KatsBits Community

UK Government pushed to consider "sexism" rating for games

kat · 1 · 9100

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2720
    • KatsBits
In comments expressed during an interview with NewsWeek, a Labour Party MP, Chi Onwurah, called on the UK Government to look into adopting Frances new initiative, that of adding a "Sexism" rating to games and other media, whilst conflating the demand with other "women in games" issues, as seems to be fashionable these days. It should be known that ratings in games and the way ****, the sexes, and sexuality, are represented in media are very different issues, requiring very different solutions, than employment and workplace gender-based discrimination, which the UK has half-a-dozen laws on the books to prosecute, something an MP pushing an anti-discrimination (pro-diversity/equality etc.) agenda should know, at least were they truly concerned about the subject and not just pandering for votes. But then this is just too much of a hot-button, emotionally driven led issue for opportunists to avoid getting their sticky mitts on.

Member of Parliament: "Sexualised females in games is bad".
Gamers & Industry: "But extreme violence against males is... okay? Meh, who cares, right?"[1].
MP: "Oh but that's different because... [same tired old talking points]".
G & I: sigh */g goes back to gaming

What truly keeps women and girls out of the game industry?. The constant industry fear-mongering and sensationalised headlines. When asked, women and girls typically report their negative impressions of the industry being formed largely through negative press and media coverage, not from direct experience. So the myth of a hostile work environments inside the games industry persists as a harmful self-fulfilling prophecy (as press and media see it/perpetuate it).

Looking at this from the outside (sort of) it's amazing to realise just how similar this brouhaha is to what Mary Whitehouse was advocating some 40 odd years ago. She pushed hard for, and got to a limited degree, the same kind of legal, policy and Governmental control over freedom of expression as current-day advocates are doing, and from a similarly gynocentric, although secularly informed, non-science[2] perspective. The only difference between then and now is this; had she had the foresight to call and make extensive use of the "F" word (8 letters across, starts with "f", ends with "m"), and accuse her detractors of demeaning, harassing and abusing her (regardless of their gender) she, and the advocacy group she headed, would have even more successful than they had.


[1] Advocacy groups argue female game characters should not be subject to violence or sexism, whilst tacitly approving said-same against males. As direct consequence of Advocacy groups not caring about male violence they become a 'safe' medium of expression for game developers; more games are made with male protagonists committing violence against male victims, which the same Advocacy groups then argue is exclusionary to females, demanding better representation without explicitly acknowledging the context into which such female characters would be placed. Thus an infinite logic loop is created destroying the World.

[2] Although Mary Whiteshouse used different approaches and rationals to the same problems, much of her "****-negative" ideas were informed by her faith and belief (Christian), both of which were easy jumping-off points for what would be considered vicious attacks by today's 'snowflake' standards, by press and media whom would often lambasted her as being "**** obsessed", obsessed with the representation of **** and morally questionable ideas on television and in cinema. Were she alive today this might not be the case (as keen observers might remark, being female is no guaranty of acceptance from any of the advocacy groups in question).