Mike's ramblings #001

Far be it from me to get involved with discussions such as these under regular circumstances, but since I find myself not particularly emotionally invested one way or another, and massively sceptical of the motives of practically everyone involved, I feel like I can, to some degree, play devil’s advocate and offer some objective counterpoints to some of the issues you guys have raised.

For the sake of disclosure, I feel like I should let it be known that I wouldn’t refer to myself as a “feminist” (I feel the term has been hijacked by all the wrong kinds of people in recent times), although I would like to think my views are entirely egalitarian, and, as such, I do not believe that anyone should be shielded from legitimate criticism because of their gender.

First of all, I would suggest it’s worth bearing in mind that Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and a host of other now-public figures (both men and women alike), do stand to make personal gain from embroiling themselves in controversy. Zoe Quinn herself, for instance, would merely be the developer of a single poorly received (though very well-intentioned) text adventure, yet through the explosion and propagation of this entire issue, she now takes in more than $3,600 per month through Patreon alone.

While I can’t imagine receiving death threats online is anything but an entirely unpleasant experience, Zoe is an intelligent woman. I’m sure she isn’t naive enough to truly believe such threats to individuals in the public eye (which are, unfortunately, so painfully commonplace these days) are ever really followed-up in any way, shape, or form, or constitute anything more than hot air from immature assholes incapable of delivering convincing and coherent arguments. And yet, the hollow existence of such threats does conveniently help support the idea of legitimate, harmful victimhood.

Let us not for an instant suggest Zoe is entirely blameless in this debacle. If her initial response was not to go on the attack against people with legitimate concerns, brushing every dissenting opinion away as “misogyny” (although, of course, there was plenty of online abuse that was nothing but misogynistic) and devaluing more legitimate female issues in the process (for which she received no small amount of criticism from far more forward-thinking feminists, and is the reason for the #NotMyShield campaign), the entire issue would’ve been dead within a week, and GamerGate wouldn’t exist.

That she could sabotage a game jam that would simultaneously promote female indie developers looking to get a foot into industry’s door and make money for charity whilst crying “misogyny”, “patriarchy”, and “oppression” in an effort to drum up greater publicity for her own game development event instead is hypocrisy beyond reproach, and behaviour that people from every side of this issue should’ve heavily condemned.

There is also very compelling evidence that suggests she pounced upon some negative response towards Depression Quest from a board called WizardChan (an escapism community for severely depressed men), fabricated vile, anti-woman abuse directed at herself, and then proceeded to make it public, fanning the flames and reinforcing her own narrative of gender-based victimhood, while simultaneously casting the website’s emotionally downtrodden community aside as collateral, leaving them entirely at the mercy of her supporters, many of whom are no better than those they rally against so relentlessly. To think that someone that suffers from issues of depression and anxiety could treat fellow sufferers in such a manner for her own gain is entirely deplorable, and while I would never condone anything less than objective, well-reasoned, transparent discussion no matter the issue, I do find it incredibly difficult to drum up a great deal of sympathy for her at this time.

I suppose the point I’m drawing to at this stage is that while I readily concede that Zoe Quinn has been the recipient of some heinous online abuse because of nothing other than the fact that she’s a woman (and that fucking sucks and shouldn’t happen to anyone), there are many, many legitimate reasons to be of the belief than she is a despicable human being that have nothing whatsoever to do with her gender.

I’m going to bullet point a couple other relevant beliefs I currently hold, because, frankly, I had loads of stuff I needed to do this afternoon!

- I feel the idea that the GamerGate movement is overtly misogynistic at heart is one propagated and amplified by the very media sources that stand to benefit from the legitimate concerns it holds being swept under the rug as nothing more than sexist hate-speech, although I’m not suggesting in the slightest that actual misogynists haven’t piggy-backed onto the issue in droves in order to spew their bile, as the movement has, unfortunately, turned out to be a convenient vessel for them.

- I feel like the notion that a lot of men don’t want women to also enjoy the games that they enjoy is a straw-man, and either a completely inaccurate reduction of some other issue, or little more than a fabrication. I’m not sure I’ve seen such feelings made explicit by anyone with an ounce of sincerity, and I would have a strong suspicion that anyone who has done so would have little more to offer on the subject than “because they have cooties”. Perhaps it’s the issue of games having to chance to accommodate more people? If people have legitimate, non-hate-fuelled concerns, let’s please treat them with respect and educate them, rather than reducing their lack of understanding to ridicule and misrepresenting them.

- Finally, and I suppose rather significantly, I am not of the belief that the portrayal of women in games is as sexist and destructive as is often made out. Now, I want to qualify that by saying that I don’t often find myself playing high-budget, AAA games these days, where I appreciate that the forces of mass market appeal no doubt play large roles in determining certain aspects of game design, which will undoubtedly include the gender and personality of protagonists (and antagonists, of course). And while that sucks and will inevitably result in the promotion of strong male leads and the relegation to lesser roles of female characters in most cases, I genuinely don’t find that the issue propagates throughout games as an entire medium, and is generally only particularly prevalent in that small handful of massive, multi-million dollar titles we get during any given year. A quick at my Steam library, for instance, tells me that of the 42 games I currently have installed, only 6 would have you play as a male character without giving you the option to play as a female instead. I appreciate that that isn’t a particularly significant sample size, but I firmly believe that if you only ever wanted to play games as an awesome female character (and I’m not suggesting at all that the issue merely comes down to that), then there is plenty of scope to do so, and you could no doubt have a great time doing so.

Couple of final thoughts for the time being:

- I hope I’ve made it clear that I have no agenda to push on this issue, and that I’ve remained as impartial and objective as is possible. I’m not out to rustle any feathers, only to perhaps represent where a lot of people opposed to Zoe Quinn and the like (the people whose voices are unfortunately being drowned out by mindless hate) are coming from. I hope I’ve provided something insightful, and hope, in return, to be edified as well, since you guys are capable of looking at this from a different angle than I am.

- I wish we had a better forum for this discussion than Facebook.

- I haven’t used the word “ethics” once. Remarkable.