Were There More Female Presenters or Severed Heads on Stage at E3 Yesterday? The Answer Won't Surprise You

Janine "Iris Ophelia" Hawkins' ongoing review of gaming and virtual world style

Writer Danielle Riendeau published an interesting piece on gaming site Polygon today, based on a pretty mind-boggling fact about the parade of press conferences that were held yesterday as part of (or technically preamble to) E3. It turns out that there were more lovingly rendered and less-lovingly severed polygonal heads shown during yesterday's events than there were women on stage. Just soak that in. Between the dozens and dozens of things that were shown, there were more decapitated heads than female presenters.

The disparity between the number of male and female employees in the gaming industry isn't news, but events like E3 are notoriously bad when it comes to both gender and race representation. It's gross, but it's also no mystery why. As Riendeau explains:

The decision to put someone onstage is a strategic one. In a very real sense, the company is putting a face on a product or brand, and showing — whether explicitly or not — what kind of person they think projects the most confidence and competence. When that kind of person is overwhelmingly white and male, that sends a message.

The choice to actively seek out employees and/or celebrity MCs who don't fit the mold sends a subtle — but equally powerful message: "the people that make games, play games, and are passionate about games are cut from every kind of cloth." E3 is already a show that's dominated by white men, and keeping the focus on those men during the most public events reinforces the feedback loop that the show is for, should represent, and sell to, white men.

Read Riendeau's full post on Polygon here.

Tweet

Iris Ophelia (@bleatingheart, Janine Hawkins IRL) has been featured in the New York Times, and has spoken about SL-based design at the Fashion Institute of Technology in Manhattan and with pop culture/fashion maven Johanna Blakley.</

Comments

[Fred]

I don't get this post. If the industry is mostly male and white (do we really care about "race" anylonger?) then the presenter just might be *drumroll* white and male. (pause for a gasp in the audience)

Or should they hire some female ethnic minority actress to do the presentation just to make it look good? (yeah that would be fun for the Q&A's..)

[Hamlet Au]

"I don't get this post."

Comments like this are the very reason we still need posts like this.

[Fred]

I like anything that Iris posts I even enjoyed reading this article. (and yes I like your articles too)

To me I don't care who presents as long as they have something relevant to say on a interesting topic, so no I don't get this post.

But let's play with the idea and we have a blank canvas to paint on. What would the ideal Press conference be like then?

[irihapeti]

@Fred

ideally white dudes apparently

[JJ]

Aisha Tyler was the best host/speaker so far at E3.

[Pussycat Catnap]

There needs to be more diversity, its shockingly bad at present.

And it did NOT start this way. Read up on some history of the gaming industry, and it appears it was a lot more diverse when it started, but changed from an intentional move by Nintendo to appeal to young boys.

Now gaming is the big player in global entertainment media. It needs to be responsible and responsive to the world audience that is consuming its products.

Hamlet's comment up there is spot on.

The thing about different perspectives is they are always narrow field of views that appear to see everything... Each of us has our own perspective, and feels we've got a full picture on things, and have the best grasp of how to convey it to others...

Then we slam up against a different perspective and discover an inability to communicate effectively as two people see the same data and come away with very different facts.

By lacking diversity, the gaming industry suffers from only having one perspective, and so fails to communicate to a much wider audience than it otherwise could.

And of the various gaps in diversity one can have issues with - closing the gender gap SHOULD be the easiest one. Its a lot easier to find people of the opposite sex no matter where you are and where you're looking than it might be to find someone from the opposite side of the planet...

There are also a LOT of highly qualified women in tech AND in the arts.

Really aren't any excuses on this.

[Orca Flotta]

Ok, what I say now might sound counterproductive to the female cause but let's face some universal truth here.

Girls don't play.

In fact we have much more important stuff to do than wasting our time hunched behind a computer. That's true for like 80% of females. The few that are computer geeky enough and even find their way into gaming are a smalll minority. And they are not more clever, more sexy or more interesting than all the boy gamers. I know for sure I ain't.

So I guess the very few girl gamers are represented well enough. And now shut up, bishies, and play =^.^=

[Hamlet Au]

That's actually not true at all. To cite just one key example (and there are many) -- according to Google, Minecraft is actually more popular with girls and women, than males:

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2012/04/minecraft-for-girls.html

[Fred]

"The gaming industry needs to be responsive" - Sorry I don't buy that at statement at all. The Gaming Industry is extremely diverse and consists of thousands of companies who need actual profit to survive and pay wages. It's not a entity that moves and thinks in the same way.

When I asked you all to explain how the perfect press conference would be I was hoping for some bolder strokes on the canvas.

What I see from above is the heterosexual norm stereotypes - where the gay/bi/trans/gender X people are not represented? We should perhaps even have people with no connection to the gaming at all present - we want to send a important message, right?

..or we'll just stop caring about who says what, as long as they have something interesting to say about the games we love, especially companies that rely on a profit to stay in business and pay wages. It's working pretty well so far, right?

[Drew956]

Hmm..
There are a number of issues with the way this article approaches the issue.
Indeed, there may or may not be an issue with sexual equality, but there is an even bigger issue with how we are going about without a concrete definition of what exactly we mean by sexual equality.

Think about it.
What kind of demographics are we expecting?
Do we know 99% for sure that the ratio of males interested in game programming jobs to females should be significantly higher than it currently is?
Did we conduct interviews with the major companies sponsoring the event, collect data, and come to the explicit conclusion that the company hand-picked males, and rejected females?
That it even refused to hire females interested in the positions?
Do we know how many females were interested in the positions at all?

We cannot accurately ascertain anything from the data other than a very early hypothesis pointing to a bias towards males.

I am not suggesting you are wrong:
No, quite the contrary, however I continually see erroneous thinking becoming a trend as people rush to over-analyze everything and claim everything is sexist or racist or whatever controversial thing they can.

Firstly: It is only sexist or racist if it is done on purpose or done in a fashion in which one preference is selected over another for no reason other than bias, whether consciously or unconsciously.

We cannot rightly assume that this is the case without any data to analyze, for it is perfectly reasonable and possible to assume that these people just happened to be those people interested and active in the right places at the right time. Also, the task of ascertaining whether a bias exists or not is vastly more complicated than you might suppose, because in order to accurately judge the decisions of those in charge of the hiring and selection process you also have to judge the materials they judged to come to the conclusions they did, including resumes, and the social personality of the people they interviewed: because these things make a substantive impression and really do make a difference when it comes down to hiring someone. Even a slight difference in credentials or a friendly smile could make one person more desirable than another, and it is very important to consider all the data from all the angles with as little bias ourselves as possible.

We cannot just assume there are a substantial number of women being ignored at those companies, all of whom made it known that they wanted to present at E3, all of whom are qualified to present, and all of whom were rejected in favour of men.
We do not know these things: to ascertain them would take a lot of effort and diligence, but would result in something far more substantive and authoritative than what we currently have to go on.

We cannot just arbitrarily apply trends we see to things and claim they are the reason for what we are seeing, that is not how ascertaining the truth of any situation works.
This is why people can argue about this topic, because we are not actually using anything substantive to back up our claims.

Also, I have an issue with comparing unrelated data. Comparing the number of female presenters to "decapitated" polygon heads is meant to be a kind of "epitome", I understand, but that data is the least important and least meaningful.
More interesting, and far more important, are actual statistics as to the ratio of male to female presenters, the ratio of male presenters who tried to get a job presenting and succeeded to those who failed, the same statistic but with women success to women failure, the ratio of males who applied and succeeded to women who applied and succeeded, then the ratio of men who were rejected to women who were rejected, etc.

The above bits and pieces would paint a far more informative and clear picture than a random observation correlating polygon heads and women presenters does.
The lack of rigor in these accusations of late is appalling and needs a stronger base.

One issue I have is that if someone chooses to create something that creation should stand alone: it shouldn't HAVE to be anything, just because someone else believes it is incomplete without it.
What I mean is that we should not try to restrict creative freedom through applying the prism of sexism and racism to everything we come across.
Sometimes things are made simply and with one goal in mind, not to be a "kitchen sink" of features to make everyone in the world believe the developers are the most politically correct and controversy-aware people on the planet.
Sometimes the situations that arise and the results that come out of them are not sexist, and you cannot claim they are simply because they are missing something.
Like I said earlier, I believe any kind of prejudice is either deliberately done or done in a fashion, perhaps subconsciously, where one choice was chosen directly over another.

What if a developer has a story with a main character that is a male?
Is he suddenly sexist, having chosen a male "stereotypically" as the lead?
No he is not. What, every male lead from now on and that ever was made is going to be tainted with the stigma of sexism?
Can you not see how ludicrous that is?
This is what I mean when I say that our accusations can be unfounded, we just wildly apply principles and standards to everything, even where they don't apply or don't make sense.

Not everyone is out there doing what they do because they are sexist.
Sometimes things either just turn out in a way that could be contrived as sexist, or they are created from existing pools of ideas or resources that don't have the luxury to add in unnecessary features or don't really want to consider issues beyond their scope or simply never think about these matters at all, and the way they end up is really just the way they happened to end up or the way they are.
Let me make this clear: a game does not have to have the option to play as a female to be nonsexist, and a game without this feature is not sexist by default.
A game does not have to have any features it doesn't need or want to have.
Part of the fun of making a game is being able to do whatever you feel like, to create whatever you want, be as lazy as you wish, not worry about matters that are beyond the scope of what you are doing.
Often games don't think in terms of sexism, they simply exist and are what they are. Sexism is beyond the scope of their existence and operation, they are innocent.

I don't know if there is a word, although there is probably a psychological term for this behavior, for hating on something or someone for who they are due to seeing them in a biased fashion due your experiences and beliefs, perhaps reverse-raicism is closest, where you begin to see and accuse everything as being biased, but this is definitely something I have seen more and more as these issues become more and more prominent in the scene.

I hope I have not offended anyone.
Some things are sexist, and it is important to continue to make points of these and to protest.
But I am also sick of people attacking innocent games and developers, fellow people, for their creative choices, accusing them of bias and prejudice.

Like think about it, If you have a story with a male lead going to save his wife from an evil witch, do you suddenly gender-bend him in the video game to give the female players the option to play a same-gender character?
No, of course not.
You are playing the story, HIS story. Not your own story.
This isn't self-insert time, this is "The Quest of Rognarl the Minuscule through the Valley of Deceit".
It would be like making a biographic film of President Kennedy and filming it twice, having him be gender-bended in one to be politically correct, because you know, otherwise it is sexist to have the story be about a man, especially a man in power.

Okay, you say, concerning Rognarl the Minuscule, well why not write in a female who travels with him but also has her own story, and thus is also a main character but also makes it so they can play an alternate storyline?
This is a fantastic idea, and would certainly make the game sell more, but my basic idea is the principle behind it:
Why should the game developer have to add in more complexity to a game, spend multiple more hours, days, weeks developing content and other plot and graphics, etc, if he has a working story that is fun and playable, or if it isn't already part of the story?
He doesn't have to. He could, he should, it would be cool, chicks would dig it. True.
But he doesn't have to, and not doing so doesn't make the game sexist.
It really doesn't.

Okay, well, I feel I have carried on long enough.
Please let me know what your thoughts are as to what I have said, I am most curious.
I know many of my points are unreasonable, as I don't know how reasonable it is to go about collecting all the data I wish we had, but they are all important to consider and all serve to make a point.
If we are going to make a difference in this world we have to work smarter, we have to back up our words with facts, with current and related data, with hot steamy piles of statistics and cries of disbelief at the treatment of people in the industries and in the world.
We have to make ourselves heard, but we also have to make sure we have enough clout and substantive evidence behind us to make a stir.

I love the idea of more women programmers, of more equality, or breaking through the "glass ceiling" and all those things you hear about when discussing sexism economically and societally.
Also, I think men would love to play a hot babe hero, or even to have a generic female character to play as an option, gamers tend to love options and customizability, to love diversity and a fresh and interesting experience, which games are more than capable of providing, and the female games would appreciate finally being recognized and being able to play a character that they can, perhaps, associate with more.
(Not that they couldn't associate with men, but it is nice to be able to play a female character if you are female if you wish to)

Also the plot devices and stories that could be associated with a female character are very refreshing and interesting, and could be used to highlight many issues of contemporary and long-standing nature within the game and plot itself.

In short, I support what you are doing.
I just also have seen a lot of unfounded criticism of games that are potentially or seemingly innocent, and I cannot stand idle while people slander left and right without any integrity or decency whatsoever, without any reserve or understanding of the background from which these games came and were developed.
The whole issue has exploded to the point where people no longer act rationally when considering games, and simply are looking for another opportunity to lump something into the "sexist pile" regardless of whether it is truly sexist or not.

Another issue I find is that people don't appreciate or often overlook those venues through which you can indeed play as multiple genders, as a lot of the hype over sexism focuses on the negative.
(Although I do see posts here about xyz "getting it right" or almost right, etc.)

I think the industry and the world are changing, and I do believe more equality and customization are coming (at least in video games and hopefully in the work-force).
In parting I would like to say that it is important for this discussion of sexism to continue on, and the analysis to continue as well as more games are made and as more people are aware of the growing demand for politically and societally correct games, but I would also like to suggest that we should not claim that everything is sexist with complete certainty, but perhaps more from a constructive tone of criticism and optimism looking at the potential for growth.

Further, it is important to point out the opportunities where a more inclusive approach would have been ideal and could have been taken by the developers, as this is really important. Why? Because it draws attention to imperfection and lost potential, to a hollow incompleteness and lack of potential beauty, to things that can be improved upon.
Because in this day and age we are living in a society that is striving towards equality and a more fair representation of the female gamers, something the games of our time should reflect.

The importance of continuing to critique games in a social and very real context is immeasurable, and through this process we make not only better games and better people, but also games with more importance and significance as well.
I still think a game does not need to have certain features to be free from bias, but I also believe games are works of art, and that they can be continue to serve as beautiful insights into our societies and what we hold dear, illuminating our lives and serving as beautiful artifacts preserving our history and development as a species and as a people.

[Fred]

@Drew956

well put - finally someone with a holistic view.

[Ugh]

Well, when there will be a need for women on stage, there will be women on stage. But inviting certain persons out just for "no circus can go without a clown" reason is totally disrespectful. It's like having a role of a tree in school theatre club performance, just for sake of being on stage and waving to your parents.

[Iris Ophelia]

Orca, the gaming market right now is a nearly even split between men and women, that's just a fact.

[irihapeti]

@drew956

"We cannot just assume there are a substantial number of negroes being ignored at those companies, all of whom made it known that they wanted to present at E3, all of whom are qualified to present, and all of whom were rejected in favour of white men.
We do not know these things: to ascertain them would take a lot of effort and diligence, but would result in something far more substantive and authoritative than what we currently have to go on."

FIFY

[drew956]

@irihapeti

Hmm, I see what you are saying.
Often we come to logical and likely conclusions due to the history behind what we are seeing. Thus, the 'data' or 'statistics' you are depending on for your observation comes from history itself, which may or may not still have the object of your observation in its dastardly clutches.

Alternatively interpreted, you seem to imply that if a trend is strong enough that we can ignore "hard" data and simply tag things as being biased in particular dimensions, such as race-bias or sex-bias. This is true to an extent.

But we could also, likely incorrectly, analyze it and just randomly say that women are job-biased, and institution-biased, that the lack of women in some areas and fields is the result of deliberate choices by women as a whole not to enter those fields and change the current statistics.

How are we to say which one is correct?
Or are both partly true, or is one more true than another?
If you see what I mean, statistics help to clarify and give meaning to what we observe, as there are multiple plausible explanations for phenomena, all of which could equally be claimed true if we are ignoring data.

(you could argue, correctly, that we are not ignoring data, since we have historical trends and stats backing us up in general. But these same historical trends give rise to other possibilities, such as a societal expectation or perception of programming as a male-hobby. Regardless of whether or not the perception is ludicrous itself, the effects of it could still be felt if it is indeed held by the society, whether deliberately or subconsciously, in full or in part. Thus again, statistics might help unveil what forces are at play, and may give us a better plan of attack through the larger, more comprehensive, overview we are afforded by it, if we wish to fix or modify the trends we are seeing.)

[irihapeti]

@drew

can know what you mean about statistics and how they can give a clearer picture of the state of an industry. can also just go to E3 and observe. Or can go to any meeting of codedev team leads (codedev team leads not company-wide team leads) The stats when gathered and analysed will confirm the observation already made

+

in a gender-dominated work discipline is often difficult to change the traits of the gender focus

you find this in last-century construction. Males are physically endowed to do old school construction. pick and shovel

as the tech advances: like bulldozers, cranes, diggers, etc then the endowment of physicality is not as important. However. Construction as a discipline was always seen as a man's job bc physicality

so the other disciplines within the trade were also seen as a man job. Which include architecure, planning, etc. It was seen as unladylike/unwomanly to want to go into the construction industry. The pick and shovel defined construction as a mans job

this is no longer the case bc machines. Woman are now driving and operating heavy machinery. And also now found wearing the white hats of the engineers and architects on site. Not only in construction but also in farming, forestry and mining. Other areas also once dominated by physicality

+

the games industry is dominated by coders. Coding is dominated by guys. Is lots of women in the games industry. Is not many of them tho who run dev teams. Is some. But not many. like hardly any. The question is: Why is that?

if the games industry is to change (and it will as did the construction and primary industries) it starts with de-emphasising the importance of the coder to the business

a coder is no more important to the computer industry than a carpenter or plumber or welder is to the construction industry. Are necessary but not important. Important meaning that the role of carpenter/gasfitter/concretelayer/etc no longer defines the construction industry as they did when it was a craft. And when output was reliant on physicality

given that dont need (never needed) the physicality to wield a pick and shovel to code then what is it about coding that deters girls and young women from contemplating it when choosing a career?

it cant be the hard mathematics learning that dev team leaders need. as girls do really well at math at school

so that pretty much does leave the traits of gender focus in the games industry. Traits once most commonly found in male tradespeople and skilled and semi-skilled labourers of the workcrews in the construction, mining and forestry industries

which is no longer the case. They most commonly found these days in the workcrews of the coders in the games industry

+

to change that (as what also happened in the other industries) then the bosses/owners need stop being wagged by their employees

basically the boss needs to go: Dude you overrate yourself. There will be somebody else sitting at your workstation (carpentering/plumbing/welding/coding) the day after you get hit by a bus or after I fire your ass

Why? bc we dont rely on just you anymore to make money in this business

[SomethingthatIcan'tremember]

Really, humans are to silly to be presenters or be in charge of anything. Robots should do it all, programmed by a democratic process to carry out the will of the company.

Humans are to silly, they want to use sexism to stop sexism and this sounds cool. But, I doubt it will work much. Hormones and many other issues don't really seem to be the issue, I think people mimicing and grouping is. Until we shed groups, our genetically limited minds or find ways of interacting that remove gender identity we are doomed to see this endless unfeedbacking loop, just a loop. "lifes not fair" and then someone says "No one said life was fair" and it goes on and on. STOP, bring in the robots, we can use them to communicate through as avatars or mech...uh.. mechvatars YOu know what would happen though. A small group of women would get HUGE breasted mechvatars and others would be jelous at all the attention they get and it would all end.:( People would grief busty mechs they thought where really controlled by men and all that stuff. Then the fur mechvatars would end up doing strange things in back alleys and claim it isn't really indecent because they are mecha suites. So, they would get griefed by religious bots with western art Jesus looking mold faces...oh well.:(