They would have to be under a rock to not know about the bias in pay between males and females. It's a very well known issue, I'd say on par in exposure to the "Pro life VS Pro choice" controversy.
Unlike that latter one, which is rife with religious implication, and philosophically difficult snares, the pay relation issue is pretty cut and dried.
Industry does it, because they get away with it. They get away with it, because culture is OK with it. To make it so they cant get away with it, culture has to change. The only way culture changes, is when people reject the old culture.
The popular position must be "No, that is unacceptable, what are you thinking?!"
If at any point there is "Ok, maybe this time" in the mix, the powers that be (a better term than patriarchy or kyriarchy, IMO) will wrangle and argue about how "This time" is "OK". It does not matter what gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, or country of origin you are from.
I'm not sure of the point you were making in this post.
Kyriarchy is the best term, it encompasses all the issues at hand. Though the focus here is on the oppression of women. It is true though, that even in gender, oppression is not at all equal. A middle class white woman is not going to be oppressed in the way that a trans WoC is going to be oppressed.
The problem we are having with regards to keeping this thread on gaming is that to admit there is sexism and inequality in gaming, we have to admit to the existence of sexism and inequality in general, and find the oppressors culpable for it.
This is hitting a road block.
I feel like there is no foundation, we are building on quicksand.
That is because you have continually tried to cast me into an ideological position, in which I never partook, because of superficial similarities to arguments made by people you have encountered in the past. Rather than actually read what I was writing, you chose to be insulting and shoot from the hip.
I refuse gender charged terms, like "Patriarchy", because they present a false sense that "Men are behind it all!"-- Likewise, I try to avoid obscure terms, like "Kyriarchy", no matter how linguistically correct. I instead prefer terms like "Powers that be", which convey a faceless quality, which is disconnected from any factor, other than currently being the ones in power.
I am very put off by your arrogant posturing, and would ask for an apology if I thought I would get one-- Given the light that you have openly accused me of positions that I do not hold-- such as refusing to accept that gender pay differences exist. (Nevermind that I can point out numerous times where I have pointed out that they do indeed exist, and that they are indeed normalizing over time!)
But no. You can't understand what I wrote above, because it does not conform with your preconception of my ideological position, and therefore you are confused.
I accept that in lieu of an apology. It's the best I feel I am going to get.
My view can be summarized as follows, just so you know.
You cant compromise with tyrants. The only way to deal with a tyrant, is to depose them. The institutional disadvantage of any group by another is tyrrany. It does not matter if the group is being disadvantaged over race, over gender, over hair color, religious belief, or any other criterion on which one may draw a comparison. The fact remains that one group is disadvantaging another. To overcome this, the disadvantaged group MUST stand up for, and depose from power, the group doing the disadvantaging. There is no other way.
The modern corporate world is beholden to one thing, and one thing only: Profit.
Profit in this case, is getting a financial advantage to doing or selling something. In the case of the labor market, the company makes more profit when they get you to work harder for the same pay-- or pay you less for the same work. They want to maximize this profit, no matter what. They dont really give a damn about your gender. What they care about is that they can get away with paying you less, and that society will punish you for trying to get equitable compensation.
Society will try to punish you for being "Aberrant"-- Something I am INTIMATELY familiar with, being asexual. I refuse to comply with the incorrect views of the society, and consider its punishments to be foolishness in action. I ENCOURAGE women to disregard such punishments, and stand up for themselves.
That is my position. Not that "Oh, there's no bias, dont be silly!" or some other made up shit.
There is no need for me to .. How did you put it?... "mansplain to [you] womenfolk" about anything. You are a disadvantaged demographic, suffering from an institutional tyranny of the majority, and the gender is inconsequential. I would hold this position even if I had a vagina instead of penis. I am a person, and I am explaining that the only way PEOPLE overcome these problems, is by facing them, and forcing the popular concensus to change by proving the popular concensus wrong.
You assert that this is not how this has historically worked-- That's at least an honest response that does not involve petty name calling and strawmen. However, if that is so, then explain how it is not-- Since from my perspective, this is how cultural change happens:
Phase one-- There is inequality, and several groups of people within the disadvantaged demographic stand up for themselves and make a public case for change. The case they make is controversial, but enters the public consciousness.
Phase two-- The arguments they make are weighed by the most impartial members of society-- children-- as they mature and are exposed to the society and its messages. They decide for themselves if the case being made is proper or not.
Phase Three-- These children replace their parents as the current powers that be of the society. The views they hold directly shape public policy, and it is at this point that changes in the status quo occur.
You dont get from Phase One to Phase Three without fighting the fight. In fact, the more it looks like you are just blowing smoke and causing a fuss for no reason, the more your cause will be actively refused by the next generation. You cant circumvent the generational nature of this process, because that is how culture changes-- generation to generation.
Now, please explain how the above is wrong.