Acid for Blood

Dragon Age: Origins, Sexual Orientation, and Player Choice

I started playing Dragon Age: Origins a few weeks ago. I chose to play a female elf mage, Thurkear. I have heard a lot about the relationship and romance aspect of Dragon Age from friends who are playing it and a few bits and pieces in the media. Having heard about their enjoyment and engagement with this aspect of the game, I was looking forward to playing through it myself.

There are mild spoilers about non-player-character sexual orientation in this post.

At this point in the story, there are three NPCs in my party who I know Thurkear can try to romance. However, Thurkear is attracted to the only person she can't have: Morrigan. This is frustrating, as Morrigan represents the most natural and ideal NPC my character would be attracted to, given the background I've thought up for Thurkear. As a player, I really like Morrigan. I was gutted when I discovered that Thurkear's affections would go unrequited.

There are four NPCs available as romantic partners for your player-character: Morrigan, Leliana, Zevran, and Alistair. Both Leliana and Zevran are bisexual. Both Morrigan and Alistair are heterosexual.

• If you have a heterosexual female player-character, you have two romantic options: Alistair and Zevran.
• If you have a heterosexual male player-character, you have two romantic options: Morrigan and Leliana.
• If you have a bisexual female player-character, you have three romantic options: Alistair, Leliana, and Zevran. Morrigan will never return romantic affection to a female player-character.
• If you have a bisexual male player-character, you have three romantic options: Morrigan, Leliana, and Zevran. Alistair will never return romantic affection to a male player-character.
• If you have a homosexual female player-character, you have one romantic option: Leliana. Morrigan will never return romantic affection to a female player-character.
• If you have a homosexual male player-character, you have one romantic option: Zevran. Alistair will never return romantic affection to a male player-character.

It's worthwhile to note that the heterosexual player-character is the only one that has unlimited potential romantic options, within the scope of heterosexual attraction. What does this mean? Let's first re-state the obvious: a heterosexual player-character will always go for a romance with an NPC of the opposite sex. If you have a male player-character, your two options, Morrigan and Leliana, are always available to you as choices. If you have a female player-character, your two options, Alistair and Zevran, are always available to you as choices. In both of these cases, provided your player-character does the right things to win over the NPC, they will always be able to do so. Heterosexual player-characters are never denied a choice because all of the romantic options they would choose are always available.

The bisexual or homosexual player-character will always be denied choice in at least one instance. In those instances, no matter how highly the NPC of the same sex approves of them, that NPC will never engage in a romantic relationship with that player-character. Thurkear could give loads of presents to Morrigan (and she has), but Morrigan will never, ever return her feelings, no matter how much Morrigan likes Thurkear.

As we outlined before, a heterosexual player-character has all options available to them. Despite being denied a romance in at least one instance, the bisexual player-character has the most potential romantic options in absolute numbers terms. A homosexual player-character is the most constrained, with only one romantic option available to them.

This brings us to another point. There are no homosexual NPCs that your player-character can romance. What about Leliana and Zevran? Well, no. They're bisexual. They aren't gay. Bisexuality and homosexuality are separate and distinct sexual orientations, just as heterosexuality is distinct from the former two. One cannot equate two bisexual romance options with having homosexual romance options.

I am a supporter of more bisexual visibility in the media. I often feel as if bisexuality is portrayed and regarded negatively in entertainment media, in mainstream society, and frustratingly, even within the queer community. Biphobia is common. Whether it's the ridiculous assertion that bisexual people can't decide on which sex to be attracted to, that bisexual people are confused about their sexual orientation, that bisexual people will sleep with "anything that moves", or whether it's the mythical stereotype that bisexual people are untrustworthy or more likely to cheat on partners than heterosexual people or homosexual people. Having more three-dimensional bisexual characters in whatever media is a positive thing. Even though so many of those representations of bisexuality are likely to be flawed, negative, or stereotyped, there's more of a chance that positive and non-stereotypical portrayals of bisexuality will emerge. Having said that, Zevran may not, at least on the surface, be the most non-stereotypical portrayal of bisexuality in the media.

I think it's great that BioWare has two bisexual characters as romantic options in Dragon Age. I applaud BioWare for providing players with more choices. However, I feel that BioWare's decision to have two bisexual romance options has far less to do with BioWare being advocates for bisexual visibility and more to do with the fact that the two bisexual romantic options provide more choices for heterosexual player-characters, while throwing a bone to queer player-characters. I think they wanted to provide at least one same-sex option for player-characters of both sexes and more romantic options for heterosexual player-characters.

Perhaps they felt that having a homosexual romance option would be a "waste" because it would deny heterosexual player-characters of the opposite sex from romancing a homosexual NPC. This, however, begs the following question: Why was it okay to deny choice to queer player-characters by making Morrigan and Alistair heterosexual, yet not create a homosexual NPC as a romantic option, which would deny choice to straight player-characters? If BioWare were truly advocates of player choice, then why the decision to make Morrigan and Alistair heterosexual? Surely the same standards hold for Morrigan and Alistair. Surely, by making Morrigan and Alistair heterosexual, it is a developmental "waste" because it limits player choice.

One of the most common defenses of the lack of diversity in videogames and the denial of player choice (a common example: not providing female playable characters), is raising the issue of the creative process. Morrigan and Alistair are heterosexual because that's just the way those characters are are. Let's not forget that this is a videogame we're talking about. Every single detail and every single aspect of the game and its characters were designed and created, right down to the sexual orientation of NPCs a player-character can romance. If it wasn't an arbitrary decision to make Morrigan and Alistair straight, if the creative process dictated Morrigan's and Alistair's sexual orientations, and by extension the denial of player choice, then why wouldn't it make sense to create a homosexual NPC that only a player-character of the same sex can romance? Having homosexual NPCs as romance options would deny players romantic choices to the same degree that heterosexual NPC romance options do.

If BioWare wanted to provide the maximum amount of player choice in terms of romantic options for a player-character, making the maximum number of players happy, every single NPC that player-characters could romance would be bisexual. However, even if BioWare had done this, it would render homosexuality invisible. Heterosexuality already permeates every single aspect of society, so it's highly unlikely that heterosexuality could ever be rendered invisible.

Given the existing romantic options in the game and the respective sexual orientations of the NPCs one is able to romance, it appears that it's okay to provide more choices for straight player-characters than for queer player-characters. And it's this disappointing situation that gamers find themselves in if they play a character that is not straight.

The Border House: Breaking Down Borders in Gaming

I joined forces with a group of cool people to start a feminist-friendly and inclusive group gaming and virtual worlds blog. After weeks of planning, setup, and flurries of emails all around, The Border House is now up and running.

The majority of group gaming blogs tend to be exclusively run by, written by, and implicitly written for straight, white males. Whether those barriers are erected by design, or (more insidiously) by coincidence stemming from the warm, comfortable blinders of privilege, this situation marginalises those who don't fit in those categories and doesn't speak to the diversity of gamers (or games bloggers).

The Border House, created from the ground-up to be inclusive, aims to be a platform for marginalised voices to talk about their experiences and perspectives of games and virtual worlds—all through a feminist lens. Our contributors are: female, male, people of colour, white, multi-national, multi-cultural, bisexual, lesbian, gay, queer, heterosexual, trans gender, gender queer, cis gender, disabled, temporarily able-bodied (TAB)—the list goes on and on.

There should be a lot of discussions ensuing from the exploration of sex, race, gender, sexuality, and other social issues within the sphere of gaming and virtual worlds. It's shaping up to to be an exciting and awesome project. If you'd like to read about the experiences of gamers who don't fit into the SWM box, you're invited to check out the blog and join in the discussion.

[Read]

Convention Sexual Harassment and #EAFail

I haven't spoken up about the failness that is #EAfail, partly because I've been doing detective work, collecting many of the links you see in this post, keeping tabs on what's going on in the Twitter stream, and just gathering my thoughts on it after several days of perspective. 

If you haven't heard about it, this post gives a good overview of the Dante's Inferno "Sin to Win" contest, which EA Games ran at San Diego Comic-Con this year.

I think there are several interconnected issues at play here, and a broader context that many of the articles I've read about this incident that I feel people have not discussed enough, which I will cover towards the end of this post.

First is the misogynistic, sexist, and heteronormative bent of the contest itself. It appears targeted to males of a certain mindset (immature) and social aptitude/ability (incompetent) and/or Males Who Don't Give a Shit About Women. It presupposes that straight women and gay men are not interested in buying this game, therefore part of the prize EA and the Dante's Inferno development team offered up were just"two hot girls", no equivalent prize for straight women or gay men. This is setting aside the fact that awarding people as prizes is gross objectfication. I feel it's safe to assume they didn't consider that lesbian and bisexual women play games, either, because the language and imagery used by EA were quite sexist and disrespectful of women, in my opinion. The graphics for the contest, a woman's chest and cleavage, and the tattooed silhouettes of two women, on their hands and knees, with their asses in the air in a provocative position that presents themselves as sexually available and subservient was just gross.

Further, labeling women 'girls' is, to many women, sexist as well, because it infantilses them. A girl is a prepubescent human female. Do adult males get called 'boys' all the time? No, they're usually called 'guys'. But it's different for women. Women are taken a notch down, they're 'girls'—they aren't adults, they are children. "You throw like a girl!" is a common insult—just one tiny, tiny facet of society's partiarchal power structures in which men are raised up and women are devalued. I know many women who don't mind being called 'girls'. I'm cool with that. It's their choice. I don't look down upon them for it, because it is a woman's own personal choice in how she identifies. Personally, I won't rip your head off if you call me a girl, but it gets on my nerves because I haven't been a child for a very long time. In the specific context of this contest, however, the terminology, combined with all of the other sexist content, further stresses the disappointing lack of respect for women.

The second issue is treating women as objects (that men are entitled to). They were being given away as prizes. Booth workers/models/"babes" are there to do a job. Whether people approve of booth babes or not, they are human beings and deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity afforded to any other human being. Dangling a couple of booth babes as prizes in this contest is not respectful in my opinion. I don't feel the need to elaborate further on this point, because it seems pretty obvious why this aspect of the competition was problematic.

Thirdly, there is the objectification of women. Just because EA or any other company hires attractive women to work at their booth does not mean the women are "asking" to be objectified or harassed. Supporters of this contest argued that "booth babes know what they are getting into" and that the possibility of being groped (in other words, assaulted) is "part of the job", which is a dumb argument. Why? Because employers have a responsibility to ensure their employees' safety. Sexual harassment or assault should never be "part of the job". To put this into a little perspective, so that people of the dude persuasion can perhaps understand better:

As to the guys saying "if your job is to look pretty and pose for pics in a bikini, you're asking to be harassed," well gee, your "package" is out on front of your body---I think you're asking for it to be smacked. I have the right to decide that, don't I? IMO, if you aren't wearing a cup, you're asking for it and it's fair game. If you don't like it, then either wear a cup, cut it off, or get used to it---because you've asked for it.

Both the above statements are ridiculous---but that's my point: assuming that a woman's clothing (or lack thereof) is an invitation to harass her makes just as much sense as a woman assuming a guy not covered by a cup is asking to be hit in the package with a 2x4. Since when does *she* have the right to assume you're asking for it, get into your personal space and flatten your package, based on her own ideas about how a man should properly hide his goodies?

These above two points—the fact that people objectify women, and the fact that women are being treated like objects—are different, but related. As Eleniel said, "Just because people objectify models doesn't mean models become objects when they do their job!"

Fourthly, there is the ignorance of convention fan culture on the part of EA, which fans  who have some awareness or critical thought know, is rife with misogyny—sexual harassment, incidents of stalking, assault, and just general badness towards women. Geek conventions can be a safe, accepting haven for many who have been derided or shunned because of their hobbies in other social environments, but geek fandom is a very male space, where women, unfortunately, get treated poorly with disturbing regularity. I'm going to elaborate on this point by discussing one of my own personal experiences with creepiness at an anime convention. Before I begin, I'd like to note that this incident happened when I was much younger; I would probably behave differently these days (hindsight is 20/20):

I was hanging out in the Video Game room, watching people play a fighting game, and I wasn’t really bothered to play it. This guy walked up and stood beside me to watch the others play the game, as one does. This fellow was a very large man, in terms of height, and in terms of girth. He had thick glasses, unkempt clothing, and dark, messy, curly hair—in short, a typical geek. However, he was standing so close to me that I felt a little on my guard.

Like many people at anime conventions, my badge name was different from my real name. In this case, my badge name was 'Samus Aran', because I like Metroid so much. He started the conversation with me by looking down at my badge—keep in mind he was already standing very close to me—and saying, "So you're a Metroid fan, huh?" We started talking about Metroid and fighting games. That was okay. He started talking about his online girlfriend in Taiwan, who he was going to visit very soon. That was fine, too. But then he started bragging about how he spent over £100 on anime porn at a previous convention. He kept going on and on about his girlfriend, their long distance relationship, and his porn collection. The fact that he discussed his porn collection and his girlfriend at the same time disturbed me and creeped me out, because he was just so keen on bragging about both. He wasn't talking about her like she was an actual person, but a trophy, another part of his collection. I also felt undertones of Asian fetishisation/exotification in the way he talked about his girlfriend, and this racial dynamic also made me uncomfortable, as someone who identifies as Asian.

At this point, I really wanted to leave, I didn't want to hear about his porn or his girlfriend anymore, and I was thinking of how to extract myself from the conversation without making a scene. Luckily I spotted a friend of mine, and excused myself.

In hindsight, I consider what happened to me to be sexual harassment. Uninvited, a total stranger launched into a discussion of a sexual nature completely out of the blue. This dude had no sense or understanding of social boundaries, and it made me feel very uncomfortable. I've experienced a few other incidents of general creepiness from men at conventions (and outside of conventions), and they were uncomfortable experiences as well.

My experiences were tame in comparison to what many women experience at fandom conventions. Sexual harassment, stalking, and even physical and sexual assault, are not recent problems at cons, either. The incident I described above happened to me nearly a decade ago.

I don't live in fear of going to cons. I've been going to and working at cons for a long time. If I didn't enjoy them, I wouldn't go. My good experiences of conventions outweighs these few negative experiences, so I hope people don't get the impression that I am against fandom or conventions. I'm against people getting hurt at conventions.

I have insight on this issue from another point of view. I've been on Otakon Staff for ten years* now. Otakon is the second largest anime convention in the United States. Every year, about 23 000 people attend. When you work behind the scenes in running a convention you know that there are incidents where convention staffers have to help out a member who is having problems with another member, and sometimes those incidents involve sexual harassment. That is reality. I won't get into details, but there are definitely a lot of disgusting and creepy people out there.

SDCC has continuing problems with sexual harassment. Last year, people called for a no-tolerance sexual harassment policy to be instituted. The convention administration has remained silent and not addressed the concerns of women and members who complained. I looked through the SDCC website and found no policies on sexual harassment or any type of behavioural policy**. The pleas of fans last year seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. This year, there were yet again incidents of sexual harassment at SDCC.

For EA to run a contest like this in complete ignorance of the problems that fan conventions have with stalking, sexual harassment, and other problem behaviours, was not a good move, in my opinion. Many men at fandom cons already have problems recognising social boundaries and the personal space of women who are fellow attendees, without any external prompting or encouragement. Contests like the Dante's Inferno "Sin to Win" promotion invites contestants to go beyond social boundaries by committing "acts of lust" with any booth babe. It puts not only EA employees workers at risk but also the employees of other companies. Furthermore, it leaves the door open for this type of inappropriate behaviour towards regular attendees, who may not have the same protection or power as those with exhibitor badges.  As the link round-up post concludes, "It encourages behaviour that makes cons unsafe for women."

EA's response? A not-real apology (saved here, in case they try to take it down again), the kind that blames you for being offended and "confused". It didn't actually address people's concerns.

While EA may learn from this, I wonder whether this even registered on the radar of SDCC convention staff.

* At the moment I'm not active because living on the West Coast makes travel to Baltimore to staff a con impractical.

** Full disclosure: Shortly, after reading the blog posts about what happened SDCC last year, as well as the ridiculousness of the Open Source Boob Project, and after the establishment of the Con Anti-Harassment Project, I proposed to other Otakon Staffers that Otakon institute a sexual harassment policy. Convention leadership felt that the very broad existing disruptive behaviour policy already included sexual harassment and was adequate for the con.

GLAAD's Project to Combat Homophobia in Virtual Communities

A few weeks ago, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) announced a new project to fight homophobia in virtual communities, including gaming communities. Three months ago, I was invited to participate in a conference call with GLAAD so they could gather views and opinions about homophobia in gaming from regular gamers to prepare for an outreach initiative to major videogame companies. On 18th July, GLAAD will hold a panel to discuss with members of the games industry the issues that LGBT people face in virtual communities and seek some possible solutions to encourage more inclusive, welcoming, and accepting behaviour towards LGBT people in virtual spaces. In the lead-up to this panel, Justin Cole, GLAAD's Director of Digital Media, wrote an excellent Op-Ed outlining the problem.

Homophobia in virtual communities is a huge problem*. In a world where simply showing support for LGBT rights online, regardless of your sexual orientation, is met with bigotry, and where identifying as LGBT may be greeted with far worse, it's important that these discussions happen. GLAAD faces a bit of an uphill battle explaining these issues to people of privilege who don't have the lived experience of being LGBT, and thefore don't have to worry about any of these issues on a daily basis. The fact that those people are on the panel shows that they're receptive, so I hope that some good emerges.

If you're in the San Francisco Bay Area, consider attending (RSVP via Facebook).

* Though I am not ignorant of the fact that racism, misogyny, and other forms of oppression are equally important and massive problems in their own right as well.

Four RE5 Articles at Crispy Gamer

I'd like to highlight four articles related to Resident Evil 5 that I read recently at Crispy Gamer.

The first is an interview with Resident Evil 5's Director, Jun Takeuchi, in which the interviewers discussed the cultural and racial issues raised by the game's content and asked Takeuchi what his goals were for the game.

The second is a really excellent follow-up to the interview, written by Evan Narcisse, which talks about the importance of discussing social and cultural issues in videogames:

Resident Evil 5 is so close to the edge that it's fair to read it both ways -- so dismissing any concerns about racism on the basis of the game's interactive nature feels shallow. Every game stands as a cultural artifact filled with meaning by the people who make them and play them.

That's worth discussing.

Narcisse further states:

Videogames strive to make you feel something, but the things you feel aren't always what they intend. The outright dismissals and non-debates surrounding RE5 don't help defend this form of entertainment against people who would demonize and scapegoat it. They don't make other people's responses go away

Videogames aren't just about technology and game play. Videogames are cultural products that convey meaning, whether intended or not, and to dismiss and suppress these kinds of discussions, will stunt the development of the medium. The full article is a good read.

The last two articles are in-depth reviews of Resident Evil 5, the first of which discusses the race issue, and the second of which focuses on game play (also worth noting is that the second writer, Tom Chick, has touched upon the race issues in RE5 before). In the case of the first review, by Scott Jones, I'm glad that some games journalists are actually discussing their thoughts on the themes and imagery in RE5 rather than ignoring it outright. I'm sure that Jones faced a lot of criticism and backlash from some readers, who may not feel it's important to mention anything about the race issue, so to have an opinion that deviates from the majority of gamers and to discuss it in an upfront, mature, and serious manner is notable. In the case of the second review, Chick writes that regardless of how you feel about RE5 and race, the game is fun if you're down with certain aspects of its game design.

Together with the previous two articles, I think that Crispy Gamer has done a decently well-rounded and thoughtful job of covering Resident Evil 5 and the surrounding controversy thus far. I'd like to see more of this kind of coverage from gaming news outlets.

N'Gai Croal's RE5 Follow-Up

Last week, N'Gai Croal was on 1UP's Listen UP podcast on 20th March, and during part of the podcast he discussed race, racism, and Resident Evil 5 with the other guests. A transcript of this part of the podcast was posted over on the Iris Gaming Network. Below are some quotes from N'Gai Croal.

N'Gai Croal (emphasis mine):

I interviewed Takeguchi, Jun Takeguchi the producer of the game, he said that the team went to, uh, north Africa, in ... you know, three years ago, to do research for the game. I asked him what country he went to and he couldn't tell me. I don't--and again, let me be clear, I'm not saying he's not telling the truth, I'm just saying it's interesting he couldn't remember which countries they went to visit.

...

...I get that, it's going to be in Africa, it's set in Africa and you're going to have African characters or whatever, but Africa is a continent, it's not a country.

...

That's the assumption. But, again, you know, so to put on tribal garb, which consists of tribal masks, tribal shields, spears, and grass skirts. And so, to me, again, for people who sort of defend it, "Well, of course there are people who dress like that in Africa!" Well, yes, but WHERE in Africa? WHERE is the game set? All these things, and on top of it, are we saying that anything in the game can be excused by a fig leaf of "there's an infection that causes them to do this", I don't have the answer to that, but the people that are defending it on those grounds, don't seem to be asking those questions at all.

...

Takeuchi pulled from all of these influences, some, you know, mostly modern, some, you know, less modern, but without a full understanding of what--when you put all of that in the brew, what all of that is going to turn into, and that's what's unfortunate, is that there was no one in the studio, and there was no one at Capcom in the United States, to sort of say "Wait a second, what is it that we've actually created? Have we lost control of the message?" And I think that's what happened.

...

And I think you're right, I think it's mostly inadvertent, I think it wasn't deliberate, but I think that's one of the things that need to be challenged, and what I'm not saying--to me, it is in some ways almost immaterial, whether or not--what does it mean to say that the game is "racist"? That's not what I'm saying, but I think the idea that what's required is intent, something malicious on the part of the creators, I mean you can create something that turns into something else.

The rest of the transcript is well worth reading. For people who listen to podcasts, the racism discussion starts at 1 hour, 10 minutes in and there is more discussion after a break.

Thank you to Eleniel for taking the time to transcribe all of that!

[Transcript Part 1 and Part 2 via Gamers of Color]

Discussion of My Post at Racialicious

My post (I also have a follow-up) about VideoGamer.com's race "expert", who was consulted to deliver the "verdict" on the racially-charged imagery in Resident Evil 5, was cross-posted over at Racialicious. Racialicious, a blog that discussses race issues and pop culture, is one of my favourite anti-racist blogs, so you can imagine how thrilled I was when they asked me if they could re-publish my blog entry over there. Head over to Racialicious if you'd like to read some great general discussion about my post and about the racial imagery in Resident Evil 5 by a group of people who regularly analyse race in popular media.

[Read]

WOC and Allies Blog Carnival - March 2009

The latest WOC (women of colour) and allies blog carnival is up. Two of my posts appear there, in the section on Gaming.

Renee, the organiser, writes about the aims of the WOC blog carnival:

Tell It Women Of Color Speak, is dedicated to giving voice to women of color. Historically we have been marginalized, exploited and silenced. Throughout our difficult history we have struggled to maintain our dignity and self-worth.

There are a lot of really fantastic posts on a variety of topics, so do check it out.

[Read]

"Expert" Consulted on RE5 Racism Issue: Not an Expert on Race After All

UPDATE: There is an update to this story here.

Recently, VideoGamer.com interviewed an "expert" to ask him whether the imagery in Resident Evil 5 was racist. The academic expert they consulted was Glenn Bowman, Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of Kent. Bowman said that Resident Evil 5 is not racist in that interview. Bowman even went so far as to dismiss views that Resident Evil 5 contains racist imagery as "silly". Major blogs like Joystiq are running wild with the VideoGamer.com interview.

There's a serious problem here, though. None of these major gaming media outlets have done their homework. Joystiq and the other big games blogs like Kotaku and Destructoid are merely reporting verbatim what VideoGamer.com published, without engaging in actual, investigative journalism. Doesn't journalism include fact-checking sources?

Let's take a closer look at Bowman's academic credentials, experience, and research:

His doctoral field research was carried out on the topic of Christian pilgrimage in Jerusalem between 1983 and 1985 and gave rise to further regionally based interests in shrines, monumentalisation, tourism and - with reference to the Palestinian people - nationalism and conflict, diasporic and local identities, and secularist versus sectarian strategies of mobilisation. He has subsequently carried out a longitudinal study of the mixed Christian-Muslim town of Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, which had played a substantial role in the Palestinian intifada (uprising). At present he is continuing his work in Beit Sahour as well as continuing work on art and identity in contemporary Serbia. He is developing comparative work between the Middle East and the Balkans, manifest in 'Constitutive Violence and the Nationalist Imaginary' (below), and is currently working on a project investigating historical and contemporary uses of shared shrines in Western Macedonia, Kosova and Albania and in Israel/Palestine.

No mention of Africa, race, or racism.

Taking a look at Bowman's list of publications (bottom half of page) dating back to when he first began his academic career in 1991, we see no mention of his research on African cultures, racism, or race issues -- because there isn't any. None of his publications are about racism or race. Nowhere in Bowman's body of work suggests that he has expertise or research experience in African cultures, colonialism, media studies, or race issues. The setting for Resident Evil 5 is an unknown location on the African continent. His research experience and current work indicate interest primarily in Middle East religious studies. Geography check: the Middle East? Not in Africa. Whilst certain countries geographically located in the northern part of the African continent are sometimes listed as part of the Middle East (depending on who you ask), none of Bowman's research involves countries or cultures from the part of the African continent that have been cited as being part of the Middle East, such as Egypt. Bowman's list of publications includes an article he wrote in 2001, which was included in an anthology that mentions Egypt in the title. The article he wrote does not have anything to do with Egypt; it's about the Bordeaux Pilgrim. Specifically, Bowman's geographical research interests centre on Israel/Palestine and the Balkans. Furthermore, his topical research specialties focus on religion, nationalism, identity -- not race or racism. An academic is judged in large part by their body of published work. Bowman doesn't seem to be the most qualified academic to discuss race, racism, African colonialism, and African cultures, given the fact that his specialties do not actually involve any of those subjects.

VideoGamer.com states that Bowman is an "expert", which would logically mean that he specialises in the study of race issues and racism. How can this "expert" opinion be trusted when the academic that VideoGamers.com consulted has not conducted research or published articles on race or racism? According to whom is Bowman an expert on racism and race? Was he the only anthropologist who would talk to them? Did VideoGamer.com go to lots of people until they got an answer they wanted? They don't appear to have consulted people who have done research on African colonialisation and African cultures or academics in African American studies programmes. Why didn't they talk to people who have conducted research in race, culture, and media studies? Or at the very least, why didn't they speak to people who are are aware of the history of racist and stereotypical presentations of black people in the media, and who have actually analysed and thought critically about media portrayals of racial and ethnic minorities?

Many gamers are now treating Bowman's "expert" opinion as gospel, the voice of reason, the authoritative word on this issue. He's not a gamer or an expert on media studies. Yet, the initial critics of the racist imagery in Resident Evil 5 were completely dismissed and often attacked with racist slurs by many gamers because the criticisms came from non-gamers.

Many gamers in mainstream communities now feel validated in their view that Resident Evil 5 is not racist. They have rejected perspectives from game journalists like N'Gai Croal, Bonnie Ruberg, Dan Whitehead, and Tom Chick who questioned and critiqued the imagery in Resident Evil 5 by proposing that it is problematic and racially charged. Even Penny Arcade lukewarmly questioned the imagery in Resident Evil 5. Bowman lacks academic credibility on race issues and media/games, yet many gamers have wholeheartedly embraced his uninformed opinion despite the existence of knowledgeable commentary from anti-racist gamers and people from within the industry who have been critical of Resident Evil 5. Why? Because Bowman tells them what they want to hear, and doesn't challenge their views.

You'd be hard-pressed to find mature, critical discussion about race and Resident Evil 5 taking place in mainstream gaming communities. But, you can find it in anti-racist communities, anti-oppression communities, and gaming communities which regularly discuss and critique these issues.

Why are gamers so afraid of people taking a critical look at games, of people questioning games, like we do with other media? Many gamers have a chip on their shoulder about being misunderstood; they feel embarrassed that their hobby is still considered juvenile, looked down upon, and poorly regarded amongst many non-gamers. They wish people would respect games, but really "gamers want games to be taken seriously until they’re taken seriously, and then they don’t want them taken seriously". Increasingly, people are taking notice. People are discussing games seriously. People are questioning games like we have done with other media. As Dan Whitehead says, "If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than 'lol it's just a game.'"

Before anyone comments on this post (or decides to discuss racism in general), please review my comment policy and read the following:

• White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
• A primer on privilege: what it is and what it isn't
• Privilege Analogy #1: Entitlement in Action
• Privilege is Driving a Smooth Road and Not Even Knowing It
• Dear White Privilege Deniers
• "Check my what?" On privilege and what we can do about it
• Anti-Racist FAQ
  
• How to Suppress Discussions of Racism
• How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism (A Guide for White People)
• Who's the one arguing in bad faith?
• Video Games and the Usual Amount of Racism
• All the RE5 discussion needed was a Nice White Gamer

I would also like to suggest RSSing this Delicious tag for future reading and edification.

EDIT -- 10 March 2009: Clarified my description of Bowman's research interests.

UPDATE -- 17 March 2009: There is an update to this story here.

The Woman Effect

I wasn't actually sure how to relate this year's Blog Action Day topic to gaming in a way that didn't belittle the topic's seriousness or complexity. The topic is poverty. Poverty is such a huge, complex mess of inter-related issues. Gaming and entertainment seem trivial compared to very basic security needs such as food, shelter, freedom from violence, and access to health care. As gamers know, this medium can be very compelling, and if applied correctly games can be a force for education, which can (eventually) spark real change. I did some research and I found several games that aim to educate people, typically children, about poverty. You can check out a selection of these games at Games for Change - Poverty.

As I continued to research issues that relate to poverty, and there are so many, I came across a video called The Girl Effect:

The Girl Effect initiative seeks to address poverty by focusing on adolescent girls as change agents. Their reasoning is that if we provide opportunities and empower girls, it will benefit society as a whole. I did a bit of research into the company that produced this video, and it turns out that the Nike Foundation is responsible for the Girl Effect initiative. It's pretty ironic, because Nike is well-known for their reprehensible labour practices. Having said that, it's good that Nike are highlighting the oppression of women.

Poverty disproportionately affects women:

70 per cent of the world's poor are women. The majority of the 1.5 billion people living on $1 a day or less are women.

According to the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, women living in poverty are often denied access to critical resources such as credit, land and inheritance. Their labour goes unrewarded and unrecognized. Their health care and nutritional needs are not given priority, they lack sufficient access to education and support services, and their participation in decision-making at home and in the community are minimal. Caught in the cycle of poverty, women lack access to resources and services to change their situation

The Girl Effect's initiatives are probably quite effective for the girls directly aided through their page at Global Giving. I could donate there to fund educational programmes for girls in India or Kenya, however there are wider social and legal structures that continue to perpetuate harmful social institutions that oppress women. The video and their approach to the issues seem a little overly simplistic, though their intentions are good.

I think that political advocacy is also a powerful way to effect meaningful structural change change and bring about conditions that will make it easier for girls and women to obtain the rights they deserve. I try to speak out and try to effect change in my own way when I encounter gender issues in my daily life. However I think can do more on the political advocacy side. I'm already a member of quite a few mailing lists that inform and alert me whenever an issue I care about needs lawmakers' attention, and I do take action if it's concerning an issue I feel strongly enough about. Oddly enough I don't belong to any groups that advocate specifically for gender equality. To address this, I am going to do more to educate myself on gender equality political advocacy, and take action when issues arise, just as I do with other types of political advocacy. I'm starting with Equality Now.