Should Smash consider women-only tournaments? Clear numbers say its great for community growth.

[Zenithia]

Looks like this thread is degenerating into an "I'm-the-Right-One-so-I'll-Just-Make-My-Point-by-Flaming-You" convention.

But anyways, my idea was just having tournaments make advertisements for women to come on in. Perhaps that would be a nice way to achieve integration and have more women be there?

 

[deepseadiva]

I broached this subject before and I don't think there was much of a discussion on it, but I'm going to play devil's advocate again and bring this query back up, because I think it warrants further dissemination:

Why is it that we're explicitly appealing to the female demographic, and why don't we extend the same courtesy to, say, older gamers / "seniors" (as in chess), younger gamers / "juniors" (as in chess) or other facets of society? Is it because there isn't as wide a perceived demographic as there is for women? How do we know if we haven't extended the olive branch to them?

For all I know, there may be a non-trivial community of "senior" gamers (let's say 50+, since the Smash community tend to have an average age cap of somewhere in the 30s range) that have an interest in playing in tournaments, but they don't because they'd feel out of place. I'd understand why, a 60 year old man playing video games in the company of teenagers and young adults may seem unconventional at best, sinister at worst, but maybe an express invitation would help diminish those concerns. I know for a fact there are younger players (13 and below) that have an interest in coming to tourneys but feel concerned that it will be an adult-oriented event. Helping the TOs of my local scene has made me realise that a number of these younger players - that otherwise have access to the venue and permission from their parents or guardians - feel that they won't "fit in" because the majority of players there are older teens or adults.

I don't know - I just feel that, if we're going to open the door to one demographic (a good idea and definitely something we should do if there's interest for it), we should be willing to open the door to others. Not to say that anybody has directly quashed the idea of having senior / junior tournaments, but I think we should consider other ways to foster growth in the community beyond just getting one token minority involved and patting ourselves on the back for it.

Why not xyz minority is a really common question that has a really obvious answer... and that's that women are overwhelmingly the largest missed demographic which is most easily reached.

A possible 50ish - 30ish percent of gamers.

Elders won't come close to that. No other group compares.

Toddlers should be welcomed but they have serious logistical problems. They literally can't drive lmao

 

[imago^dei]

More players is always better. Community growth is always better.

It's not much deeper than that.

The wrong type of growth can destroy communities. It happens all the time.

 

[Wintropy]

Why not xyz minority is a really common question that has a really obvious answer... and that's that women are overwhelmingly the largest missed demographic which is most easily reached.

A possible 50ish - 30ish percent of gamers.

Elders won't come close to that. No other group compares.

Toddlers should be welcomed but they have serious logistical problems. They literally can't drive lmao

Right, but why not try is what I'm getting at?

"It's not worth it" doesn't really cut it. How do we know it isn't worth it if we don't try?

 

[NogGoggler]

Personally I think we should try. Half the reason girls don't join now is because smash tourneys are just big sausage fests so they probably feel pretty damn uncomfortable. We should start some girl only tourneys to build up a decent amount of female smashers.

 

[imago^dei]

Personally I think we should try. Half the reason girls don't join now is because smash tourneys are just big sausage fests so they probably feel pretty damn uncomfortable. We should start some girl only tourneys to build up a decent amount of female smashers.

Or perhaps women, as a general population, aren't interested in video games? And the ones that are are just atypical.

If that's the case, then energy spent trying to inject a demographic that is inherently uninterested into a community is fundamentally a bad investment. If the energy spent trying to grow the community by focusing on the male demographic has a return of 1:2 (1 unit of energy, 2 new male community members), vs. 2:1 (2 units of energy, 1 new female community member), then you're actually hindering the growth of the community, since you could've spent those 2 units of energy targeting males and had 4 new community members, vs. just 1.

That's why I think the argument of "any type of growth is good" is too simplistic and fails. It doesn't take into account the basic laws of economic growth.

And technically, simply stating "Any type of growth is good" isn't an argument, it's an assertion. And argument is needed to prove the assertion true.

 

[ARISTOS]

I broached this subject before and I don't think there was much of a discussion on it, but I'm going to play devil's advocate again and bring this query back up, because I think it warrants further dissemination:

Why is it that we're explicitly appealing to the female demographic, and why don't we extend the same courtesy to, say, older gamers / "seniors" (as in chess), younger gamers / "juniors" (as in chess) or other facets of society? Is it because there isn't as wide a perceived demographic as there is for women? How do we know if we haven't extended the olive branch to them?

For all I know, there may be a non-trivial community of "senior" gamers (let's say 50+, since the Smash community tend to have an average age cap of somewhere in the 30s range) that have an interest in playing in tournaments, but they don't because they'd feel out of place. I'd understand why, a 60 year old man playing video games in the company of teenagers and young adults may seem unconventional at best, sinister at worst, but maybe an express invitation would help diminish those concerns. I know for a fact there are younger players (13 and below) that have an interest in coming to tourneys but feel concerned that it will be an adult-oriented event. Helping the TOs of my local scene has made me realise that a number of these younger players - that otherwise have access to the venue and permission from their parents or guardians - feel that they won't "fit in" because the majority of players there are older teens or adults.

I don't know - I just feel that, if we're going to open the door to one demographic (a good idea and definitely something we should do if there's interest for it), we should be willing to open the door to others. Not to say that anybody has directly quashed the idea of having senior / junior tournaments, but I think we should consider other ways to foster growth in the community beyond just getting one token minority involved and patting ourselves on the back for it.

We can and should be doing all that we can to foster growth in the community. However, we have a finite pool of resources to draw from to craft interventions and make changes.

There seems to be a stronger demonstrated want to get women more involved in the community, and there are female members of the community vying for this intervention, and we know that these types of interventions have worked in the past. They increased the amount of women in the respective community while also still not leading to the type of segregation people in this thread are talking about.

I don't think anyone is opposed to having a tournament for under 13's-I think it would help in the same way as having a tournament for only women- but I disagree with the notion that in order to hold one intervention for a community we need to start doing the same for all communities. If a school has a specific problem with retention of black males, they should focus on that, and not feel compelled to also make a retention program for all students if it is not needed in the school.

In short, we could do what you're asking, but I would argue that a space for women is more immediately important towards community long term growth than a space for under 13's. That's just me though.

If that's the case, then energy spent trying to inject a demographic that is inherently uninterested into a community is fundamentally a bad investment. If the energy spent trying to grow the community by focusing on the male demographic has a return of 1:2 (1 unit of energy, 2 new male community members), vs. 2:1 (2 units of energy, 1 new female community member), then you're actually hindering the growth of the community, since you could've spent those 2 units of energy targeting males and had 4 new community members, vs. just 1.

Don't do this, bro.

1. First flaw to this argument is the idea that a community is evaluated only based on the numbers of people it attracts, instead of the communities breadth just being one of a multitude of factors used to look at communities. People are not a numbers game, and this is not a zero-sum-game (to get one of this is to lose one of that; not true at all).

2. Your "economic" model has failed to factor in that there might be more to growth than a linear model. What if female growth takes on a quadratic curve? What if it's exponential? Trying to justify making no changes using such rudimentary and frankly dumb terminology should not be supported.

Don't do this, friends.

 

[NogGoggler]

Or perhaps women, as a general population, aren't interested in video games? And the ones that are are just atypical.

If that's the case, then energy spent trying to inject a demographic that is inherently uninterested into a community is fundamentally a bad investment. If the energy spent trying to grow the community by focusing on the male demographic has a return of 1:2 (1 unit of energy, 2 new male community members), vs. 2:1 (2 units of energy, 1 new female community member), then you're actually hindering the growth of the community, since you could've spent those 2 units of energy targeting males and had 4 new community members, vs. just 1.

That's why I think the argument of "any type of growth is good" is too simplistic and fails. It doesn't take into account the basic laws of economic growth.

I mean, this might be flawed logic, but women as a general population weren't interested in sports 50 years ago. Now the amount of female athletes are ridiculous. Just because women aren't interested in smash now doesn't mean they can't be.

 

[deepseadiva]

Interest is probably the easiest thing to foster and change.

It's not like there's some hormone that makes women less interested games. This has always been a MARKETING problem, and it's becoming more and more obvious to game developers to invite these players back in. This was the strategy of the Wii entirely - everyone loves games.

Which is funny because historically, it was Nintendo that created the the initial division. Haha

 

[Wintropy]

We can and should be doing all that we can to foster growth in the community. However, we have a finite pool of resources to draw from to craft interventions and make changes.

There seems to be a stronger demonstrated want to get women more involved in the community, and there are female members of the community vying for this intervention, and we know that these types of interventions have worked in the past. They increased the amount of women in the respective community while also still not leading to the type of segregation people in this thread are talking about.

I don't think anyone is opposed to having a tournament for under 13's-I think it would help in the same way as having a tournament for only women- but I disagree with the notion that in order to hold one intervention for a community we need to start doing the same for all communities. If a school has a specific problem with retention of black males, they should focus on that, and not feel compelled to also make a retention program for all students if it is not needed in the school.

In short, we could do what you're asking, but I would argue that a space for women is more immediately important towards community long term growth than a space for under 13's. That's just me though.

That's a fair response, thanks for that.

As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I want to know people's reasons for denying the opportunity. What you're saying ties right back into my earlier response about TOs of smaller events having difficulty with these finite resources; if it's a case of having to prioritise one demographic over the other, then yeah, logistically it makes sense to go for the biggest well of untapped potential. In that case, that happens to be women.

Incidentally, I never said we should intervene on behalf of other demographics, or that we have a moral / social / technical obligation to do just that, I'm asking why we shouldn't. I have my answer, so that's that.

That said, ぱみゅ made a good point too: what about people that want to get involved, but don't feel that they'd fit in due to XYZ reasons, but aren't female? How do we entice them into involving themselves in the scene? Do we not want them because they don't fit our designated demographic criteria ("You must have these kinds of chromosomes to enter"), or do we give them a pass because they could do with entry grade? What if they just feel more comfortable in the presence of women, even though they themselves aren't women? And what about people that aren't (yet) biologically male, but identify as a woman and feel more comfortable attending a woman-only event? Is there a screening process or do we just take their word for it?

I am not trying to undermine the integrity of this project, but I do want to see where others stand on these potentially controversial issues. Sometimes the boat needs a good rocking to see if it will stay upright~

 

[LightLV]

My problem was no matter how sarcastic Darknid's post was or how hostile Emblem Lord's post might have sounded, you can clearly see the point they are trying to make and people are just ignoring it and everyone just complains about the post being sarcastic or sounding hostile. There was not really much that could be misinterpreted in either of their posts.

I touched on this in the last post. No, i could not clearly see the point they were trying to make, and neither could others, which is probably why the last few posts have just been me and everyone else (that's still here) clarifying themselves. I'm guilty of it as well as others. It's okay to be sarcastic, but when you just jump into a discussion like this and be so dismissive, you're bound to get flak for it. It's all about tact, really.

It is special treatment because both genders have the same starting point: Being invited to tournaments.

In the context of social gaming, men and women are just about never on the same starting point. You can maybe imagine this if you view gaming as a genderless space where the only thing that matters are your controller or Mouse/KB inputs. But people don't live in vacuums where their gaming lives start the moment they receive a tournament invite. In your example, you're putting Karen, Julia and RandomJimmy777 all on the same starting point, and assuming they're all going to have the same experiences, and so their outcomes will all likely be for the same reasons.

This is faulty in tons of ways, but just to state the most obvious...the simple fact that tournaments are already like 90% male ensures that Julia and Karen will never have a comparable experience to RandomJimmy777. Despite whether they liked it or not.

The second part makes sense. I don't think anyone would attend the first event again if it was unfavorable just because a "catered" event wasn't. However...nobody should really be expecting that to happen. "People problems" aren't solved in one fell swoop. If they were, i doubt we'd have problems with racism, xenophobia, and other annoying issues is society.

I broached this subject before and I don't think there was much of a discussion on it, but I'm going to play devil's advocate again and bring this query back up, because I think it warrants further dissemination:

Why is it that we're explicitly appealing to the female demographic, and why don't we extend the same courtesy to, say, older gamers / "seniors" (as in chess), younger gamers / "juniors" (as in chess) or other facets of society? Is it because there isn't as wide a perceived demographic as there is for women? How do we know if we haven't extended the olive branch to them?

This...one of the oddest arguments i've heard in response to a topic like this. Do your grandparents take a significant interest in Smash Brothers? Do your parents? I don't think we need to hold a poll to know that the overwhelming majority don't. Smash is a game that's marketed to be inclusive to all demographics, but the generations you're talking about aren't at all comparable to the one Smash is intended for.

The reason we're talking about females is that, unlike much older/younger generations, there really isn't a reason why they shouldn't be participating. If they grew up on Mario, Zelda, Nintendo, Sega, Namco, Square, ect then they have DO have interest in this game, and we know they do. The issue is that they aren't participating despite their love for it.

Your little brother/sister might very well take an interest though, but that isn't being exclusive, it's just being appropriate. If your junior sibling is some kind of protege then by all means, take him to tournaments and watch him drop bombs on people. (This has actually happened on multiple occasions, and even recently in Tekken at least.) But it's not like these kids aren't going to get older or anything.

Other than that...nobody wants tournament pools to be full of a bunch of children who are just going to come and get destroyed. Some kids are really really good at games...but lets be honest, most of them aren't.

 

[imago^dei]

Don't do this, bro.

1. First flaw to this argument is the idea that a community is evaluated only based on the numbers of people it attracts, instead of the communities breadth just being one of a multitude of factors used to look at communities. People are not a numbers game, and this is not a zero-sum-game (to get one of this is to lose one of that; not true at all).

That is not a flaw to my argument, since my argument was targeted against the seeming premise of the original post, which was purely numerical. It's only flawed if you make a strawman out of my argument and try to presume it was arguing against something it is not.

Are things more nuanced than pure numbers? Possibly. But non-numerical nuance isn't what was being discussed.

Also, a community, other than the human race as a whole, has certain characteristics and contours. Common sense, in my opinion, indicates that one of those contours is the reality that competitive video games, by and large, don't appeal to women; they mostly appeal to men. So from a numerical standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to invest effort targeting a demographic that will yield little return on that investment.

Regarding the more non-numerical nuanced aspects, I think presupposing tearing down distinctions that inherently appeal to a specific demographic is just lazy thinking. Some of the most interesting, vibrant, healthy communities in humanity embrace those distinctions and it's what makes them so unique and interesting.

2. Your "economic" model has failed to factor in that there might be more to growth than a linear model. What if female growth takes on a quadratic curve? What if it's exponential? Trying to justify making no changes using such rudimentary and frankly dumb terminology should not be supported.

Even if this is true, the eventual female growth would have to outnumber the number of males brought in to the community if the energy invested was diverted to acquiring them instead. More research would need to be done to, in a nutshell, verify you're not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Efforts like these, in any sphere, are unfortunately driven by clouded ideas of equality and western assumptions detached from history and the reality surrounding them. That's not to say the effort shouldn't be made, but rather the effort should be driven by facts and data, not ideology.

 

[imago^dei]

It's not like there's some hormone that makes women less interested games.

And you know this how? Or what if women are just wired differently that their interests tend to lie elsewhere?

This has always been a MARKETING problem...

Again, how do you know this? It's an extremely bold assertion that should be adopted only if the data indicates this is the case, not blind ideological assumption.

..and it's becoming more and more obvious to game developers to invite these players back in. This was the strategy of the Wii entirely - everyone loves games.

Your Wii example is one of casual interest, not serious competitive play. It doesn't fit the context being discussed.

 

[imago^dei]

In this context, feminism should be rejected as a contributor to decisions surrounding member acquisition into a community. If efforts like these were driven by feminist ideology, then you must understand what you're embracing. You're embracing the idea (either consciously or unconsciously) that the differences between men and women, apart from their reproductive organs, are purely social constructs.

Even if this is true, do you realize the scope of such an effort to reconstruct society? Feminism acknowledges patriarchy was necessary for humanity to "get off the ground" and survive on the plains of the Savannah, where we were trying to not get killed by lions. All of human society, then, has been constructed from that patriarchy, and to remove the "socially constructed differences" between genders that produces a lack of women in the Smash community, you have to deconstruct society to the very start of humanity, and reconstruct it in an egalitarian way.

The first problem with this is that for such an idea to be embraced and embarked upon, prudence would dictate a HUGE effort in unbiased scientific and social research would need to take place--I'm talking decades, if not centuries. The scope of research should match the scope of the idea, and in reality, feminist reconstructionism is the most lofty belief I've ever encountered in my life.

Unfortunately, current studies don't seem to back up the idea of gender differences being a sole construct of society. So the research isn't trending in the right direction for those embracing this ideology.

Then bring it back to the Smash community. To garner more female interest, simply targeting women for competitive Smash isn't enough...you need to join the reconstructionist effort to yield any true return--if indeed the feminists are right about the gender differences.

 

[deepseadiva]

Again, how do you know this?

History.

Common sense, in my opinion, indicates that one of those contours is the reality that competitive video games, by and large, don't appeal to women; they mostly appeal to men.

It's just marketing really.

 

[imago^dei]

History.

For all of human history, men and women have pretty much kept their same roles in society. Even up to today.

A cursory glance at history seems to contradict your claim rather than support it.

 

[LightLV]

And you know this how? Or what if women are just wired differently that their interests tend to lie elsewhere?

Because

1) that isn't how hormones work
2) it also isn't how interest works
3) interests "tending to lie elsewhere" is not a biological tendency. Unless we're

Honestly, it's a pretty silly thing to even suggest. This simply isn't how humans work, and is pretty much the basis of why we dominate the planet.

Again, how do you know this? It's an extremely bold assertion that should be adopted only if the data indicates this is the case, not blind ideological assumption.

There is no shortage, of any form (anecdotal, official, or common observation), in the amount of sources you can find that prove it's a marketing problem.

It'll probably come up in literally any article you read that goes into the subject in-depth. The marketing people themselves talk about it. Game developers talk about it all the time. It's a well-known fact that many AAA publishers are LITERALLY AFRAID of even putting females on the covers of games.

A quick google search would provide clarity for you on this one.

Especially with the **** that went down fairly recently considering Bioshock Infinite, with Elizabeth clearly being the main character of the game and not even being featured on the cover. Remember Me is another one that comes to mind, with the publishers fighting the developer constantly because the main character was female. That's not even getting into the female characters that are designed and marketed exclusively to be eye candy for males.

Your Wii example is one of casual interest, not serious competitive play. It doesn't fit the context being discussed.

Smash Bros itself is a casual videogame. It's success has ALWAYS been equal parts accessibility with its enormous branding. The simple fact that Smash 4 was played at EVO is significant thing. It's not really out of context, this is probably the most casual game to ever be taken seriously.

For all of human history, men and women have pretty much kept their same roles in society. Even up to today.

A cursory glance at history seems to contradict your claim rather than support it.

Women couldn't even vote in the US less than a century ago. Hillary Clinton has a real possibility of being president soon. Doesn't mean they're currently equal by any means, but yo...a cursory glance?

I know we're trying to avoid the "im-right-you're-wrong" cycle, but this statement couldn't be any more factually wrong if it tried. Sorry.

 

[imago^dei]

1) that isn't how hormones work

Evidence?

2) it also isn't how interest works

Evidence?

3) interests "tending to lie elsewhere" is not a biological tendency.

Evidence?

Honestly, it's a pretty silly thing to even suggest. This simply isn't how humans work, and is pretty much the basis of why we dominate the planet.

Evidence?

Smash Bros itself is a casual videogame. It's success has ALWAYS been equal parts accessibility with its enormous branding. The simple fact that Smash 4 was played at EVO is significant thing. It's not really out of context, this is probably the most casual game to ever be taken seriously.

This thread isn't about the casual aspect of the game.

Women couldn't even vote in the US under a century ago. Hillary Clinton has a real possibility of being president soon. Doesn't mean they're currently equal by any means, but yo...a cursory glance?

Not really relevant. We're not talking about injustices here. No one is barring women from entering Smash tournaments. A cursory glance shows men and women, by and large, have retained the same roles in society in terms of their day-to-day interests & lives that they always have. What makes anyone think that's going to undergo massive change? Certainly not history.

 

[NogGoggler]

Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?



This thread isn't about the casual aspect of the game.



Not really relevant. We're not talking about injustices here. No one is barring women from entering Smash tournaments. A cursory glance shows men and women, by and large, have retained the same roles in society in terms of their day-to-day interests & lives that they always have. What makes anyone think that's going to undergo massive change? Certainly not history.

KEK you can't make baseless claims then expect others to prove you wrong. Where's your evidence?

 

[LightLV]

Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?

Evidence

This thread isn't about the casual aspect of the game.

You're making it about the casual aspect. He's talking about the benefits of inclusiveness, and the subject of the thread is community growth. I think you're the one who's taking things out of context.

We're not talking about injustices here.

A cursory glance shows men and women, by and large, have retained the same roles in society they always have.

What on earth makes you think those two things aren't correlative?

Are you serious right now?

What makes anyone think that's going to undergo massive change?

Probably because it already has (as i've pointed out) and still is.

Also, i cannot stress this enough, the idea that the "role of women" has stayed constant throughout history is a MASSIVELY INCORRECT statement, in every sense of the term. Not only have you not even identified what that role is, unless your answer is "birth children", it's impossible for it to be correct.

No, hes right. You need to stop, I don't think you have any kind of grasp on what you're talking about.

 

[imago^dei]

KEK you can't make baseless claims then expect others to prove you wrong. Where's your evidence?

What baseless claim did I make?

 

[imago^dei]

Evidence

I'll take a look.

You're making it about the casual aspect. He's talking about the benefits of inclusiveness, and the subject of the thread is community growth. I think you're the one who's taking things out of context.

I was under the impression the context was the competitive/tournament Smash community, that that is the context I was speaking within. Any effort to extend my argument to the casual aspect of the game is a strawman.

What on earth makes you think those two things aren't correlative?

Are you serious right now?

Because those injustices have long been removed and things have largely remained the same regarding our roles as genders in society.

Probably because it already has (as i've pointed out) and still is.

Micro-changes are not necessarily indicative of macro ones. You're assuming, in this case, they are, and there's no reason from history to assume that.

Also, i cannot stress this enough, the idea that the "role of women" has stayed constant throughout history is a MASSIVELY INCORRECT statement, in every sense of the term. Not only have you not even identified what that role is, unless your answer is "birth children", it's impossible for it to be correct.

Do you really need me to go over the list of the roles men and women generally play in society?

...I don't think you have any kind of grasp on what you're talking about.

Unfortunately it seems like you have failed to grasp a good deal of what I'm talking about, as evidenced by your unfortunate (maybe not intentional) strawmen above.

 

[wizrad]

imago^dei You want evidence? Take a human bio or psychology course. This is literally science.

 

[FairyLip]

I'm a transgirl, and I really don't see what's so wrong about it. I love the idea of getting women involved in Smash, considering they're the biggest minority group that Smash has left out for the most part. It's affirmative action, basically, and will hopefully open up the scene to more women. :3

 

[ぱみゅ]

Nitpicknitpick
Testosterone *does* make men more likely to compete and push their limits. Not the only chemical behind it, but it plays a role.


This thread is dangerously driving into a neverending course.
After reading all these replies I don't really know why the simplest solutions are not viable.
"There is already a division, so let's emphasize it (because privileging is also emphasizing) and hope it fades away"
That's not how schools became mixed environments.

What I ultimately mean is that side-events are fine, the theme can be whatever like low tiers, extreme stages, women-only, customs, or whatever.
But they are not addressing or solving any of the background problems (low tiers are still bad, most extreme stages are still broken, women are still segregated, customs are...disliked? idk).



Oh, also, please please please try to avoid double posting. Use the edit feature instead of posting again.

 

[teluoborg]

Why not xyz minority is a really common question that has a really obvious answer... and that's that women are overwhelmingly the largest missed demographic which is most easily reached.

A possible 50ish - 30ish percent of gamers.

Elders won't come close to that. No other group compares.

Toddlers should be welcomed but they have serious logistical problems. They literally can't drive lmao

I might be misreading this : are you implying that 30 to 50% of smashers are female ? If so then where do you find these numbers ? Because everywhere I look females do not make more than 1-5% of the smash community.

 

[ARISTOS]

That said, ぱみゅ made a good point too: what about people that want to get involved, but don't feel that they'd fit in due to XYZ reasons, but aren't female? How do we entice them into involving themselves in the scene? Do we not want them because they don't fit our designated demographic criteria ("You must have these kinds of chromosomes to enter"), or do we give them a pass because they could do with entry grade? What if they just feel more comfortable in the presence of women, even though they themselves aren't women? And what about people that aren't (yet) biologically male, but identify as a woman and feel more comfortable attending a woman-only event? Is there a screening process or do we just take their word for it?

For different groups of individuals, we'd have to look at different interventions that we could do in order to bring people in. However, that depends on what the problem is. For a problem to be worth fixing, IMO, it needs to be a systematic disparity, not a random one. For example, if every now and then someone said they didn't want to participate because they were afraid they'd get bodied, I would just say "Don't worry about that, it'll be fun," and leave it at that. If it got to the point where a ton of people where starting to repeat the same thing, I would look to change the structure of my event to allow for a more chill environment (More friendlies, trying to emphasize weaning new blood in, etc.)

We're arguing for women at this point b/c we know there exists a need, there exists a solution, and it is a relatively harmless intervention that we can go for and do a lot of good. I'd be willing to go for others should a need exist and a viable solution present itself.

The transwomen question is an honest one that I have no answer to. If they feel more comfortable around women, then I would let them play at the woman-only event. We would have to take their word for it, we can't start asking for documentation from them.

Nitpicknitpick
Testosterone *does* make men more likely to compete and push their limits. Not the only chemical behind it, but it plays a role.


This thread is dangerously driving into a neverending course.
After reading all these replies I don't really know why the simplest solutions are not viable.
"There is already a division, so let's emphasize it (because privileging is also emphasizing) and hope it fades away"
That's not how schools became mixed environments.

What I ultimately mean is that side-events are fine, the theme can be whatever like low tiers, extreme stages, women-only, customs, or whatever.
But they are not addressing or solving any of the background problems (low tiers are still bad, most extreme stages are still broken, women are still segregated, customs are...disliked? idk).



Oh, also, please please please try to avoid double posting. Use the edit feature instead of posting again.

Honest question: What simple solutions are there?

I feel if there was a simple solution, it would have already been done before.

Waiting for things to fix themselves will not work, I can tell you that. It will not work in realms far bigger than Smash, and it will not work here.

Addressing the underlying social stigmas is waaaaaaaay outside of our jurisdiction. But no, this intervention has proven in the past that it does not lead to segregation in gaming contexts.

 

[deepseadiva]

Wintropy ARISTOS

Trans women are women. There's no real issue there.

I might be misreading this : are you implying that 30 to 50% of smashers are female ? If so then where do you find these numbers ? Because everywhere I look females do not make more than 1-5% of the smash community.

Yes, sorry. That data is referencing women gamers as a whole.

I guessed 9% of Smashers might be women. But 5% like you said is more likely.

This thread is dangerously driving into a neverending course.

A never ending course... OF PROGRESS! #smashsisters already has one wildly successful event under their belt and were likely to see more.

The hype train already left the station.

 

[F. Stein]

Wow, the first few pages of this thread were great discussion pieces and these last like four have been horrible, dissolved discussions of logic and semantics arguments. I'm inclined to exercise the old Nsider way of dealing with things: "Those of us interested in getting more female gamers involved with smash tournaments should continue discussing and those of us that are opposed to the idea, which is their right, should possibly find something more constructive to do with their time."

Honestly, is rolling about with semantics on Smashboards isn't creating any kind of change, positive influence on the situation nor does it appear to be helpful beyond the classical banter of: "No, I'm right and you're wrong." While being right or wrong is all good and well, no one is actually coming to a consensus of what to do. Last I checked this wasn't congress, why is the floor being lobbied? If you are opposed to the idea of running a female only/female promoting tournament of any kind then offer another solution with your reasoning and leave it at that. These endless quotation arguments about science, psychology and the semantics of how someone it phrasing their argument is not helpful from the standpoint of a reader. If anything, these kind of responses and interactions blow the situation up from what was intended, a pleasant discussion of possible solutions to what appears to be a problem, and into a disgusting mess of useless arguments that are likely to never end.

The current direction of this thread factors into the post that I made earlier and shows a need for the community to actually want to be friendlier to outsiders and want to try and look for solutions instead of arguing over semantics like we are experts in fields of science and psychology. Last I checked we were smashers of various games and lifestyles. Shouldn't we get back to those lifestyles and stop creating a useless cycle of arguments, that is rather repulsive for people outside/thinking about joining our community to read? If you've got these nit-picky arguments to pursue then why not pursue them in the PM system where you can argue to your heart's content about how User X is not considering that he made a strawman argument. Can we get back to offering solutions instead of just pointing out problems in each other's posts?

 

[NogGoggler]

transwomen seems like an awfully small demographic to be pandering to right now tbh. They might just come if we encourage women though but I don't know.

 

[deepseadiva]

transwomen seems like an awfully small demographic to be pandering to right now tbh. They might just come if we encourage women though but I don't know.

Trans women are included in the women events automatically. It's good to verbalized that though, since they are often excluded due to prejudice.

We brought up LGBT events in the thread. They would be even smaller than these events already, but they could be fun. Gays vs Lesbians crews would be so hype lmao

 

[LightLV]

What baseless claim did I make?

Spoiler: baseless claims & more

At this point? Almost all of them. I am not even joking, and i'm not being cheeky.

"The wrong type of growth can destroy communities. It happens all the time."

"Too much water can kill you. It happens all the time."

Are you implying that too many women will destroy the community or something? Like an invasive species or something? And how and when does it happen all the time? Can you give examples?

Unless you can clarify, this is a baseless claim.

"Or perhaps women, as a general population, aren't interested in video games? "

We've been over this multiple times in this thread. The entire last generation of gaming consoles is a testament to just how inane this generalization has been. And actual statistics prove it isn't even true. On the subject of "hardcore" games, however? To assert this point, and then turn around and wave off the notion that marketing has anything to do with it is some pretty shady argument forming.

This is a baseless claim.

That's why I think the argument of "any type of growth is good" is too simplistic and fails. It doesn't take into account the basic laws of economic growth.

It sure is easy to reinforce that concept when you turn whole people (and their experiences and interactions) into arbitrary units of (whatever) as a way to visualize your poor understanding of social science.

People and their interactions cannot be reduced to "units of energy". Economics doesnt even attempt to quantize humans as severely as you just have.

This isn't a baseless claim...just a claim built on poor logic. (And thus essentially baseless...)

I was under the impression the context was the competitive/tournament Smash community, that that is the context I was speaking within. Any effort to extend my argument to the casual aspect of the game is a strawman.

You can't see how this topic naturally includes a discussion on inclusiveness?

Because those injustices have long been removed and things have largely remained the same regarding our roles as genders in society..

Micro-changes are not necessarily indicative of macro ones. You're assuming, in this case, they are, and there's no reason from history to assume that.

Do you really need me to go over the list of the roles men and women generally play in society?

You don't believe that voting rights are macro changes? Okay then, do tell. What fits your extraordinary mold of a "macro change"? Or better yet, a "role change"?

Better yet, just to curb any misunderstanding here, yes, please give me a list of the roles of men and women so we can be on the same page here.

Regardless, there aren't many countries you can go in 2016 where you'd ask the question "are the roles of women in society changing" and you'll get an answer that resembles "no".

Again, yet another baseless claim.

Unfortunately it seems like you have failed to grasp a good deal of what I'm talking about, as evidenced by your unfortunate (maybe not intentional) strawmen above.

I hear what you're saying. You're just wrong. Literally, factually, objectively incorrect, on not only the vast majority of your points, but the things you seem to be supporting them with.

This is why I said you need to do some research.

After reading all these replies I don't really know why the simplest solutions are not viable.
"There is already a division, so let's emphasize it (because privileging is also emphasizing) and hope it fades away"
That's not how schools became mixed environments.

Couple of things here

1) This thread makes it kind of obvious, but there is no simple solution to this topic.

2) A female-only tournament isn't a "privilege", and I highly doubt any participant of one would ever suggest that it is. Would you feel left out if you weren't invited? Is it going to be superior to a regular, non-female-only tournament? Or even comparable?

3) We've been over the "division" thing. Nobody is suggesting that a separate tournament is going to boost general tournament numbers alone. There's a bigger picture to be seen.

4) I've pointed out a couple times here that these gender issues in social gaming aren't perfectly analogous to racial issues in the US...But since you brought it up, no, that is not how schools became mixed environments. But...you don't have to look very closely in history to note, changes in the law were not the end of the problem, they were just the beginning to allowing a series of progress to take place. And we still have serious racism issues in this country even today, so...yeah.

5) finally, I agree that by itself, a gender-exclusive tournament isn't really addressing a larger issue. Not by itself. However, unlike tier lists, customs and broken stages...we actually can change this issue. It isn't as out of reach as Sakurai is.

You can complain in the competitive thread about character balance all day, but unless a community mod happens similar to Project M for Smash4, it's not going to change anything. Sakurai isn't reading it, and probably doesn't even know English. This thread, however, is already beneficial to the situation (in some minuscule way) by people talking about it.

 

[wizrad]

Nitpicknitpick
Testosterone *does* make men more likely to compete and push their limits. Not the only chemical behind it, but it plays a role.

Yeah, but that's only going to have an effect on competitiveness. Lots of people go to tournaments just to have fun and hang out.

 

[Shouxiao]

Ultimately speaking Smash, Esports, and competitive gaming in general would be a meritocracy. Skill speaks more than anything. The people that are skilled are respected and recognized the most. They are seen as the most relevant in a community.

When a player base is broken down I would say the thing that gets noticed in a meritocracy like community would be location/region and or team. Example would be Japan vs USA. USA East vs USA West.

One could say that a large demographic in the player base can exist and still largely not be notice in a sense. To explain what I mean let say player base A is 10% of a community and player base B is 60%. How ever when it come to tournaments, people that are in player base A always win and are significantly dominated. People are going to be aware of the demographic that player base B is but they are going to pay significantly more attention to the people in player base A.

People in player base A are going to the the people on the streams, considered strong region/demographic, and simply get the most attention due to their skill.

 

[FallenHero]

I wonder if more females would participate in tournaments if the female players that already does participate, were to start placing higher in majors. Imagine if a female player won EVO 2016, how much might that impact the growth of female players in the community?

I'm inclined to exercise the old Nsider way of dealing with things: "Those of us interested in getting more female gamers involved with smash tournaments should continue discussing and those of us that are opposed to the idea, which is their right, should possibly find something more constructive to do with their time."

Well the title of the thread seems to suggest we are discussing if there should be women-only tournaments, not what other possible ways we can get female players in the community. Honestly, if you guys are going to be arguing this rather than what the title and OP suggests, I think the thread title needs to be changed. You can't just have a misleading title and then act like that is not what the discussion is about.

 

[teluoborg]

Wintropy
Yes, sorry. That data is referencing women gamers as a whole.

I guessed 9% of Smashers might be women. But 5% like you said is more likely.

I'm glad we agree on that approximation because a lot of people here and everywhere else make the amalgam.

Are 50% of video game players females ? Yes.

Are 50% of smash bros players female ? Probably.

Are 50% of the competitive smash players female but they don't show up at tournaments because the scene doesn't catter to them ? No.

Just because you enjoy playing video games doesn't mean you enjoy competition. That is not a problem.

 

[PsychoPuff23]

The smash wii u Tournament Community is young.
We don't see Europeans pro players (i am French and I wish to have a good French Player at Smash 4 In the Us Scene.
I think we have just to wait more players become better and when more players become better we gonna have more Female Players in tournament

 

[UltraJake]

This entire discussion has been awful. Both sides think the other is absolutely wrong, trolling, and "won't see reason", as if their side's solution is perfect. And now apparently someone can't do something as simple as providing evidence to their claims. I confess that I haven't read all 7 pages as a result (and don't plan to).

You know what I think would be good? A compromise. I spent all of 5 seconds coming up with this so take it and run with it. Have female-only gaming clubs at the local level to foster social interactions between players, interest in gaming, and skill growth. But then keep this seggregation away from the tournament level. If one barrier is that many are uncomfortable with being the only female present or being unskilled because someone just convinced them to tag along, working to foster genuine interest in gaming (and skills to bolster their credibility) is a great way to have female players invested enough to push past the remaining barriers while they adjust to the competitive level. The way I see it, they just need to have a real foot in the door. Now these gaming clubs could be general gaming clubs or dedicated Smash ones. It doesn't really matter. The idea is to help the growth of players naturally and in the future, provide role models. One gaming scene having a lot of female players is beneficial to every other scene in at least a small way.

The biggest point I'd like to make is that this isn't a problem that will just disappear overnight. It's a result of gaming's origins, and it's one that has been slowly evolving ever since. This situation doesn't have any target for blame worth pursuing. It's just how things developed both as an industry and as a society. Eventually we are going to see a better split no matter what we do, but taking proper action could lead to a change sooner rather than later.

Closing Note: Those studies saying that women make up half of gamers aren't BS, they're just highly irrelevant to nearly ever discussion you'll ever have due to the way they define "gamers" and otherwise collect their data. It's a semantics issue, basically

 

[theburningstars]

Personally, I have never felt alienated from the gaming community based on my gender. I am possibly an outlier, I don't know. But the only times I've been ostracized or joked with about within the community is for a poor performance on my part, and even then it was mostly just my friends joking with me. Or the usual 12 year olds online that think they're hot ****.
I came from the old FPS community with stuff like the original COD games and Unreal Tournament, so I don't know how it is with Fighting Games honestly. I feel like there's more of a welcoming community here now in the Fighting Game community than there is in the Shooter community presently.

As it stands, I would be more apt to enter a newcomer tournament than a female tournament. Personally.

I wonder if more females would participate in tournaments if the female players that already does participate, were to start placing higher in majors. Imagine if a female player won EVO 2016, how much might that impact the growth of female players in the community?

For me, I think the fact that there aren't more women placing higher gives more motivation. It's like, any one of them/us could be The One To Place High.
Obviously, I can only speak for myself though.

 

[FairyLip]

The FGC is definitely more tolerant, I've noticed recently. I mean, look at Prog and M2K. A black guy and an autistic person are two of the biggest people in the entire scene.