Extremists

So my last blog has gotten me a few replies via mail , some discussions at work and an interesting discussion on facebook. Interestingly most responses actually did not involve a discussion on Objectification or try to counter any of my arguments in that regard. Most responses were related more to me apparently being against feminism and pro-exploitation of women. People seemed to think that because i did not agree with the sticker on the ad in question, i must be against equality and against “the norm” becoming better.

It’s really prompted me to think about this some more and perhaps clarify a few points. Whenever it comes to discussions on topics such as these,  topics that people are passionate about and have strong feelings on, it can be a bit tricky to properly express a view. I certainly did not want to step on people’s toes, or convey the idea that I don’t care what other people think. Nor am i against equality or against change on how human beings (men and women) are depicted in the media. I expressed my view on things and at the same time wanted to make sure that even if the current climate might scorn my view, I am sticking to it.

So to clarify I figured I’d do another post. You see I have no problem at all with feminism, and (as mentioned before) I am absolutely for equality (in all areas). Same as I have no problem with religion in it’s basic form for example. I have a problem with extremism, regardless if that is extreme feminism, religion or environmentalism.  And i have a problem with extremists on both sides – pro and con. I consider myself a liberal-moderate. The post below is primarily focused on feminism/sexism and gaming, but i feel the same about any kind of extremism really, so it also applies to religious fanatics, eco-terrorists etc.

Extremists

Let’s take games, because this is above all a games and development related blog. On the one hand you have people like Anita Sarkeesian and her staunch followers who think the majority of games have sexist content and that content exploits women and portrays women as objects (simplified for arguments sake). On the other hand you have people (mostly male gamers, but not exclusively so) who think it’s absolutely fine how all women are portrayed in games and who think Anita and others will ruin gaming for everyone, forever, incidentally the same people who continue to harass and bully her and others (again simplified for arguments sake).

Neither side is right. Both sides bring forth valid arguments at times, but it is their extremism which blinds them to reality. And on both sides you have people who simply like to stir the shit, get attention and potentially benefit financially from it.

Anita Sarkeesian does have some valid points, she has done some good research after all. Some of the examples she lists in her videos really do show a blatant disregard for women (GTA among others) and those games can and should act as examples on what not to do. But at the same time she lists a lot of games which, at least in my opinion, don’t do anything wrong, or at the very least where it is really up to interpretation by the player. I have given a lot of examples of that in an open letter to her and a few other posts since; you can read that if you are interested.

I think she, as well as those that hang on her every word, go too far though, often without realizing the context, development process, design intent or implications. In my opinion (and please do realize that all of this is really just that: my opinion) every artistic creation (including games) can be interpreted in many different ways. Extremists like to take things out of context and are very selective in what they present, while at the same time generalizing and making it appear an issue is widespread.

If the reviewer’s intent is to find sexism, it can of course be found; everything can be interpreted and manipulated to suit a view. Just read through this article were Kat Bailey links an element in the game to rape. The intention of the developer was clearly different that her interpretation and Kat jumps to a conclusion based on her view, based on what she wants to find. Here is a more realistic view on the same game (including some tweets from another reviewer, looking at the same build).

Miss Bailey goes in with a certain mindset and of course she finds what she is looking for. She looks at a scene, presents it out of context and makes it suit her needs. Those of us who don’t constantly see rape, murder and sexism around every corner and behind every word, look at things the way they really are. I would argue that the majority of people who play this game won’t think about a rape connection, will not get an idea that it’s ok to rape a young woman and then proceed onto the streets to re-enact what they saw on in the game. That’s just a guess though.

In this sense I think Sarkeesian and her followers are actually doing more harm than good to the industry (no they are not going to ruin games for everyone, forever). She has gotten a lot of media exposure, particularly in the games media, and in the last year I have seen many many reviews and articles on games, pointing to sexism that either was not present, or was at worst perceived by the reviewer in question. Objectivity went out the window (not that gaming press had much objectivity to begin with, but that’s another story). The sexism/feminism bandwagon has rolled in. Riding the wave of a currently popular topic, and thus gaining attention and exposure, articles and reviews analyzing games with a view to find and report sexism, popped up like mushrooms. Nothing can be viewed anymore “as is” – everything has to be analyzed to see where a potential, tentative, link can be made to sexism.

And this is having an effect, but not necessarily one that is good. I wonder how many games are currently being re-worked, touched up and re-written because some panicked CEO or marketing guy fear that an extreme feminist reviewer might slate the game and generate negative press. Sarkeesian supporters will no doubt say “but surely that’s a good thing if there was sexist content in it!” – well yes, in theory. But what if there was no actual sexist content in it? What if the intention and actual portrayal of a scene is more akin to the Castlevania example, but people are overreacting and censoring just to avoid POTENTIAL bad press? This then changes the vision, it changes what people really want to create, only to be more politically correct and avoid negative press from extremist sides.  It removes the creative freedom we must have in the industry.

It is, in the end, down to the gamer. Some people play games and think nothing of the content, others feel disturbed and perceive elements they dislike. It does not matter, in the end, if the perceptions are correct or not, it’s enough that there are perceptions. We are not perfect in the industry. Hundreds of people working on a game. There are cases where some individuals with a far more liberal view (or in some cases a more disturbed mind), create content others might find (perhaps just vaguely) offensive. There are things we can do better and there are things we must do better.

I strongly feel that change must come from within. I strongly feel that we must look at games like GTA and others that clearly do have sexist content and we must take them as examples and change things. We must make sure that all game characters are created as characters first and foremost, that they have meaning (where applicable depending on game type) and that we portray them fair, regardless of gender, color of the skin, religious affiliation or sexual preference. In short: we must treat game characters the same way as we treat other human beings, or how we should treat other human beings.

Because obviously we don’t always do, do we? Sarkeesian and Co are extremists on their end. But there are of course extremists on the other end as well. There are those who cannot or won’t treat human beings with the respect and dignity they deserve. There are those who threaten and bully people like Sarkeesian. And this behavior only fuels the fire, because they themselves are the very examples Sarkeesian and Co can use in their arguments in turn, keeping the wheel ever spinning.

So in my opinion the problem really comes from the extremists, those people who feel the need to enforce their view on things onto others, and going to great lengths (even threats, defacing and destruction of public or personal property and even acts of violence) to make their point. But most of these people are extremely narrow-minded; they only see their side of the story. They twist and turn every element of a story to fit their needs and make it fit their worldview.  They cry in outrage when something goes against their view, spouting angry comments (and the internet is a great place for that). Even a comment heard in passing, on an elevator or subway, not even directed at them, can get their blood rushing – and minutes later the world will know.

They are a small percentage of the population, they sit on the fringe, yet they often get far more attention than should be warranted. The average human being is far more objective and can logically look at each issue independently and objectively. The average human being can make up their own mind, and does not need an extremist (from any side) to come to a conclusion.

In the long run our games will evolve; some great games will lead by example (and already are). The average gamer will purchase these games, the market will respond and more good games will be made. Design will evolve to take note of the shift in gamer demographic. We don’t need people from the outside (often with no clue about game development) to tell us how to make games and what content to put in. We don’t need extremists from either side to tell us what we need to do, and how we should do it.

A friend of mine raised a good parallel argument using environmental issues. I am quite green minded and he said “But surely you want everyone to be more mindful of the environment?”  To follow that line of thought I would argue that  eco terrorism (i.e. occupying a power plant, breaking in, blowing stuff up), while gaining a lot of short term media attention, does little in the long run to change people’s mind. What does change people’s mind is someone leading by example. Live a normal life, use energy conserving light bulbs, recycle, buy local food, things like that – show people that your lifestyle is great and best of all you save money over time. You will find more people will come around through that.

Extremists really are people we should feel sorry for. Their outbursts are a cry for attention, a cry for help, often for very real personal issues. And while they might, at least short term, gain media traction, in the long run they will not convert a lot of others, and it will still (usually) leave extremists angry and dissatisfied, with the same issues they had before. We should pity them really. Extremists can’t actually enjoy life. They can’t go open through life and meet people. When they meet someone they will inevitably categorize them: With me or against me? And woe to those that are against them. They will even turn on each other, as Erin Pizzey can probably talk about – one of the earliest active feminists in modern times and largely responsible for creating women’s shelters for domestic abuse. She later created a shelter for men and promptly started to receive death threats from feminist extremists. Violence, or the threat of violence, is not restricted to just one side. Both extreme sides of any argument are the same. They use the same tactics, they use the same methods. They are all hypocrites.

In the long run we have to ensure that every person on this planet is treated equally. We have to convince 7 billion people that this is the right way forward. That treating others with respect and dignity is the only way to go. This includes giving others the space to express themselves however they want, as long as no laws are broken and nobody is harmed. This is slow work. Change is always slow. And it has to come from the inside. The problem with extremists is that they want change, change to their point of view, immediately. And they are not afraid of going to extreme lengths, using extreme methods, to achieve that change. Extremists can not live and let live. This, of course, includes extremists on all sides. They have the same rights as everyone else. They should be treated as everyone else. Their freedom includes the freedom of speech. But it is important, though unrealistic, that they learn to extend those same rights to others as well – even to those they disagree with and often hate. I am not saying that extremists are wrong and should be shut up or locked up. I am saying that extremists, while often coming from a great ideal and having some great arguments, use often deplorable methods and tactics in an attempt to silence opposition and would would gladly deny their opposition rights they want for themselves. Essentially they want their cake and eat it. 

To all extremists: try to focus on the real issues, when people are mistreated, when people are abused, when people are not treated with respect and dignity. But check the facts. Is this really the case or do you only perceive it to be the case, based on your view of the world. Don’t force your views on others.

In closing: as always i invite debate and discussion. I would ask you do it on this site, though of course twitter and facebook is fine – just not everyone will see the responses. As always: keep it civil.