The younger generation is less of the problem than the older ones. I've seen LOTS of older men in STEM fields steer girls away from it or belittle those who are interested - high school counselors and teachers, college professors, etc.

It's not about what dudes on campus think so much as what managers and bosses think. There's a lot of pressure put on women to be feminine in US/EU culture, and that doesn't include engineering, science, etc. Most of the sciences besides computer science and engineering have gotten better, but those two still hold a lot of really determined misogynists.

In other places in the world with different cultures, the balance in STEM fields is 50/50, or much closer to it. In some countries there are more women than men in math because it's viewed culturally as womanly to be inside learning quietly. It really is culturally dependent.

then why don't we jump on every case of cheating and slut there is in the world?
Perhaps because there was a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Noone would have cared if she fucked a 1000 guys, had none of those been journalists that promote her.

noone would care if i fucked 5 people, unless 1 of those would be my boss who gives me a biiiig promotion or a reviewer who then proclaims my work to be amazing.

face it: had Zoe been a man, shitstorm still would have been, except all feminists would have been on board with it, especially if he'd have had a history like Zoë (abuse reports, whats a helldump?).

The market does not make moral judgements. Claiming that money = right is just as badly reasoned as claiming that might = right.

Cultural expectations strongly influence children, and this can be seen when viewing gender balance in STEM fields across cultures.

Some cultural expectations currently operating in modern US/EU culture promote harm to some segments of the population at the expense of other segments of the population. Correcting these harmful cultural expectations (girls are incapable of math, starving is the only way to look good, etc) is the goal of feminists.
1) She didn't sleep with a journalist who promoted her work. This has been debunked a million times. She slept with a reporter who did not promote her work, who worked for an outlet that barely, if at all, mentioned her work.

2) No one DID care when men were doing it. No one cares about men who do it now. No one cares about all the swag, free trips, etc that most outlets get. The only instance that got people riled up was 1) A woman sleeping with a man, and 2) People defending her.

All the hard evidence there is - and across fields and decades, there is a lot of hard evidence - says that people by and large don't get upset even when a man is legitimately furthering his career by trading favors, but get really, really upset at even the hint that a woman might be.

and had the criticism been towards a man, none of you would have given a single shit.

"All the hard evidence there is - and across fields and decades, there is a lot of hard evidence - says that people by and large don't get upset even when a man is legitimately furthering his career by trading favors"

except we do. Its called corruption. Can get you fired and blacklisted very easily.


and claiming its right in your point of view = right for everyone is not very well reasoned either.

If a man had been hounded out of his home and profession by unjust accusations, you bet I would be upset. What happened to Zoe is horrible because of what happened, not because she's a woman. Her being a woman means this kind of thing is much more likely to happen, which is an additional problem above and beyond the crimes committed against her.

People don't view it as corruption when a guy does it. It gets called anything but that, and even if people openly acknowledge it it often goes unreported. It's supposed to be treated equally seriously regardless of the genders involved, but when it's a straight guy people just let it slide. That bias is a problem.

Not sure what your last sentence is about? i never claimed that sleeping with people for advancement was right.

BS. If something generates more money that means more people are satisfied by it. For a business that is the only metric that matters. You are right that the market does not make moral judgments, and that is why it is the right thing to do. Legislation should only be concerned that there are no unfair practices in place, like child labour, unpaid hour or dangerous chemical being used.

This is wrong as well. Starving is not the way to look good, in fact anorexic people are considered just as ugly and unhealthy as fat people. Being slender is not the same as being skinny. And I have never seen anyone take "girls can't do math" actually seriously, at least not any more serously than "guy can't cook". It's a stupid joke.

Tiger Woods had an entire South Park episode and much more media attention.

Basically, of all the junkets and corruption that the jornos are complicit with from the AAA publishers, an unheard of female indie dev sleeping around to allegedly promote her free, flash-based game being the main target of fighting corruption in game journalism, before or, indeed, since doesn't ring in the least bit true, to THESE ears!

Hells I still think that the 90% Zzap 64 gave to that awful arcade conversion of the original Renegade back in Nov '87 was totally fishy!
http://www.zzap64.co.uk/cgi-bin/displaypage.pl?issue=031&page=011&thumbstart=0&magazine=zzap&check=1

There we go, another lying incompetent SJW at the ready. Yes he did promote her work. Been proven many times.
First, he beta tested her game as far back as 2012, he is in the credits.
Here's him promoting one of her games. https://archive.is/WtK2
Here's another, noticed how Depression Quest is featured above all others. https://archive.is/NeJis
Here's another minor mention. https://archive.is/haXDE
Here's him defending her about the Game Jam. https://archive.is/tUlkm
Here's them exchanging personal shit over Twitter and pushing her game. https://archive.is/j5DW0
Here's proof of Nathan and Jared Rosen (the one journalist at the Game Jam, hanging out in Vegas together a day after the Game Jam article) http://wiki.gamergate.me/images/d/d9/Vegas-trip2.jpg

Amazing when "journalists" can hang out with their friends, give them positive press, defend them when they have a shitstorm at a Game Jam. But clearly no conflict of interest in SJW eyes.

But hey la la la la la la la la disproven la la la la la la la la misogyny. The SJW mantra...

Look Jared Rosen, Nathan Grayson, Robin Arnott and Zoe Quinn are friends, yet somehow with two of them being journalists, when a Game Jam blows up, there are a gazillion articles posted to defend the participants of the Game Jam. Conflict of interest much...

WHat has been exposed is a small little world where a group of indie devs and journalists are hanging out together and writing stories favorable to their friends. Just how Patricia Hernandez was allowed to write article after article promoting her roommate's games without disclosure. Or how certain publications seem to think its okay to demonize "Gamergate" with one-sided poorly researched articles full of strawmen and other logical flaws.

Buuuut the entire Zoe Quinn debacle was a while ago now, it doesn't seem like journo having friends and favorites within the dev community is a particularly uncommon thing, that Zoe's case is unprecedented, why have we seen no further exposés and out-pouring of hate since GG broke? Why is Zoe being singled out?

Everyone appears to have such short memories.

Swag and free gifts have been a big deal in the past. Did it create a fiasco the size of Gamergate? No, but there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the behavior of swag and gifts for some time. Remember when Sony gave out PS4's to a huge group of journalists and everyone freaking out that Sony was trying to buy favors, and despising journalists for accepting such gifts? Journalists were tweeting pictures of themselves with their new toys and other journalists were whining that they were not invited to get a free one. They were acting like children.

Even Neogaf, who is decidedly anti-gamergate, was trashing these journalists and saying they should be banned from doing such things. In April of last year, there was controversy over Ubisoft giving away free Nexus 7 tablets to game journalists while promoting their Watch Dogs game. There was talk over journalists at the GMAs purposely promoting a hashtag (#GMADefiance) on Twitter for free PS3s from Trion.

If you think nobody has cared in the past about swag and freebies, you haven't been paying attention. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons why Gamergate has turned into what it has. This has been an ongoing problem for years, and was a tinderbox waiting to explode. The initial stuff with Zoe was just a catalyst bringing to light bigger problems that have frustrated consumers for years.

also funny how gg actually never talk about zoe anymore unless the SJW bring her up

In the words of Creepy Stalker, Esq.: In other words, that Nathan Grayson talked to Quinn and about Quinn's games prior to May must be considered a completely normal thing to do. As even the Creepy Stalker admits. Thank god. What incredibly pitiful result would those few words have been if she actually did sleep with him for positive coverage?

But that never happened, obviously.

But it's all sleight of hand anyway to keep up the crap. Against Quinn... not Grayson, of course... the data says that she gets 25+ times the shit Grayson ever got... but I'm sure there is no kind of bias involved, or even the m-word.

Jesus. One of your arteries will burst these days.

Gilozard, you were of course correct. She didn't sleep with a journalist who promoted her work "as a result", and that is undeniable fact. The mentions of Depression Quest on kotaku occured earlier, and even then weren't worth ten bucks as avertising, let alone any sexual favors. To construct any kind of relevant collusion out of THAT is making a mountain out of a molehill, and by "mountain" I do mean the Olympus Mons at the very least.

Gamergate wants game journalists to be insiders, but doesn't want them to know anyone. Not any fellow journalists and certainly not any game developers. Don't talk to them! Don't look at them! Don't tweet at them! Don't do your job! Don't report on game culture! And when you report on gamergate, at least forget where it came from!

Gaters do ramp up the harrassment considerably this weekend, by the way. Something to do with that article that dared to describe the creepy stalker as a creepy stalker. Gaters at the ready... doing the work of their holy Lord Roosh V. et alii.

But, no, of course gaters "are not talking about Quinn any more".

Read: "Even Neogaf, because of its focus on actual corruption in journalism..."

Interesting how that focus has universally shifted, as the only corruption, the thing that really threatens video games, is gamergate.

Are you genetically predisposed to constantly using the word harassment, or can you put it down any time you want, like just another bad habit?

Sarcastic rhetoric. Does that qualify for harassment?

edited your post so that it actually contains the truth and not what you have been telling yourself in your echo chamber, which you recently admitted you live in