Well, this thread is certainly an example of the left demographic not being a monolith.
So apparently we've got two prevailing lines of thought going on here:
1. You can't be discriminatory toward one group, then try to make up for it by being discriminatory toward another group to "even things out". You're not getting the point, that's literally "separate but equal" and is part of the mindset that is causing this whole problem in the first place. Essential point - we need to encourage people to be better.
2. Inequity is a step toward equality, and women + minorities occasionally need safe spaces to be able to progress and not have to field the endless line of questioning from men who still intrinsically believe that "equal opportunity" means white men will inevitably be primarily represented because they're just better or something. Essential point - people aren't going to get better, and we need to fight for what's ours.
Let's look at the context here.
What's under the knife is our perception of Riot Games vs. our perception of this panel, which are related but are also able to be inspected separately as well. The gesture that is this panel is both welcome and pragmatically useful, but it doesn't really cleanse their sins to any meaningful degree as this could be nothing but a throwaway PR event for them with lessons that are likely to be forgotten in the near future. Riot Games has been accused by multiple sources of being an incredibly sexist and toxic work environment - and we're not simply talking subtle undertones or what one might think of as run-of-the-mill, unconscious discrimination either. They've been accused of some pretty heinous behavior. When someone is guilty of bigoted actions, what do we typically expect from them as an indication that they've turned a corner and are willing to own up to what they've done? An admission of guilt with a thorough explanation that describes their transgressions and communicates understanding of why they were in the wrong, a reprimanding and disciplining of those who committed these infractions if the offending entity is a group or chain of authority, and possibly some kind of reparative works in support of those on the receiving end. As far as Riot Games themselves are concerned, we're getting the works, but - as far as I'm aware - we're not getting the admission and we're not getting the repercussive actions.
Then there is the panel itself, which sort of touches on one particular dichotomy; do women and minorities need assistance and encouragement in actualizing in their given field, or do they simply need men to stop being roadblocking assholes? On one hand, it's nice to see an event that is - presumably - going to be primarily hosted by women, as that seats women in the position of power in the industry that they've been sorely lacking for a long time. On the other hand, do these demographics really need help with...resume writing? Is that really the issue that's preventing them from getting work in gaming? That seems like a real condescending hand-holding operation, and definitely not one that seems necessary to structure an exclusionary event around. I would proffer that both the desire and the talent for women and minorities to succeed in gaming is already there, but it's being snuffed and ignored respectively because of discriminatory mindsets. What Riot is doing here is being exclusionary for entirely the wrong reasons, because I would proffer that what women and minorities truly want is to be able to sit beside white men at the same generalized industry panels and simply exist in peace. I will not throw stones at Riot for what is ultimately a gesture of fairly good will, but it is misguided and I think alludes to a fundamental misunderstanding of where and with whom the problem lies.
As far as the two points I mentioned initially and passing judgment on this panel as a marker of either opportunity or prejudice, an event that bars men but caters to general interests is discriminatory in nature, full stop. However and for example, we can construct a pretty convincing analogy for this by weighing it against the concept of violence. Violence is an awful thing, yes? And yet, how must we typically respond to violence? Violently, to be sure. Violence has different motivations; I don't know anyone who is willing to sit and be repeatedly beaned in the face because their sense of philosophical equivalency forbids them from committing any violence at all (the "bad" thing). There is a difference between violence out of destructive rage and violence for the sake of self-preservation (oh, I see those lines blurring already). Similarly to the point of "discrimination", why do we have shelters for female victims of domestic violence? While reciprocal domestic violence tends to hover around the 50/50 mark, women are overwhelmingly the recipients of domestic violence that results in serious injury or death. They need a safe space, because sometimes their lives depend on it. Is this issue quite as severe or dramatic? No, and as with all things it's the collective consciousness that decides where within a spectrum we draw the line, but I'm personally inclined to lean toward being in favor of it, simply because I as a while male don't view getting to eat only 80% of the cake instead of 90% to be a very threatening prospect.
Ultimately, with respect to the panel itself I find myself weighing the former against the latter. The conclusion I've come to is...I really don't care that much because this panel isn't that fucking important.
