors." ( http://www.onlineethics.org/div/abstracts/perfmathsci.html )

Here's the table that "is available" as they said: http://www.onlineethics.org/div/abstracts/perfmathscitable.html

Seriously dude, the only thing you can say is that they don't compete as much in tournaments, but that IN NO WAY gives your the right to try and demean the truth, that women pursuit higher educations just as much as men, if not more-so.

Now, I agree feminists these days can get out of hand, but I'm not even going to bother looking up sources for this: women's right to vote, women more independent, women more often in today's workplace where they used to never be, women pursuing higher education. All of these things are direct results of the feminist movement.

Dude, sometimes there are racist lawsuits, are you going to imply that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s cause was not worthy?

I'm sorry, but this post sickens me...

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

You are specifically attacking maybe 4 words in a few paragraph post. While you may very well be right (I'm going to go fact-check now), that shouldn't make the post 'sicken' you.

Dude, sometimes there are racist lawsuits, are you going to imply that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s cause was not worthy?

There is an ENORMOUS difference between a rights movement when a group is being oppressed and a rights movement when oppression is gone but they think it still exists.

The NAACP tried to sue the state of Florida for 'Racial Bias in Standardized Testing.' Black students were doing worse than white students, so the test is 'racist.' How in the **** can a test just asking questions be racist? It's not even possible. The only cases of such things are the 'voting literacy tests' that have been legally abolished for 80 years.

The illusion of racism just stands to cause problems via the NAACP. Similar things with Feminism, there is no bias but the illusion of one leads to many hazardous choices.

=Point about higher education conceded. Although, it really wasn't centric to my point. To be 100% honest, I don't even know why I wrote that, I was thinking of arts.

Redirect-

I'm pursuing a career in film, and honestly the only Female director I can even think of offhand that I like directs in a pair with her husband. Granted, they directed my 3rd favorite film of all time, but she's the only female director in my top 15 list of movies. There is also only one female writer present (20~ directors participated in those movies, ~25 writers). Almost every film writer/director is male, almost every artist I can think of in general is male, and the few females I can think of tend to get more press for being female than for being good (Films representing 'Womens Values' etc that are not fun to watch, which is the point of a movie). Not that women can't make art, it's just an observation. This could be because the market for Movies and the arts in general pander to a more male audience, but what does that imply? Of the four major demographics (Men under 25, over 25, women under 25, over 25), both of the female demographics are the lowest. It's why romance films bomb at the box office. And this isn't really my opinion, it's industry standard.

The same is true of novelists, I can only think of a few female novelists offhand, aside from the obvious Harry Potter, whereas I can list of a ton of men. You could say that's because I prefer to read men over women, but I'd bet money that statistically more men write novels than women. I know, for a fact that more than 75% of movie directors/screenplay writers are men, and almost 100% of successful directors/writers are men. Anytime I watch a movie I go check it out on IMDB/RT, check who the writer/directors are, check the actors etc. I'd be one to notice who does what, and VERY rarely do I see women.

I expect someone to mention at some point that men and women may direct different genres overall, and that I just don't like Romance/Romantic Comedies, a genre dominated by women. My all-time favorite film is a Romantic Comedy, Chasing Amy by Kevin Smith. It's not that I don't like womens work in film, it's that they don't.... do much work... in film.

Minorities are not excluded in the arts. Some of the most successful directors/writers are members of minority groups (Spike Lee for example). The only group that really just... doesn't produce is women. Why is up in the air, but it's statistically true.

The same is true with Video Games. I've never known a girl who was good at video games, a few that were 'good' at wow but wow is so ****ing easy they made bots to play it. Very few play video games, fewer still are any good. I've been to smash tournaments and can only remember seeing maybe 2 female players, neither of which did anything of consequence. Both competitive video games, and film (My two interests) are completely dominated by men. And there are NO BARRIERS keeping women out. A woman can write a screenplay and sell it just as easy as a man. The material is what matters, not the writer. If she can direct, she could probably get a chance to direct it. But women don't. Do either of those things, anywhere near as much as men.

 

[Digital Watches]

Well, this post was once much longer, but due firstly to being eaten by shaky wireless internet, and secondly to the fact that the points could basically be summed up in one sentence each, here are my three main observations:

1. Incompetence appears to be sexually attractive in women. This is clear from the media portrayal of attractive women as clumsy or lacking in certain skills, which is strongly contrasted by an almost universal portrayal of attractive men as highly competent, at least in one area, as well as a similar trend in the way both seem to act when attempting to attract romantic/sexual partners.

2. While overt aspects of society, such as laws and stated opinions, seem to have shifted away from sexism, certain results of previous sexist society have not wholly been phased out, as indicated by trends pointed out by Kalypso, as well as other trends towards heavily male-dominated fields. The reason this is notable is that it will most likely change over time, possibly very rapidly, but I would expect the process to be more gradual.

3. I note that while there's still fewer female players at lower and mid levels (of any given game), the disparity is FAR less significant than at high levels of play. I have to wonder why, if women lack the competitive drive that men do, would they bother to learn mid-level aspects of gameplay but not high-level ones.

 

[McCloud]

In a word: yes.

The only time when gender comes into play in any sort of competition is when the body structures for men and women create a differing factor in performance.

As far as I know, most women have hands.

 

[Digital Watches]

In a word: yes.

The only time when gender comes into play in any sort of competition is when the body structures for men and women create a differing factor in performance.

As far as I know, most women have hands.

Interestingly enough, many anatomical differences exist between the hands of males and females. On average, women have hands that are 1.7 cm shorter and 1 cm more narrow (Wikipedia). There are hundreds of documented differences between male and female hands, just look up medical papers on the subject and you'll find more than adequate proof of the difference. I'm not saying that this will have a DRAMATIC effect on gameplay (although it brings up the possibility that game controllers are designed in such a way that makes them more ergonomic for male hands, forming a vicious cycle by simultaneously being a result and a cause of the tendency towards a predominantly male demographic in the gaming industry's calculations), but to say that the body structures pertaining to gaming are gender-homogenous is to ignore mountains of research to the contrary.

 

[McCloud]

Playing a game is like writing. Once you learn it, finger length and width are of minimal consequence. A lot of males complain about hands being too big or too small for the controller as well, but they adapt. It would be illogical to accept differences in women's width/length without acknowledging the prevalence of the male population that also deals with that problem.

Thus any difference would generally cancel out.

 

[Digital Watches]

Playing a game is like writing. Once you learn it, finger length and width are of minimal consequence. A lot of males complain about hands being too big or too small for the controller as well, but they adapt. It would be illogical to accept differences in women's width/length without acknowledging the prevalence of the male population that also deals with that problem.

Thus any difference would generally cancel out.

While I agree that the differences would be a minimal factor at worst, that argument hardly holds water. While I'm sure anatomical differences exist intra-gender, there's no way of telling whether players with such difficulties often make it to high levels of gameplay, nor have you really conclusively even asserted that these differences are similar or comparable to the ones that occur with gender variation. Size isn't the only issue, nor, most likely, is it the largest factor in this issue. However, arguing this further would be moot, since we agree with each other.

 

[McCloud]

Well, the reason I make that assumption is that any anatomical differences are so negligible that nobody's ever really complained about their hand size during a competitive game..I'm sure if there was actually a study (don't look at me, studying hand sizes is possibly the most boring statistic I could possibly do), results would be similar.

At any rate, we do agree with each other, so, yay.

now, Kalypso - I don't really get what you're trying to say with all of these random statistics as they don't apply to the principle to the argument in my opinion. And as far as I'm concerned, who you think of offhand, who you read and who you don't read, and who you see and don't see in the directors list in movies and other media has nothing to do with a woman's inherent capability to do certain things.

But if you are actually serious about not knowing many female authors, I'm gonna have to wonder.. there are an overabundance of women in literature, probably far outdoing the male demographic. As far as directing goes, off the top of my head I know Sophia Coppola, director for Lost in Translation, the Virgin Suicides, etc.

There are an overabundance of women present in every media and art form. I don't know where you got it in your head that there was a lack of women in the arts, but my friend, you are sorely mistaken.

As far as competitive gaming goes, the demographic is much lower in truth because video gaming holds a very large stigma for most women. Most don't care to try it at all, save for some DDR and Guitar Hero. Among the few that do, there are a good many that become highly competitive and highly successful gamers. Numerous all female counterstrike teams exist, as well as a MLG sponsored female Halo 2 player who is around 17.

The arts, however, do not hold such a stigma.

 

[Kalypso]

There are an overabundance of women present in every media and art form. I don't know where you got it in your head that there was a lack of women in the arts, but my friend, you are sorely mistaken.

It's not really smart to tell someone who watches/researches film every day that he's sorely mistaken. Again, you name ONE director. Directing and Writing are a enormous boys club.

I very clearly stated that a woman could, just as easily become a screenwriter/director, but there is some motivating factor that prevents them from doing so. It's the only explanation for why so few female directors exist.

Calling me sorely mistaken when I'm completely right is rather foolish, there are many, many more male screenwriters/directors active than women.

 

[McCloud]

Congratulations. Now allow me to tell you again the arts are overwhelmingly female. I stated one director as an example, and I'm sure that there have been more in the very few years that cinema has been around...

But as long as we're slinging around our reputations, as it were, I don't think it's quite so smart to tell an English major/minor (i dunno, I might go international studies/poly sci) with a very high love of both theatre and the arts in general that he's sorely mistaken about telling someone they're sorely mistaken regarding the realm of literature.

Or maybe you're not reading this properly. Allow me to e-nunciate as best as possible. (hah, puns, you silly little Literature nerd you.) There is (corrected my grammar mistake from last time, though the mistake is very justifiable and usually legit) an overabundance of women in the arts. I can almost guarantee you that more women are authors than men. Some would argue that the best authors are female (and to which I would contest, but that's just a side tangent).

At any rate, this argument is relatively moot in terms of the original debate, so let's end it here.

Do women have the same potential as men in the cyber world? An emphatic yes.

 

[Kalypso]

But as long as we're slinging around our reputations, as it were, I don't think it's quite so smart to tell an English major/minor (i dunno, I might go international studies/poly sci) with a very high love of both theatre and the arts in general that he's sorely mistaken about telling someone they're sorely mistaken regarding the realm of literature.

I never said that <3 I was talking about Film.

In my experience I see more male novelists than females, but I wasn't arguing that fact, because I don't read enough to know. What I do plenty of is watch movies, which was the point I was making.

It's pretty much the same case in Video Games as in Film, which is why I drew the parallel. There's no reason, except perhaps some kind of negative motivation, that women wouldn't perform as well as men, but they don't. Or at the very least, they don't participate nearly as much.

It's quite relevant to the original debate. Very few women in the cyber world compared to men, very few women in the film world compared to men. If people hadn't tried to call me out instead of just responding to the points I raised, we'd be discussing WHY it's like that, not whether or not it's true.

For video games, it could just be a social conditioning thing. Action figures for boys dolls for girls kind of thing, you don't see many men in beauty pagents after all. However, it still strikes me as odd that even nowadays, very few women participate in high level competition, in math/spelling competitions (Mu Alpha Theta, Brian Bowl, etc) women are completely equal with men, so it's not a lack of intelligence. Like I said the only explanation is a motivation not to compete, perhaps based on gender roles.

When it comes to film, I'd more accuratly guess that men watch more movies, and men like to watch movies made by other men more than by women, so men have an easier time getting a job in the business. Statistically, men like other mens movies more, same with women and other womens movies, but more men go to the theater. That'd be my theory. Although the numbers are still terribly disproportionate in favor of men as writers/directors.

 

[snex]

why dont you just count the number of male/female pulitzer prize winners, or academy award winners for best director, instead of just making assertions back and forth? sheesh.

 

[McCloud]

Cause that the number of a gender that win awards doesn't amount to anything?

At any rate, I'm done arguing the presence of either gender in differing forms. The principle of the argument is whether women have something that keeps them from being good gamers, or good whatever. Truth is there isn't.

 

[snex]

it amounts to a lot, actually. you claimed that women have an "overabundance" of representation in the arts. looking at the top competition in the arts would either validate your claim or refute it.

 

[McCloud]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

You're going to judge an entire population through sets of independently judged awards ceremonies? It's been a little while since I took statistics but I'm pretty sure that sampling fails to meet the criteria needed to be a simple random sample. Furthermore there is a hell of a lot of inherent bias present in your suggested observational study.

 

[snex]

the issue is whether or not females are as good as males. thus, you should look at the best of the best, as well as the averages. its the exact same way you determine that males are better at smash.

and there is no "inherent bias." awards are given to the best writers/directors respectively.

but the fact remains that YOU claimed that women are just as good at directing and writing. it is therefore YOUR responsibility to present data that back this up. i have already given you a suggestion about where to get some, but i have a good idea as to why you dont think its good enough.

 

[McCloud]

If you were so inclined to find a list of female directors/writers, a simple search amongst most major search engines would suffice.

That being said, there is bias present in such awards. What is the standard criteria for the best writer/director? There's no checklist you have to go down. It's subjective and completely up to judges of the era.

but the fact remains that YOU claimed that women are just as good at directing and writing

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I don't recall claiming any such thing. I claimed that there is a very large amount of women in the directing and writing realm. And within this very large amount of women there exists the clear potential to be just as good. Get thine facts correct sir.

Glad you have a good idea as to why I don't seem to think that an award is any indication of whether or not there is a female demographic present in said area.

 

[Digital Watches]

Um. That proves nothing about the topic at hand? There are a ton of female gamers, and almost none at the highest level. It's the same situation: The DEMOGRAPHIC of female gamers is only slightly smaller than that of male gamers. The top levels are what this ENTIRE DISCUSSION are about.

Also, for those curious:

Oscar winners for best director in the last ten years have all been male. Nominees have all been male except for one.

 

[Xsyven]

Has it occurred to any of you that the majority of girls just don't like video games?

And the reason there aren't a lot of famous female artists is because the majority of females have a family to take care of.

There are a lot more factors in this debate rather than just skill.

 

[Digital Watches]

Has it occurred to any of you that the majority of girls just don't like video games?

First off, that's increasingly untrue. Secondly, even if that is the case, why? What factors are leading to this preferential difference? In fact, couldn't these factors be the very thing that we are debating?

And the reason there aren't a lot of famous female artists is because the majority of females have a family to take care of.

Right, because raising a family immediately excludes all other activities. Not to mention the interesting conclusion that women are solely responsible for the upkeep of a family.

There are a lot more factors in this debate rather than just skill.

All of which you appear to be ignoring. I think myself and some others have made some great points about anatomy and psychology, as well as societal factors, that lead to this trend. In fact, if you look carefully, I'm certain that almost no one here has said anything about the two genders having an inherent skill disparity between them. I don't really see what your point is supposed to be, but whatever it is, it holds a lot less credibility when you immediately launch into how everyone's looking at it from the wrong perspective when it's clear that you haven't carefully read even the first post, let alone the whole debate.

To sum it up: RTFM.

 

[Xsyven]

You're partially correct. I read the first post, and lost interest immediately. I skimmed through, and once I got to the second page, I read the stuff about directing and artistry.

In all honesty, I just wanted to say my second paragraph-- "And the reason there aren't a lot of famous female artists is because the majority of females have a family to take care of.".

The first and third paragraphs were to stay 'on topic'.

Right, because raising a family immediately excludes all other activities. Not to mention the interesting conclusion that women are solely responsible for the upkeep of a family.

This is the only thing that I was actually interested in. And you're right, raising a family does immediately exclude women from becoming a famous author or director. I think what you're missing here is a concept of family roles.

I believe that women do have as many opportunities in life as men, but once they have kids, things change, and they'd rather spend time raising their children correctly rather than persuing a career in film and literature.

But like you said before, I totally didn't read the first few posts, and can't add to the main topic. Should I make a new thread on family roles?

 

[Falco&Victory]

@Xsyvn: Yes, make a new topic, I would be interested

About the main topic: Contrary to what people may think, women would actually excel at games if they tried. Though men may have slightly more developed motor skills, female's brains are more adapted to multi-tasking. Admittedly, both skills can easily be improved on, but motor skills develop more quickly than multi-tasking.

Women may not be renown for their excellent skills with video-games, but that is simply because most do not take interest. For those that do, and do not seem to be doing well, how much longer do you think men have been playing video games? My sister was a huge fan of the original Sonic games for the genesis, and she was better than my brother was. In my opinion, women could be better if they really tried, but they're just not.

 

[Digital Watches]

This is the only thing that I was actually interested in. And you're right, raising a family does immediately exclude women from becoming a famous author or director. I think what you're missing here is a concept of family roles.

What if, and I know this is unorthodox, I were to tell you that the statement of mine that you are referring to was sarcastic?

I believe that women do have as many opportunities in life as men, but once they have kids, things change, and they'd rather spend time raising their children correctly rather than persuing a career in film and literature.

Depends on the person, not to mention that the age demographic for video games tends to differ from the one for raising children. Either way, your point is moot: People DO become famous despite raising families. Not to mention that men play a role in childrearing as well.

But like you said before, I totally didn't read the first few posts, and can't add to the main topic. Should I make a new thread on family roles?

Yes. I would be quite interested in debating you on that topic.

About the main topic: Contrary to what people may think, women would actually excel at games if they tried.

Prove it.

Though men may have slightly more developed motor skills, female's brains are more adapted to multi-tasking. Admittedly, both skills can easily be improved on, but motor skills develop more quickly than multi-tasking.

Good point, although I'm loathe to agree that this would be a significant factor before we can confirm the helpfulness of multitasking in a competitive gaming environment.

Women may not be renown for their excellent skills with video-games, but that is simply because most do not take interest.

Bull. The number of female gamers has gone up incredibly and continues to increase. Many are even interested in games that are considered highly competitive.

For those that do, and do not seem to be doing well, how much longer do you think men have been playing video games?

So men magically pass down their ability to play games to other men? Yes, men have been playing games for longer, but that doesn't change the fact that there are competitive players who are young enough to have grown up when girls of the same age were taking more of an interest in video games.

My sister was a huge fan of the original Sonic games for the genesis, and she was better than my brother was. In my opinion, women could be better if they really tried, but they're just not.

And lastly, why is that? Why AREN'T women, as you say, trying? That's the topic of interest here. Why?

 

[blazedaces]

how much longer do you think men have been playing video games?

Dude, the first every video game, pong, was only created in the 1950's. We're not talking hunting vs. gathering here... There is no "how much longer" nonsense. If you're saying men play video games more then women in today's world, then I ask you why, that is the topic of debate...

 

[McCloud]

Woah. I forgot about this thread.

Digital Watches:

At any rate, this argument is relatively moot in terms of the original debate, so let's end it here.

Gee... I wonder... who could have possibly...said that... 8|

But as long as we're talking about social conditioning..

And lastly, why is that? Why AREN'T women, as you say, trying? That's the topic of interest here. Why?

Perhaps women better understand how to separate recreational activities from activities that are actually beneficial to them in the long run. This is where social conditioning would come into play as women seem have a subtle instinct for things that are stable and supportive.

 

[Digital Watches]

Perhaps women better understand how to separate recreational activities from activities that are actually beneficial to them in the long run. This is where social conditioning would come into play as women seem have a subtle instinct for things that are stable and supportive.

Er... I want to debate that, but it's pretty vague. Could you give examples or explain it further so that it's clearer what you mean?

As for what it SOUNDS like... I disagree that women are more pragmatic in their interests than men.

 

[blazedaces]

Perhaps women better understand how to separate recreational activities from activities that are actually beneficial to them in the long run. This is where social conditioning would come into play as women seem have a subtle instinct for things that are stable and supportive.

Ok, so spending hours "shopping" (aka walking around stores spending money on trivial items usually), watching tv shows about fictatious love triangles, sitting and talking about ... well, nothing really are all extremely productive forms of activity?

Look, I'm certainly not saying women always commit to recreational activities that are less productive in the long run, but both genders and all people in general have something they do during their free time that isn't always productive, ok?

Video games serve more purpose then people realize: sometimes they challenge the mind (not always, notice the sometimes), sometimes they are good exercise (DDR), sometimes they release a lot of frustration in a healthy way (we all need this sometimes), and sometimes they are just plain fun. We need to do things to keep us happy. What do people like to do? Have fun.

It sounds stupid and simple. Well, yeah, it is.

-blazed

 

[Falco&Victory]

Sorry, everyone, I should have been more clear about my previous statement. If you take a female and male gamer of 18, who do you think has been playing video games longer? It will almost always be the male.

Women are taking an interest in competitive games, but they are in most cases not persevering as hard as a man would to become better at that game. In the case of female smashers most of them don't practice as much as I do, therefore I do better than them.

In our society men and women are expected to have certain activities and interests that the opposite sex should not have. Women are more worried about their looks, so yes, they do shop. Men usually don't worry about their physical appearance, so they have free time on their hands for recreational gaming while women are making themselves look better. Of course almost no one will believe fully a women can be a hardcore gamer until they see one.

I understand that men are better gamers than women, but that's because we choose to be better gamers, not because women are incompetent.

 

[blazedaces]

Sorry, everyone, I should have been more clear about my previous statement. If you take a female and male gamer of 18, who do you think has been playing video games longer? It will almost always be the male.

Women are taking an interest in competitive games, but they are in most cases not persevering as hard as a man would to become better at that game. In the case of female smashers most of them don't practice as much as I do, therefore I do better than them.

In our society men and women are expected to have certain activities and interests that the opposite sex should not have. Women are more worried about their looks, so yes, they do shop. Men usually don't worry about their physical appearance, so they have free time on their hands for recreational gaming while women are making themselves look better. Of course almost no one will believe fully a women can be a hardcore gamer until they see one.

I understand that men are better gamers than women, but that's because we choose to be better gamers, not because women are incompetent.

Interesting and very true. Let's expand on the topic. Why?! Why do women have so much more of an obsession with looks? I mean, men think about sex more then women do, they obviously want to attract the opposite sex more if not at least the same amount, so why not spend just as much time on improving one's look?

I personally would attribute this to male/female gender roles in nature/biology if you will. It is usually the female who attempts to attract the males and the males who "pick" the female. I feel it's the same way in society and it's just how guys ask girls out, not usually the other way around...

What do you guys think?

-blazed

 

[Digital Watches]

Sorry, everyone, I should have been more clear about my previous statement. If you take a female and male gamer of 18, who do you think has been playing video games longer? It will almost always be the male.

Clearly this is subject to change in a matter of a few years. Either way, it has little bearing on how good one is at a game. Some newer players of certain games are better than ones who have been playing for much longer. The logic here works on paper, but I would say that experience vs. time curves in such a way that new players improve more quickly than older ones.

Women are taking an interest in competitive games, but they are in most cases not persevering as hard as a man would to become better at that game. In the case of female smashers most of them don't practice as much as I do, therefore I do better than them.

Give me the statistic of practice time per month per gender, then we'll talk. In the meantime, if you must extrapolate and assume, at least declare it as such.

In our society men and women are expected to have certain activities and interests that the opposite sex should not have. Women are more worried about their looks, so yes, they do shop.

To some extent, however, to say that men are unconcerned with their appearance is an untrue stereotype, and not every woman is heavily interested in shopping, just as not every man is heavily interested in automobile maintainence, nor is either activity exclusive in interest to the aforementioned associated genders. There are things eating men's time as well, so the logic doesn't follow.

Men usually don't worry about their physical appearance, so they have free time on their hands for recreational gaming while women are making themselves look better.

For the reasons already stated, and also the various factors eating the time of men (Sports, for one, as long as we're talking stereotypes) that's simply not true.

Of course almost no one will believe fully a women can be a hardcore gamer until they see one.

I understand that men are better gamers than women, but that's because we choose to be better gamers, not because women are incompetent.

No, women ARE comparitively incompetent at gaming for the time being. The question, again, is why. I think that attraction psychology plays into it a lot. Not only are men attracted more often than not to incompetent women, but women take advantage of this heavily. I would also not be surprised if female gamers also find it difficult to participate in the culture of competitive gaming, due to it being predominantly male (A self-perpetuating or vicious cycle). As far as anecdotal evidence goes, nearly every guy I've heard proclaim that he wants a girlfriend that can kick his *** at (Such and such game) tends to be quite upset when it actually happens, to the point of not being as romantically interested in aforementioned female as before. This probably plays a large part in it.

 

[Xsyven]

What if, and I know this is unorthodox, I were to tell you that the statement of mine that you are referring to was sarcastic?

And it never occured to you that I was agreeing with your sarcasm as a statement of irony?

Depends on the person, not to mention that the age demographic for video games tends to differ from the one for raising children. Either way, your point is moot: People DO become famous despite raising families. Not to mention that men play a role in childrearing as well.

I already told you I didn't care about girls playing video games. I was just adding to the conversation that people were having about how there are a lot more male writers than female writers-- mainly due to the fact that most women do take care of the families while their husband provides for their family by taking up a job. Maybe even in film or literature.

Yes. I would be quite interested in debating you on that topic.

I was going to make the thread, but I realized what we're debating isn't really a solid debate. Once I think of something more specific about family roles, I'll post it.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Clearly this is subject to change in a matter of a few years. Either way, it has little bearing on how good one is at a game. Some newer players of certain games are better than ones who have been playing for much longer. The logic here works on paper, but I would say that experience vs. time curves in such a way that new players improve more quickly than older ones.

That is not completely true. Take a women who's been playing video games since 12, and a man who's been playing since 6. Seeing as the older you get, the slower you learn it is logical to assume that the 6 year old is a more developed player.

Give me the statistic of practice time per month per gender, then we'll talk. In the meantime, if you must extrapolate and assume, at least declare it as such.

Ok, I'll try with an example. "Hey, I don't see many female smasher at tournaments here in Bellevue. How much do you play?"
"Oh, not much, I me and my friends only play about once a week."

Ok, there you go. Actual conversation down at PAX. She and her 2 friends play only once a week usually, and she's pretty new to the game.

To some extent, however, to say that men are unconcerned with their appearance is an untrue stereotype, and not every woman is heavily interested in shopping, just as not every man is heavily interested in automobile maintainence, nor is either activity exclusive in interest to the aforementioned associated genders. There are things eating men's time as well, so the logic doesn't follow.

I'm not concerned with my appearance nearly as much as my female friends. Yes, I work out, but I do it because I like keeping in shape. They go shopping about once a week for clothes, I go when I outgrow my clothes. In a study over 65% of women are unhappy with their looks, compared to about 25 or 30% of men.

No, women ARE comparitively incompetent at gaming for the time being. The question, again, is why. I think that attraction psychology plays into it a lot. Not only are men attracted more often than not to incompetent women, but women take advantage of this heavily. I would also not be surprised if female gamers also find it difficult to participate in the culture of competitive gaming, due to it being predominantly male (A self-perpetuating or vicious cycle). As far as anecdotal evidence goes, nearly every guy I've heard proclaim that he wants a girlfriend that can kick his *** at (Such and such game) tends to be quite upset when it actually happens, to the point of not being as romantically interested in aforementioned female as before. This probably plays a large part in it.

I've met females who are great at video games, so no, you are speculating. They are not incompetent, they just for the most part don't try. I don't play croquet, but that doesn't mean I'm incompetent. Heck, I've only played once and I nearly won against kids way older than me, same with golf. But I've never taken either seriously, so I never became a great player. Does it mean I'm incapable?

 

[Digital Watches]

That is not completely true. Take a women who's been playing video games since 12, and a man who's been playing since 6. Seeing as the older you get, the slower you learn it is logical to assume that the 6 year old is a more developed player.

Not age, time playing the game. New players who are dedicated to improving will improve much faster than players that already know a lot, even if they, too, are dedicated to improving as much as possible.

Ok, I'll try with an example. "Hey, I don't see many female smasher at tournaments here in Bellevue. How much do you play?"
"Oh, not much, I me and my friends only play about once a week."

Ok, there you go. Actual conversation down at PAX. She and her 2 friends play only once a week usually, and she's pretty new to the game.

You lost me at PAX.

All joking aside though, the fact that you've met female casual gamers doesn't really mean much: The majority of gamers are casual gamers, and the minority of gamers are female. Statistically, if you run into a female gamer, they are most likely to be a casual gamer as well. This is simply a restatement of the statistic, not an attempt to explain it, which is what I'm interested in.

In a study over 65% of women are unhappy with their looks, compared to about 25 or 30% of men.

Good that you have a statistic to go with that, that's the only part I'm really interested in: Cool to know, however, I severely doubt that the difference in time spent worrying about looks is much different from male-dominated activities other than video games, and therefore doesn't explain much.

I've met females who are great at video games, so no, you are speculating. They are not incompetent, they just for the most part don't try. I don't play croquet, but that doesn't mean I'm incompetent. Heck, I've only played once and I nearly won against kids way older than me, same with golf. But I've never taken either seriously, so I never became a great player. Does it mean I'm incapable?

You mistake incompetence for incapability. A person can be capable of being a great athelete, but for lack of interest and practice, are incompetent at athletics. Just as anyone can become competent through practice, anyone who doesn't practice, or isn't interested, is typically incompetent. So what's your point?

 

[Falco&Victory]

You mistake incompetence for incapability. A person can be capable of being a great athelete, but for lack of interest and practice, are incompetent at athletics. Just as anyone can become competent through practice, anyone who doesn't practice, or isn't interested, is typically incompetent. So what's your point?

incompetence > noun 1, attribute
Meaning Lack of physical or intellectual ability or qualifications.

Also, the main point of the topic is whether or nat women can be as good of a gamer, not if they are good gamers.

You lost me at PAX.

All joking aside though, the fact that you've met female casual gamers doesn't really mean much: The majority of gamers are casual gamers, and the minority of gamers are female. Statistically, if you run into a female gamer, they are most likely to be a casual gamer as well. This is simply a restatement of the statistic, not an attempt to explain it, which is what I'm interested in.

PAX = Penny Arcade eXpo
Men, having more experience in gaming on average are better gamers than women. I started playing games at a younger age than my older siblings and cousins, and despite that they have played video games much more than I have I am a better gamer, because I started earlier.