Feminists do things wrong

We are essentially a social commentary blog. We tend to grab relevant somethings that pass through our individual radar and put them up for discussion. As part of this, I noticed and wrote a quick hit critique of the character profiles listed for an indy game called “Puzzlebots” last Wednesday.

I’ve since had several personally addressed emails from people involved with Puzzlebots, including the game designer, assuring me that the game is not as bad as the product pages sounded to me. I still have not played the game nor spoken to anyone who has, but I hence publicly apologise to the team for analyzing the game without first playing it.

This apology does not, as much as I wish it could, negate the issues I had with the marketing of the game as they were on Wednesday. In my opinion, the marketing text is utterly irrelevant to how the game actually plays since it is supposed to convince me that I want to play it. The marketing is why I wrote the post.

Before I go further, I acknowledge that some of the text that this post now is discussing has changed, but it remains that the grievances I held with the text as it was last Wednesday are real issues that do genuinely deter me personally from choosing to play games.

As I described in an email later last week to Erin, the designer of the game, the primary issue I have with the marketing of the game is how the women characters are described. Women characters are 2 of the 6 humans in the game, which I really like; it is terrific that it is more than a token woman. My joy at this is however destroyed at reading that both women is either the recipient of or holds desire for “The Straight Man’s Gaze“, and that these are features of her character which take up half of her description.

This echos the expectation that an unfortunate number (and vocal minority) of men within the geek communities I frequent (or frequently hear tales of) hold. That expectation is that women partake in the geeky community either because they are looking for husbands” (desire the gaze) or to “make the community sexy” (are decoration to be gazed upon).

And that’s what hurts. We have this game that at a glance looks really awesome. Multiple woman roboteers! Sweet! That means it could really easily pass the bechdel test; it has two actual women who have actually made robots! And… they are given poor descriptions focussing on a man’s desires within a game which had (at the time of posting the quick hit, not any more) a story that posited the question: “Will Zander win the affections of the pretty new scientist?”, and the buzz was killed.

Here is the thing; all the bloggers here at Geek Feminism do actually understand that getting called out on shit really does suck. It is even suckier when you think you are already doing the right thing. The puzzlebots team have done the right thing by avoiding tokenism, and kudos to them for that. But in the same breath they have used typical stereotypedstrong female character” archetypes and scenarios that (unintentionally?) markets the game to heterosexual men.

See, that’s how easy it is to do or say sexist (or other *ist) things; Even a self-identified feminist game designer such as Erin is plenty capable of using tried and triumphed typical archetypes. It certainly does not make her a failure as a gamer or a feminist. However, at some point there really does need to be (at minimum) a recognition that just because the scenarios are common throughout various mediums, it doesn’t change how much repeating them impacts on the perceptions of women’s roles in geeklands and especially in STEM based fields.

The members of the Geek Feminism blog community call each other out all the time for anything ranging from classism to actual real genuine sexism itself. We call each other out because we fuck up too, and when we fuck up we accept it. We accept our fuck ups and learn from them because we realize that Feminism, it turns out, is really quite hard.

Feminism is so deity forsaken hard, and if it was not so hard, then it would be so over already. But no matter how easy it is for even us to fall for the trappings of the internalized sexism each and every single one of us has, letting something you notice pass by is still tacit support for that stance, and not calling that shit out because it is probably a genuine mistake sucks even more in the long run. For everyone.

Commenting note: We have a comment policy here which means we will delete comments which are anti-feminist, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate at our sole discretion. Now you know.

But we’re not like that!

You might have noticed — I’ve made the jump from recidivist guest blogger to regular this week. This transition is beside the point, but it is related to this post as my second guest article garnered a trackback that mused:

One point I didn’t see emphasized in her post is that the high turn off might make it difficult not just to rerecruit from the pool of the alienated, but also to recruit fresh people.

It is a good point.

As demonstrated by community projects such as Dreamwidth and Archive of Our Own, how you start out is really important to how your community will grow. If you start out with a particular contributor balance, you’ll probably remain that way.

Compare the Dreamwidth and AO3 developer communities to almost every other open source project ever, and you’ll notice the difference in social dynamic. This really isn’t accidental. For example, Dreamwidth has a diversity policy where it explicitly acknowledges shortcomings elsewhere, and pledges that it will actively endeavour to avoid them. And they stick to it.

Think of being a minority in such a community in terms of going to a sports game where the opponents to your favourite side are the ones with the home ground advantage. In a Red crowd, you would be one of very few one clad in Blue. It is going to be uncomfortable.

What would make it even more uncomfortable is if the law enforcement or government of Redville are known to do nothing about incidents that happen to Blue fans in their jurisdiction. If there is demonstrated history of Blue fans receiving responses such as “Grow a thicker skin!” or “Redville folk will be Redville folk! It’s all a joke! Get over it!” then they’re not going to feel like they have recourse. In fact, Blue fans who have never even been to Redville will likely opt to watch the game on TV back in Bluetown instead.

The news programs in Bluetown might discuss the situation, as news agencies tend to do for things relevant to their audience. One might expect Redville officials to backlash with “You shouldn’t talk about how our citizens abuse yours, because it will stop Bluetown folk from coming to our shops and giving us their money! It’s all your fault for talking about it!”.

How much cred does that sort of response really hold?

This is what happens when a community is unwelcoming or hostile to a group. It’s not their fault the community is like that to them. However, pretending the community was never like that is not going to cut it with those on the outside looking in. No matter how hard a community tries to cover it up, community fringe-riders are going to notice — and what they’re most likely to notice is the cover-up.

There are only so many times the “we’ve changed!” card can be played (No, fo’realz! We promise it’s not like last time we promised, really it’s not!). And to be quite frank; nobody is obliged to believe it.