Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

No, really, I need some sources on anything she's stated or referenced in that article. The only information I can find on this subject naturally goes back to the article and the 'study' [which concludes with- 'The framework for this area of research has not been developed far enough to make this level of detailed analysis feasible.'] linked in the article. I require information on how VR has come about in modern times to be able to glean any information on the prejudices that may have been introduced.

We can't just go out and assume because programmers made it, it must be male-centric. That's projecting your view of the field onto others until we know otherwise. What I do now is there's plenty of evidence out there that shows how men and women view and interpret spatial relations and senses differently.

And until I see otherwise I'm going to assume the people developing the technology did as best as they could with the objects/subjects they could get [she even says so herself, it's hard to get women in a male-dominated industry related study] with the limited knowledge of how spatial relations between males and females truly differ, especially in terms of graphic projection and VR technology.

The question is whether or not they did so intentionally, which then leads to the question of why they would willingly want to exclude their technology from half of the greater public.


Or, if it is simply a matter of them not having studied the effects on women, well... Why don't they get to it? I just can't find any information about this, and it's a pretty big origin story to cover, I mean, it's VR technology for vishnu sake and there's little documentation on the development. I must know more.

[Vector]

I dunno about the other things, so I'm not going to address them at present.

The question is whether or not they did so intentionally, which then leads to the question of why they would willingly want to exclude their technology from half of the greater public.

This is usually because women are not seen as a key demographic, or because the male body is seen as normal (see: the entire contents of The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir).

[Xantalos]

See, that doesn't make sense to me. Money is genderless, after all, and including women means you get more money.
Also, knowing what I know about biology, that book sounds like good toilet paper material.

[hops]

Money is less money if the market for them isn't that big.
However in economic term I think that while it would still be kind of sexist, an Oculus Rift designed for women that cost more and fills a niche market could be a favorable solution to both sides.

[Xantalos]

How is this thing sexist anyway?
What is it even?

[Helgoland]

Rule of thumb: If your definition leads to menstruation being sexist, it's wrong.

If you're trying to reapply or stretch a definition made in the context of human made technology to unchosen biological functions, you're stupid.

Yay reading comprehension I was talking about definitions. If the definition of 'sexist' is 'anything that disadvantages women', then menstruation is sexist. That's why it's a stupid definition.
But that joke didn't go well, that's true. But talking on a purely abstract level is no fun~

[TD1]

See, I knew a hypothesis with menstruation in it couldn't be serious! 

[GiglameshDespair]

How is this thing sexist anyway?
What is it even?

1) I don't think it is, but apparantly the way we do VR suits men more than women. We do it that way because it's easier and cheaper.
 
2) VR goggles.

[Xantalos]

...how does it suit men better?

[TD1]

I thought it was because there was no equivalent for women?

Sorry, ninja'd. The hormones apparently or some-such. But a thing which terms such things as sexist may seek to see answers where they're not. She seemed to be on a feminist mission to find evidence.

[Frumple]

... well, if you two had read the article Vec linked, it's because the current implementation makes a disproportionate amount of women, y'know, disoriented and nauseous, often to the point of inducing vomiting.

Yay reading comprehension I was talking about definitions. If the definition of 'sexist' is 'anything that disadvantages women', then menstruation is sexist. That's why it's a stupid definition.

... yeah, if that's the definition you got out of what I was writing, I apparently critically fumbled a writing check. Which, sure. Last few days have been a bit rough.

Because that's not it. Try, "Any action* -- intentionally done or otherwise -- that leads to disproportionately favoring one gender without sufficient reason to do so." Which still wouldn't exactly be ideal or entirely accurate, but it's closer**. Something like "We're too lazy to make sure our research base represents both genders to a fair degree" (assuming the article was accurate in regards to the studies done, which may or may not be an accurate assumption.) wouldn't be sufficient reason

*Read: Something done by humans. No, autonomous biological functions don't count.
**And I've got enough of a headache "closer" is all I'm willing to do at the moment

[Talvieno]

...how does it suit men better?

Basically, women see things differently. According to the author, she gathered up a few women and they all got motion sickness from the VR goggles. She mentions that it's incredibly difficult to match things up the way women perceive things ("shape from shading" from eye flicker as opposed to "motion parallax" from head movement), and mentions we don't have the technology yet. Somehow they decided to label it as "sexist", as if the people who were making it were intentionally leaving women out of the equation.

I personally know at least two women who have tried VR and been fine with it, though. It's not universal by any means. Not only that, we simply don't have the technology yet. I don't see how that could be considered sexist. Should we take it off the shelves altogether until we have something that all women are okay with? How about computers - should we completely ban them until epileptics aren't affected in any way, shape or form? Maybe cars should be banned until all people learn to drive.

The author's logic is full of holes. I do think they should go double time on trying to get it to work for women as well, though, and definitely should address the problem ASAP. I just don't think it's right to call Oculus Rift, as well as everyone working on it, sexist, just because a handful of women got sick while they were on it. If the author had actually been fine with the Oculus Rift, I would take it slightly more seriously, to be honest, because a lot of the article sounded like she was just pissed that she couldn't use it.

She also tried to say that women couldn't play Nintendo 64. I think everyone here can agree that that statement was false, so there's no reason to assume she's completely correct about everything else.

There's a reason she's using such strong words and being so judgemental:

Being an activist and a troublemaker, ...

I think this says it all, in the author's own words. The entire article is incredibly biased.  Her logic is flawed, too:

3D graphics does a terrible job of truly emulating shape-from-shading.

followed immediately by:

In my experiment, I tried to trick people’s brains. I created scenarios in which motion parallax suggested an object was at one distance, and shape-from-shading suggested it was further away or closer.

Even though she just said that 3d graphics does a terrible job of truly emulating shape-from-shading.

Her experiments are biased, her story is biased, and she is biased. She's far from being a real scientist - scientists are supposed to look at things in a detached, unemotional, logical manner and base things on facts alone. If she was a legitimate researcher, she would've proved it before storming into the office of the person in charge and declaring Oculus Rift sexist.

Really, though, this is becoming seriously off-topic. I hate sexism. I really do - it's as bad as racism in my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm going to call everything that inconveniences women more than men, sexist. Or vice versa.

[GiglameshDespair]

Her experiments are biased, her story is biased, and she is biased. She's far from being a real scientist - scientists are supposed to look at things in a detached, unemotional, logical manner and base things on facts alone. If she was a legitimate researcher, she would've proved it before storming into the office of the person in charge and declaring Oculus Rift sexist.

+1

[TD1]

Her experiments are biased, her story is biased, and she is biased. She's far from being a real scientist - scientists are supposed to look at things in a detached, unemotional, logical manner and base things on facts alone. If she was a legitimate researcher, she would've proved it before storming into the office of the person in charge and declaring Oculus Rift sexist.

+1

+2

[Sirus]

...I was just coming here to complain about how I wouldn't be home for nearly seven hours.

Well, I know I've seen plenty of women at 3D movies and the like. And I remember that my mom got pretty nauseous playing 3D games (except Bomberman 64. She loved that one) while my sister has no problems at all. That's all I can contribute to this discussion.