Hacker News Reader

Comment by novok | Hacker News Reader

I think more specifically it's the genre of game. I think the 2 genres that are female dominated last time I've heard are match 3 (think bejeweled) and life/farm sims like the sims. I'm not sure if stardew valley and animal crossing are female dominated or not, but I guess it would be since I think that is the same genre.

View on HN

Stardew Valley subreddit poll (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScdywbXfs07mL6OARU_...) had almost as many women as men.

Dragon Age: Inquisition demographics (https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/NickYee/20170120/289534/Beyo...) also boasts 48% female which is very high compared to genre averages.

There is likely a lot of untapped market in the RPG and simulation genres if games want to cater more to women. Probably less so in stuff like FPS.

Link to a study about the subject: https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre...

Don't overlook https://www.bigfishgames.com/us/en.html . I remember a comment on HN years ago pointing out that there seems to be virtually no awareness of Big Fish in places you might expect, like computer game journalism or computer enthusiast forums, despite the fact that they essentially fill the market niche of "Steam for women".

I remember when I was like 3 or 4 years old the themes of the pictures I drew were markedly different from the pictures girls drew. I drew pictures of warriors, ninjas, dinosaurs, jet planes, guns, swords, explosions and weaponry.

I noticed the girls always drew pictures of houses and family and I thought that was the stupidest thing ever.

So yeah it's definitely the genre, and dare I say definitely in part biological in origin.

If this is something you find interesting or where your opinion might matter to other people, I encourage you to look into the enormous amount of research that has been done on differences between men and women in our current society and what might cause those differences. If you don't feel like doing that, a good alternative is that you should not be definite about any of it.

>If you don't feel like doing that, a good alternative is that you should not be definite about any of it.

I can be definite about anything I want. Additionally, how do you know I haven't already looked at the enormous amount of research?

Either way, the research supports my views in a pretty definitive way.

I'm just saying that game genres should cater to the definite biological differences in interests between men and women.

Do you disagree? Fine. I accept your disagreement. Let's agree to disagree and not let this turn into a gender flame war. I'm not going to reply this thread.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that if you'd looked at research, you'd know better than to make definitive statements or to rely on your personal anecdotes from toddlerhood. I was also assuming that you were not actually intending to make inflammatory statements prompting people to correct you (what you are probably referring to as a gender flame war), but from your various responses I am no longer sure that assumption is valid.

It's somewhat ironic that your participation here consists of a) a thread where you strenuously argue that it is not possible to make definite claims of truth backed by science b) a claim that you know the definite truth about a particular scientific question.

Hey, stop being a creeper. Don't stalk my old posts, wtf.

I'd say we have different definitions of creeper. And stalking.

Tell your colleagues that you’ve read their past instagrams then. You only do this bs here because it’s anonymous.

When I was five, the things I wanted most were a Power Rangers Dragonzord and an Easy Bake Oven. Never got either... It's fine that your childhood preferences aligned perfectly with gender stereotypes, but experiences vary.

As an aside to the potentially harmful aspect of stereotypes in childhood, I think I could have been more athletic. Not an athlete, mind you, but I definitely had the physical prowess to have learned to enjoy sports as a child. But adults told me I was smart, and the culture told me that smart people didn't enjoy physical activity.

While we're sharing anecdotes, I have also been into warriors, ninjas, dinosaurs, jet planes, guns, swords, explosions and weaponry since I was a young child.

What I 100% was not into was:

- all the bullying and exclusion I got from boys when I tried to do or talk about "their things" with them

- the way I was inevitably the one that got called away to help out with one chore or errand or the other

- being scrutinised (to the point of pathologising) for openly being unbothered by violence and gore

- on the flip side, the rather weird expectation that I should or would be open to (receiving) violence and aggression in real life just because I do so on a screen, or that I could not also like teddy bears and flowers and family

- the reinforcement from many of the games (and other media) themselves that these were Boys' Things for a Boys' Club that I was just intruding on

- the step beyond bullying and into actual, pretty vile harassment when I eventually started trying to play or talk about games in a bigger context (i.e. online)

Honestly it’s amazing you can recall what you drew at 3 or 4 in enough detail let alone what your classmates drew!

Surely this comment is beyond Poe's Law.

Gender conditioning starts before birth ("should I paint the nursery walls pink or blue?") and slams the child the moment they;re squeezed out. Toddlers are not good or bad, they're "good boys" or "bad girls", reinforcing gender-role stereotypes from the earliest learning years.

Don't assume that after 3 or 4 years of full-time operant conditioning that there is anything inherently organic about your gendered behaviour.

-Toddlers are not good or bad, they're "good boys" or "bad girls"

...huh? Am i missing something? Is there a problem with telling children what gender they belong to?? Am i just being thick? Help me, anyone. Please

No. They're saying that toddlers also get socially conditioned from birth. So the behaviors that they display are not 100% inherent. So how toddlers act isn't really a good (scientific) argument for nature vs nurture.

I urge you to read the below: https://sites.psu.edu/evolutionofhumansexuality/2014/04/07/g...

TLDR: males castrated at birth and raised as females still had a male gender identity.

There is no controversy behind this in science. Most of this controversy exists in gender politics. But the politics is so strong one of my repliers just assumed I didn’t do any research when the opposite is true. Research indicates gender identity is biological if you don’t know this you didn’t do the research. You can still choose to hold a different conclusion then the entire scientific community... that is your right.

Now I’m not here to start a debate. I couldn’t resist replying to you but for the sake of not starting an off topic gender flame war and violating HN rules I’m not going to respond. Just read the evidence and take what you will from it is just information to add to your existing knowledge.

I know you said you're not going to reply, but I find it rather interesting indeed that your response to an article about gender (role) conditioning is an article about gender identity, as though "wears blue" or "plays games" are hardcoded global constants in the human masculine identity.

Ok one more response. A Gender Identity by definition is more than just a verbal issue where the person cares only about getting identified as the word "He" or "She." When you identify with a gender you identify with certain "roles" and "conditioning" associated with a gender. See definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

The two phrases "role" and "identity" are similar enough that within this context I can use the terms interchangeably.

Also please don't go like "I find it ironic that you..." or "I find it interesting that you..." or "I find it fascinating that you still believe..." or any of that kind of language like that. It's condescending and insulting and not to mention manipulative.

If you truly are open minded you'd talk to someone who shares a different opinion than you as an equal rather than refer to them as if you were observing some "fascinating" animal with "interesting" behavior that lives in a zoo.

That's it no more replies. Thread ends here. 100% I swear. Don't ban me, Dang.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com