posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 2:23 AM by Endie

Agendas Beat Truth

In the Academy, there is a hierarchy.  Everybody knows that the physicists and theoretical mathematicians are extremely intelligent, work hard to get where they are, and base their results on reproducible results, the scientific method, rigorous proofs and the like.

At the other end of the scale are the softest subjects, which include many of the so-called "social sciences".  Of these, the politically-motivated areas that share a methodology and grounding in proof with, say scientology are the worst offenders: gender studies, queer studies and the like.  These are agendas looking for a subject.  Such is their (quite justified) inferiority complex that they attempt to obfuscate and complicate their discussions, cloaking what they say in pseudo-science and critical theory.  Ironically, while attacking the idea of objective truth and absolute proof (very problematic for a Guardian reader) they ape those very elements wherever they can.

I don't write flame posts.  Look back, if you can bear the tedium, at my previous posts.  I grew out of internet flame wars back in 1993 or 1994, although the usenet posts do survive.  But... oooh, this makes me mad.

Now, Bonnie Ruberg is a nice person with interesting things to say and a very explicit agenda.  But her ongoing obsession with what she calls "transvestism" (people using toons of the opposite gender) in MMO's has become a somewhat wearying and one-paced addition to the generalist, virtual worlds blog Terra Nova.

Her first post was, frankly, laughed out of court.  It addressed well-worn and cliched areas and almost everyone knew how the conversation would pan out, from long experience on a variety of forums.  I think that the unwritten rule in the Houses of Parliament - make your maiden speech interesting and uncontroversial - is a wise one to stick to whenever delurking.  Anyway, she threatened more ("You may have won this round, my pretties, but I have author rights on this blog...  You cannot stop me and you have no /ignore function!"), and now she has delivered.

She claims it is an informal "study" [Edit: "Survey", not "study".  Thanks Aaron] of why individuals use characters of the opposite gender in online games.  She starts from the idiotic presumption - unforgiveable for someone of her intellect - that this is simply a variety of real-world cross-dressing.  She offers no evidence for her confusion of terms, despite receiving a mauling last time out.  Proof by blatant and repeated assertion.

In fact, look closely and the "study" is her posting on her blog regarding why people represent as other genders and getting responses from her readers.

Did it not strike her that credibility requires that she point out one or two details about such methodology?  That what she got was a study of individuals who read a blog on sexuality and gender in gaming?!?  A self-selecting study constituted entirely of those who chose to respond, mainly publicly!  So she got a bunch of touchy-feely responses from people who read her blog.  We tend to read blogs whose tone we generally agree with (see the bloglists of any left- or right-wing American blogger for evidence here).  So Bonnie suggested a theory on a number of occasions on her blog, then asked a question on it, and presents the results as some sort of "science".  Thousands of years of progress in logic and scientific method and this is what it comes to.  Politics.

A proper study, for what it would be worth (very little, I suspect) would have a sizeable cohort selected and weighted according to the demographics of the players (someone like Nick Yee, who brings real credibility and rigour to the genre, could help here).  I'd give you huge odds that the results would be the stunning conclusion that the bulk of those representing as another gender are men who like to look at pretty girls.  Not a stunning discovery, and unlikely to get the plaudits clearly desired.  It's all, I bet, about the elf-boobies.  The Lara demographic.

-----------

Disclaimer  I should add, in the interests of openness, that although my main characters - Agamemnos and Gracci - are both male, they are Taurens, which presumably, in Bonnie's agenda-driven world, makes me some sort of furry.  In SWG I did play a female character for a while, because in the words of PvP Online, if I am going to spend dozens of hours looking at an ass, it had better be an attractive one.  Bonnie hates that argument, of course, and simply refuses to believe it when it is raised.  It doesn't advance her agenda.  Truth be damned.

Comments

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:50 PM by Tom
Couldn't really understand the point Ms Ruberg's post was trying to make apart from "here are a load of blokes with different backgrounds who play female characters in games".

So?

What, as they say, has that got to do with the price of fish?

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:32 PM by Endie
Yep, that's exactly what I feel: I don't see how anyone could actually *learn* anything from this. Very lightweight.

Perhaps there is a real study that *would* be interesting to some in the field, involving a properly set-up study of the motives of those who actually assume the characters of the opposite sex, role-playing as them and pretending to be (IRL) female players as well as characters. But this is not it.

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:42 PM by Tom
I don't know if you read last months PC Gamer but they had an article written by someone who masqueraded as an IRL female in WoW, talking about his experiences.

It's all very... peculiar.

# What's wrong with discussing these issues?

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:54 PM by Aaron Delwiche
Reality check: TERRA NOVA is a discussion forum, not a peer reviewed journal. According to the masthead, it is an arena for "news and opinions regarding the social, economic, legal, psychological, and political aspects of these worlds" as well as "scholarship, insights, and data relevant to the study of virtual worlds."

Reality check: Bonnie started a conversational thread on a collaborative web log. She was not announcing the results of a definitive study on gender.

Reality check: Bonnie offered the quotes as something that emerged from an "informal survey," not as a "study."

I agree that Bonnie's original posting overlooked much of the past work on the topic. Her rhetorical style unintentionally pushed the buttons of long-time TN regulars.

However, she attempted to remedy this problem in her most recent posting. She acknowledged that these quotes were the result of a very informal survey.

Her posting was intended to prompt further discussion about the motivations for cross-gender roleplay. By mentioning some of the reasons that people cite for gender bending, she seemed to be encouraging further discussion of these issues.

You say that you're angered by Bonnie's post on methodological grounds, but you also single out gender studies and queer theory for particular scorn. Are you opposed to these "inferior" areas of research because you disagree with some of their methodological approaches? Or are you opposed to the fact that people are studying and talking about these ideas in the first place?

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:03 AM by Ben Hourigan
Aaron:

The "fact that people are studying and talking about these ideas" (gender studies and queer theory) would not be objectionable if it had not reached the level of an extremely tiresome obsession.

In the Department of English and Cultural Studies at the University of Melbourne, where I am a PhD candidate, a majority of staff seem to spend a majority of their time writing and teaching about gender studies and queer theory. Past a certain point, such a focus becomes sheer narrow-mindedness. It is liable, too, to push other topics out of their proper place in studies of culture: things like aesthetics, history, biography, and so on.

What's objectionable about Ruberg's writing on Terra Nova is, as Endie points out here, that she is pushing an agenda and prepared to do some intellectual contortions to do so. In her post on <a href="http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/01/virtual_transve.html>Virtual Transvestitism</a>, for instance, Ruberg writes that

<blockquote>these virtual cross-dressers are using the medium of cyberspace to experiment with the bounds of gender ideologies and performance... <em>whether they like it or not.</em> (emphasis added)</blockquote>

The structure of thought underlying this is, I presume, the standard gender-studies indoctrination that there is something terribly sinister about contemporary constructions of gendered identity and their connection to biological difference, and that people ought to rebel against the straightjacket of identity that they find themselves in. And as the Marxist ropes in all working people to the socialist cause, then blames their false conciousness when they fail to rise up, so Ruberg makes all men who use female avatars, and women who use male avatars, part of the gender-bending revolution... "whether they like it or not."

No-one has a chance to respond that their choice to be a virtual 'transvestite' is meaningless, or borne out of a sheer desire to watch a wiggling, polygonal, female Night-Elf bum wend its way across Azeroth. If that happens to be a fact, then it'll be beaten down by the agenda.

And that, my friend, is sheer intellectual dishonesty.

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:04 AM by Ben Hourigan
Aargh, I missed a closing quote on that link tag. Can you fix it for me?

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:29 AM by Aaron
Brian,

Suggesting that someone is guilty of "sheer intellectual dishonesty" is a very serious allegation. This is not a phrase to be thrown around lightly.

If someone makes an argument with which you disagree, that does not make them intellectually dishonest.

You say that nobody has a chance to respond to Bonnie Ruberg's arguments, but there was certainly a passionate debate in Terra Nova after her first posting. And there has clearly been much debate in other arenas. So, this is not a fair charge to level at Ruberg.

I am more concerned by misrepresentations of fact in this thread. Endie originally criticized Ruberg for claiming that her posting was a scientifically rigorous "study," but she never made this claim.

In your posting, you suggest that the majority of staff in the Department of English and Cultural Studies at the University of Melborune "spend a majority of their time writing and teaching about gender studies and queer theory." I suspect that your professors and administrators would be amused by this statement.

Luckily, it is easy to evaluate the truth of your assertions.

According to the description of your department's faculty (http://www.english.unimelb.edu.au/culturalstudies/staff.html), approximately 31 professors teach courses in the cultural studies area. Of these 31 professors, 19 do not mention gender studies or queer theory in the explanation of their research areas. The 12 professors who do mention gender studies and queer theory do so in as part of a larger research agenda. (I skimmed quickly, so you should feel free to double-check.)

According to the description of your department's curriculum (http://www.english.unimelb.edu.au/culturalstudies/structure.html), there are 36 courses offered in the area of cultural studies. Of these, only four courses are clearly focused on issues of gender and sexuality.

At the end of the day, your negative reaction to Bonnie Ruberg's most recent posting seems to have less to do with her specific arguments and much more to do with your opposition to feminism and queer theory.

Is it really fair to accuse her of intellectual dishonesty just because you don't agree with her political views?

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:54 AM by Endie
Aaron: Thanks for the comments.

I have nothing in particular against the *idea* of queer studies, peace studies, feminist studies etc. Bacon said "I take all of knowledge to be my province", and I think that's a wise guide, so I believe that these areas should be studied, along with any other area of human knowledge.

It is unfortunate that a vicious circle exists in these subjects, however: denying objective standards of evidence. or problematic ideas of "truth", they are unusually easy places to get a Phd. This then weakens the subjects yet further, as individuals who would be incapable of entering faculty in any other subject do so in these fields, due in large part to churning out fashionable cliches.

[As an aside, last year I had to help a friend (who I am confident does not read this!) with her Phd thesis in one of these fields. My degree studies were in law, economics and the classics respectively: I should not have been able to help. As it was, I was gobsmacked at what I read. She received her doctorate.]

I stress that I see these as entirely valid fields for study, but so long as they are agendas in search of evidence to back themselves up, then they are not in search of truth. They do not seek enlightenment, and will remain a source of sniggering elsewhere.

Bonnie's piece annoyed me not just because it was unworthy of the forum - there have been several posts recently on Terra Nova that I felt were extremely lightweight - but because it was a series of statements of "this is how it is", with an entirely useless and irrelevant string of anecdotes listed after it that are supposed somehow to support those statements.

What did Bonnie add? How did she inform? Simply challenging people to think for themselves by spotting the gaping holes in your argument is not enough!

-----

As regards what Ben says about intellectual dishonesty, I tend to take a slightly more cautious tone, in that I am prepared to believe that her flaw lies not in deliberate misrepresentation and more in operating within a non-judgemental framework (at least regarding 'canonical' ideas that are within the mainstream of her field.

Bonnie seems unused to rigorous and challenging debate. Look at her reaction last time she posted, which was not to defend the ideas she herself chose to publish, but to retreat immediately to her own blog and post an article entitled "I don't have to say a word", which said, in precis, you can't present these people with the truth about themselves:

"Take any term that questions hetero-normative identity and apply it to members of the male gaming public, and you get a crash course in defensiveness"

There is the problem. She didn't engage in debate in an attempt to find out areas in which her argument may be week (Socratic idealist as I am), but instead dismisses those who disagree with her agenda as knee-jerk defensive.

Tellingly, she also says:

"I found the same old 'How could you call me a transvestite!?!' rhetoric I had forgotten to expect."

First, people were in general not discussing whether she was calling them transvestites. Second, am unsurprised that she admits, by implication, to be dealing with sympathetic audiences of moon-faced men who nod adoringly and post on her blog about how they love hot-chatting with each other as faux-lesbians.

Me? I like it when smart people tell me I'm wrong and explain why. Cmoetimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but they always force me to think more rigorously.

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:02 AM by Endie
Ben, I'm afraid that you're stuck with the post as it is: I can't edit it (well, without going through SQL Server Manager and manually editing the record in the db, and I hope neither of us cares that much!). It's probably a good thing I can't go editing other peoples' posts...

As regards the balance of studies in your department, you are right that the majority of the faculty do mention feminism or queer studies as among their major spheres of interest: of the four members of the department, 75% mention this.

Interestingly, by comparison, of the staff brought in from other departments, only around a quarter express such an interest: still a high proportion, but revealing in being a third of the percentage of the department staff themselves.

Yes, these are the same figures as Aaron mentions, but I believe that each of our interpretations has some merit ;)

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:38 PM by Timothy Burke
I think if you're going to say, "Look, don't push an agenda on this question", that sort of obligates you to be way more skeptical about your own assumption (men play female characters because they like to look at attractive females).

This is one of the oldest topics of discussion among gamers, and it's a long-established issue in the academic literature on psychological experiences of projection into gameworlds. I think at this point that there's a wealth of evidence to suggest that the explanation of male players choosing female avatars is actually extremely heterodox, that there are many reasons even for any given individual, some of them consciously available to that person, some of them subconscious or unvoiced.

There's also a range of subcultural communities playing MMOG games who are making those choices. Gamers who come out of some of the traditions of play that Bonnie Ruberg is a part of strike me as far more likely to be consciously part of what might be called "queer practice". I mean, when you when to a FurryMUCK or even many more vanilla MUDs and MOOs of some kind back in the day, the local cultural traditions were definitely built very consciously around "identity play".

On the other hand, I'd agree that Ruberg is overreading such practices from such subcultural communities, that there is a whole range of other explanations that have to remain solidly in the picture.

These include:

1) Men choosing female avatars because they prefer to look at a female
2) Men choosing female avatars out of a belief that female characters get added utility in the form of gifts or assistance from male players
3) Men choosing female avatars because they like to cyber with male avatars but do not identify themselves in any way as involved in gender bending or queer practice--who manage to process such cybering as heterosexual
4) Men choosing female avatars for nearly random or arbitrary reasons, for the hell of it, or on a whim at character creation
5) Men choosing female avatars because they're thinking of a fictional role model, a type of character that they want to emulate or be like (e.g., "This character is like Eowyn in LoTR!")
6) Men choosing female avatars because they have an aesthetic conception of their character which derives from the metafiction of the gameworld (e.g., you choose to make a female night elf rogue because you're thinking of a stealthy, secret character and somehow that choice signifies to you as 'female')
7) Men choosing female avatars because they're role-players and have thought of a story or narrative that they want to tell that's female, where the choice is no different than a male author creating a female protagonist.
8) Men choosing female avatars because the character models or animations in a particular game simply look better (e.g., not look better in a sexualized sense, just seem smoother or more realistic or have a wider variety of costuming/armor models)


These aren't mutually exclusive logics: many of them can overlap. I have seen nothing out there in terms of empirical data that justifies making any of these explanations the singular, dominant, unquestioned explanation of what is unmistakably a common phenomenon in the history of MMOGs.

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Friday, March 24, 2006 9:23 AM by Endie
You're right that I've seemed to suggest, here, that I think that this is the only reason. I suspect it is the plurality, but my closing paragraphs were too strongly put for the (non-)evidence available. I knew there was a reason I always deleted my flames before posting them these days...

To clarify, there isn't a single one of the eight reasons you list, at least two of which I'd not thought of, which I don't accept *must* operate for one individual or another.

My frustation is that I really *do* want to know - to the extent that it is possible with such issues - which are the greater and lesser motivating factors here: how common or rare each is. I am often astonished at the subtlety and ingenuity of formal studies in psychology, and what they *are* able to draw out. I'd love to see that applied here.

I suppose what I should really have said was what I mentioned to Richard Bartle: there is a simple explanation. More complex reasons undoubtedly exist, but they need supporting evidence, not just wishful thinking, to make them what you describe as the "dominant" explanation.

As I mentioned on TN, one area that I don't see mentioned as much, but which interests me, is whether there is something about seeing a pretty female *in jeopardy* that appeals to some gamers. Whether it is Lara, Dead or Alive or MMOs, the fact is that the vast bulk of men who choose female toons are not going to be using them for crafting, but for killing, raiding and, hundreds upon hundreds of times, dying.

I;m not saying that an active desire to see a sexually attractive individual in peril as the motivation for such character (and, indeed, game) choices. The least we can say is that repeatedly exposing to death or great peril someone that - I wholly accept - many men are identifying with to a greater or lesser extent, *does not prevent* that character choice. That, at least, goes against the sort of gender stereotyping I might, without considering this trait, assume ("Must... protect... vulnerable... girl").

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Friday, March 24, 2006 1:17 PM by Timothy Burke
Yeah, but notice what Richard observed: that the simple answer is in fact almost certainly the wrong one as the major explanation (or that it requires an insanely complicated framework to sustain) given that the proportion of men playing female avatars has been demonstrably stable right back to the earliest MUDs (we actually have pretty good empirical data that verifies this). That means that whatever is going on, it's not terribly dependent on the graphics and it's not explained by the desire to watch an attractive ass in motion. Unless we can demonstrate that the steady rate of male-playing-female is deceptive, that there is a fundamental break between the current audience of male gamers playing female avatars and the text-based virtual world audiences that did so in the 1980s and early 1990s.

I think Richard's suggestion in the TN thread is potentially a powerful one--that men are more comfortable "playing" with gender/identity than women are. That seems to me to link the men-playing-women to a very deep and complicated history of impersonation, passing, performance in the last century, of which the kind of cross-dressing Bonnie is talking about is only a very small and particular subset. Historically when women or racial minorities "pass" or impersonate, it's a deadly serious business, an attempt to gain access to some possibility that is denied to them. When men do it, it's for fun, or for knowledge-gained-through-experience. So in a play environment, in this context, it doesn't surprise me at all that many men would be far more interested, in a largely non-sexual way, in playing with the totality of the identities available to them.

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Friday, March 24, 2006 2:40 PM by Endie
As I mentioned at TN, I'm very uncomfortable with treating the current cohort of game-playing men (of whom some play across gender boundaries) as merely a scaled-up version of what was there in 1984 or so, when I first got involved. But I am also very uncomfortable arguing with someone like Richard, who was about as there as it is possible to be, without my having any real data to refer to.

If community gender balance, income levels, age, spheres and level of education, attitudes towards technology and early adoption, as well as a range of similar measures might have an effect on such motivation, then I'm not sure that we can assume that older observations still hold. I'm dancing around saying we were all geeks and women were as rare as in a men's prison (analogy intentional).

As regards the second point, regarding why men might be more comfortable "playing away from home" this way: yes, that struck me as something I needed to go away and consider a lot more. I'd read that women didn't present as men much, but was aware that I was at a loss as to why that was. Your last three sentences give me a starting place. I'm awfully pleased with this "internet" thing when it means I get a couple of pages of A4's worth of free tuition not one but two professors ;)

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Friday, March 24, 2006 5:21 PM by Tom
"Yeah, but notice what Richard observed: that the simple answer is in fact almost certainly the wrong one as the major explanation..."

I disagree. Your point is quite valid in that men have been using female avatars since before graphical avatars were available and this rules out the "simple" explanation that they want to see an attractive backside.

But it doesn't rule out the simple explanation that they choose a different sex avatar purely because they can.

Consider that most games require the player to control a male character. This means that women who like to play games have been co-erced into playing with different gender avatars far more often than men are. When presented with a choice of sex, is it unlikely that people might try something different.

Also consider that this question is purely being asked in relation to MMOs and MUDs and VWs in general. What would be worth examining alongside this is the percentage of players of other online games such as UT or Halflife DM and to see whether they choose different gender avatars. Furthermore, what about single player games that offer the same gender choice? (All but one of my MMO toons have been male but I completed the original Baldur's Gate with a female character) Can the same potential explanations be given if there is no social interaction involved? Or does it simply come down to "because I can."

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:56 PM by Violencio
The list of why males play female toons is great.

One other possible reason why 'dudes' might choose to play a female toon (although I suppose you could lump this in with the 'utility' entry) is because they think they will be allowed additional leeway with mistakes in gameplay (i.e. failure to demonstrate m4d 1337 sk1llz).

Interesting blog, lots of different topics covered.

# re: Agendas Beat Truth

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:33 PM by Endie
Hey Violencio,

You'd think that being female would let you off with more, but the girls I know who play online (a vast sample of 3, but what I read elsewhere suggests this is common) seem to get shorter shrift than most, both in MMOs and Halo/Counterstrike etc.

Maybe we chivalrous types are a thing of the past. Or maybe everyone just suspects that that "girl", isn't...