...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.
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.
Err, sorry to continue this topic (as it seems a page away) but...
I seriously don't get how this could be sexist in any entire way. I mean, really. Sexist due to how it may generalize a whole gender? >_>
Impressive conclusion.
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.
Yeah. I'd say biased in the conclusion (and...partly the remarks I hear given that I can't load any youtube here :I) but it may be in the understanding of the person that limits said conclusion.
I mean really. Let's generalize women are different from men in how they see things. That's a mighty conclusion.
Author
Topic: Things that made you sad today thread. (Read 9714290 times)