The other day I got an email from an Escapist reader who had “written an article about my article,” a somewhat amusing rant in response to my “Women Monsters and Monstrous Women” piece that, like many others, raised a heated WTF?
It’s not the first time or, I’m sure, the last, that someone has had a violent reaction to the things I write. But when I get responses like this it does always make me wonder what things would be like if I were a man instead of a woman, if there was a sauve, macho name behind my articles instead of a cutesy, Jewish one.
Would my ideas be more often respected and less often branded “feminist”? Would male readers give my points more consideration on the grounds that we would already share something in common? Or would my comments, coming from the mouth of a man, seem sex-obsessed and strange (not that they don’t sound that way already)?
Of course, the obvious argument is that I wouldn’t have the same things to say if I were, in fact, a man. As for a pen name… There are so few women gamer writers out there as it is, should those numbers be cut down by one? But it is tempting, in theory at least, to run a test and write something twice — once under my own name, once under a man’s — and see what the difference would really be.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I dunno, Bonnie: I suspect if you were a weak pretty boy, he’d be just as vexed with your article. :-)
It’s hard to say how much the writer’s gender - or age, or race, or anything else - influences the way a reader responds to his or her work. Too many variables at play to come up with a hard and fast rule, IMHO: it varies by writer, reader, and topic. Though the general rule of thumb most people seem to use is: is the writer speaking about something with which they have personal experience; and if not, does that make their assertions any less valid? E.g., is a female writer inherently better at writing about women’s issues than a male writer? Can a white writer never understand racism as well as a black or Asian or Arabic or Hispanic writer?
In your case: well, you obviously focus a lot on issues of gender and sexuality in gaming; and you write from what seems to me to clearly be a feminist-criticism perspective (though not in a knee-jerk sort of way). If you had used some sort of pen name, I think I would still be able to guess you were female. But I try not to let that knowledge influence how I read your work - though obviously, not everyone is going to be so egalitarian.
In my case, I generally try to come up with gender-neutral handles to use for my online scribblings. And while I don’t really try to hide my gender (or age or ethnicity or anything else), I don’t see it as relevant to what I’m writing 95% of the time, either, so I don’t make a big deal out of it.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:41 am
ÃOE would say that the “Women in games need to be monsters to be truly women and free” argument, wouldn’t go down so well if the writer was a man instead of woman - for me that would seem like butting in on an internal matter. Sure men can of course discuss female gender roles, but saying that they need to be monsters to truly be free in games seems wrong on so many levels that my internal PC alert goes beyond Red and into Ultraviolet.
As for being “feminist”, well, you did say that the only “true” role in games for women are the role of monster. In my book the definition of “monster” have no positive or redeeming qualities, they are beasts, or human beasts, that need to be pacified (locked up etc.) or destroyed, least they destroy me or others. Monsters are also quite often aggressive, filled with destructive rage, that they dish out to their environment, striking at whatever’s in their reach (not much room for interaction there for gamers IMO).
Some people, though not me, might find the last bit sometimes fitting of the stereotype angry, to times masculine, feminist,who sees penis symbols everywhere she goes, denounces everything as male-o-centric, and hates men no matter what.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
But when I get responses like this it does always make me wonder what things would be like if I were a man instead of a woman, if there was a sauve, macho name behind my articles instead of a cutesy, Jewish one. — Would my ideas be more often respected and less often branded "feminist"?
I’d still call you fuckin’ nuts, penis or no. If shit is shit, I’ll call it out, I don’t care who’s behind it.
And BTW, thanks for the backhand to all of us male writers, as you’ve pretty much just stated that we can write shit and hide behind our penises. Get over yourself and walk it off if you plan on keeping up your current line of writing, else come up with more balanced theories, or quit writing and try something less confrontational. But don’t you fuckin’ dare try to play the gender card on this.
You put it out controversial ideas out there, and then you respond like you don’t fucking expect replies that are just as off the deep end as your original subject. Might I remind you of your All Male Gamers like Anal article? You couldn’t possibly expect otherwise, and if you do, I honestly pity your nieveity. You put yourself in this position, and if you think anyone is gonna go “She has a vagina! She must be stopped!”, then you are fucking fooling yourself.
No one (that matters) cares that you’re female. If you want to throw that in front of your words, fine. But then no one that matters will care about your words.
But it is tempting, in theory at least, to run a test and write something twice "” once under my own name, once under a man's "” and see what the difference would really be.
Other than the fact that you’ve ruined the double-blindness of the test by saying that.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Whoa, dude. You seriously need to chill out.
Where is she saying that guys can write shit and hide behind their penises? I thought she was saying that guys might be able to write about sex stuff in games and not have it labeled “feminist,” which, if you think about it, kinda makes sense.
Seriously, though. Take a breather, or something.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Well, I think it is safe to say that qDot has some issues. Maybe he has read one too many studies about playing GTA and violence.
Seriously though, you should just keep on doing what you are doing because the fact of the matter is as a gaming culture we are in dire need of people who look at the culture critically and with differing perspectives. Were you a man, you would catch different kinds of flack for saying the things you say and thats the truth.
Plus, naivete is spelled like that qDot. although it does have an umlaut kinda thing over the i which I can’t do.
April 13th, 2006 at 2:43 am
Whoa, dude. You seriously need to chill out.
Well, I think it is safe to say that qDot has some issues.
Thank you, Kiliminjaro and Devon.
qDot, may I ask, what exactly has gotten into you? Not that this is a conversation I really want to have out in public, but since you started it, I’m curious: What turned a friendly, open-minded fellow sex writer into a snarling jerk?
And BTW, thanks for the backhand to all of us male writers, as you've pretty much just stated that we can write shit and hide behind our penises.
Nobody’s saying that but you. It’s a well-documented fact that women who write opinionated stuff (columns, scholarly essays, articles) often receive very different reactions than men. And since the video game world is still very male-dominated, it seemed logical that the same might apply here.
Other than the fact that you've ruined the double-blindness of the test by saying that.
You understand what “in theory” means?
As for all gamers liking anal… I think you need to read that post again.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Maybe some people will react to you because you’re a woman or Jewish, but guys get shit online too. One feminist blogger, Lake Desire, criticizes the titles in the Escapist before she even reads the articles …
But I also wonder if the subtext of your post is really, “Hey, look - I got a reaction!”
April 13th, 2006 at 9:14 am
But I also wonder if the subtext of your post is really, "Hey, look - I got a reaction!"
Oh, no. I mean, I wish. I’ve gotten more flack for this piece than any other, and I’m quite sick of the whole ordeal myself. Sorry if it came off that way.
Guys get shit online too
Good point. I didn’t mean I wouldn’t get shit, I just wonder how/if the shit would be different.
April 13th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Just wanted to point out to turkey that Lake Desire does read the articles she talks about, and does a great job deconstructing them over at her blog, New Game Plus.
It’s weird that you caught so much flack for this particular article. I read it and thought it was really interesting–I was surprised when it attracted so much controversy. (Especially when it appeared in the same issue as the infamous Chris Crawford article.)
April 13th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
As a reader of yours I’m not too surprised when you post your opinions on women’s roles, or how it would be great to have to save the male NPC once in a while (weak males don’t equal gay as he suggested), or even when you go all Freudian and make a sexual link to zombies wanting to devour our flesh. I’ve come to expect certain things from your writing, and although I’m a female gamer, and I respect your opinions, I don’t always take them too seriously.
Because this person wrote a rant about your Escapist article, I went back and read the entire piece, and then read his rant. I was really surprised that he seemed so offended by certain points you made. Doesn’t he realize that most gaming culture articles are opinion pieces? Sure you present some interesting food for thought, and sometimes you make an association I never would have thought of (yay for female villans), but it’s still just your opinion. Nothing life altering. I’m confused about why this person, and perhaps others, are getting so offended.
And for anyone who doesn’t think so, the sex of the author does make a difference when reading something, whether consciously or unconsciously on the part of the reader. Why do you think women writers (even to this day!) have used male pen names when writing about certain subjects, or just writing at all. They want to be taken seriously, and sometimes women authors feel that writing as a man is the only way that will happen. I agree that sometimes (unfortunately) that is the case. When men write pro-female things they are said to be modern, or forward thinkers, or revolutionary, but when women write them they are accused of being feminazis. Women are treated negatively because they are proud of their sex. Isn’t that pathetic?
… I kind of ranted there at the end, sorry Bonnie.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Sorry I must make a correction lest I be flamed: I realize that he didn’t actually say that a weak male NPC who cant protect himself is gay, however he did use the term “pretty-boy”. Anyway, I’d like to see if he’s the kind of man who knows how to “defend himself against an onslaught of undead minions” if they were to actually come banging on his door.
April 14th, 2006 at 3:40 am
I'm confused about why this person, and perhaps others, are getting so offended.
I think the thing with that piece is that it doesn’t fit easily into one existing school on thought the issue, so it’s very hard for readers to cubby-hole it and walk away. It’s too pro-female power for men, and too non-traditional feminism for most women. Needless to say, the people it does jibe with have had very positive reactions. And for those others… well, it has ruffled feathers.
And for anyone who doesn't think so, the sex of the author does make a difference when reading something, whether consciously or unconsciously on the part of the reader. Why do you think women writers (even to this day!) have used male pen names when writing about certain subjects, or just writing at all.
Thank you! In our culture, men are the norm, women are the marked others. If a man writes something, it’s just something; if a woman writes something, it’s something written by a woman. The gender of the writer impacts the way we read…
April 14th, 2006 at 10:06 am
In our culture, men are the norm, women are the marked others.
Don’t know if I’d put it that way myself actually.
Let’s take a detour via Neil Gaiman’ blog to look at this Chales Adams illustration.
Remember when I told you women were “the chief medium of society, in every sense of the word” ? Well I think Adams got it right, here. You could also use classic japanese woodblock prints as a good exemple, where men may have been differenciated if importants, but women hardly ever were (at least as far as I can remember, but I’m sure an expert could draw some counter exemples… just not enough to undo my case), the point being that women are expected to be the normative force… which is why society is so often ruthlessly pressuring them from being different.
It’s just a matter of rôle distribution I guess. The slowly develloped concept of “male domination” only got one interest: it ensures that males are as productive as females in the human species, which gives it an edge other most others.
Women were forced into the normative/apparently submissive role because they were already paying most in term of reproduction/upkeep. Men ended up into the differentiating/apparently domineering one because, then, it allowed for male competition to be turned into profit instead of loss (just compare with other species).
I think feminism is a product of capitalism. The old model no longer is the most productive one in richest societies, where it would be more profitable to actually maximize all workforce toward capital creation instead of reproduction.
Well… anyway that, in short, is were I’ve been getting at with my latest model.
Hope I’m making sense.
April 16th, 2006 at 8:44 am
No worries, you make sense. I think it’s just a different way to approach the same issue. You say women aren’t innovators because of the role dictated to them by their end of the reproductive deal; I say it has to do with the dominant power structure and fear of upheaval. Of course, those two things are related in a number of ways…
April 18th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Yup Bonnie. Strange how we’re actually aiming for the very same meaning by actually saying opposite things (if I understood right).
Which says a lot about how our respective formulations still need to be reworked. :)
April 19th, 2006 at 7:00 am
Which says a lot about how our respective formulations still need to be reworked.
Or maybe it just says a lot about the multi-faceted nature of truth. You know, whatever.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Or maybe it just says a lot about the multi-faceted nature of truth. You know, whatever
Naaaaah… not that !
How am I to fuel my masochistic “Woe work is such a hard burden but one has to do his share” persona’s drive with such arguments ? ;)
April 19th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Perhaps I was a little too obtuse in my original article (in response to yours). I think I went a little overboard on the humour and the key points were left behind.
First, let’s get past what I’m offended at: I’m actually not quite offended at the article, and I’m not offended at the opinion. The problem I’m having is that articles usually prompt some sort of action. It could’ve been a “come on girls, let’s build our own game and show those men etc. etc.”, which I’m all for. But this was talking about positive female rolemodels in gaming. I thought this might be a good article for my male-centric mind to get around in case I was ever in a position to make a game. The problem I had was the article was all to confounding, and seemed to suggest contradictory things.
Incidentally, I think other people had problems with your article because it was right after Chris Crawford. He yanks one way, and you yank the other. For a guy just trying to understand the plight of the female gamer, it’s very confusing.
The biggest issue I had was that you couldn’t successfully de-throne Jill Valentine as a decent female role-model, in my eyes. I mean, isn’t she exactly what women have been talking about all this time? I mean, think about how a guy feels when a girl gamer says “Jill would’ve been a great role model, but because you’re checking out her arse she’s really just a plaything for your sick, twisted mind.”
The worst thing is that you then go on to say that the monsters are better because they have sexual energy. So now the guy (in this case me) is not only insulted, but confused. I mean, can I make a heroine you would like, at all? What’s this positive rolemodel actually like, anyway? I mean, does she have to be ugly or is it about protecting a weak man? Because Jill Valentine does hurt strong men (zombies).
Now for my hypothesis:
The thing about this whole femo-nazi crap is that you play victim, a lot. “I’m a woman, and a Jew.” I doubt you could write an article as a man because then you wouldn’t be the victim anymore. The truth is your opinion is probably respected more because you’re a woman.
For example, I actually initially thought Chris’ article was written by a woman, and I actually gave it some weight, but then I realised it was written by a retard. Guys always pull their punches with girls but they’re very “no quarter” with other guys.
So, if you are in fact interested, please write an article as a guy and a girl and see the responses you get. I’d like to be proven wrong in my hypothesis.
April 20th, 2006 at 6:35 am
The thing about this whole femo-nazi crap is that you play victim, a lot. "I'm a woman, and a Jew." I doubt you could write an article as a man because then you wouldn't be the victim anymore.
Okay, let’s take this apart bit by bit. First of all, I don’t understand the femo-nazi reference. Second of all, when do I play the victim? I mentioned that my name marks me as both female and Jewish - two things that people could most definitely (for better or for worse) see in advance and use to create a certain expectation for my writing. It’s very hard for a woman writer to just be a writer; it’s very hard for a Jewish writer to just be a writer. People read things into their work. None of which makes me a victim - it makes me subject of social conditions. I’m not saying “Oh, it’s not fair.” I’m saying, “I wonder how these markers in my name effect the way my work is read.”
The truth is your opinion is probably respected more because you're a woman.
This, on the other hand, may be a valid point. I hadn’t really thought of it that way; thanks for bringing it up. But I’ll stress again that my original intent wasn’t to say “I’m being treated so badly now,” only, “How would things be different if I were writing as a man?”
Maybe that’s where the “femo-nazism” comes in — your own expectations.
April 21st, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Sorry, misinterpretation on my part. I guess your stuff sounds so feminist I sometimes react before I think it out fully. The implication I picked up from “my name marks me as both female and jewish” was that you were somehow “a marked jewish woman”, so a martyr at least, if not a victim. I mean, sure people have expectations of you, but people have expectations of near on everyone. I don’t think people would read your work any differently. Hell, I didn’t even know you were jewish until you mentioned it.
The reason for reading your work differently as a woman is that the article (and a lot of articles you write) is about being a woman, and about sexuality, and there’s a huge difference between how a guy would write about that and how a girl would write about that. You might just come off sounding gay, or as someone with no credibility as a woman (because you aren’t named as one).
I read that being a woman and a jew is “a bad thing”, and being a man and not a jew is “a good thing”. Instead you were saying “I wonder how these markers in my name effect the way my work is read”, which is great, because then it’s my fault that I read the markers as being charged with some sort of assumed prejudice on my part.
As for the femo-nazi reference, I take it back. I was trying to hit a point which was neither relevant or one I actually made with any success. (Incidentally, it was about the passive aggressive way feminists use their victim position to take shots at men. Anyway, it’s a moot point).