
Shock. Frustration. Anger. Despair.
Before last week, these are words I never would have connected to my experience with World of Matticus, either as a writer or a reader. However, last week Lodur’s article on guild Egoists just left me cold. I’ve invoked these four words to let you the readers know what powerful effect such things can have, in the short term at least. Over the weekend I did a lot of reading and a lot of thinking, and I think I’m finally ready to explain why a recitation of stereotypes about women disturbed me so much. First of all, I would like to say that I mean Lodur no disrespect. I am quite sure that his intentions were good, and in his own mind, his article is not even about women.
This piece is my attempt to explain why these stereotypes can never be gender neutral, and also why they are so harmful. I will say that even in the places where Lodur claims that the stereotypes could apply to men or women, it is “feminine” behavior that he abhors. Mischief is caused either by women acting like women or men who, aberrantly, act like women. These negative stereotypes are, at their core, the narratives by which male gamers understand their experience of female gamers. They act as framing devices, informing all interactions with “real” women gamers. For this reason, the female gamer has to earn the grudging respect of her fellow players, while a male gamer may start out with a measure of respect and either keep it or lose it by his behavior.
We’ve Heard It All Before
When I read Lodur’s article, it struck me as eerily familiar. I’ve seen much the same recitation of feminine sins on the WoW forums, usually as a justification for excluding women from raiding guilds. Archetypes, or stereotypes, help people quickly make sense of the world according to pre-determined building blocks. Moreover, they are are seductive because they are impossible to disprove–everyone can think of some story that corresponds in some vague way to the type, and as far as most people are concerned, one example is sufficient to prove the rule. Moreover, they carry the weight of repetition. The Princess, the Diva, the Vixen, and the She-Wolf (or, if you like, the Femme Fatale) exist outside the world of MMOs. I am just as likely to see women called “Princesses” on Perez Hilton or the WE network as on the WoW forums. It doesn’t surprise me that all four terms are misogynist in origin: the stereotypes are very old, and they certainly pre-date the feminist movement of the 20th century.
Most intelligent people will agree that negative stereotypes don’t apply to everyone, but there’s usually the sense that they apply to most people in a given category. I challenge that notion. Stereotypes are convenient. They offer an easy framework. It’s possible to act them out, and it’s possible to interpret people’s actions according to them–but that does not make stereotypes just or accurate, not for anyone.
In this article, I’m going to go through each of these four types and explain how, in my limited personal experience, I’ve seen them used to restrict or punish female gamers. I want to recognize the power that these stereotypes have as a lens for understanding the gaming world. At the end of the article, I will draw some conclusions about online feminism and offer some suggestions on how players–both male and female–can work to establish equality in the virtual world. In this article, I’m not arguing for replacing Lodur’s terms with gender-neutral “PC” phrasing. Instead, I encourage people to discard stereotypes altogether–both their names and their content–and undertake the far more difficult task of addressing every situation in all its messy specificity.
The Princess
Calling someone a “princess” implies that she is selfish, entitled, and weak. Storybook princesses like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White need a man’s help to fully realize their life goals. Princesses don’t slay dragons–they get eaten by them. Remember Princess Peach from the Super Mario Brothers game? She’s an aloof, ungrateful brat who skips off to another castle the moment her brave hero unlocks her cage. My father, incidentally, calls me Princess when he wants to piss me off, especially if I’ve tried to borrow money. The very essence of the Princess is that she wants something for nothing, and she doesn’t want to say thank you. In Lodur’s article, he tries to explain how a Princess can be a man or a woman, but I don’t buy it. The Princess’s narrative is too coded in our culture as a woman’s story. The closest I can think of to the Princess stereotype for a man would be calling a gay man a “Queen”–but that means something quite different. It does strike me, writing this article, that women gamers face many of the same prejudices applied to gay male gamers, but that would be a topic for a different article. The Princess Gamer, as it were, is not very good at her chosen game. She’s nice and sweet, even “attractive,” if such can be said of a virtual personality, but she’s not capable of earning her place in a raid. She may be the significant other of a “real” raider–a sort of rider on his contract. Single or attached, the princess always needs someone to rescue her from her own inability to earn DKP!
My experience in WoW extends to three raiding guilds, one casual-raiding, one fairly serious guild, and one hardcore guild. In all three environments I have played with other women. Some of them were better-than-average, and some were worse. I can say with perfect confidence that my own skills are sufficient for a good raiding guild. I’m also not afraid to admit that several of the women I’ve played with were better than me! What I’ve never experienced, however, is a woman receiving preferential treatment despite poor play. Each guild had at least one woman officer, and in all three guilds, women received high-end loot. However, no one got more than her share. In fact, most of the women I knew received less than their male counterparts of similar skill and attendance. I’ve only seen one woman who managed to close this gap, truly getting an equal portion from the Loot Council without incurring any resentment in the process. She’s an excellent player who has never, ever talked on vent–the only way out of the Princess stereotype, it seems, is to effectively hide one’s gender. The shadow of the Princess haunts all women players who are “out” as women, and women raiders come under heavy scrutiny. In my recent experience, one woman player’s initiation period was extended far beyond what it should have been, just in case she made some mistakes down the line. When a woman is married to or dating another raider, she becomes doubly suspect. The assumption usually is that she plays only as a favor to her man, and that she sucks at the game. I’ll tell you now that my fiancé and I are a gaming couple, but good as he is, he follows me from guild to guild, not the other way around! However, people usually assume the opposite to be true.
The Diva
This idea brings me to the next stereotype, the Diva or Prima Donna, who by her very nature, wants everything. Unlike the Princess, the Diva gamer is actually a good player. The Diva is not like other women–she’s exceptional. The guild needs her, and she knows it. She makes ridiculous demands, and the rules don’t apply to her. Her attendance will be terrible, but she’ll expect the guild to save her a spot just in case she shows. Even if she has no DKP, she’ll expect people to pass her loot because, well, she’s the best. If there’s a new guild policy, she’ll certainly take offense to it. Unlike the Princess, who can be meek and beguiling, the Diva just can’t shut up. She always has an opinion, and she screams it from the mountaintop. Regarding the question of gender neutrality, I have, in fact, seen the terms Diva and Prima Donna applied to men, usually gay men. The implication of using the terms is that the man in question is behaving like a woman, and that such behavior is reprehensible. Even this category, which is the most applicable to men of all Lodur’s terms, never rises above is misogynist origins.
Every guild mistress or female guild officer confronts this stereotype at some point. I’ve been an officer in three guilds now, and I’m also a feminist. That means I rub elbows with the Diva stereotype any time I express my opinion. I am a thinking person, and I don’t lack for opinions. I’m not always right, of course, but I feel strongly about many things. I am quite capable of going on crusade if I feel that fairness is on the line. My point is that outspoken women incur risks in guilds that outspoken men do not. There’s a sense, especially in very hierarchical guilds, that not everyone has a right to an opinion. I’ve gotten more careful on this point over my years of gaming, and it sort of saddens me that I have done so. I’ve actually turned my mic off during raids to keep myself from speaking!
Lodur incorrectly connects up the word “virago” to vixen in his article, but I find it much more proper to give it a treatment under the diva category. A virago is a manly woman–a woman who looks, acts, or thinks like a man. The assumption is that “manly” behaviors like playing well, expressing one’s opinion, and getting angry are somehow unnatural in a woman. I’ve seen women respond in various ways to this idea, but most follow one of two patterns. Women seem to either embrace “masculine” behaviors or else over-perform “feminine” ones. In my former guild, an excellent female healer played two male toons and dissociated herself from all the other women raiders in an attempt to be “one of the guys.” She even named her main character after a beer! What she was doing, essentially, was getting herself out of the diva stereotype by embracing the virago. In my case, I’m always more likely to make a performance of my gender in ways that display to the guild. I collect cute pets, and I display them proudly in raids. I change my hairstyle often, and I comment on others’ trips to the barber shop. I talk about kittens, rainbows, and unicorns in guild chat. This assault of cute is, I think, meant to reassure my guild that I am, in fact, a “real” woman with a soft side, and not a heartless bitch. Both responses to the diva stereotype ring false to me–I suspect that neither represents the real player’s personality.
The Vixen, the She-Wolf, and the Bitch
I’ve deviated from Lodur’s formulation here in order to combine a group of like stereotypes. Each word refers to a female animal, and all three terms have to do with women’s sexuality. The Vixen is the seductress, the She-Wolf the deceiver, and the Bitch the punisher of men. I’ll invoke the term Femme Fatale as well here, as that may be a more familiar image for some readers. The Femme Fatale is actually all three of these things, and that’s what makes her so deadly. The animal metaphors I use here imply that women are less than human–they are savage beasts, much to be feared by male gamers. The deep assumption is, of course, that women’s sexuality is by nature deviant or wrong, that all women should be good little prudes. As animal types, these women go about their destructive behaviors without thinking–they are primal forces, out to disturb the happy homosocial world of male gamers.
Lodur uses the “Vixen” as the archetype of a seductress. This woman uses her sexuality to get what she wants or needs. The innuendos fly thick and fast, and she’s able to keep a straight face as her male “victim” blushes. What does she want? It’s not entirely clear. She may just be lonely, and those late-night tête-à -têtes on vent might be her most meaningful connection to another person. What is clear, however, is that any romance with a Vixen is doomed. It most definitely will not work out in the end–the motif is a tragic one. Most guilds don’t really appreciate star-crossed love affairs among their raiders! To the patriarchal raiding guild, mixing feelings with progress is a threat indeed.
As for the She-Wolf, she’s an animal of a different sort. While the Vixen might be seen as needy or lonely, the Wolf is a predator. She’s crafty and devious, taking advantage of “innocent” men. Lodur applies this term almost exclusively to men who pretend to be women in-game in order to enthrall their fellows into giving them gold or items. The Wolf uses her sexuality as a weapon, and her tools are morally suspect–racy whispers filled with innuendo, even cyber sex. It’s an equivalent to online prostitution, and I have no doubt that there are in fact some real cases of such behavior. What’s less clear to me is how typical these cases are, as I’ve never witnessed one or heard of one from a reliable witness.
The Bitch, on the other hand, is the logical endpoint of all the animal archetypes. The Bitch is the female version of the Grim Reaper. She is out-and-out hostile towards men and has very little use for them. She lives to wreak havoc, and she laughs at men’s pain. The fear, of course, is that both the relatively innocuous Vixen and the more sinister Wolf will, at some point, remove the mask and reveal themselves as the Bitch. All of the Femme Fatale types end at the Bitch, unfortunately for everyone.
Of the group of stereotypes I’ve discussed in this article, I find the animal types the most humiliating for women. All of them have something to do with women’s sexuality, and the overwhelming implication is that any invocation of sexuality in an online context has a sinister purpose. That’s fairly ironic, considering that your average male gamer is no prude. Sexual innuendo is a huge part of gamer culture, especially raiding culture, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Some dirty jokes offend me, sure (especially rape jokes, for obvious reasons), but most are innocuous. They are simply the result of putting a mixed group of adults together, encouraging them to have a few beers, and then giving them microphones. As far as online relationships go, in my experience the good outnumber the bad. I’ve known one gaming couple to go on to marry and another to date for more than a year. In both cases, there were no animals involved.
The Truth About Vixens and Bitches
For every feminine stereotype I’ve invoked here, I could probably come up with male ones as well. We could fill the whole barnyard with Pigs, Dogs, and even Teddy Bears, but that wouldn’t be very fair either. The truth is that stereotypes are attractive because they make things easy. They give us a means by which to fit our guildmates into predetermined, simple narratives. Stereotypes break down the mess of reality into easily digestible pieces, but they do not represent that reality fairly or equitably. Real situations are complex, and real personalities defy easy definition. These stereotypes, or cultural types, do in fact come from somewhere, but not from the truth of everyday, ordinary gamer experience. They existed before the invention of the MMO, and they apply much more widely.
Most of these negative female stereotypes hint at, in some oblique way, survival techniques that minorities of different types have used to get ahead in a society that is unfriendly to them. They are, in feminist terms, tricks of the weak–in order words, the most convenient strategies available to disadvantaged groups. They may be present in gaming life because women are truly a minority. I’m not saying these are good techniques to use; rather, I’m pointing out that the stereotypes are exaggerated versions of real phenomena. Even though WoW is famous for attracting women players, in my observation women make up less than 10% of the raiding corps of most serious guilds. As such, women are at a serious disadvantage, and not much can be gained within a guild by the techniques of feminism–solidarity and rational discourse. In order for solidarity to take effect, a woman has to go outside her tiny guild community to form bonds with other female gamers. I would say that the WoW blogosphere provides solidarity for many women bloggers and has the kind of active, intelligent community of men and women needed to carry on rational discourse. Inside the male-dominated micro-community of the raiding guild, many women might choose to play dumb and hope not to be noticed. They might represent themselves as the exception–the one woman who’s not like all the other “bad” ones. They might do what I do, and use unicorns and rainbows to disarm their guildmates before expressing their opinions. They might even flirt with men in their guild! Heavens preserve us from these evil acts. While women might display unwelcome behaviors or even, consciously or unconsciously, perform one of the aforementioned stereotypes, I doubt that there are very many Evil Women Gamers who are out to cause trouble. There is absolutely no reason to exclude women from raiding or from guild leadership. It won’t stop drama–because nothing can.
As I understand it, human beings have a great capacity to do evil–it is perhaps as great even as their capacity to do good. It’s not just women who love guild drama–it’s all people. There is a part of all of us that seeks chaos and destruction, and in the relative anonymity of the online world, drama is common because it has low stakes. Those who form part of online communities should understand that. Yes, do what you can to keep the peace–but that shouldn’t involve excluding women. The best way to keep drama out of a guild would be to have no members, but then it wouldn’t be very much like a guild.
For women, it is worth noting that the stereotypes themselves have a certain attractiveness. It’s possible to live out a type, and this is usually done unconsciously. My advice is for every person to be analytical about his or her own behavior. Play against type, and don’t seek out the chaos. Make sure that it’s you–not the prescribed storyline for female gamers–making decisions.
I’m Not a Feminist, But. . .
Most of the time, I use my virtual soap-box to tell people how to game, not how to live. In this one case, I’m going to make an exception. Call me a bitch or a diva if you will–I expect it. I will also tell you what I really am. I am a feminist. As a bonus, I will even tell you how I got there.
When I was a freshman in college, I took an English class with Pat Johansson, one of the Deans. She was one of those people that you’d never want to mess with. A tiny grey-haired woman who walked with a cane, she nonetheless had a presence that commanded instant respect. Only now, as a college professor myself, can I appreciate the amount of effort that it must have taken her to produce that effect. In one class session, we were discussing women’s roles in society, and I prefaced a comment with “I’m not a feminist, but. . . ” I’ll never forget what happened next. Dean Johansson stood up, assisted by her cane, and declared to the whole class that ANYONE who said such a thing was, in fact, a feminist, but was lying to herself to please men. I was extremely embarrassed at the time, but now I am grateful. That moment has stuck with me, and ever since, I’ve made exactly the same response to every woman I’ve ever heard repeat that hackneyed turn of phrase. Dean Johansson forced me to be honest with myself. Did I believe that I should receive the same salary as a man who did the same job as me? Yes. Did I believe that women and men had equal potential? Yes. Did I think that I should have access to an education? Yes. Did I think that women should be free to create their own life narratives, independent from the stereotypes? Resoundingly, yes.
Now, feminism might mean different things to different people, but at its most basic, it’s about equality. The stereotypes about women gamers restrict what women can be or do in game by guiding people’s understanding of their behavior. Gaming society ought to be a sort of utopia–after all, we choose our avatars, and they can free us of the constraints of class, race, and even gender. Equality ought to be easier, not harder, to achieve in the game world, but the opposite is true. MMOs are a sort of frontier society, and like the Wild Wild West, they are unfriendly to the few women who venture beyond the borders of the civilized world. I find more gender discrimination in-game than out, and part of the blame can be laid at the door of pervasive stereotypes about female gamers. I urge you, dear reader, to think very carefully before applying any one of these terms to a real person. I think you’ll find the cookie cutters a poor fit. If anything I’ve said in this article strikes your imagination, I urge you to consider whether you are, in fact, a feminist, or rather, an e-feminist. And yes, I think that men can be feminists too. Do you think that women should have an equal opportunity to play in raiding guilds? Do you think that they should receive the same loot as men for the same effort? Do you think that women should be judged as individuals and not types?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, I urge you to put the Princess, the Diva, the Vixen, the Wolf, and the Bitch behind you. Regardless of your intent in using them, discerning reader, these words have their own connotations, and they are decidedly misogynist. Instead of taking advantage of the convenience of stereotypes, I urge you to address drama and misbehavior in your own guilds in their very messy and complicated specificity. Believe me, the results of thinking outside of types will do both you–and the object of your analysis–more credit.


Trackbacks and Pingbacks
[...] Archetypes of the Female Gamer, Revisited — and the first paragraph to whet your appetite. Shock. Frustration. Anger. Despair. [...]
[...] of comments both good and bad. The bad tended to gloss over the content and focus on the verbage. Syd made a reply post and I feel like I should respond but I really don’t want to do that [...]
[...] from World of Matticus wrote a spectacular blog about the stereotypical roles of female gamers. My favorite part of it though starts near the end [...]
[...] And the best gaming article of the year goes to [...]
[...] “Archetypes of the Female Gamer, Revisited” is one of the best examinations of how female gamers get pegged into unfair stereotypes, hands-down. (I guess we have a theme going on this week.) [...]
[...] ~This post on World of Matticus was awesome. I was quite surprised, shocked, and interested to see how [mostly] female gamers and archetypes were used and explained in the gaming world. I’m a bit of a feminist myself, and even I found this interesting. More of a psychological profile than anything, but a great read nonetheless. [...]
[...] innuendo (coming from me at least) in WoW, but I feel rather safe with my guild. I’m not a guild diva, a guild princess, or a guild femme fatale. In fact, I typically distance myself from conversations and jokes related to sex to skirt around [...]
[...] are fast and heavy in the gaming world. Women will often be treated less worthy and will need to earn their respect from fellow gamers much more than a male gamers. I repeat: D.O.U.B.L.E. [...]
[...] So what exactly can make a female gamer your worst nightmare? When she meets the stereotype put onto us females, and female gamers. [...]
[...] Sydera: The deep assumption is, of course, that women’s sexuality is by nature deviant or wrong, that all women should be good little prudes. As animal types, these women go about their destructive behaviors without thinking–they are primal forces, out to disturb the happy homosocial world of male gamers.(from Archetypes Revisited) [...]
205 Comments
“I’m not a feminist, BUT….” I loved you sharing that with us, it is so true. People think feminism means an extremely left movement led by women wearing flannel, unshaven armpits and all lesbians. That is not true at all; in fact a lot of men are feminists too! Men with families, men who like to work on cars, men who teach, all kinds of men. A TRUE feminist does not want to push men down and replace them with women as the superior gender, he or she wants women to have the same opportunities, pay, treatment, for equal effort, equal work, and equal responsibility.
Feminism is, as Sydera pointed out about EQUALITY… not entitlement and hatred. If a women shoots a man, she should be tried the same way a man would. If a woman lifts 50+Lb boxes all day she should earn the same as the man that works along side her. If a woman wants to voice her opinion in a logical and succinct fashion about an important issue, she should be viewed as an intelligent person and not a bitch or deemed unfeminine. This can be seen in politics when a woman comes into power. She is often considered unfeminine or a bitch. And if she is viewed as feminine, she is at risk of being accused of being incapable or unintelligent. We have had a few recent examples at both ends of the spectrum.
I really enjoyed reading your response to Lodur’s blog. I don’t think any blog should promote generalizations pertaining to people.
I will be following your blog posts much more often now.
@ Roary
The thing is though Roary, Maturity, the actual meaning behind the word, has EVERYTHING to do with age.
That said, you can get some immature behaving 20-30yr olds and some rather mature behaving 15yr olds, like yourself.
Something I noticed the other day was the math behind a Physical Education Award calculator database. (In England Physical Education is the lesson in school related to fitness and sports – not sure what its called in USA).
Basically you input the score a pupil got while doing any one particular sport (For example the time in which the pupil did the 100metre sprint)
On each of the sports the math behind it was like this: (i dont remember the exact coding, nor the amount thats a satifactory 100metre sprint time).
IF Sex ==”Male” AND Time < 10s
Result="Excellent"
IF Sex =="Female" AND Time < 15s
Result="Excellent"
This lack of equality is greatly benefitting female pupils passing their P.E. exams.
Is this right or wrong, as if women were held to the same standards doing these sports the general results of women would be far worse than that of men (thus why these deviations are created – its done scientifically and mathematically, not due to some random male examiner saying "Women are weak, make it easier for them"
I am not opposing equality with this question by the way, I'm just curious to where "feminists" stand on this.
@ Cat
I don’t know the word maturity by definition or anything, i guess. But the way the word is thrown around is how i use it.
So i guess I mean not by definition, but by how present day society uses it.
Maturity in the respect of being mentally matured, able to be respectable, to respect others and to be able to behave in a manor that would project such an age.
@2ndNin:
Some points of clarification.
1. Briolante is a man.
2. I live in a different country from you, and I’m not sure what’s usual in the UK, but in this country a lecturer is very different from a professor. I am a professor in good standing with the profession, which means I have that academic driver’s license called a Ph.D. Lecturers often have doctoral degrees, but not always. I don’t like to make such a big deal of this because I believe that anyone can make an argument regardless of the letters one appends to one’s name. But it’s interesting to me that you should feel the need to “lecture” me on how to construct an argument. I doubt I’d do the same to you or to my students.
3. My article is not about women-only health clubs, which I’ve never experienced first-hand. I go to a mostly male gym, which is pretty typical for a college campus (that is, if you’re picking the gym with the weight room, and not the cluster of elliptical trainers). My article is about games, and I have spent some time thinking about whether there were women-only spaces in WoW, and I have to conclude that I’ve neither heard, read about, or participated in one. I have never even played on or witnessed in one of my guilds an all-girl arena team, and that would only be a group of 2-5 like-gendered persons that shouldn’t scare anyone in their right mind.
If I find some area of gaming that excludes men, I’ll blog about it, and that’s a promise. No one’s yet written in to tell me about an all-girl raiding guild–which is a shame, because I’d interview them. I still think we should keep the focus on women as that is the point of what I’m trying to say. I have yet to be convinced that men, as a whole gender and not individuals, are being discriminated against in-game. Out of game, gamers of both genders face prejudice from non-gamers, but once again, that’s not the point of this discussion.
@Zusterke: when women are surprised at the good treatment they receive from you, they are probably surprised and PLEASED about it. The fact that they expect misogyny probably tells you something about the treatment and indoctrination they’ve received their whole lives, from many sources, from family to school to media. I don’t think it means that women think that men are abusers–just that, to some degree, they’ve internalized the criticisms and don’t expect to be (or think they deserve to be?) treated as equals. This is not my reaction to things, but then again, I’m older than dirt in gamer years and have been a practicing feminist for longer than I’ve been a gamer.
Sweet, I’m a woman now. I guess I’m off to Victoria’s Secret and then I’m going to hit up the shoe stores. Later, I might ask for my daddy’s credit card and during the raid I’ll be sure to go afk to do my nails and then ninja all the phat lewtz. (Skimmers, please note the sarcasm.)
But seriously, being a feminist of any variety doesn’t make one a woman, a raving lunatic, or a lesbian. Sucks though because that would be really convenient for everyone. (again, note the sarcasm)
It is interesting that for all 2ndNin’s instructions about making clear arguments, I’m not entirely sure that he’s read everything carefully. Clear arguments start with close reading and reflection. When one reads quickly or the emotions kick in, it’s easy to read things into writing that simply aren’t there. Syd was only offering a history of some of these stereotypes as she’s seen and experienced them (and clearly others have as well, *see the comments*). Someone else might have written a totally valid article using a different approach. I’m sure everyone here would love to read and comment on that article too.
It’s not incumbent on anyone with an opinion on a defined topic to consider every possible example outside the scope of that topic (women only swimming venues? are you kidding me?). Since Syd doesn’t talk about tennis court etiquette in the UK, her article on women in WoW is clearly full of fail. As I’m sure you know from your own academic work, making an argument in a limited number of words is about defining a manageable scope for a particular area of inquiry.
As for Myers-Brigg, it’s like tarot cards, horoscopes, and astrology. The system depends mostly on what you want to see in it. I don’t think the human comedy can be reduced down to 16-neat types that are ahistorical. How I score on the Myers-Briggs test depends on whether or not I had a good poop that day. But since I don’t offer a 10,000 word analysis with footnotes and case studies to support my opinion, it’s totally worthless and I withdraw it.
Oh, and by the way, the only invocation of “Hitlar” in this whole set of comments is in yours. Go check out that book.
@ Roary
Being mature and behaving mature are two totally different things.
You behave mature for your age, but real maturity comes with age and experience.
My point (which I obviously failed to make sorry) was simply that:
a) Feminism has no relevance to the discussion because there is no attack on feminism here. Doing so effectively Godwins the thread because it draws in extra extraneous arguments of no relevance to the original topic.
b) Stereotypes may be harmful, yet as psychological profiling tools show basically at the end of the day we categorise people into stereotypes whether its 1, 16 or 256 we still put people into little boxes and expect their behaviour to be similar to their box.
c) There are studies which show a male bias towards women in a counter productive way to a team environment especially when the women in the team are at risk. This could explain why male only guilds form not because women are causing problems but because of the actions the male guild members take around them.
d) There are educational studies that show students learn certain things best in single gender (and often totally segregated environments). Again this could be part of the reason behind gender specific guilds.
Sydera, in the UK Lecturer is a generic term covering anyone in the process of Lecturing, typically we have Mr/Ms, Doctor, Professor as their title for non-doctoral lecturers, doctoral lecturers and heads of committees. I was lecturing you on writing an argument not because you haven’t written a nice one but because a lot of the flack you have drawn is not from the meaning of your piece but from the extraneous linkages you have brought into it. As for not seeing female only environments, you could even take the gaming ones like the “Frag Dolls” or similar (http://www.ladygamers.com/ladyhunt/teams.htm is a short list, couldn’t find a similar one in the top 10 of google by replacing female with male but I assume there is one, yeah exhaustive searching
). There clearly are a number of non-coed teams (and it might be interesting to actually see the reasons given by these groups and the male equivalents).
Brio, sorry for calling you a woman, I did clearly miss the part where you said you were a man. However my point was not that Sydera missed / didn’t include the whole world as an appendix, its that she included a feminism defence when that area wasn’t under threat and has concluded that stereotypes are bad when large proportions of our psychological analysis is basically class analysis (put people into groups and analyse them ignoring personal differences) and so too is feminist / most other theories. The point is that doing so makes it easy to work with groups and is accepted.
Yes I technically Godwin’d the thread, however it wasn’t in direct relation to the thread as the context pointed out, it was an example.
As for MBTI being like Tarot, its not. Its a well thought out reasoned set of unverified results which look impressive and people read into and associate with, finding people similar to them through it. So it maybe hokum but its attractive hokum at worst because people feel they fit into the stereotypes it creates
.
I find all of these points pretty baffling.
(a) What discussion are you claiming that feminism isn’t relevant to? Sydera’s post talked about feminism in various ways, you yourself made the rather radical claim that no rational person could be a feminist, and so on. Are you saying that mentioning feminism in a response to Lodur’s posting wasn’t relevant? That seems clearly wrong to me: the fact that this kind of narrative is harmful is exactly the kind of fact that feminism concerns itself with.
(b) Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that because we use stereotypes as cognitive shortcuts all the time, that therefore stereotypes are immune from critique, or that therefore any and all use of stereotypes must be legitimate? I doubt you’re saying those things because they’re so clearly false; so what *are* you saying?
(c) That’s an interesting point, and should certainly be part of this discussion. But it doesn’t render Sydera’s original posting incorrect; even if there is some relatively benign psychological-genetic tendency contributing to gamer behavior toward women (I’m not at all convinced that there is, but it’s worth considering), that doesn’t excuse the harmful narratives and stereotypes that Sydera is calling out. I’m not sure whether or not you were claiming that it does.
(d) Same as (c).
On Myers-Briggs, I think it’s amusing that you say it’s not like Tarot, and then proceed to say a bunch of things about it that apply almost perfectly to Tarot as well.
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Art Box =-.
On stereotypes:
Yes, I am aware that they are a cognitive shorthand.
I am also opposed to the use of all stereotypes in all contexts. The human mind favors them, but we can be critical about their use–and that’s what I want to be. Critical.
On Myers-Briggs: I’ve taken the test many times and gotten many different letter combos. The only thing I am clearly is N. In all other categories, I’m about 50-50, sometimes varying enough to push me over. So, with my personality type of XNXX, I can read a book on Myers-Briggs and learn pretty much nothing of use about myself and how I interact with people. I hate to say it, but I associate Myers-Briggs with bad orientation activities for college freshmen (shudder). I always feel sorry for the poor kids who get subjected to that. As for me, when it’s my turn for college service, I’m much more likely to organize a dinner or a book club for students. That’s a more meaningful get-to-know-you than finding out everyone’s Myers-Briggs type.
I personally get much better results out of Tarot than Myers-Briggs. At least it involves pretty pictures.
In short, I question the reality value of any stereotype. Any sort of deeper learning about the world has to take place at a level beyond snap analysis–and that goes for any field. If I judged say, Don Quijote, on the stereotypes, there wouldn’t be much point in writing a book about the novel. Sure, he’s crazy–but that’s not satisfying or deep. I wouldn’t encourage my students to make a snap judgment about anything and be satisfied by that.
@Spennix: You’re totally right.
I’m not sure why 2ndNin thinks that a set of misogynist stereotypes cited on a public blog (however naively) are not material for feminism. One of the main things feminism works with is stereotypes about women. It’s one of the oldest and most basic topics for feminist writing.
Spennix, what I was saying is that stereotypes are not bad as a general tool nor harmful, most of us like to put ourselves in a box and to know that people in similar or related boxes feel a similar way. Its the basis for things like group sessions, we feel better talking to people who have shared experiences because we feel they can relate.
The MBTI type stereotypes are useful in that they quantise society into a usable number of groups (with associated strengths they quantise 160,000,000 types which is kindof useless as a tool). It might be no more than tarot to some on the border line but for those solidly within a group it can provide useful insight. Of course no quantisation process is perfect without an infinite number of bits so you cannot recreate the person from the stereotype.
What we get is an issue relating useful stereotypes and categorisations (since our brain is largely a giant pattern matching machine) against those that cause harm, and even defining the harm given that some do not find them harmful. Sydera and others (including most feminists on the topic?) view these presented ones as both harmful and misogynistic yet others looking at it from a non-feminist pov do not see it that way but looked at the underlying context of them. That would have been an interesting article.
As for feminism not being relevant, well I can’t see how it is. I can see that stereotypes and negative effects of them is a feminist issue (actually not given by the definition earlier unless said stereotypes affect women more than men but we will ignore that). The question I have is what makes feminism itself relevant to the discussion rather than simply ripping out those parts and continueing on without it.
“They are, in feminist terms, tricks of the weak–in order words, the most convenient strategies available to disadvantaged groups.”
- Most groups would consider these to be tricks of those without direct power.
“As such, women are at a serious disadvantage, and not much can be gained within a guild by the techniques of feminism–solidarity and rational discourse.”
- solidarity and rational discourse happen in many other fields as well, and I thought the point of these stereotypes was that they are irrational meaning rational thought is a solid counter to them.
None of the sections on feminism added anything to the article itself, if you removed these sections the article would be largely unchanged in intent and meaning. Maybe I am an idiot thought and don’t see why these make or break the article. If there is something that makes feminism relevant I am interested because I have missed it (other than the fact that feminism is related to these fields as a body that is interested in them and makes statements on them, but in which case I would have expected a cite more like “the British Medical Council journal states that …”)
.-= 2ndnin´s last blog ..On Divine shield =-.
@2ndNin: I would argue that many systems meant to make something large and complex (human personality) easily understandable (Myers-Briggs) are actually very, very harmful. A reductive analysis of human variety? Annoying. Hiring decisions made based on the 16 types? Horrifying.
Many corporations use these things in their seminars–but to what end? Probably harmless fun, but what if, say, a certain office decided they wanted to foster collegiality, so they were only going to take E’s?
What if a laboratory decided that they needed the personality type that worked most like the scientific method, so they were only going to take STJs? What if a very good scientist using great lab methods happened, in his personal life, to be a touchy-feely NF?
What if a grad school program in Spanish decided that ISTPs would make the best paleographers? Then they’d have missed out on some great candidates (including me).
The point about the stereotypes about women, unlike the Myers-Briggs tests, are actually used by raiding guilds to unfairly criticize or to exclude female members. This is not just pretend, or just hypothetical, but is something I’ve both observed and seen reported in the comments to this very post.
Both the Myers-Briggs stereotypes and the typical misogynist types are harmful–but there are degrees of harm at work.
I agree with you there Sydera, using it as a 100% tool to find people for a task would likely be bad and result in less than optimum result in the final selection. Willing to bet though that some statistically significant number of these people show up in these kinds of jobs.
There are reasons to want a single gender environment which we haven’t explored and maybe the benefits outweight the disadvantages for these guilds. I think we need to look at the actions of their male members, did they focus badly, did they run into fires… we don’t know. The problem may be the males of the guild the solution may be to exclude women from the environment given the gender ratio disparity in gaming, it misplaces the cause but has the desired effect in a simple manner.
Alas WoW and games aren’t like real life where we can have truly exceptional people who can act in ways that are outside the norm enough to make exceptions for, instead we have a very defineable skill cap (and technology cap) meaning that no matter how exceptional a candidate may be they are no better than anyone else who has reached the skill cap. This means that situations like this are much easier to justify in a scenario like WoW because you are not losing someone potentially irreplaceable you are losing a skill capped player. thats part of the issue here is that beyond a certain level we are all the same so certain aspects become far more dominant.
.-= 2ndnin´s last blog ..On Divine shield =-.
Oh, no no no no. Especially when it comes to raiding, the suggestion that all skill-capped 80s are of the same value to the guild seems just completely wrong to me. It’s entirely possible (typical, even) to have two guildies who have completely comparable stats and gear, but one of them is completely key to downing the next boss, and the other is the person that you hope is on vacation that day. (And given that, I think all of the arguments that a guild might be missing out on the very best members by excluding women, say, work very well.)
.-= Spennis´s last blog ..Arcana =-.
@Spennis
I am confused. Once a player reaches the skill cap for the game they are almost entirely interchangeable with other members of their class as I would see it from a purely game perspective. They will not be affected by positional hazards, will maximise their class effectiveness, will gear appropriately, will not take additional damage, will react nearly perfectly to all known situations (and likely a lot of unknown ones). What difference is there in their actions (they will produce identical DPS and take identical damage in the same situation or have no statistically relevant difference because they are at the skill cap)?
I would assume these gender differentiating guilds recruit on a class basis like most other guilds so you are not competing vs other classes but other players in your class. If we include a class bias in the selection then of course there is a difference given the fact that Blizzard cannot balance the classes. Within a class there should be a skill cap at which you can do no more (physically limited by the GCD, movement rate etc).
There are technological differences then (latency, lag, fps, hardware input latency, visual latency), and raid organisational differences (raid leader potential, good at working out plans for new bosses etc) however generally these are secondary characteristics. I would also suggest that these be ignored across gender (anyone can buy an awesome PC or move to sit on top of an exchange), and I have no idea of the distribution of raid leader characteristics across society so I can’t add anything meaningful there other than to note it exists (if anyone has stuff would be interesting).
While you need a good raid leader, you need one, and a good one will understand healing lead, tanking lead, dps, will evaluate strategy and reorientate the guild strategy while playing. This though is a meta job, a single great raid leader can be replaced with individual roles who can be better positioned than a single person to observe. There are guilds that utilise multiple people in these roles but it is rarely all 25 active raiders, and I have never seen a guild actively recruit a raid leader (I have been promoted to RL 5 times but never applied for the job).
I would assume you basically mean a meta role in which one player is effectively helping to organise strategy and suchlike however most skill capped players I have met (anecdote, data, yadayada) are capable of doing this stuff because they have time beyond the theoretical skill cap / input limit to watch more (and at this point I may have undermined my own statement since a guild wanting better meta-raiders can have uses beyond the skill cap since it would translate to more nths of a GCD of thinking time).
@ Sydera
I have NEVER seen a male picked over a female in our guild due to their sex, it just doesn’t even come into the equation, however I have seen poor female players not picked due to being a really poor player yet moaning “they didn’t pick me because I’m a girl”.
I, myself have not been picked sometimes due to having insuffient gear.
Don’t forget perception. A persons perception can be totally different to someone elses. People will very often think there is a ultamatum to why they weren’t picked and won’t consider the fact they may simply just not be very good, or lack in gear.
@2ndnin: I’m not sure what guild you’re playing in.
I have yet to meet a player at said “skill cap,” which seems to mean perfect in every way and immune from occasional errors. Now, I play in a good raiding guild, and every member of our team has made a mistake before. Longtime members also seem to improve over time.
I think the “skill cap” is theoretical–except maybe for a guild like Enisdia?
That said, as a recruiter I find skilled players who fit immediately into the guild’s agenda without further training to be hard to find. I can’t pass up a good application just because it’s the wrong class–so why would I do so for the “wrong” gender (sexuality, body type, income level, age, ethnicity, etc).
I think you need to take a step back from your devil’s advocate position. I have seen many ads for guilds that don’t take women “because of our guys’ bad behavior.” Likewise, there are ads that say or imply “no gays.” There have even been high profile cases of gay guild members being kicked when others are harassing THEM “just to shut down the problem.” I say, if you want to base your guild makeup on supporting people’s prejudices, pretty soon you will end up with a guild full of assholes. They will not just be racist/sexist/classist/homophobic, but they will also spew any amount of garbage at people they consider like them. As a person who has recruited for a long time, of course I don’t automatically take all the female apps. Then again, I don’t automatically reject them either. Judging apps on their WoW-related criteria only lets me get good recruits in whatever guild I’m working for. Typically, my recruits are less trouble than the guild’s original members (who tend to be recruited far back in the past and utterly at random, probably through trade chat). As long as I’m doing better with my selections (both in play and personality) than a random set of players, I feel pretty good about it.
@2ndNin: wow, you must do your raiding in a completely different universe than I do.
Is it really the case in your guild that all that matters to success is the stats and gear of the raiders, and the “meta-skill” of the RL? In the raids (and just instances) that I’ve been in, even if someone has good gear and good stats, the skills of the *player* (as opposed to the toon) matter a whole lot; for instance:
Some players use well-thought-out rotations; others just spam and flail.
Some players know exactly where to be; others get lost, or ignore the leader’s marks and attack the wrong mob, or get ahead of the group and pull things early, or stand right in the way of the incoming flame-breath.
Some tanks are good and vigilant about holding aggro, protecting the healers, and so on; others just stand there and hit the boss regardless of what’s happening eleswhere.
Some healers pay good and balanced attention to the party; others ignore everyone but the tank; others are too conservative (or too liberal) with their mana.
Some players do good and effective communication, others whine or moan or generate hostility, others remain silent even when they ought to be informing the raid of something.
and probably a dozen other differences.
I’m getting the feeling here that you’re so committed to a contrarian position in this thread that you’re starting to say things that you wouldn’t normally believe. I mean, “Once a player reaches the skill cap for the game they… will react nearly perfectly to all known situations (and likely a lot of unknown ones)”???? If that’s really true of the people you’ve been raiding with, I’m green with envy.
But anyway, the relevance of all this to the original discussion is that there really is a big range of player skills (even among essentially identical *toons*), and so any guild that excludes people by gender due to these narratives (or for any other reason), even if it’s due to “legitimate” concerns like boys tending to inappropriately defend girls, or groups functioning more smoothly when there is no potential sexual interest among them, is going to be excluding some potentially valuable members. So these anti-woman narratives (for instance) are not only harmful to the global karma, if you will, they’re also harmful to the success of individual raid groups.
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Arcana =-.
Spennix,
Most of those things you discuss are things I would expect any raider to be capable of. Failing to maintain a good DPS (and overall damage, since I adhere to the school of though that 5,000,000 DPS for 0.000001s is not as awesome as 2,000 DPS for the whole fight) and situational awareness. People that do not have these capabilities are not generally what I would consider raiders but casuals since they lack some of the gaming skills required to make progress (actually not true, they will progress but not at progression rates typically).
As for skill capping, maybe its a bad term but I can’t think of anything else to use in its place. It is for someone that can maintain their rotation, react to situations, does the correct thing, doesn’t need the RL to set them up. I have met lots of them (EU Silvermoon, we have a world 6th Guild, 9th on All alone, with 5 guilds in the top 500 worldwide). Being honest they are the kinds of players that actually push you to try, I have one player in my former guild that could almost push me on threat on 4HM zerg (100% heroism uptime + ~60-90% pot / cd uptime on Thane), yet I have seen many others that can do it while pugging. I wouldn’t say its rare to meet people that can handle all the game has to throw at them.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood; thought you just meant by “skill cap” being at a high enough numerical level for whatever skill / attribute of the toon that raising it more doesn’t do much good. So yeah, I agree that there are some very good players in the game. But if we water down the statement that much, then it’s true of real life also
and no longer is any kind of argument for it being less of a bad idea to discriminate by gender in WoW than in real life. If you’re not arguing “well, it doesn’t hurt a guild any to discriminate against women, because there are enough good men out there that they’ll have no problem filling all their needs from the pool of available males”, then I’m okay. If you *are* arguing that, I still think you’re wrong
but I’m not sure I have anything new to say on the subject…
.-= Spennis´s last blog ..Arcana =-.
… and I’d also like to say that it’s really annoying when I spell my own name wrong…
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Arcana =-.
It is an argument though as the skill cap for WoW is much lower than the real life equivalent. Thus while a company in real life would harm itself (or restrict its potential more likely) by refusing candidates on gender or other discriminatory restrictions, because the skill cap is lower the number of players they can recruit with sufficiently good skill is much higher. This means the effect of losing 1/3rd of the applicants is much lower (last I heard about 1/3rd of WoW players were female, so assuming an equal skills distribution as the male players seems sensible), to the guild as they still have many good applicants.
As the all of those applicants can be assumed to be at the skills cap then the only differentiators are meta-skills (which fundamentally only 1 player in the guild needs, but more is better) and social skills. This means that for a skill capped guild uninterested in meta-skills there is no differentiation between the top n% of the WoW populace. This means that discrimination is more likely and rife because you lose nothing by choosing between two good candidates, so if there is a “women cause drama because our raiders have the mental age of an immature 12 year old” attitude then it can be resolved without issue to the guild.
That is the problem with discrimination in this area, you lose effectively nothing by applying your discriminatory tactics, without loss there is no way to persuade people to become more open. If the skills cap was higher, or meta-skills more important (both of which dissuade casual players so are bad for overall subscriptions) then you would have a problem with this attitude as losing 1/3rd of the potential say 1% of applicants is a lot worse than losing 1/3rd of the top 10%.
Sure, it’s *an* argument. But I think it’s an incorrect argument.
The notion that every application to the guild will be one of those people who are so perfect that you can’t get any better is completely contrary to my experience. Even the milder suggestion, that there are so many people at that “can’t get any better” level of play that you can toss out 1/3 of them without doing your guild any harm seems wildly unlikely to me. Apparently it seems significantly more likely to you. Not sure what sort of evidence we’d gather to help decide whose intuition is more correct. So we may have to leave it at that. Unless someone else chimes in. 
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Arcana =-.
I have a question relating to said argument – if all applicants to this hypothetical guild are equal in everything except social skills, why then are the immature 12 year olds accepted?
For a proper progression raiding guild, most of your applicants should be at that level. For a > 500 in the world guild, your mileage may vary, I have seen some awesome players apply to guilds I have been in, and some players that make me wonder how they got to 80. For most raiders, it should be easy to be near the skill cap.
I suppose the easiest way would be to put out a survey to GMs/RLs in the top 1000 guilds world wide and see how they would judge their players in terms of competence on a scale of 1-n. Repeating for say the 1001-2000th guilds as well to see if this varies. My gut instinct says something like:
5-10 players in a normal guild will be close to the skill cap
15-20 in a progression raiding guild will be near the skill cap
20+ in a top 500 guild will be near the skill cap
22+ in a top 50 guild will be near the skill cap
That is my gut instinct anyway from having played in levelling to top 1k guilds.
As for why immature 12 year olds are recruited, I have no idea. One would guess that social ability is not a major contribution to value for a raider, thus fitting in (in what ever way that means) is a more major issue than not being annoying. It depends how you view the position really, is a raider a position you need to fill, then anyone at the skill cap that does not disrupt your raid is fine (and I have seen guilds that mute everyone but tanks and RL on vent), while if its a socially inclusive position then other aspects such as social ability count.
.-= 2ndNin´s last blog ..On Divine shield =-.
Thank you for this article Sydera, and for your courage in addressing a topic that you knew was going to attract its fair share of misogynist trolls piling on to justify their privileged worldview. People who argue ‘oh, they’re just words and I mean them in a gender-neutral sense, really’, or ‘but women in general really do conform to stereotypes’, or even the ‘no, YOU’RE the sexist for your portrayal of male gamers’ whines in an article addressing explicitly feminist concerns really need to read over what you’re written here again. Your old professor sounds like an amazing person, and it looks like you’re now following in her tracks!
Vara, how can you alter the way a phrase is meant, if it is meant in a gender neutral way should that not be accepted rather than adding your view point to it and creating misogyny where there was none intended? Also as I think we have all realised people do conform to stereotypes otherwise the stereotype would not exist, the issue is the harm the stereotypes do.
Heavens, no! If I slap you across the face, and then smile and say I didn’t mean anything bad, should you accept that, rather than adding your viewpoint to it? If someone lays out a narrative that’s harmful to women (or for that matter harmful to people in general), but they didn’t *mean* for it to be harmful, should we therefore not critique the narrative? I think it’s actually *more* important to critique the narrative in that case, so the person realizes what they are doing.
And I wouldn’t go as far as to say “people do conform to stereotypes otherwise the stereotype would not exist”. Stereotypes are sometimes *roughly* accurate stories about how some people sometimes behave under some conditions. That’s a much weaker statement. But I’m glad you realize that the harm that stereotypes do is a legitimate issue anyway.
.-= Dale Innis´s last blog ..Pointed Babble =-.
(And there I go posting under random other names again.
That’s my Second Life name, if anyone’s curious.)
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Pointed Babble =-.
Depends on the narrative, if its a harmful narrative directly then yes, if its a narrative you can read a harmful thing into then I think you need to give it the benefit of the doubt or watch how you attack them because it is then your interpretation of their statement and not purely their statement you are attacking leaving you open. A lot of people use their own experience to read far more into something than was ever written, and good writing is designed to do that.
No matter how you phrase it, stereotypes have to be at least partially accurate otherwise their usage is useless, its a common shared interpretation and it carries into many other areas of shared experiences. Depending on the stereotype and how tightly its worded it can go from horribly vague to dreadfully familiar (I have met the Princess Lodur described).
(How often *do* you see women slap men every day? The number’s zero for me.)
I don’t think there’s any question these are harmful narratives, and Sydera was entirely right to critique (“attack”) them. She was careful not to attack Lodur, which I think was also appropriate, given that he probably didn’t mean them harmfully. I guess I’m no longer sure if you’re disagreeing with any of that.
It’s just not true that stereotypes have to be at least partly accurate to be useful. Your typical “[insert name of oppressed minority group here] are stupid” stereotype, for instance, is invariably false, but people use it all the time to signal their own group membership, to justify their oppressive behavior, and so on.
More philosophically, I would put it to you that you have not met the Princess that Lodur describes. You have met a person who, under some circumstances, acted in a way that you interpreted as fitting a certain preconceived narrative that you have been trained to find in the world. Maybe for practical and useful reasons, maybe for pathological and harmful reasons. We need to continually critique and examine *all* of the narratives that tempt us, to avoid having too much between us and actual experience.
But now I’m going all Buddhist on ya.
(Got my name right this time!)
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Pointed Babble =-.
Generally at least once a day will I see a woman in a social situation hit a man. This might be defined as playful by them however it’s relatively ubiquitous here.
As for going Buddhist on me, no I met and know the princess. Actually a better term would be a tactically selective limpet mine with multiple ordanance payloads, but princess is shorter. Her behaviour was to seek out a profficient player that is socially lacking or msnipulateable and to bond with them. Typically a person in authority or a required role such as tank or healer. She would then grow closer segregating them from their guild while she acted as a social hub. Due to positioning she would have preferential raid slots and the social hub made people willingly favour her with loot. When the target became unable to advance her gear needs or a liability she detached and began the process again with another target. The word love came up a lot. The pattern was repeated over a two year period with four different guys, all of whom honestly believed she was in love and or seriously liked them to the extent of intimate online behaviour.
If she didn’t fit the princess Imisunderstand it. 95% of online time for each of the guys would essentially meet her objectives. She is the only one I have met who was a living stereotype though so maybe she is rare.
Sorry if any mistakes in this, am posting from my phone.
This is an absolutely fascinating discussion. It’s so interesting how much people reveal about their own values and positions the more they talk.
When it comes down to it we’re all individuals reacting and interpreting from within our own subjective paradigms.
My subjective reaction: Whilst many good points were made by Sydera I did also feel a little that ‘the lady doth protest too much’. I would argue that 2ndNin and Random have also made some very good points.
Ultimately I don’t believe there is any ultimately ‘right’ answer or position, we humans are complicated creatures.
I’m happy to say that in my guild and raid I have never ever experienced behaviour that felt in any way misogynistic. In fact in my experience of MMOs (7 years worth) I have seen less of this type of behaviour than I have observed in ‘real life’.
I applaud the call to critical thinking. I’m amused by the use of intellectual capital to justify arguments.
.-= Jezrael´s last blog ..Character =-.
@Jezrael: I’m not sure you intended to say what you did in your comment.
I’m going to talk about this case at length because I think your comment can help me illustrate my original point–about how language has a life independent of the person who used it. Basically, I’m going to use your barb about the “lady doth protest too much” to show how a phrase has different meanings to different people. The words themselves have connotations and denotations beyond what the writer may be aware of.
“The lady doth protest too much” is a Hamlet reference. Gertrude says it about the queen of the play-within-a-play, meaning to implicate this “queen” in her stage husband’s murder. It’s also quite ironic, as the speaker (Gertrude) is herself suspected of participation in her husband’s murder, and her son Hamlet had orchestrated the play-within-a-play in order to find some proof of her guilt. Jezrael’s use of that citation means–to me–that she find me–the person, the blogger–guilty of enacting every one of the stereotypes that I critique. That is a very personal–and highly negative–judgment to make of a stranger. But if I were someone else (not the Shakespeare fanatic that I am) would I have taken offense? Possibly not.
Here is a situation where language becomes very, very important. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to choose words carefully–after all, that’s what we’re really talking about in this discussion–the meanings of words, and how those meanings impact others. Jezrael may have only meant that she doesn’t see much harm in the stereotypes themselves. That’s totally fine, as it’s just an opinion on an abstract subject–but that’s not what was said. That is very, very different from calling the blogger Sydera a Princess, Diva, Vixen, a She-Wolf, and a Bitch. But what was meant? It is very hard for me to tell from where I sit.
This comment definitely irked me–it made me wonder how a commenter could know anything at all about my play style, my skill at the game, or my personal relationships, other than what I’ve shared here. It also makes me wonder why my personal status should be even be relevant. It reminds me of that moment in the (terrible) movie The Ugly Truth when Katherine Heigl calls into Gerard Butler’s cable show to protest his misogyny, and he claims that because she objects to his ideas, she must herself be ugly. Of course, she’s rather pretty. Even that horrid excuse for a romantic comedy recognizes the right of a woman to protest against misogyny–and shows us that intelligent critique doesn’t make someone “ugly” (substitute here any other negative words for women that you can think of).
Such comments are really common among internet trolls. For example, I’ve seen it in recurrent threads with titles like “All Girl Gamers Are Fat/Ugly.” I’ve seen versions of this thread on the forums for multiple games. Inevitably, when a presumably female poster protests, the trolls reply: “anyone who disagrees with us is fat/ugly,” which can actually make people afraid to protest because they don’t want that label to be applied to them, even by an obvious troll.
But was the comment here actually meant to be personal? Or was it “harmless”? I honestly don’t know. The internet is an anonymous medium, and it doesn’t let us know the real truth of these things.
My advice (to all readers) would be to be very, very careful about drawing negative inferences about a stranger’s personal life and choices. The internet can be a very mean place, but most of us want to be good citizens of it. That means taking time and care with the words we choose.
I think that Jez knows the play given it is written as a quotation, however Sydera I think you are reading into it too much. Wouldn’t the Shakespearean protest be more equivalent to protestation meaning that the point is you are too insistent on reading into things rather than the modern meaning of protest as to deny and object.
It seems that we all utilise stereotypes and fast judgements at one time or another for the purposes of classification, fitting in, or worse. Thus the very stringent defense of their negative effects when you have likely used them yourself (and feel free to correct me there) is in fact fitting of the comment. That is of course if you want to look at the actual history of the comment, initially I just read it as too defensive of the idea. The comment would thus indicate that you are too actively defending these points to make up for and justify some world view you hold which is likely a valid reading of any defensive article.
The statement as it would appear in Shakespeare’s intent would make it hard to see how you were defined as any of those terms and seems more as though you are reading into the words written more than the author intended (thus making your point nicely in a circular way that if intended is a nice technique but prone to misunderstanding). I cannot see how you were defined as any of these stereotypes by that quote.
The commenter likely doesn’t know more than you have written or given about yourself however has inferred points from your statements and affiliations. If I said I was a member of the “20 Badges per day average club” you could likely infer some things about me which may not be true (I have been members of societies I hold no interest or affiliation with). Thus while your personal status may not be relevant to how you play the game, it is relevant to how you blog and the status of your comments, when you write in a public way your life is torn apart and analysed (and I really pity authors who have their works torn apart for meaning that often was never intended). Thus it is important because it helps us to understand where your world view is situated and where is is pointed thus letting us see how you actually view the world.
The trolling posts are obvious, they are trolls and responding to them feeds them. Thus no one commenting kills the troll rather than enlarging its effect. I can’t see people being scared because some anonymous person decided to classify all random people as ugly. It would take a fairly shallow person (imo) to actually fall into the trap of not responding (or responding) for fear of being called ugly by some random. Honestly if the worst that ever happens to me is that I get called ugly by a troll on the internet, I will have lived a blessed life.
The Ugly Truth was an interesting movie, more so due to the fact that in his eyes she was likely Ugly as she did not fit his ideals for a woman. Later on he gets to know her, and she breaks character massively becoming more the kind of woman he wants transforming her from ugly to beautiful in his world view.
The whole movie was about two world views that were incompatible and both rotate to become acceptable to the other. They realise that their existing world view was no longer sufficient to cover what they needed or wanted in life. You define her as pretty, yet that is a subjective view, if he was basing his world view on aspects other than conventional beauty then she was ugly in many ways. She did not fit with the world as given, she was controlling, (go through the list of flaws the movie lists
), she was ugly from the personality pov that he wanted (look at the difference in beauty ideals between western culture and almost any other). To simply say that him calling her ugly is misogyny is to ignore the whole point of it, her personality did not fit the stereotypical need so was classified badly, when it suddenly became more fitting and his view changed she became the woman of his dreams. That is not simply misogyny but the basis for multi-cultural issues.
Again I think we are using the word misogyny too easily here, its beginning to sound a lot like Eddie Izzards take on Jihads. A lot of the misogyny can instead be written down as two incompatible view points looking at the same issue. Its in the eye of the beholder which means we all bring a lot of baggage to any conversation with us that stops us looking at the issue itself (the conflicting view points and if there is actually an underlying issue).
.-= 2ndNin´s last blog ..On Thinking about death knights =-.
@2ndNin:
Gerard Butler tells Katherine Heigl “You’re not ugly at all” the first time he sees her.
She’s never “ugly” to him.
The point is that, as far as his character is concerned, her entire worth is concentrated in her physical person. Sure, she’s neurotic and kind of mean–doesn’t matter, because his character’s no peach either. His mission is to take that pretty exterior and match it with a suitably compliant personality. Katherine Heigl’s learned personality–slutty, agreeable, and dumb–doesn’t stick, but that doesn’t matter either! It’s clear in the film’s final scene that the characters continue to hate each others’ personalities. They’re just able to look past that because hey, they’re both really hot. Just great.
I’d have to say this film takes the cake as both one of the most superficial and most vulgar movies I’ve ever seen. That script is a total train wreck for men and women both. It makes everyone look bad–and I say shame on the writers of the comparatively charming Legally Blonde for stooping that low.
This is hilarious. Well done for ignoring every other part of my comment and leaping on my use of a well known literary quote to infer that I’m impugning you personally. I was trying to say that I think many of the comments here as well as points raised in your original post have merit however I thought your framing of the argument detracted from it’s power.
The real dig in my comment was my reference to the use of intellectual capital to justify your voice as authoritative. Which is utterly ironic.
.-= Jezrael´s last blog ..Character =-.
Before he sees her physically she is ugly to him… after he sees her she is physically beautiful and still personality wise ugly from his perspective. The crafted personality he suggests for her smooths over any issues yet doesn’t fit her (and note that her personality takes a complete u-turn in the film anyway). Eventually they realise that their lack of a complement is a complement of sorts.Seems like a reasonable romantic comedy really, they both learn to adapt and live with each others differences and form a semi-harmonious partnership.
She was still ugly to him, the fact that it was personality and not looks is irrelevant to the matter, you can look like and still be uglier than sin on the inside. Also Butler’s character is not 100% physically obsessed (a high percentage) however he has some respect for more than that. The personality he gives to her for a short period was not designed for long term use really, it is an ice-breaker which if you look at her actions she needs because she does not let down her emotional and mental guards while viewing the world through an analytical lens. She needed to let down her guard to actually find a chance of happiness, while Butler’s character was far from perfect his attitude allowed her to drop her guard but still be able to draw it back when needed precisely because he was abrasive and physically focused. If you want to really read into it then it is all about the dating issues that INTX type personalities can encounter (Myers’s Briggs classification), people that think too much and have emotional guards set in place that don’t really conform to the normally emotionally expected response.
I also note that you dodged the Shakespeare part, you made a large thing of reading into that one phrase using modern English to make yourself a martyr to the cause yet don’t address what the poster actually says s/he meant (and I am sorry I have no idea Jez if you mentioned you are male or female but I have been wrong once already
). Yes I do mean martyr here because you seem to be taking it as a personal insult rather than analysing the issue (:P yeah, I can relate to Heigl’s character).
.-= 2ndNin´s last blog ..On Thinking about death knights =-.
@2ndNin and Jezrael:
The Shakespeare quote, both in its context in the work and in its use now as a cliché, is an insult. Interestingly, it’s meaning actually hasn’t changed since the turn of the 17th century when almost everything else in language has. That’s just the way it’s used, and I can hardly be blamed for taking it at its connotative rather than denotative meaning. It’s a phrase that–in its original form–had a double meaning. It has always meant that, based on the speaker’s point of view, the person this quip is directed at IS the thing he or she criticizes. “Protesting” is equivalent to an admission of guilt. And that’s what I resent–the notion that critique itself is reprehensible.
As other people have already pointed out in their comments, your argument (whilst I will again state, having valid points) is detracted from, in my opinion, by your use of stereotypes which are the very thing you are actually railing against. I’m not saying that you the person are indeed any of the stereotypes you castigate, I’m postulating that your argument is bound and framed by what you are arguing against. I don’t see you as your argument. I don’t know you at all so I’m not judging you the person. But you put your argument out here in the public domain and by that act you should understand that you then allow that argument to be called into question.
I could use another Hamlet quote here: “Words, words, words”. By which I mean to say that words are just objects of communication from which meaning is extrapolated by the reader through their own distinctive and subjective lens. Before we read and interpret they are just marks, empty and devoid of meaning. No reiterating of your subjective point of view using whatever discourse of power you feel gives you authority to speak necessarily makes you right. And that goes for everyone, including me. So feel free to disagree with my argument, just as I disagree with yours. The thing I most take to task, as I will once again reiterate, is your use of intellectual capital to insist on your voice as speaking authoritatively. Which is, I again argue, highly ironic.
.-= Jezrael´s last blog ..Character =-.
I don’t see Sydera claiming to be authoritative due to any kind of academic status or intellectual capital or anything; where did she do that?
(Also I note that this discussion has wandered a bit off of the actual topic into the “who really said what about whom and who’s at fault” thing, which is generally not all that interesting.)
.-= Spennix´s last blog ..Quick Evony Update =-.
In what way is it an insult? Most of the references I find to mention it as too firm an affirmation of the overacting, thus indicating guilt (since there . Nothing I have found would imply that it is an insult (to offend or demean) but rather to indicate a falsehood or cover up which is more in fitting with how I and others seem to read the line.
(First two cites I found referencing it, there are way more but pasting from google seems pointless)
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Shakespeare-3004/2008/12/Shakespear-quote.htm?rd=1
The context of the line would also suggest that it is the vehement affirmation to which there is objection (since the player queen does not protest her treatment in the other uses of that word). Thus it is the defence without question that is questionable making the quote relevant since you are defending the principle that stereotypes are bad without question especially in relation to their derogatory usage against female gamers.
Taking the connotative rather than the denotative meaning is an interesting trick given that the denotative meaning of the statement is applicable here, as well as the conotative meaning others seem to read into it. I suppose this is personal since you are reading into what you believe was implied and not what was directly stated. I believe was the point of your post several above this that speech has to be used carefully lest we corrupt the meaning or utilise the connotative to hide reprehensible behaviour inside seemingly unbiased wordings.
Jez never states that the critique is reprehensible in fact he gives you credit for it, then notes that the approach and vehemence with which you use may be inappropriate for the post which Lodur initially wrote making the defence seem inappropriate.
Thank you, Sydera. And all of the comments saying… “it just makes me so tired”.
Now that I’m a granny gamer AND back at university studying gaming/digital culture I am shocked at the unchallenged stereotypes, misinformation and lazy prejudices abounding even at university and the number of supposedly intelligent informed culturally aware post grad students completely missing it.
I mentioned the need for a bit of feminist analysis in my 2nd class and was ‘gagged’ for causing an ruckus. Everyone went off! Feminism is apparently SOO unneccesary! I was censured for sidelining a discussion about ‘the digital divide”. WTF?
I’d prefer to game in my free time (LOL) not fight and fight against stereotyping. But I forget that it’s a load I’m always carrying on my own, regardless, until I read a post like yours and walk away with a lighter heart and my head held higher.
.-= Andra´s last blog ..SocialAction =-.
I am really excited that I stumbled upon this article, partly because I relate to the topic, but more importantly, I am currently working on a paper on Female Gamers for my Linguistics, Language and Gender class. This topic is very relevant to the class simply by the use of the gendered terms. For those of you who seem to have a concept of feminism that reflects male-bashing, I hope that you look more into the intent of the movement.
A great deal of research has been done on the topic of language and gender and how certain terms can signal inclusion of a group or can define the power relationships among genders. True, stereotypes can reflect reality, but according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it is more common that our perception of reality, i.e. the stereotypes we associate with our lives, is constructed via the language we use. Therefore, there is a strong relationship between the language we use and how we see the world because our language reflects the way we see the world and reinforces it constantly.
It follows that, if we use gendered terms, i.e. ones that have some connotation of belonging to one sex over the other, we actually reinforce the actual inequality of the genders if the terms are used as derogatory terms for other people. Those who might dispute this, should really look into the literature.
So, unfortunately this means that even when the terms Vixen, Diva and Princess are said to be used as gender-neutral, they still carry an underlying connotation of femininity which, though not explicit, express the assumption that these are females causing problems. Sorry if you disagree, but there is a huge body of research supporting this issue.
Feminism in this respect, is about finding these sort of terms and showing people that they indeed carry some gender bias REGARDLESS of the intention of the speaker. The idea is to expose the underlying assumptions that shape our perceptions of reality, and in this case, of the female gaming experience.
This is what I’m attempting to accomplish in my paper, and what many other researchers have tried to accomplish since the advent of the video game.