This discussion was created from comments split from: <a href="/discussion/2647/the-invisible-benefits-male-gamers-take-for-granted">The invisible benefits male gamers take for granted</a>.
That's what it seems most of those points boil down to. Men started companies and built games from a man's viewpoint, with the intent of entertaining other men. Men play and share those man-centric games with other men, and form communities around it. And so on.
The bias in that would seem to be inherent, in the same way you have unequal workforces, women paid less than men on average, less women in management positions in big companies, and so on. Women get catcalled at gaming conventions, and also just walking down the street. Women get stalked from gaming communities, and also from offices and bars. There's nothing unique to gaming in any of those actions - and they're just as deplorable within a gaming context, as outside of it.
Now, if women got together, started companies, built games from a woman's viewpoint, to entertain other women, who played and shared it with their women friends, and started women-centric communities around it, what's to say you won't see the exact same biases? The one large-scale female-centric movement I can think of is militant feminism, and how's that been working out for men? Not great.
And even if you do see those exact same biases, isn't that a fairer route to equality? Last I checked there was nothing stopping a bunch of women with money from getting together and starting a company, and employing female designers, coders, marketers, and all the other skills necessary to build and publish games. We know for a fact that female gamers outnumber male gamers in certain demographics, so there'd be no shortage of market.
Hell, they could go so far as starting female-centric conventions where the gropey-stalkey-men are simply not allowed in. And online communities that banned users of any gender for inappropriate behaviour (which is severely lacking in current gaming communities, I reckon).
So is there a reason that none of that seems to be happening? So far this entire consciousness movement has pretty much been centered on getting male-dominated organizations to change their ways and be more inclusive. I don't see why that should work for gaming, if it hasn't worked in music, movies, art, or any other commercial institution that's driven more by profit than morality. If large, male-centric institutions could be changed simply by opening their eyes to new perspectives, you wouldn't have needed civil rights movements and rebellions all throughout history.
And it might not even take that long. Take a super-manly game: Call of Duty. Infinity Ward was founded 2002, CoD was released October 2003, and to date has sold 4.5 million copies and done all the other cultural-impact stuff that popular games do. That's less than two years to go from "unknown" to "cultural phenomenon".
Or go a bit more generic: Angry Birds was conceived, developed, and launched, all in 2009, and the rest is history.
So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet? Female-led studios with predominately female workforces, building games that appeal to a female audience, and keep in mind all of the issues and insecurities that come with it?
and how's that been working out for men? Not great.
Explain.
I don't see why that should work for gaming
What do you mean by "work". You mean generate sales? Not what any of this is about. Besides - even the very "bro"-centric Borderlands has made a point of being more inclusive, and this did not impact sales of Borderlands: The Pre-sequel negatively at all. Same with Dragon Age: Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor which recently added a playable female avatar in a free DLC.
EDIT: (removed Rovio question)
But anyway - none of this has to do with the video, which is about privileges enjoyed by men while playing games.
There's so much wrong with that post of yours, but I fear that addressing anything in it will set off a completely off-topic discussion.
@wogan: I feel you've somehow tried to make this less of an issue because of how it happens everywhere else. Like, oh, there's gender inequality in all other industries, so stop talking about it in games.
Telling women to start up Infinity Ward is incredibly impractical too. The Rovio dudes had to make over 50 games, and were still bankrupt, before Angry Birds worked out. Starting a business is easy. Running a game studio is hard. Countless game studios have closed doors, countless indie game developers have gone starving, when held up to the lucky few who made it. And given that a women-only studio would have to get it running with less financial capital, a smaller pool of people to hire from, and significantly more abuse, I imagine it's MUCH more difficult than you've made it sound.
And, frankly, I feel that we should be aghast when faced with inequality. We shouldn't react to stuff like this thinking, yeah, well they can solve their own problems, surely? I was born to awesome parents who loved me, paid for my education, got involved in my learning, made sure I did my homework, read me bedtime stories. I didn't have to starve. I haven't had to worry about my safety in terms of sexual assault. I've gotten sick, gone to hospital, and not had to worry about the bills. (And yeah, sometimes there are assholes who'll make jokes about my being Chinese, and they think it's fine because they're "just joking", but that's just about the only piece of privilege where I arguably lost out, and I imagine I still have it better than many other races.) I absolutely cannot expect some dude who had to study by candlelight, walk to school, and didn't have educated parents to help them with their homework to achieve the same kind of successes that I've had. I don't have to feel guilty about winning the lucky dice rolls the moment I was born, but I certainly can't expect other people simply to "work hard, and you'll achieve (financial) success" because how much harder it is for them to achieve what I've achieved is something so great I don't think I could ever quantify it.
I mean, when I see crap like this, I want to help. With each word I say, how I act online, how I treat women, and, maybe one day, with sponsoring less privileged folks and being involved in their education. It's not just their problem, because how I behave can be part of it, especially without my realising it. And I also think that men in general stepping up, being conscious of what the problem is and how they may have contributed to it even without knowing, and choosing to be more aware of their own behaviour, is largely what the video is calling for.
Men started companies and built games from a man's viewpoint, with the intent of entertaining other men. Men play and share those man-centric games with other men, and form communities around it. And so on.
Actually, when game companies first game about, they were not marketing to men exclusively. See: http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed <-- an article I recommend reading in its entirety as it breaks down a lot of assumptions people (like yourself, based on what you've written here) seem to hold about the history of the industry.
Also, note that these companies were largely dominated by men simply because women were (and generally continue to be) discouraged from the computer sciences arena. Arguably, having a video game environment that now is hostile to women continues that trend. So, it's important that we make the gaming environment less hostile so that we encourage more women to join (both as players and developers) and then, yes, we will probably see some more female run game dev studios.
The bias in that would seem to be inherent, in the same way you have unequal workforces, women paid less than men on average, less women in management positions in big companies, and so on. Women get catcalled at gaming conventions, and also just walking down the street. Women get stalked from gaming communities, and also from offices and bars. There's nothing unique to gaming in any of those actions - and they're just as deplorable within a gaming context, as outside of it.
Yes, you agree that it's a massive problem. Though, I would say I'm much less likely to see unsolicited images of male genitalia at my local pub than compared to in an online game, don't you think? And, it being a problem everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it here, don't you agree?
Now, if women got together, started companies, built games from a woman's viewpoint, to entertain other women, who played and shared it with their women friends, and started women-centric communities around it, what's to say you won't see the exact same biases? The one large-scale female-centric movement I can think of is militant feminism, and how's that been working out for men? Not great.
Um, do you really believe that? Militant feminism is akin to militant islam - it's a tiny sector of a otherwise peaceful movement. Feminism is actually about equal rights. I think the name confuses people.
Also, I would add that having been made uniquely aware of what it feels like to be less privileged due to gender discrimination, I would certainly do my best to avoid that in future. Besides, research shows that women in positions of power still tend towards biasing in favour of men because of the patriarchal system which has repeatedly told us men are simply better, smarter etc than women. I don't think you need to fear women in power - your position of privilege is unlikely to be moved.
And even if you do see those exact same biases, isn't that a fairer route to equality? Last I checked there was nothing stopping a bunch of women with money from getting together and starting a company, and employing female designers, coders, marketers, and all the other skills necessary to build and publish games. We know for a fact that female gamers outnumber male gamers in certain demographics, so there'd be no shortage of market.
See my point above about the hostile environment, patriarchal system discouraging women in the field etc. There is quite a lot stopping women enjoying a career in game development.
Hell, they could go so far as starting female-centric conventions where the gropey-stalkey-men are simply not allowed in. And online communities that banned users of any gender for inappropriate behaviour (which is severely lacking in current gaming communities, I reckon).
It seems a less cost effective way of solving the problem. All people want to enjoy the same game conventions, if game conventions are there thing - so why hold two? Isn't it better, in the long term especially, to simply educate men that women are not sexual objects and so groping would be naturally, then, not okay?
So is there a reason that none of that seems to be happening? So far this entire consciousness movement has pretty much been centered on getting male-dominated organizations to change their ways and be more inclusive. I don't see why that should work for gaming, if it hasn't worked in music, movies, art, or any other commercial institution that's driven more by profit than morality. If large, male-centric institutions could be changed simply by opening their eyes to new perspectives, you wouldn't have needed civil rights movements and rebellions all throughout history.
I think there's a lot happening that you aren't aware of. And, also, these things take time.
And it might not even take that long. Take a super-manly game: Call of Duty. Infinity Ward was founded 2002, CoD was released October 2003, and to date has sold 4.5 million copies and done all the other cultural-impact stuff that popular games do. That's less than two years to go from "unknown" to "cultural phenomenon".
Or go a bit more generic: Angry Birds was conceived, developed, and launched, all in 2009, and the rest is history. So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet? Female-led studios with predominately female workforces, building games that appeal to a female audience, and keep in mind all of the issues and insecurities that come with it?
Again, back to my comment on hostile environment and lack of skills due to patriarchal system.
I hope this has managed to address your questions on this subject.
I'd like to move this conversation back to the privileges of male gamers, rather than a discussion of women game developers.
Wow, @Wogan, how about simply acknowledging the privileges being pointed out in the video and maybe even working to make those more available to everyone? That would be a lot better than arguing that because any gender is unfairly targeted outside the games industry too, we shouldn't do anything about it in the spaces we work in (What the hell?) - or pulling that old cautionary "They'll do it back to us, it'll be just as bad!" bullshit - or ... Actually, no. Just no.
There's nothing logical or coherent in that post, not even the support cases you use for your "business-as-usual" business motivation: Infinity Ward started with the core team from Medal of Honor, they were not unknown; Angry Birds is a clone of a flash game called Crush The Castle, Rovio made upwards of 50 games before Angry Birds and went bankrupt at least twice. Your "popping into success" fantasy is a lie, one that excuses the difficulties experienced by women in our industry that are trying to lay the groundwork on which to build those career successes. Every single small piece of luck, every single opportunity, every single meeting or team is harder to navigate for women because of people making the arguments you are, from ignorance and fear.
There's so much wrong with that post of yours, but I fear that addressing anything in it will set off a completely off-topic discussion.
Really? Asking questions is wrong? Since when do we have this level of thought-policing on the internet?
I don't understand what's wrong with asking questions. If they're stupid questions, fine, there's no need to respond to them. I genuinely don't understand why this sort of resolution isn't being discussed. Maybe it has been discussed, and there's a good reason why my ideas are invalid - and I'd like to hear them. Kneejerking at me for asking touchy questions is hardly the way to go about that.
@wogan: I feel you've somehow tried to make this less of an issue because of how it happens everywhere else.
Really? If by "putting this issue in context with global gender discrimination" is equal to "making it smaller", then I guess that's what I did. If anything, I thought I was making the issue bigger by pointing out that it's not specific to gaming.
The notion to fix the lack of inclusion by creating new exclusive clubhouses is so ludicrous that I'm struggling to process further.
That notion is based in the belief that not all people are the problem. I think most sensible, sane individuals understand that discrimination is wrong, and to the best of their abilities, will do whatever they can to contribute towards a solution- myself included.
But not all people are that level-headed. There are some people that you just cannot change, and you can't have a universally-inclusive environment and ALSO have everyone behave in a similar way. You can point out, make aware, and take ownership of these issues as much as you want, but there will be people who flatly refuse to change their view.
And that's fine by me, because the notion of creating "exclusive clubhouses" is also rooted in the belief that people are free to choose who they associate with. If us level-headed people don't want to associate with hot-headed mysoginists, then why should we be forced to?
And in fact, what is human society BUT a collection of exclusive clubhouses? All of us on the internet belong to a clubhouse of which only 2.7bn/7.1bn of human beings worldwide have access to. Those of us speaking English belong to a clubhouse that's dwarfed by the Mandarin clubhouse. Those of us privileged enough to enjoy electricity, clean water and good food belong to an even _more_ exclusive clubhouse.
The difference? People can move between clubhouses. That's the whole point. Build something better (ie, an "exclusive clubhouse" that only accepts tolerant, open-minded individuals, abhors conflict and pointless debate, and pursues gaming for the sake of fun), and people will move across to it.
Point out to me, right now, a community that enshrines all the ideals of this anti-discrimination movement, and I'll join/support/evangelise it in a heartbeat.
Really? Asking questions is wrong? Since when do we have this level of thought-policing on the internet?
It's not "thought-policing" - it's that your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with the video in the original post, and derailing a thread on the first reply already is a bit tacky.
Actually, when game companies first game about, they were not marketing to men exclusively. See: http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed <-- an article I recommend reading in its entirety as it breaks down a lot of assumptions people (like yourself, based on what you've written here) seem to hold about the history of the industry.
Also, note that these companies were largely dominated by men simply because women were (and generally continue to be) discouraged from the computer sciences arena. Arguably, having a video game environment that now is hostile to women continues that trend. So, it's important that we make the gaming environment less hostile so that we encourage more women to join (both as players and developers) and then, yes, we will probably see some more female run game dev studios.
I know they were not marketing to men exclusively. More men bought games (for whatever background cultural reasons), and so that's how the industry biased itself. Like any profit-seeking entity, game companies invested their time and money where they saw the biggest returns. Whether or not that's a morally "correct" viewpoint is irrelevant, that's just how they approached it.
Are women discouraged from computer sciences? Yes, I'd say you're right: it's still a largely male-dominated arena. But it doesn't have to be that way, and there are top-down policy and social changes that can achieve that. Apartheid was abolished here in SA thanks to a top-down change, slavery was abolished because of a top-down change, why shouldn't gender discrimination be dealt with in the same way? Is it not as egregious an offense as the others I just mentioned?
Yes, you agree that it's a massive problem. Though, I would say I'm much less likely to see unsolicited images of male genitalia at my local pub than compared to in an online game, don't you think? And, it being a problem everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it here, don't you agree?
Depending on the pub, you'll see those unsolicited genitalia first hand. And that's the broader point I'm making: If you want better standards of interaction, build better places for that interaction to happen. And I say better "places" and not "people" because if history has taught us anything, people are far harder to change.
Um, do you really believe that? Militant feminism is akin to militant islam - it's a tiny sector of a otherwise peaceful movement. Feminism is actually about equal rights. I think the name confuses people.
I know it's the same dynamic - it's the pareto principle applied to social movements: 20% of the people make 80% of the noise. Thing is, people see, respond, and form policies in response to that noise. I agree that militant islam is small in number, but it's far greater in damage and social impact, and so we're constantly at war.
Also, I would add that having been made uniquely aware of what it feels like to be less privileged due to gender discrimination, I would certainly do my best to avoid that in future. Besides, research shows that women in positions of power still tend towards biasing in favour of men because of the patriarchal system which has repeatedly told us men are simply better, smarter etc than women. I don't think you need to fear women in power - your position of privilege is unlikely to be moved.
Do women bias towards men? Sure, I've seen that happen, and I can buy it. I've also seen men bias towards women (the whole courtship subculture is built on that), and men bias towards men, and women towards women. I think in those situations, the bias may not necessarily be driven by gender, but rather corporate politics: promote men to get on men's good side, to advance your career. And in that game, nobody is exempt.
See my point above about the hostile environment, patriarchal system discouraging women in the field etc. There is quite a lot stopping women enjoying a career in game development.
I'm fully aware of that, and that's why I responded to this post in the first place. I'm trying to understand what practical solutions there are towards addressing this. In my mind, just telling people to change is not a practical solution.
It seems a less cost effective way of solving the problem. All people want to enjoy the same game conventions, if game conventions are there thing - so why hold two? Isn't it better, in the long term especially, to simply educate men that women are not sexual objects and so groping would be naturally, then, not okay?
It would be much better, absolutely - thing is, education takes two people. One to teach, and one to learn. Can you honestly say that most of these "problem" men are willing to learn?
Right now, rape is a crime, but harassment is a misdemeanour, and often goes unreported. If the sentences and policies around this were far stricter (say, as they are for drugs), people might think twice before going out and groping women. And that's a top-down policy change, not a bottom-up grassroots revolution.
I hope this has managed to address your questions on this subject. I'd like to move this conversation back to the privileges of male gamers, rather than a discussion of women game developers.
It hasn't really addressed it, but I've now learned that some people in this community are super touchy about other people asking questions about this topic, so I think I'll just flatly abstain in future. I don't want to get into a protracted fight about who's right or wrong, I'm really just interested in what can be done to (practically) change the situation.
And so I'll move the conversation back to the privileges of male gamers.
Yes, I agree in full with that video, I think the privileges have become so much a part of background fabric of gaming, that we don't notice that they're there. I don't know if there's an easy route to balancing this back, though - I disagree with the notion that social awareness is all it will take, based on the fact that large-scale social change has always followed a period of violent upheaval of some kind.
Wow, @Wogan, how about simply acknowledging the privileges being pointed out in the video and maybe even working to make those more available to everyone? That would be a lot better than arguing that because any gender is unfairly targeted outside the games industry too, we shouldn't do anything about it in the spaces we work in (What the hell?) - or pulling that old cautionary "They'll do it back to us, it'll be just as bad!" bullshit - or ... Actually, no. Just no.
So we're back to "reading in things that were never said". I miss the good old days of 5 weeks ago :)
We've all acknowledged the privileges pointed out in that video - I wrongly assumed that it was just an understood fact, my bad. And I didn't say we shouldn't do anything about it, either. I said the bias was inherent and equally deplorable regardless of context. And then I asked about a practical measure to address it, based on how power structures and cultural movements have formed in the past.
Every single small piece of luck, every single opportunity, every single meeting or team is harder to navigate for women because of people making the arguments you are, from ignorance and fear.
If I was ignorant and fearful I doubt I'd be participating in this discussion at all. I totally agree that it's harder for women to do those things, but I disagree that the solution is a simple one of awareness. All I proposed was taking the exact roadmap that male-dominated culture used to rise to that dominance, and apply it with women instead - how is that so controversial?
That's what it seems most of those points boil down to. Men started companies and built games from a man's viewpoint, with the intent of entertaining other men. Men play and share those man-centric games with other men, and form communities around it. And so on.
Um, no? Exactly one of those points was that the games are for men, by men. At a stretch maybe the ones about better representation in voice acting and characters could be lumped in there. The rest are about harassment, devalued opinions, stereotyping, etc.
So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet? Female-led studios with predominately female workforces, building games that appeal to a female audience, and keep in mind all of the issues and insecurities that come with it?
Big successful new studios like Infinity Ward are usually started by industry veterans. How do we get a supply of female veterans without making sure they're properly supported earlier in their career paths, and not chased away by an industry that's hostile to them in many ways?
The rest? I'm not stepping into that s***storm. @rustybroomhandle said it perfectly:
There's so much wrong with that post of yours, but I fear that addressing anything in it will set off a completely off-topic discussion.
Um, no? Exactly one of those points was that the games are for men, by men. At a stretch maybe the ones about better representation in voice acting and characters could be lumped in there. The rest are about harassment, devalued opinions, stereotyping, etc.
Ok, who's doing that harassment? Are women harassing other women and that's what this is all about? Or is it more that men are harassing women, men are devaluing women's opinions, men are stereotyping women? Those things are not just background radiation: People have to do them to other people, and the cornerstone of this entire movement is that men are unfairly doing it to women. Hence my gross oversimplification, "for men by men".
Big successful new studios like Infinity Ward are usually started by industry veterans. How do we get a supply of female veterans without making sure they're properly supported earlier in their career paths, and not chased away by an industry that's hostile to them in many ways?
The rest? I'm not stepping into that s***storm. @rustybroomhandle said it perfectly:
There's so much wrong with that post of yours, but I fear that addressing anything in it will set off a completely off-topic discussion.
I'd hate to live in a world where nobody disagreed. But I get the point: My post was off-topic from the start. This thread was about discussing the problem, where I'm more a solutions-oriented kind of guy. I guess I'll keep the rest of my inexplicably controversial opinions to myself from now on.
Really? If by "putting this issue in context with global gender discrimination" is equal to "making it smaller", then I guess that's what I did. If anything, I thought I was making the issue bigger by pointing out that it's not specific to gaming.
Okay, then I misread, in which case I apologise.
I think that the kind of misogyny that we see in the culture that surrounds the internet and video games is different to that found offline though. "Boobs or gtfo", players teabagging players they've killed (part of rape culture), etc. There are several points in the list in the video that I don't think have equivalents offline, even if the roots and effects are similar.
I don't think women going through the same steps that men did to achieve dominance is a viable solution. In terms of games, it's the difference between the folks who first started making games when there was little supply, and new developers trying to get into what now appears to be an incredibly crowded market. And I imagine if women were somehow to invent another art/entertainment medium (which we'd need more female scientists to do), it'd be something that men in powerful places with significantly more money could easily appropriate and dominate too. I think the sort of "top-down" policy you suggest is something that requires policy-makers to admit that there's a problem, and I feel that that happens when a significant enough portion of the people they govern (particularly those with money/privilege) raise it as a problem. Especially when the policy-makers themselves are, largely, male.
I do, however, think that the kind of misogyny that we see in the culture that surrounds the internet and video games is different to that found offline though.
I may drift a little off-topic here @dammit, but I'll try as best I can to keep my responses relevant here.
It is vastly different with the addition of anonymity, yes - no 13-year old would dream of speaking to his classmates like that, but put him in front of CoD with a headset, and the foulest stuff comes out. There's an incredible lack of moral guidance in these communities, so people just default to their most basic instincts. That's a gender-unspecific problem that could also use a few solutions, I think.
So it is different, but it'd get fixed by the same medicine: basic human decency. Something that can be taught both online and off. To date, there hasn't been a real impetus for that, because the same foul men that would swear at a girl over CoD, run the companies that build all the games and hardware (again, the 'for men by men' dynamic). And I think you'd create the impetus by introducing tangible economic threat: That's what companies respond to, like-for-like competition.
I don't think women going through the same steps that men did to achieve dominance is a viable solution. In terms of games, it's the difference between the folks who first started making games when there was little supply, and new developers trying to get into what now appears to be an incredibly crowded market.
I think that's only true if games are a buy-once keep-forever thing. Sure, the market is crowded now. It'll be even more crowded in 10 years, and even more in 20. Tastes change, platforms change, cultures change, there's always room for new people to come in and do new things.
I think the sort of "top-down" policy you suggest is something that requires policy-makers to admit that there's a problem, and I feel that that happens when a significant enough portion of the people they govern (particularly those with money/privilege) raise it as a problem. Especially when the policy-makers themselves are, largely, male.
Exactly - those with money and privilege get their way in politics, that's how it's always been. And so there are two solutions - get the ear of the privileged, or become the privileged. I think the latter has a better chance of succeeding. If there are wealthy women with large economic empires, their concerns will be given the same respect as the men with their large economic empires. At least, that's what it looks like from here.
That's what it seems most of those points boil down to. Men started companies and built games from a man's viewpoint, with the intent of entertaining other men. Men play and share those man-centric games with other men, and form communities around it. And so on.
You need to unpack this belief more.
First off, are games necessarily being made by men with the intent of only entertaining other men, or people in general? If it's people in general, then attitudes and behaviors that turn people off playing our products should concern us, no? Just from self-interest, if not a sense of empathy and fairness.
So it shouldn't just be "well let the women start their own companies". It should be us, men, saying "is there something turning some of the customers we want to reach away from our products? What can we do about it?"
Imagine the same thing with writing books. It's ok if some authors write books for a specifically (stereotyped) male audience.
But it's another thing completely if people in bookstores casually comment to each other that a woman who walks into a book store is just coming there to look for sexual attention from men, or implying that reading is just not "for women". Or the store clerk asking for your bust size and suggesting that you sleep with him before ringing up your purchase. OR saying that if women want to read books about women, maybe they should just go open their own bookstores, then.
These attitudes and behaviors hurt us. Men, women, all of us. Culturally and economically. Who want to create products and sell them to more than just some teen dudebro. This is a problem we need to call out when we see it, and one we need to talk about.
We definitely shouldn't just say "well go write your own books and run your own bookstores, then."
The one large-scale female-centric movement I can think of is militant feminism, and how's that been working out for men? Not great.
Incorrect. Militant feminism has worked out incredibly well for the average man and in fact the world in general, from splitting the economic burden of the family to lower poverty rates and higher GDP (it turns out sabotaging the economic productiveness of half your workforce is a bad thing). And the advantage for men of more women being sexually liberated and having better access to birth control is...well, it's fairly obvious.
There's a lot more to unpack in your post, Wogan, but I'm busy right now.
I don't think "because the industry is built by men, for men, therefore it is only natural for women to be discriminated against and feel excluded from participating" is a good thing to try and justify.
I just realized why everyone panicked at my post, thanks!
I wasn't justifying that at all. I was saying that it's inherent, and that it's deplorable. Just because it's natural doesn't make it morally virtuous. Key bloody distinction there, that I think a bunch of people overlooked. Natural does not equal "right", it just equals "natural".
That train of thought assumes "naturally" correlates with "it's right that it's so".
And that's exactly the perspective I wasn't coming from. Floods, fires and spiders eating their kids are all natural too. I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, but then again this issue is such a hot potato that people explode before actually parsing the full argument, so it might not have helped.
I'd love to, if everyone else could just be a little less hostile towards any dissenting opinions. Also, as @rustybroomhandle pointed out, that would derail this thread. Although, last time this happened, and I created a thread for the thing I wanted to talk about, everyone ignored it - so I guess I won't be taken seriously either way.
I'd love to, if everyone else could just be a little less hostile towards any dissenting opinions.
No, I mean you, yourself, need to do it. You need to question your own assumptions before stating them. When you say:
Men started companies and built games from a man's viewpoint, with the intent of entertaining other men.
Question that assumption. Can you think of counter-examples? Is Sonic the Hedgehog made from a man's point of view, with the intent of entertaining other men only? Do these problems only exist in communities built around stereotypical macho products like CoD, or do they exist in every gaming community regardless of how gender-neutral the IP is, like many Nintendo products?
Question your assumptions before you post this kind of thing.
@wogan: Where I disagree is that I feel that there are hundreds of times (or more) more wealthy men with political clout than there are wealthy women with political clout. So, basically, what I'm trying to say is that the top-down policy being something for "wealthy women with political clout" to sort out isn't good enough, imo, because if just a small portion of supremely wealthy misogynist men with influence want to get in the way, they have significantly more resources with which to do so. (I also personally don't think that "women with large economic empires" would really, really be given the same respect as men.)
I believe several million people voting for policy change and raising gender inequality as an issue that should be addressed is another way to get policy makers to implement stuff. But it requires several million people to believe that there's a problem in the first place, and to talk about it, and to want it fixed enough for it to be a factor in policy-makers' election campaigns and business marketing. But, more importantly, I think that this is something that we can do, right now, with our interactions every day. This isn't something that's up to Oprah or Hillary Clinton to fix.
I mean, obviously, multiple solutions can be implemented simultaneously, and wanting influential women to influence policy-makers is fine. It's just that leaving it at that seems like it absolves us from responsibility, and that making it something that we, especially as men, consciously choose to fix with our every-day interactions is important. With enough average Joes wanting change, and making some noise over it, that's a way we can own (and pwn) the problem ourselves. It's hard, and it takes ages, but I'd rather we do that than leave it up to someone else.
could we maybe fork this discussion? It feels like there are two conversations happening, but one is louder and drowning out the original. And sadly, actually needs to happen.
@Elyaradine: That's actually one of the privileges mentioned in the video: The ability to take part in something without representing your entire gender or race through your actions.
could we maybe fork this discussion? It feels like there are two conversations happening, but one is louder and drowning out the original. And sadly, actually needs to happen.
This second discussion is about trying to find practical solutions to the issue raised in the original post - how is that "sadly"? o_O
@wogan: Where I disagree is that I feel that there are hundreds of times (or more) more wealthy men with political clout than there are wealthy women with political clout.
Definitely - that's the status quo, and that's what has to change.
(I also personally don't think that "women with large economic empires" would really, really be given the same respect as men.)
So queens are not a thing? By "queen" I mean "matriarchal head of a royal family". The Queen of Sheba did not have widespread respect and influence? Cleopatra? Queen Victoria of the UK? Money and power are gender-neutral. And whoever has the most toys, wins - or at least in our current society.
But it requires several million people to believe that there's a problem in the first place, and to talk about it, and to want it fixed enough for it to be a factor in policy-makers' election campaigns and business marketing.
Actually, I think it requires several million people to recognize there's a problem and believe there's a solution. Without a solution on the table, how do you go about implementing anything?
I mean, obviously, multiple solutions can be implemented simultaneously, and wanting influential women to influence policy-makers is fine. It's just that leaving it at that seems like it absolves us from responsibility, and that making it something that we, especially as men, consciously choose to fix with our every-day interactions is important.
It does the exact opposite of absolving us (men) from responsibility. Complaining about the problem is only half of the process - you need solutions too. All you hear about are the problems with misogyny in gaming, with almost no weight given to practical, tangible things we can all do to address it.
If we collectively decide that a policy change would go a long way towards fixing these problems, then that's progress. We can then actually write that policy, form action groups, rally people around it, drive activism and awareness around the solution instead of the problem.
This is why we have these discussions @wogan - to raise awareness.
Don't you think you're preaching to the choir a bit, though, having this discussion here, on this forum, when we've all participated in the sh*tstorm that was the gamergate thread? Is there any active participant on MGSA that's not aware of this issue?
This is why we have these discussions @wogan - to raise awareness.
Don't you think you're preaching to the choir a bit, though, having this discussion here, on this forum, when we've all participated in the sh*tstorm that was the gamergate thread? Is there any active participant on MGSA that's not aware of this issue?
It's never a bad idea to keep the conversation going - to keep the choir singing ;)
This is why we have these discussions @wogan - to raise awareness.
Don't you think you're preaching to the choir a bit, though, having this discussion here, on this forum, when we've all participated in the sh*tstorm that was the gamergate thread? Is there any active participant on MGSA that's not aware of this issue?
Yes. At least one of them is you.
You seem completely unaware of the concrete solutions to sexist behavior and the steps required to end the perpetuation of misogyny that already exist. Everything from not understanding why people dislike arguments you make that place the onus on repressed people to somehow fix a system stacked against them, to saying things like "So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet?" and belittling awareness raising as pointless (based on fantastically unsuccessful harsh anti-drug punishments, what?) and even literally doing a "not all men"... All that just makes it obvious that you're not only not engaging with your own privilege, but you don't see how trying to make an argument about you personally isn't helping.
It seems to you like awareness raising doesn't work because you're not listening when people try to give you solutions. And if you feel victimised, remember that it's your statements that are being argued with, not your gender. You can always back down from a statement.
You seem completely unaware of the concrete solutions to sexist behavior and the steps required to end the perpetuation of misogyny that already exist. Everything from not understanding why people dislike arguments you make that place the onus on repressed people to somehow fix a system stacked against them, to saying things like "So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet?"
If by "concrete solutions" you mean "raising awareness and making people take responsibility for their boorish behavior" then no, I am aware of those solutions, I just think they're ineffective. Been saying this since the start of the thread really.
I understand why people dislike my arguments, though I admit I'm surprised that a community purporting to operate on the principles of inclusiveness and open-mindedness will take such a (personally) critical stance to my arguments. So we're all open minded so long as we're of the same mind? Is that what's going on here?
Placing the onus on repressed people is a bad thing? At first glance, yes, that's unfair - the deck is stacked against them and the ones that have the upper hand should do something about it. But if that's how human society works, howcome it's never panned out that way? At every grievous injustice done to a group, that group has risen above and overthrown their oppressors. From the jews in ancient Egypt to the civil rights movement in the US.
If it were possible to convince the ones in power to give more power to the powerless (without the threat of serious violence and social instability), we'd see some of that in the last 10'000 years of human history, don't you think? Maybe my viewpoint is misanthropic and cynical, and I accept that.
All that just makes it obvious that you're not only not engaging with your own privilege, but you don't see how trying to make an argument about you personally isn't helping.
I didn't make this argument about me - all the kneejerk reactions made it about me. I've had to defend myself instead of the point, and it wouldn't have been necessary if the first responders were a bit more tolerant, I think.
It seems to you like awareness raising doesn't work because you're not listening when people try to give you solutions. And if you feel victimised, remember that it's your statements that are being argued with, not your gender. You can always back down from a statement.
I'm pretty sure at this point it's not my statements being argued with, but rather myself as a person. If it were my statements, then I wouldn't hear things like "you stepped in it now" (@rustybroomhandle) and "dude, no" (@farsicon) and "Wow, why don't you just acknowledge" and "At least one of them is you" (@dislekcia).
@wogan: Yes, money, power, health, aesthetic beauty, living in the right location, etc. are themselves gender neutral. But people are much more complex than one of those characteristics alone. A female celebrity may deliver a rousing speech about gender equality, but I believe her actual message is more likely to be lost in a sea of people discussing her hairdo, or what she chose to wear, or whether they'd want to have sex with her, or whether she'd put on weight, and have nude photographs 'shopped. This does not mean that she didn't have fame, or wealth, or power, and certainly she'd receive respect for those things, but she'd be disrespected in ways that I feel a man would almost never have to face, and it's for that reason that I don't think she'd be taken as seriously as a man in the same position in the world as it is today.
-- I think that when you deal with people and you want to offer solutions, that's great. But before you offer solutions, I think there's something that's more important: that the victims (in our case those with less privilege) can have their voices heard, that they feel welcome to speak, that you're listening with genuine care, and really want to understand the situation, and really try to appreciate the sort of hardships that they go through daily that you and I are likely never to have to experience. And I think that giving less privileged people a safe place to speak is arguably much more helpful than discussing hypothetical solutions. In fact, I think that the very act of being humbler, speaking less and listening more when interacting with women, giving them a chance to be heard, is much more in line with what the solution is.
It's a lesson that I struggle every day to practise, especially as someone who's kind of a loner, who's a quiet introvert who prefers tackling maths and art problems sitting at a computer than talking to people at a party. To me, things were pretty black-and-white: Problem? Fix it. Done. But when I noticed that I'd more often interrupt speaking women to make my point than men, and many other similar imbalanced interactions, I've had to consciously change that. Sometimes it's more important for people's problems and hurt to be acknowledged, for us to be able to say, "Wow, that's horrible. I'm sorry for your experience" instead of just assuming that we know what it feels like and be tossing solutions around, or worse, trying to explain why to the victims why things are the way they are.
When is it ok to offer a counter argument to any call for equality, help and understanding?
I say never.
I would respond, but I'm applying a new rule I just came up with: "If an argument involves a topic that has not been satisfactorily resolved elsewhere in human society, you're unlikely to solve it on an internet forum."
Does that mean you don't see value in the discussion?
It's not a question of value, but one of resolution. All I'm saying that the issue will not be solved - the discussion around it could still be valuable, and insightful, and all those things, but at the end of it there won't be a hard and fast answer. Which is a problem for me specifically as, like I've said, I'm solutions-oriented way more than I'm discussion-oriented.
If we go back to the clubhouse analogy for a moment-
To me, the video and the bulk of the comments here are people acknowledging that the club has certain aspects going on, asking for their clubhouse to be better, and saying how they try to make it better within their own capacity.
How is this a bad thing?
I'm not being facetious, I'm really trying to follow you here. truly truly
In a lot of your posts, I feel your examples and 'facts' are letting you down pretty heavily. Largely even forming better counterarguments and derailing what you say completely. Maybe we should try to not assume information about companies, projects and individuals. I think @Elyaradine's approach of relating the issues being discussed to personal experience extremely useful in that the story conveys a context. Maybe try this?
I feel like something in that video triggered enough of a response to warrant that initial post. And I can't see it. Please help.
@damousey I know you're not being facetious, and I wasn't being facetious in my original post either. All I'm trying to understand is why my suggestion (of having women build women-centric companies and games) is so bizarrely foreign to the conversation, and whether or not there's a reason for that. To me it seems pretty simple: If you don't like the way things are, and you're having a hard time changing it, then go and build something better. How this is so radically controversial is honestly beyond me.
Those 'examples and facts' that are 'letting me down' only really matter if I'm invested in "winning" this discussion. Which I'm not. I don't see why these conversations need to be so rigidly formed, and precisely executed, in order for them to have value. The overwhelming vibe I'm getting from all of these responses is essentially, "if you don't have the same opinions we do, and express them in the same way, then you're not welcome here".
Which, if anything, should give everyone else pause for reflection.
The thing in the video that triggered my response was that all of the 25 things that were mentioned can, as far as I'm concerned, be traced back to the fact that men run everything. Games and communities are tailored to men, men don't have to defend themselves to other men (something I think is flatly wrong, but that's outside of this discussion), and so on. So if the root of all evil here is that the playing field is skewed to give men an advantage, you have 2 choices: Level the playing field, or build a whole new one.
People have been trying to level the playing field since the dawn of time, and it just hasn't happened. I shouldn't have to provide concise examples here - inequality has been a fact of life for as long as life itself has been around, and if you can't recognise that basic fact, then there's nothing I can say that will change it. If it makes you comfortable and optimistic to believe that a few well-placed words can totally subvert the paradigm and suddenly put us all on equal terms, or that total fairness is a basic right bestowed by the universe and these issues are just some edge cases, then good for you, but I'm too cynical to hold to that viewpoint at all.
And I think that's where the conflict is. Yes, your clubhouse analogy works - there are some issues, and they need to be solved. But even if everyone on this forum, and all the other forums, and all the gaming networks, and in all the blogs and the media, and everyone who ever held a smartphone or a console controller suddenly stopped, realized that their ways were backwards and wrong, resolved to be better human beings and treat eachother more fairly, the problem still wouldn't go away, because the problem is not a feature - it's a design fault in humanity itself.
Which is why I disagree that an incremental, dialogue-centric approach has any significant merit. If women are truly oppressed in this sphere (and I agree that it's the case), then history has taught us that there's only one possible outcome, between oppressed and oppressor. Since nobody is willing to consider that outcome seriously, it seems to me that all these conversations are heading nowhere useful, and that's what grates me.
Fundamentally I believe we're capable of better, change is possible. People, media and culture are not so rigid as that. We've already seen huge strides and improvement over the last few years. Do you really believe our consumptive media so unmovable?
I'm open to the idea that maybe that sort of cynicism is just ahead of my own thinking, but if it's a logical conclusion I want to see the logic. Why can't we fix the clubhouse we have?
all of the 25 things that were mentioned can, as far as I'm concerned, be traced back to the fact that men run everything. Games and communities are tailored to men, men don't have to defend themselves to other men (something I think is flatly wrong, but that's outside of this discussion), and so on. So if the root of all evil here is that the playing field is skewed to give men an advantage, you have 2 choices: Level the playing field, or build a whole new one.
So the playing field encompasses, to our knowledge, the bulk of human history. Our media, our technology, the companies and motivations behind them, that patriachal system/ problem is kind of interwoven into everything. How would we 'build a whole new one' ?
Again, I'm not being facetious, that question just sounds that way, I tried rewriting it a couple of times and only managed to make it trickier to read.I am sorry I'm not better at this.
Fundamentally I believe we're capable of better, change is possible. People, media and culture are not so rigid as that. We've already seen huge strides and improvement over the last few years. Do you really believe our consumptive media so unmovable?
Change is possible, yes - but at what cost? At the founding of the US, slavery was morally acceptable to the ruling class, for instance. In the hundreds of years before that, indentured servitude was a way of life for most people. Exploitative child labor? No problem. Poison, kill and corral an entire race for their land? No sweat.
We've made those issues go away for us, yes, but they're still very much in force around the world. What are the sweatshops in China and Bangladesh if not modern-day slave labor? Look up the VICE episode on Pakistani brick factories, and how people are conned into perpetual servitude. These problems don't exist in our "modern, civilized" world, simply because someone came along with a bigger stick at some point.
Coming back to consumptive media, it's subject to the same market forces. Why do you think modern news networks relentlessly push bad news, hype up insignificant stories, and worship celebrities? It's trivial, meaningless nonsense, but money talks, and those in power listen.
Same thing with games. Companies make what people buy, and for the most part, people buy absolute tripe, for reasons that are made pretty clear with the whole gamergate fiasco (the whole macho i'm-the-hero thing, for instance).
So I totally agree with you: We're capable of better. But I don't think we're capable of making that transition of our own volition. There needs to be an external influence, or there's simply no motivation for change. That's true at the macro level, and also at the micro level - have you ever decided to change something about yourself for no good reason, just because you felt like it?
I'm open to the idea that maybe that sort of cynicism is just ahead of my own thinking, but if it's a logical conclusion I want to see the logic. Why can't we fix the clubhouse we have?
Because you can't fix a problem using the same thinking that created it. So far, what little talk of solutions I've seen, is all centered around doing the same things that created the problems in the first place: Have more discussions. Share more information. Get more people talking. Put messages in games to reinforce your propaganda. Those are the things that worked well for gamergate, and the sh*thead movement in general - they've set those rules, and I don't see why the rest of us should play by them.
So the playing field encompasses, to our knowledge, the bulk of human history. Our media, our technology, the companies and motivations behind them, that patriachal system/ problem is kind of interwoven into everything. How would we 'build a whole new one' ?
By doing the exact same thing we did to build this one - we just learn from our mistakes.
So a hard and fast example: Mass Effect. It was one of the games Sarkeesian reviewed in her Youtube series. In it, she makes the point that the story was really built for the male Shepherd - you could choose a female character, but it didn't really change the game at all. You were faced with the same choices, had the same NPCs, the same story, and so on.
How did Mass Effect come about? I imagine it took a great big machine of writers, artists, coders, directors, producers, marketers, and a large web of beta community feedback. All of that combined produced a game which neglected to focus on an entire gender.
So you fix that by building another game. This time, the shareholders in the company are less concerned with maximum profits, and they're more concerned with the social message. Consequently, the directors and producers can take bigger "risks" with the content and messaging. The writers and coders can be physically balanced (ie, equal mix male/female) or ideologically balanced (ie, equal mix of viewpoints), and the beta community around it will all be made aware of the importance of gender in video games.
What sort of game will come out of that machine, do you think? It'll still have Reapers and big explosions and lots of running around, but it might have a far more nuanced story, and be a lot more tactful in the way it deals with gender-based issues. Does that sound like a positive outcome to you? It does to me.
Can you achieve that by going to the current developers of Mass Effect and asking them to rewrite the next game? I don't think so. You can propose it, sure, and then the creative decisions go up the chain, and eventually they come up against the reality that the shareholders in the company (the true masters) want to do nothing to rock the boat at all, so they will (conservatively) reject all the changes that could result in any sort of social progress, because social progress just isn't in fashion right now.
And so there are 2 ways of going about this: Either you make it profitable for gaming companies to build socially progressive games, or you found new gaming companies. With the former, you're going to have a hard time of it - social progress that uplifts minorities (not that women are a minority) and the oppressed is almost never in fashion, because the dunderheaded consumers that buy most of the products are equally as conservative in their outlook as the shareholders that produce them. And you know what I'm talking about there - those are the "soldiers" of Gamergate.
We've got plenty of documented evidence that you're not going to change consumer's minds on some of these issues. And since you can't change the consumer's minds, you won't be able to convince the shareholders. The gaming companies are complicit "victims" in this - they're under orders to build profitable products, regardless of social consequence.
Other than building a new gaming company, with everyone in the chain primarily interested in redressing the balance (in much the same way that charities and NGOs are formed, without profit as a motive), you're not going to produce games, or cultivate consumers, to produce the ultimate effect you want.
And what you ultimately want is for those mysogynists to fall on the wrong side of history. In the same way that the racists, and the slave owners did, you want to shift the balance of power to the extent where they lose their grip on the conversation. They'll still be around, forever (see: Cliven Bundy, 2014), but you would have achieved social change for the (uninterested) majority.
I hope that clears things up a little, with regards to my viewpoint. I'm cynical of humanity's ability to voluntarily change into a more equitable society, without someone forcing the hand of the powers that be - and I think there's plenty of documented proof of that.
As an interesting aside, and another indicator that the problem of gender inequality is both ingrained and universal: There was a flap in 2013 about Ambien (sleeping meds), and the dosages women were taking - the FDA announced that the dosage for women had to be cut by half, as it was having a stronger effect on their bodies than on men's.
The reason this wasn't picked up during the first stage of lab rat trials? Almost all test animals are male: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/15/nih_to_drug_researchers_start_including_female_test_subjects_in_your_studies.html - there was no research done into Ambien's effect on female physiology at those early stages, which could have averted the problem. The stated reason is that it's easier to control a population of male rats, but at the cost of not picking up warning signs in drugs meant for both genders? That seems a flimsy excuse.
Fundamentally I believe we're capable of better, change is possible. People, media and culture are not so rigid as that. We've already seen huge strides and improvement over the last few years. Do you really believe our consumptive media so unmovable?
Change is possible, yes - but at what cost? At the founding of the US, slavery was morally acceptable to the ruling class, for instance. In the hundreds of years before that, indentured servitude was a way of life for most people. Exploitative child labor? No problem. Poison, kill and corral an entire race for their land? No sweat.
We've made those issues go away for us, yes, but they're still very much in force around the world. What are the sweatshops in China and Bangladesh if not modern-day slave labor? Look up the VICE episode on Pakistani brick factories, and how people are conned into perpetual servitude. These problems don't exist in our "modern, civilized" world, simply because someone came along with a bigger stick at some point.
Coming back to consumptive media, it's subject to the same market forces. Why do you think modern news networks relentlessly push bad news, hype up insignificant stories, and worship celebrities? It's trivial, meaningless nonsense, but money talks, and those in power listen.
Same thing with games. Companies make what people buy, and for the most part, people buy absolute tripe, for reasons that are made pretty clear with the whole gamergate fiasco (the whole macho i'm-the-hero thing, for instance).
So I totally agree with you: We're capable of better. But I don't think we're capable of making that transition of our own volition. There needs to be an external influence, or there's simply no motivation for change. That's true at the macro level, and also at the micro level - have you ever decided to change something about yourself for no good reason, just because you felt like it?
I'm open to the idea that maybe that sort of cynicism is just ahead of my own thinking, but if it's a logical conclusion I want to see the logic. Why can't we fix the clubhouse we have?
Because you can't fix a problem using the same thinking that created it. So far, what little talk of solutions I've seen, is all centered around doing the same things that created the problems in the first place: Have more discussions. Share more information. Get more people talking. Put messages in games to reinforce your propaganda. Those are the things that worked well for gamergate, and the sh*thead movement in general - they've set those rules, and I don't see why the rest of us should play by them.
So the playing field encompasses, to our knowledge, the bulk of human history. Our media, our technology, the companies and motivations behind them, that patriachal system/ problem is kind of interwoven into everything. How would we 'build a whole new one' ?
By doing the exact same thing we did to build this one - we just learn from our mistakes.
So a hard and fast example: Mass Effect. It was one of the games Sarkeesian reviewed in her Youtube series. In it, she makes the point that the story was really built for the male Shepherd - you could choose a female character, but it didn't really change the game at all. You were faced with the same choices, had the same NPCs, the same story, and so on.
How did Mass Effect come about? I imagine it took a great big machine of writers, artists, coders, directors, producers, marketers, and a large web of beta community feedback. All of that combined produced a game which neglected to focus on an entire gender.
So you fix that by building another game. This time, the shareholders in the company are less concerned with maximum profits, and they're more concerned with the social message. Consequently, the directors and producers can take bigger "risks" with the content and messaging. The writers and coders can be physically balanced (ie, equal mix male/female) or ideologically balanced (ie, equal mix of viewpoints), and the beta community around it will all be made aware of the importance of gender in video games.
What sort of game will come out of that machine, do you think? It'll still have Reapers and big explosions and lots of running around, but it might have a far more nuanced story, and be a lot more tactful in the way it deals with gender-based issues. Does that sound like a positive outcome to you? It does to me.
Can you achieve that by going to the current developers of Mass Effect and asking them to rewrite the next game? I don't think so. You can propose it, sure, and then the creative decisions go up the chain, and eventually they come up against the reality that the shareholders in the company (the true masters) want to do nothing to rock the boat at all, so they will (conservatively) reject all the changes that could result in any sort of social progress, because social progress just isn't in fashion right now.
And so there are 2 ways of going about this: Either you make it profitable for gaming companies to build socially progressive games, or you found new gaming companies. With the former, you're going to have a hard time of it - social progress that uplifts minorities (not that women are a minority) and the oppressed is almost never in fashion, because the dunderheaded consumers that buy most of the products are equally as conservative in their outlook as the shareholders that produce them. And you know what I'm talking about there - those are the "soldiers" of Gamergate.
We've got plenty of documented evidence that you're not going to change consumer's minds on some of these issues. And since you can't change the consumer's minds, you won't be able to convince the shareholders. The gaming companies are complicit "victims" in this - they're under orders to build profitable products, regardless of social consequence.
Other than building a new gaming company, with everyone in the chain primarily interested in redressing the balance (in much the same way that charities and NGOs are formed, without profit as a motive), you're not going to produce games, or cultivate consumers, to produce the ultimate effect you want.
And what you ultimately want is for those mysogynists to fall on the wrong side of history. In the same way that the racists, and the slave owners did, you want to shift the balance of power to the extent where they lose their grip on the conversation. They'll still be around, forever (see: Cliven Bundy, 2014), but you would have achieved social change for the (uninterested) majority.
I hope that clears things up a little, with regards to my viewpoint. I'm cynical of humanity's ability to voluntarily change into a more equitable society, without someone forcing the hand of the powers that be - and I think there's plenty of documented proof of that.
As an interesting aside, and another indicator that the problem of gender inequality is both ingrained and universal: There was a flap in 2013 about Ambien (sleeping meds), and the dosages women were taking - the FDA announced that the dosage for women had to be cut by half, as it was having a stronger effect on their bodies than on men's.
The reason this wasn't picked up during the first stage of lab rat trials? Almost all test animals are male: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/15/nih_to_drug_researchers_start_including_female_test_subjects_in_your_studies.html - there was no research done into Ambien's effect on female physiology at those early stages, which could have averted the problem. The stated reason is that it's easier to control a population of male rats, but at the cost of not picking up warning signs in drugs meant for both genders? That seems a flimsy excuse.
Struggling to follow through what feel like damn obvious contradictions here, and contradictions between this and earlier posts. I think I'll have to pick it up tomorrow.
something that did stand out to me tho' "[change for] no good reason ...?"
To me, the video, the comments here, this discussion is ' look here, a reason!'
Struggling to follow through what feel like damn obvious contradictions here, and contradictions between this and earlier posts. I think I'll have to pick it up tomorrow.
Don't forget the "Because you can't fix a problem using the same thinking that created it" immediately followed by "By doing the exact same thing we did to build this one" ... That makes no sense. Especially when the first example is about GamerGate somehow setting the tune for feminist interventions that were happening for decades prior to the existence of GG. What?
I'm also struggling to follow the logic of the argument that says sexism is natural, given that our culture is completely unnatural and has flipped on currently common gender roles and expectations several times in the past. People are taught to be sexist, saying that it's a natural and unavoidable outcome (of what process?) completely undermines trying to do anything to change the cultural messaging that creates sexist attitudes.
I love how sexism is supposed to be solved by the heroic genius of one person and how the lack of compassion for this noble quest (through failing to respond to derailing arguments that are constantly made and provably false with enthusiastic shouts of "yes, tell us more!") makes any and all debate or awareness raising about this topic useless. Sorry, but cultural problems aren't solved like equations or engineering hurdles - one person can't stage an intervention on an entire culture. It takes a lot of people, working together, to build awareness and acceptance of the idea that maybe, just maybe, privilege is a real thing (to pick a starting point) and shouldn't be as invisible as it is. Every time someone with privilege actively undermines that message, progress gets set back - that's why people get angry at these sorts of arguments.
@damousey@dislekcia Actually, don't bother - I'm done with this discussion. It was a mistake to engage in the first place, really - you all already have your solution to this problem, and clearly you don't need or want my input, so I'll sit back and watch how it pans out.
Comments
That's what it seems most of those points boil down to. Men started companies and built games from a man's viewpoint, with the intent of entertaining other men. Men play and share those man-centric games with other men, and form communities around it. And so on.
The bias in that would seem to be inherent, in the same way you have unequal workforces, women paid less than men on average, less women in management positions in big companies, and so on. Women get catcalled at gaming conventions, and also just walking down the street. Women get stalked from gaming communities, and also from offices and bars. There's nothing unique to gaming in any of those actions - and they're just as deplorable within a gaming context, as outside of it.
Now, if women got together, started companies, built games from a woman's viewpoint, to entertain other women, who played and shared it with their women friends, and started women-centric communities around it, what's to say you won't see the exact same biases? The one large-scale female-centric movement I can think of is militant feminism, and how's that been working out for men? Not great.
And even if you do see those exact same biases, isn't that a fairer route to equality? Last I checked there was nothing stopping a bunch of women with money from getting together and starting a company, and employing female designers, coders, marketers, and all the other skills necessary to build and publish games. We know for a fact that female gamers outnumber male gamers in certain demographics, so there'd be no shortage of market.
Hell, they could go so far as starting female-centric conventions where the gropey-stalkey-men are simply not allowed in. And online communities that banned users of any gender for inappropriate behaviour (which is severely lacking in current gaming communities, I reckon).
So is there a reason that none of that seems to be happening? So far this entire consciousness movement has pretty much been centered on getting male-dominated organizations to change their ways and be more inclusive. I don't see why that should work for gaming, if it hasn't worked in music, movies, art, or any other commercial institution that's driven more by profit than morality. If large, male-centric institutions could be changed simply by opening their eyes to new perspectives, you wouldn't have needed civil rights movements and rebellions all throughout history.
And it might not even take that long. Take a super-manly game: Call of Duty. Infinity Ward was founded 2002, CoD was released October 2003, and to date has sold 4.5 million copies and done all the other cultural-impact stuff that popular games do. That's less than two years to go from "unknown" to "cultural phenomenon".
Or go a bit more generic: Angry Birds was conceived, developed, and launched, all in 2009, and the rest is history.
So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet? Female-led studios with predominately female workforces, building games that appeal to a female audience, and keep in mind all of the issues and insecurities that come with it?
What do you mean by "work". You mean generate sales? Not what any of this is about. Besides - even the very "bro"-centric Borderlands has made a point of being more inclusive, and this did not impact sales of Borderlands: The Pre-sequel negatively at all. Same with Dragon Age: Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor which recently added a playable female avatar in a free DLC.
EDIT: (removed Rovio question)
But anyway - none of this has to do with the video, which is about privileges enjoyed by men while playing games.
There's so much wrong with that post of yours, but I fear that addressing anything in it will set off a completely off-topic discussion.
Telling women to start up Infinity Ward is incredibly impractical too. The Rovio dudes had to make over 50 games, and were still bankrupt, before Angry Birds worked out. Starting a business is easy. Running a game studio is hard. Countless game studios have closed doors, countless indie game developers have gone starving, when held up to the lucky few who made it. And given that a women-only studio would have to get it running with less financial capital, a smaller pool of people to hire from, and significantly more abuse, I imagine it's MUCH more difficult than you've made it sound.
And, frankly, I feel that we should be aghast when faced with inequality. We shouldn't react to stuff like this thinking, yeah, well they can solve their own problems, surely? I was born to awesome parents who loved me, paid for my education, got involved in my learning, made sure I did my homework, read me bedtime stories. I didn't have to starve. I haven't had to worry about my safety in terms of sexual assault. I've gotten sick, gone to hospital, and not had to worry about the bills. (And yeah, sometimes there are assholes who'll make jokes about my being Chinese, and they think it's fine because they're "just joking", but that's just about the only piece of privilege where I arguably lost out, and I imagine I still have it better than many other races.) I absolutely cannot expect some dude who had to study by candlelight, walk to school, and didn't have educated parents to help them with their homework to achieve the same kind of successes that I've had. I don't have to feel guilty about winning the lucky dice rolls the moment I was born, but I certainly can't expect other people simply to "work hard, and you'll achieve (financial) success" because how much harder it is for them to achieve what I've achieved is something so great I don't think I could ever quantify it.
I mean, when I see crap like this, I want to help. With each word I say, how I act online, how I treat women, and, maybe one day, with sponsoring less privileged folks and being involved in their education. It's not just their problem, because how I behave can be part of it, especially without my realising it. And I also think that men in general stepping up, being conscious of what the problem is and how they may have contributed to it even without knowing, and choosing to be more aware of their own behaviour, is largely what the video is calling for.
The notion to fix the lack of inclusion by creating new exclusive clubhouses is so ludicrous that I'm struggling to process further.
I'll participate properly later, once the red clears some.
Actually, when game companies first game about, they were not marketing to men exclusively. See: http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed <-- an article I recommend reading in its entirety as it breaks down a lot of assumptions people (like yourself, based on what you've written here) seem to hold about the history of the industry.
Also, note that these companies were largely dominated by men simply because women were (and generally continue to be) discouraged from the computer sciences arena. Arguably, having a video game environment that now is hostile to women continues that trend. So, it's important that we make the gaming environment less hostile so that we encourage more women to join (both as players and developers) and then, yes, we will probably see some more female run game dev studios.
Yes, you agree that it's a massive problem. Though, I would say I'm much less likely to see unsolicited images of male genitalia at my local pub than compared to in an online game, don't you think? And, it being a problem everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it here, don't you agree? Um, do you really believe that? Militant feminism is akin to militant islam - it's a tiny sector of a otherwise peaceful movement. Feminism is actually about equal rights. I think the name confuses people.
Also, I would add that having been made uniquely aware of what it feels like to be less privileged due to gender discrimination, I would certainly do my best to avoid that in future. Besides, research shows that women in positions of power still tend towards biasing in favour of men because of the patriarchal system which has repeatedly told us men are simply better, smarter etc than women. I don't think you need to fear women in power - your position of privilege is unlikely to be moved. See my point above about the hostile environment, patriarchal system discouraging women in the field etc. There is quite a lot stopping women enjoying a career in game development. It seems a less cost effective way of solving the problem. All people want to enjoy the same game conventions, if game conventions are there thing - so why hold two? Isn't it better, in the long term especially, to simply educate men that women are not sexual objects and so groping would be naturally, then, not okay? I think there's a lot happening that you aren't aware of. And, also, these things take time. Again, back to my comment on hostile environment and lack of skills due to patriarchal system.
I hope this has managed to address your questions on this subject.
I'd like to move this conversation back to the privileges of male gamers, rather than a discussion of women game developers.
There's nothing logical or coherent in that post, not even the support cases you use for your "business-as-usual" business motivation: Infinity Ward started with the core team from Medal of Honor, they were not unknown; Angry Birds is a clone of a flash game called Crush The Castle, Rovio made upwards of 50 games before Angry Birds and went bankrupt at least twice. Your "popping into success" fantasy is a lie, one that excuses the difficulties experienced by women in our industry that are trying to lay the groundwork on which to build those career successes. Every single small piece of luck, every single opportunity, every single meeting or team is harder to navigate for women because of people making the arguments you are, from ignorance and fear.
I don't understand what's wrong with asking questions. If they're stupid questions, fine, there's no need to respond to them. I genuinely don't understand why this sort of resolution isn't being discussed. Maybe it has been discussed, and there's a good reason why my ideas are invalid - and I'd like to hear them. Kneejerking at me for asking touchy questions is hardly the way to go about that. Really? If by "putting this issue in context with global gender discrimination" is equal to "making it smaller", then I guess that's what I did. If anything, I thought I was making the issue bigger by pointing out that it's not specific to gaming. That notion is based in the belief that not all people are the problem. I think most sensible, sane individuals understand that discrimination is wrong, and to the best of their abilities, will do whatever they can to contribute towards a solution- myself included.
But not all people are that level-headed. There are some people that you just cannot change, and you can't have a universally-inclusive environment and ALSO have everyone behave in a similar way. You can point out, make aware, and take ownership of these issues as much as you want, but there will be people who flatly refuse to change their view.
And that's fine by me, because the notion of creating "exclusive clubhouses" is also rooted in the belief that people are free to choose who they associate with. If us level-headed people don't want to associate with hot-headed mysoginists, then why should we be forced to?
And in fact, what is human society BUT a collection of exclusive clubhouses? All of us on the internet belong to a clubhouse of which only 2.7bn/7.1bn of human beings worldwide have access to. Those of us speaking English belong to a clubhouse that's dwarfed by the Mandarin clubhouse. Those of us privileged enough to enjoy electricity, clean water and good food belong to an even _more_ exclusive clubhouse.
The difference? People can move between clubhouses. That's the whole point. Build something better (ie, an "exclusive clubhouse" that only accepts tolerant, open-minded individuals, abhors conflict and pointless debate, and pursues gaming for the sake of fun), and people will move across to it.
Point out to me, right now, a community that enshrines all the ideals of this anti-discrimination movement, and I'll join/support/evangelise it in a heartbeat.
Are women discouraged from computer sciences? Yes, I'd say you're right: it's still a largely male-dominated arena. But it doesn't have to be that way, and there are top-down policy and social changes that can achieve that. Apartheid was abolished here in SA thanks to a top-down change, slavery was abolished because of a top-down change, why shouldn't gender discrimination be dealt with in the same way? Is it not as egregious an offense as the others I just mentioned? Depending on the pub, you'll see those unsolicited genitalia first hand. And that's the broader point I'm making: If you want better standards of interaction, build better places for that interaction to happen. And I say better "places" and not "people" because if history has taught us anything, people are far harder to change. I know it's the same dynamic - it's the pareto principle applied to social movements: 20% of the people make 80% of the noise. Thing is, people see, respond, and form policies in response to that noise. I agree that militant islam is small in number, but it's far greater in damage and social impact, and so we're constantly at war. Do women bias towards men? Sure, I've seen that happen, and I can buy it. I've also seen men bias towards women (the whole courtship subculture is built on that), and men bias towards men, and women towards women. I think in those situations, the bias may not necessarily be driven by gender, but rather corporate politics: promote men to get on men's good side, to advance your career. And in that game, nobody is exempt. I'm fully aware of that, and that's why I responded to this post in the first place. I'm trying to understand what practical solutions there are towards addressing this. In my mind, just telling people to change is not a practical solution. It would be much better, absolutely - thing is, education takes two people. One to teach, and one to learn. Can you honestly say that most of these "problem" men are willing to learn?
Right now, rape is a crime, but harassment is a misdemeanour, and often goes unreported. If the sentences and policies around this were far stricter (say, as they are for drugs), people might think twice before going out and groping women. And that's a top-down policy change, not a bottom-up grassroots revolution. I know I'm not aware of it - that's why I'm asking the question. No thanks to @rustybroomhandle for kicking me just for daring to voice it. It hasn't really addressed it, but I've now learned that some people in this community are super touchy about other people asking questions about this topic, so I think I'll just flatly abstain in future. I don't want to get into a protracted fight about who's right or wrong, I'm really just interested in what can be done to (practically) change the situation.
And so I'll move the conversation back to the privileges of male gamers.
Yes, I agree in full with that video, I think the privileges have become so much a part of background fabric of gaming, that we don't notice that they're there. I don't know if there's an easy route to balancing this back, though - I disagree with the notion that social awareness is all it will take, based on the fact that large-scale social change has always followed a period of violent upheaval of some kind.
We've all acknowledged the privileges pointed out in that video - I wrongly assumed that it was just an understood fact, my bad. And I didn't say we shouldn't do anything about it, either. I said the bias was inherent and equally deplorable regardless of context. And then I asked about a practical measure to address it, based on how power structures and cultural movements have formed in the past. There never seems to be, whenever you read it, so I'll take that criticism from whence it comes. If I was ignorant and fearful I doubt I'd be participating in this discussion at all. I totally agree that it's harder for women to do those things, but I disagree that the solution is a simple one of awareness. All I proposed was taking the exact roadmap that male-dominated culture used to rise to that dominance, and apply it with women instead - how is that so controversial?
The rest? I'm not stepping into that s***storm. @rustybroomhandle said it perfectly:
I think that the kind of misogyny that we see in the culture that surrounds the internet and video games is different to that found offline though. "Boobs or gtfo", players teabagging players they've killed (part of rape culture), etc. There are several points in the list in the video that I don't think have equivalents offline, even if the roots and effects are similar.
I don't think women going through the same steps that men did to achieve dominance is a viable solution. In terms of games, it's the difference between the folks who first started making games when there was little supply, and new developers trying to get into what now appears to be an incredibly crowded market. And I imagine if women were somehow to invent another art/entertainment medium (which we'd need more female scientists to do), it'd be something that men in powerful places with significantly more money could easily appropriate and dominate too. I think the sort of "top-down" policy you suggest is something that requires policy-makers to admit that there's a problem, and I feel that that happens when a significant enough portion of the people they govern (particularly those with money/privilege) raise it as a problem. Especially when the policy-makers themselves are, largely, male.
It is vastly different with the addition of anonymity, yes - no 13-year old would dream of speaking to his classmates like that, but put him in front of CoD with a headset, and the foulest stuff comes out. There's an incredible lack of moral guidance in these communities, so people just default to their most basic instincts. That's a gender-unspecific problem that could also use a few solutions, I think.
So it is different, but it'd get fixed by the same medicine: basic human decency. Something that can be taught both online and off. To date, there hasn't been a real impetus for that, because the same foul men that would swear at a girl over CoD, run the companies that build all the games and hardware (again, the 'for men by men' dynamic). And I think you'd create the impetus by introducing tangible economic threat: That's what companies respond to, like-for-like competition. I think that's only true if games are a buy-once keep-forever thing. Sure, the market is crowded now. It'll be even more crowded in 10 years, and even more in 20. Tastes change, platforms change, cultures change, there's always room for new people to come in and do new things. Exactly - those with money and privilege get their way in politics, that's how it's always been. And so there are two solutions - get the ear of the privileged, or become the privileged. I think the latter has a better chance of succeeding. If there are wealthy women with large economic empires, their concerns will be given the same respect as the men with their large economic empires. At least, that's what it looks like from here.
First off, are games necessarily being made by men with the intent of only entertaining other men, or people in general? If it's people in general, then attitudes and behaviors that turn people off playing our products should concern us, no? Just from self-interest, if not a sense of empathy and fairness.
So it shouldn't just be "well let the women start their own companies". It should be us, men, saying "is there something turning some of the customers we want to reach away from our products? What can we do about it?"
Imagine the same thing with writing books. It's ok if some authors write books for a specifically (stereotyped) male audience.
But it's another thing completely if people in bookstores casually comment to each other that a woman who walks into a book store is just coming there to look for sexual attention from men, or implying that reading is just not "for women". Or the store clerk asking for your bust size and suggesting that you sleep with him before ringing up your purchase. OR saying that if women want to read books about women, maybe they should just go open their own bookstores, then.
These attitudes and behaviors hurt us. Men, women, all of us. Culturally and economically. Who want to create products and sell them to more than just some teen dudebro. This is a problem we need to call out when we see it, and one we need to talk about.
We definitely shouldn't just say "well go write your own books and run your own bookstores, then." Incorrect. Militant feminism has worked out incredibly well for the average man and in fact the world in general, from splitting the economic burden of the family to lower poverty rates and higher GDP (it turns out sabotaging the economic productiveness of half your workforce is a bad thing). And the advantage for men of more women being sexually liberated and having better access to birth control is...well, it's fairly obvious.
There's a lot more to unpack in your post, Wogan, but I'm busy right now.
I wasn't justifying that at all. I was saying that it's inherent, and that it's deplorable. Just because it's natural doesn't make it morally virtuous. Key bloody distinction there, that I think a bunch of people overlooked. Natural does not equal "right", it just equals "natural". And that's exactly the perspective I wasn't coming from. Floods, fires and spiders eating their kids are all natural too. I suppose I should have clarified that a bit more, but then again this issue is such a hot potato that people explode before actually parsing the full argument, so it might not have helped.
Question your assumptions before you post this kind of thing.
I believe several million people voting for policy change and raising gender inequality as an issue that should be addressed is another way to get policy makers to implement stuff. But it requires several million people to believe that there's a problem in the first place, and to talk about it, and to want it fixed enough for it to be a factor in policy-makers' election campaigns and business marketing. But, more importantly, I think that this is something that we can do, right now, with our interactions every day. This isn't something that's up to Oprah or Hillary Clinton to fix.
I mean, obviously, multiple solutions can be implemented simultaneously, and wanting influential women to influence policy-makers is fine. It's just that leaving it at that seems like it absolves us from responsibility, and that making it something that we, especially as men, consciously choose to fix with our every-day interactions is important. With enough average Joes wanting change, and making some noise over it, that's a way we can own (and pwn) the problem ourselves. It's hard, and it takes ages, but I'd rather we do that than leave it up to someone else.
If we collectively decide that a policy change would go a long way towards fixing these problems, then that's progress. We can then actually write that policy, form action groups, rally people around it, drive activism and awareness around the solution instead of the problem.
You seem completely unaware of the concrete solutions to sexist behavior and the steps required to end the perpetuation of misogyny that already exist. Everything from not understanding why people dislike arguments you make that place the onus on repressed people to somehow fix a system stacked against them, to saying things like "So is there a good reason that we're not seeing this yet?" and belittling awareness raising as pointless (based on fantastically unsuccessful harsh anti-drug punishments, what?) and even literally doing a "not all men"... All that just makes it obvious that you're not only not engaging with your own privilege, but you don't see how trying to make an argument about you personally isn't helping.
It seems to you like awareness raising doesn't work because you're not listening when people try to give you solutions. And if you feel victimised, remember that it's your statements that are being argued with, not your gender. You can always back down from a statement.
I understand why people dislike my arguments, though I admit I'm surprised that a community purporting to operate on the principles of inclusiveness and open-mindedness will take such a (personally) critical stance to my arguments. So we're all open minded so long as we're of the same mind? Is that what's going on here?
Placing the onus on repressed people is a bad thing? At first glance, yes, that's unfair - the deck is stacked against them and the ones that have the upper hand should do something about it. But if that's how human society works, howcome it's never panned out that way? At every grievous injustice done to a group, that group has risen above and overthrown their oppressors. From the jews in ancient Egypt to the civil rights movement in the US.
If it were possible to convince the ones in power to give more power to the powerless (without the threat of serious violence and social instability), we'd see some of that in the last 10'000 years of human history, don't you think? Maybe my viewpoint is misanthropic and cynical, and I accept that. I didn't make this argument about me - all the kneejerk reactions made it about me. I've had to defend myself instead of the point, and it wouldn't have been necessary if the first responders were a bit more tolerant, I think. I'm pretty sure at this point it's not my statements being argued with, but rather myself as a person. If it were my statements, then I wouldn't hear things like "you stepped in it now" (@rustybroomhandle) and "dude, no" (@farsicon) and "Wow, why don't you just acknowledge" and "At least one of them is you" (@dislekcia).
--
I think that when you deal with people and you want to offer solutions, that's great. But before you offer solutions, I think there's something that's more important: that the victims (in our case those with less privilege) can have their voices heard, that they feel welcome to speak, that you're listening with genuine care, and really want to understand the situation, and really try to appreciate the sort of hardships that they go through daily that you and I are likely never to have to experience. And I think that giving less privileged people a safe place to speak is arguably much more helpful than discussing hypothetical solutions. In fact, I think that the very act of being humbler, speaking less and listening more when interacting with women, giving them a chance to be heard, is much more in line with what the solution is.
It's a lesson that I struggle every day to practise, especially as someone who's kind of a loner, who's a quiet introvert who prefers tackling maths and art problems sitting at a computer than talking to people at a party. To me, things were pretty black-and-white: Problem? Fix it. Done. But when I noticed that I'd more often interrupt speaking women to make my point than men, and many other similar imbalanced interactions, I've had to consciously change that. Sometimes it's more important for people's problems and hurt to be acknowledged, for us to be able to say, "Wow, that's horrible. I'm sorry for your experience" instead of just assuming that we know what it feels like and be tossing solutions around, or worse, trying to explain why to the victims why things are the way they are.
I think many of us men could practise that more.
I say never.
If we go back to the clubhouse analogy for a moment-
To me, the video and the bulk of the comments here are people acknowledging that the club has certain aspects going on, asking for their clubhouse to be better, and saying how they try to make it better within their own capacity.
How is this a bad thing?
I'm not being facetious, I'm really trying to follow you here. truly truly
In a lot of your posts, I feel your examples and 'facts' are letting you down pretty heavily. Largely even forming better counterarguments and derailing what you say completely. Maybe we should try to not assume information about companies, projects and individuals. I think @Elyaradine's approach of relating the issues being discussed to personal experience extremely useful in that the story conveys a context. Maybe try this?
I feel like something in that video triggered enough of a response to warrant that initial post. And I can't see it. Please help.
Those 'examples and facts' that are 'letting me down' only really matter if I'm invested in "winning" this discussion. Which I'm not. I don't see why these conversations need to be so rigidly formed, and precisely executed, in order for them to have value. The overwhelming vibe I'm getting from all of these responses is essentially, "if you don't have the same opinions we do, and express them in the same way, then you're not welcome here".
Which, if anything, should give everyone else pause for reflection.
The thing in the video that triggered my response was that all of the 25 things that were mentioned can, as far as I'm concerned, be traced back to the fact that men run everything. Games and communities are tailored to men, men don't have to defend themselves to other men (something I think is flatly wrong, but that's outside of this discussion), and so on. So if the root of all evil here is that the playing field is skewed to give men an advantage, you have 2 choices: Level the playing field, or build a whole new one.
People have been trying to level the playing field since the dawn of time, and it just hasn't happened. I shouldn't have to provide concise examples here - inequality has been a fact of life for as long as life itself has been around, and if you can't recognise that basic fact, then there's nothing I can say that will change it. If it makes you comfortable and optimistic to believe that a few well-placed words can totally subvert the paradigm and suddenly put us all on equal terms, or that total fairness is a basic right bestowed by the universe and these issues are just some edge cases, then good for you, but I'm too cynical to hold to that viewpoint at all.
And I think that's where the conflict is. Yes, your clubhouse analogy works - there are some issues, and they need to be solved. But even if everyone on this forum, and all the other forums, and all the gaming networks, and in all the blogs and the media, and everyone who ever held a smartphone or a console controller suddenly stopped, realized that their ways were backwards and wrong, resolved to be better human beings and treat eachother more fairly, the problem still wouldn't go away, because the problem is not a feature - it's a design fault in humanity itself.
Which is why I disagree that an incremental, dialogue-centric approach has any significant merit. If women are truly oppressed in this sphere (and I agree that it's the case), then history has taught us that there's only one possible outcome, between oppressed and oppressor. Since nobody is willing to consider that outcome seriously, it seems to me that all these conversations are heading nowhere useful, and that's what grates me.
Fundamentally I believe we're capable of better, change is possible. People, media and culture are not so rigid as that. We've already seen huge strides and improvement over the last few years. Do you really believe our consumptive media so unmovable?
I'm open to the idea that maybe that sort of cynicism is just ahead of my own thinking, but if it's a logical conclusion I want to see the logic. Why can't we fix the clubhouse we have? So the playing field encompasses, to our knowledge, the bulk of human history. Our media, our technology, the companies and motivations behind them, that patriachal system/ problem is kind of interwoven into everything. How would we 'build a whole new one' ?
Again, I'm not being facetious, that question just sounds that way, I tried rewriting it a couple of times and only managed to make it trickier to read.I am sorry I'm not better at this.
We've made those issues go away for us, yes, but they're still very much in force around the world. What are the sweatshops in China and Bangladesh if not modern-day slave labor? Look up the VICE episode on Pakistani brick factories, and how people are conned into perpetual servitude. These problems don't exist in our "modern, civilized" world, simply because someone came along with a bigger stick at some point.
Coming back to consumptive media, it's subject to the same market forces. Why do you think modern news networks relentlessly push bad news, hype up insignificant stories, and worship celebrities? It's trivial, meaningless nonsense, but money talks, and those in power listen.
Same thing with games. Companies make what people buy, and for the most part, people buy absolute tripe, for reasons that are made pretty clear with the whole gamergate fiasco (the whole macho i'm-the-hero thing, for instance).
So I totally agree with you: We're capable of better. But I don't think we're capable of making that transition of our own volition. There needs to be an external influence, or there's simply no motivation for change. That's true at the macro level, and also at the micro level - have you ever decided to change something about yourself for no good reason, just because you felt like it? Because you can't fix a problem using the same thinking that created it. So far, what little talk of solutions I've seen, is all centered around doing the same things that created the problems in the first place: Have more discussions. Share more information. Get more people talking. Put messages in games to reinforce your propaganda. Those are the things that worked well for gamergate, and the sh*thead movement in general - they've set those rules, and I don't see why the rest of us should play by them. By doing the exact same thing we did to build this one - we just learn from our mistakes.
So a hard and fast example: Mass Effect. It was one of the games Sarkeesian reviewed in her Youtube series. In it, she makes the point that the story was really built for the male Shepherd - you could choose a female character, but it didn't really change the game at all. You were faced with the same choices, had the same NPCs, the same story, and so on.
How did Mass Effect come about? I imagine it took a great big machine of writers, artists, coders, directors, producers, marketers, and a large web of beta community feedback. All of that combined produced a game which neglected to focus on an entire gender.
So you fix that by building another game. This time, the shareholders in the company are less concerned with maximum profits, and they're more concerned with the social message. Consequently, the directors and producers can take bigger "risks" with the content and messaging. The writers and coders can be physically balanced (ie, equal mix male/female) or ideologically balanced (ie, equal mix of viewpoints), and the beta community around it will all be made aware of the importance of gender in video games.
What sort of game will come out of that machine, do you think? It'll still have Reapers and big explosions and lots of running around, but it might have a far more nuanced story, and be a lot more tactful in the way it deals with gender-based issues. Does that sound like a positive outcome to you? It does to me.
Can you achieve that by going to the current developers of Mass Effect and asking them to rewrite the next game? I don't think so. You can propose it, sure, and then the creative decisions go up the chain, and eventually they come up against the reality that the shareholders in the company (the true masters) want to do nothing to rock the boat at all, so they will (conservatively) reject all the changes that could result in any sort of social progress, because social progress just isn't in fashion right now.
And so there are 2 ways of going about this: Either you make it profitable for gaming companies to build socially progressive games, or you found new gaming companies. With the former, you're going to have a hard time of it - social progress that uplifts minorities (not that women are a minority) and the oppressed is almost never in fashion, because the dunderheaded consumers that buy most of the products are equally as conservative in their outlook as the shareholders that produce them. And you know what I'm talking about there - those are the "soldiers" of Gamergate.
We've got plenty of documented evidence that you're not going to change consumer's minds on some of these issues. And since you can't change the consumer's minds, you won't be able to convince the shareholders. The gaming companies are complicit "victims" in this - they're under orders to build profitable products, regardless of social consequence.
Other than building a new gaming company, with everyone in the chain primarily interested in redressing the balance (in much the same way that charities and NGOs are formed, without profit as a motive), you're not going to produce games, or cultivate consumers, to produce the ultimate effect you want.
And what you ultimately want is for those mysogynists to fall on the wrong side of history. In the same way that the racists, and the slave owners did, you want to shift the balance of power to the extent where they lose their grip on the conversation. They'll still be around, forever (see: Cliven Bundy, 2014), but you would have achieved social change for the (uninterested) majority.
I hope that clears things up a little, with regards to my viewpoint. I'm cynical of humanity's ability to voluntarily change into a more equitable society, without someone forcing the hand of the powers that be - and I think there's plenty of documented proof of that.
As an interesting aside, and another indicator that the problem of gender inequality is both ingrained and universal: There was a flap in 2013 about Ambien (sleeping meds), and the dosages women were taking - the FDA announced that the dosage for women had to be cut by half, as it was having a stronger effect on their bodies than on men's.
The reason this wasn't picked up during the first stage of lab rat trials? Almost all test animals are male: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/15/nih_to_drug_researchers_start_including_female_test_subjects_in_your_studies.html - there was no research done into Ambien's effect on female physiology at those early stages, which could have averted the problem. The stated reason is that it's easier to control a population of male rats, but at the cost of not picking up warning signs in drugs meant for both genders? That seems a flimsy excuse.
something that did stand out to me tho' "[change for] no good reason ...?"
To me, the video, the comments here, this discussion is ' look here, a reason!'
I'm also struggling to follow the logic of the argument that says sexism is natural, given that our culture is completely unnatural and has flipped on currently common gender roles and expectations several times in the past. People are taught to be sexist, saying that it's a natural and unavoidable outcome (of what process?) completely undermines trying to do anything to change the cultural messaging that creates sexist attitudes.
I love how sexism is supposed to be solved by the heroic genius of one person and how the lack of compassion for this noble quest (through failing to respond to derailing arguments that are constantly made and provably false with enthusiastic shouts of "yes, tell us more!") makes any and all debate or awareness raising about this topic useless. Sorry, but cultural problems aren't solved like equations or engineering hurdles - one person can't stage an intervention on an entire culture. It takes a lot of people, working together, to build awareness and acceptance of the idea that maybe, just maybe, privilege is a real thing (to pick a starting point) and shouldn't be as invisible as it is. Every time someone with privilege actively undermines that message, progress gets set back - that's why people get angry at these sorts of arguments.