Guest Post: The Siren Song of Meritocracy

Great thanks to Kaitlyn Lee for writing this post! 

I play a game called League of Legends. It is an online multiplayer game requiring the use of good strategy, good reflexes, and good teamwork. It is one of the most-played video games in the world (see this 2012 infographic) with huge regional and international professional tournaments; the current North American League Championship Series is webcast live. It is a well-crafted game, featuring individual champions of all sexes (at least 30% of the playable characters are female, at my last count), ages, races, and even species.

Its playerbase is also extremely male-dominated.

The infographic cited earlier estimates about 90% of League players are male. This is borne out especially in the professional gaming scene. The recent All-Stars championship series, broadcast about a month ago from Shanghai on LoL ESports, featured the top players from around the world as voted on by the playerbase at large. All of these top gamers are twentysomething men. Of the eight teams currently competing in the North American LCS summer split, all eight five-man teams are composed of exactly that: men. I have heard one rumour of a girl who played on one of the pro Korean teams back in Season 2, but that's all. There is a dearth of girls in pro gaming. Or even just gaming. I know of maybe two or three girls besides me who play League, out of dozens of guys I know.

But even so, when I first heard of Team Siren, my heart sank.

Here is their promotional video.

Naturally, the League player community (mostly men, you understand) was in a tizzy. Looking back at the reactions, I sort the responses into two types. The first were your typical immature teenage boy misogynist jokes or other inappropriate comments: quips about women in kitchens, or any number of remarks about 'hotness.' The comments on the video more or less illustrate this class of response. The second type, though, is what I aim to address. I encountered one on Tumblr; here are some excerpts:

'The attitude they [Team Siren] have with their team is disgusting. They antagonize men, making it seem like the pro teams are excluding women intentionally. However, it is obvious that this is not the case.

ESports does not care if you’re a male or a female. It cares about your skill. If you can play well, and you’re female, so be it. Go ahead and make it to the top ranks.
...
But the main reason why I think Siren is exclusive, sexist, and feminist is that they focus on the fact that they are women than actually proving themselves.
They wouldn’t let a male join their ranks, no matter how skilled he is, because of course, they have to remain an all-female team.
...
In my opinion, they just want to draw attention to themselves for support.


I replied in turn, and you can see from the ensuing comment thread between waddlebuff and I that we had a remarkably civil conversation. If you don't want to wade through the walls of text, here is a summary of what I wrote:

- League of Legends is a meritocracy and everyone who plays it, like waddlebuff, believes in it. You get ahead by skill alone, regardless of who you are.

- But it's flawed. The people more likely to play League do not make up a representative sample of all people in the world skilled enough to play; something is selecting out the women.

- This plagues not only ESports, but other fields as well. In my field (physics), only around 10-20% of bachelor's degrees are awarded to women, and this rate is huge compared to numbers from decades ago. Physics is also a very meritocratic field. People in physics can be known for their fame, or charisma, or skills at playing bongos, but they are most revered for their brilliance, their superb physical intution, their contributions to the field. Scientists are narrow-minded in that they only care about the quality of your data or your theory, but they are incredibly open about everything else about you, whether you're a woman or you never shower or you're really attractive.

- Because we believe in the 'myth' of our chosen meritocracy, whether it be League or physics, we feel threatened when something reminds us the meritocracy isn't perfect. Waddlebuff, for instance, was angry that Team Siren seemed to be trying to gain an advantage because of their femaleness, not because they had actual gaming skill, and I think most players felt the same. Last winter, I and the writer of this blog attended the Midwest Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics only to find the speakers focused on their experiences as women in science but spent little if any time on the actual science they were working on. We didn't want to hear about scientists who were women; we wanted to hear about scientists and their research. To be fair, the title of the conference should have warned us enough. But to be annoyed by this, as women in physics who should be the last people this should bother, tells us something. We believe/want to believe in the meritocracy too.

- So why aren't there more women in ESports or physics? This is a question far from resolution in both fields. It has seen, however, numerous articles both in ESports (see this 2012 Forbes article or this article written soon after the Team Siren debacle) and in science fields (see this HuffPo article or this AAUP article or this Chronicle compilation, to name only three).

The issues in both fields may stem from differences in the ways boys and girls are raised even from an extremely young age. In studies such as "Baby X Revisited" (Sidorowicz & Lunney, Sex Roles vol 6 no 1, pp 67-73, doi: 10.1007/BF00288362), for instance, we see that knowing the gender of an otherwise indistinguishable infant changes how adults interact with it. And as they grow older, we expect the girls to wear pink and play with dolls while the boys are expected to wear blue and play with trucks. And so on. It is my inkling of a theory that these radically different upbringings lead to different general inclinations for men and women. Meaning, perhaps men are generally raised in such a way that competitive, aggressive, technical pursuits are more appealing to them, whereas women may not receive this type of thinking. But there are plenty of other theories, informed or not, which I would encourage you to explore.

In some ways this saga reminds me of the story of Riven, one of the champions in League of Legends. Her backstory states that in her homeland, 'any citizen may rise to power regardless of race, gender, or social standing - strength is all that matters. It was with committed faith in this ideal that Riven strove to greatness.' However, Riven grew disillusioned with the new horrors of biological warfare, leading to her current condition of 'self-imposed exile' in which she could still maintain the egalitarian philosophy that made her a warrior. In my response to waddlebuff, I wrote that

If anything, I hope that the Siren video inspires other girls in the community to ‘prove’ themselves better than the Siren girls. More skilled, but less upstartish; more worthy of respect.

In other words, I hope that we all can be more like Riven: believing in a truly egalitarian meritocracy, yet acknowledging and working to change the fact that we're not there yet.

The Radical Idea

A friend recently pointed me to a Facebook thread in which the economist Steven Horwitz was prompted to explain his views on feminism and provide a clear definition for what feminism means for him. The original poster, Daniel Amico, starts the discussion by noting that “offering a proper "grown up" definition of 'feminism' is Infinity Better than wailing infantile and trite slogans like, "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people too!"” and some of the commenters criticize this motto in a similar fashion. And while the comments in this particular thread that deal with this phrase don’t seem to converge on a specific assessment of its validity or even utility, a closer look into its possible meanings and implications seems worthwhile.

An obvious interpretation of the claim that feminism is driven by the notion that “women are people too” lies in the idea that feminism advocates for equal rights for women before the law. To some extent, one could argue that this interpretation describes the early goals of feminism, such as the right to vote, rather nicely. At the same time, arguing that women are not treated as “people” in the contemporary Western World in this regard calls for a more complex, and a less obvious, argument. The issues concerning rape and domestic abuse (which are not issues that strictly influence women but do influence them significantly), gender pay gap, birth control, abortion etc. are definitely issues that can be resolved through legal and political action but attaching these concerns to the notion of “being people too” is somewhat problematic. In particular, upon resolving the large and obvious problems such as that of suffrage, the relevant question becomes that of what the exact meaning of “being people” is in a legal and political sense. This is a rather complex question that is relevant beyond the framework of feminism and somewhat distinct from the more probable, more intuitive reaction to the idea that feminism is rooted in the notion that “women are people too”. This intuitive reaction largely seems to be one dealing with a wider treatment of women in our culture and in this context “being people” is intimately connected with respect, dignity and freedom from peer pressure and indoctrination.

The former notion of women “being people too” tends to be rooted in some variety of existentialism and has always reminded me of Simone DeBeauvior’ “Second Sex” in which the idea of women being not people but some sort of an “Other” is one of the most prevalent terms. The view that DeBeauvoir presents is essentially Hegelian. She recognizes this rather explicitly and in the introduction to this major work of second-wave feminism corroborates her views by stating that

 "Things become clear, on the contrary,if, following Hegel, we find in consciousness itself a fundamental hostilitytoward every other consciousness; the subject can be posed only in beingopposed, as opposed to the Other, the inessential, the object".

The idea of a subject being able to assert itself only through negating another potential subject is a part of the so-called Master-Slave dialectic in Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” and is related to the common idea that most concepts are fully defined only in terms of contradictions. In DeBeauvoir’s view the relevant contradiction is that between a man and a woman and she suggests that the man is seen as the norm while the woman is seen as faulty i.e. a contradiction to a fully realized person. This view is further corroborated by a number of classical authors such as Aristotle or St Thomas as well as early psychoanalysts that have established the theme of the woman as an incomplete man. In this context then, being a person is a matter of self-realization or the recognition of one’s position as the “Other”. Commenting on the particular position of women as an entity against which men can be defined, DeBeauvoir notes that "If woman seems to be the inessential which never becomes essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change". This notion of escaping the position of the “Other” through conscious change seems rather reminiscent of the notion that feminism is driven by the idea that “women are people too”.

While the somewhat convoluted and complex context of DeBeauvoir’s writing as well as the 64 years that have passed since the publication of the “Second Sex” might seem to imply that her ideas are outdated or obsolete, the notion of “being people” discussed above seems rather in line with a lot of contemporary feminist theory. The representation of women in media, cat calling and slut shaming tend to be some of the phenomena with regards to which this parallel is not all that obscure. The main complaint with regards to women in media and popular culture is often subsumed under the idea of the “male gaze” and overall objectification and sexualization of women. In claiming that a woman in a movie or a gossip magazine is equated to a sexual object one is essentially invoking an argument for the woman in question not being allowed to be fully realized as a person or, in DeBeauvoir’s language, an “essential” or a self-aware, self-realized “Subject”. A similar argument applies to the notion of slut shaming as restricting female sexuality thus hindering their process of self-realization.

Finally, an implication of the claim that “feminism is the radical idea that women are people too” that often seems to be overlooked is that, to a large extent, women should strive to primarily identify as people while being women should come as somewhat secondary. In particular, in striving to become “people” or “Subjects” women should be able to define themselves on an individual basis and not though their group affiliation. One of the things that DeBeauvoir highlights

in her work is that a woman is “a woman without having been consulted in the matter” so that the socially constructed idea of what it means to be a woman and the consequent identification of the idea of a woman with the idea of incomplete self-realization overshadow the woman’s ability to be a true individual. In being a person, for DeBeauvoir, a woman is able to shed this identification and be a person that happens to be female rather than “a woman”. In discussing the lack of role models in STEM fields I have written that “the distinction between being a "successful woman scientist" and being a "successful scientist" that happens to be a woman seems to be rather important in the context of providing idols for all of us prospective researchers and engineers” in exactly the same spirit and the lack of emphasis on individualism in a lot of feminist discourse available to young girls and women has always seemed to me to be rather bothersome. The slogan of “Feminism is the radical idea that women are people too” seems a great starting point for understanding that accomplishing the elusive ideal of “gender equality” should largely be centered on free self-realization rather than the establishing of more contradictions and dualities between the genders.

She's Really Badass But...

A very common complaint among the contemporary feminists with a penchant for popular culture and some level of geekery is that concerning the lack of strong female characters in the vast majority of TV shows and movies. In particular, the argument is often presented in the form of “there are female characters in shows and some of them are really badass but …” at which point character flaws and problems with the writing are pointed out. Buffy Summers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a typical example. While definitely being strong and empowered in her attempts to fight evil and be a somewhat normal teenager at the same time, Buffy’s character is often criticized as dependent on male guidance in the sense of the Watcher’s Council and the often troublesome nature of her sex life. A similar complaint is usually brought up in relation to Zoe Washburn from Firefly. While being calm, composed, competent, Zoe is criticized for relying on the captain of her ship as a male authority figure too much. Moreover, in the episode “Our Ms. Reynolds” she seems to be mocked for her lack of typically feminine virtues such as cooking and she seems to take this mockery rather personally. I have also recently come across some serious criticism of the way Irene Adler is depicted in BBC’s Sherlock. While I understand that she had indeed beaten Sherlock Holmes in the canon, the complaint about her being a sex worker and exhibiting emotions upon being defeated are clearly independent of the parallels between the show and the books and stems from a feminist analysis of the show. Relative to these and a variety of other examples I’d like to discuss the importance of female characters on film and television shows but also the possible problems with criticizing them in a seemingly feminist manner.

The importance of a fair representation of women in TV shows and movies is in some sense double. One part of the issue is the previously discussed idea of role models. Little girls watch TV and plan on growing up to be just like their favorite characters and if these characters are flawed or show women in a negative light then simple logic implies that the same little girls should not be exposed to them or perceive them as idols. On the other hand, the same process that seems to be roughly summed up by the idea of internalization happens for everyone else. The existence of a prominent female character that reflects poorly on women therefore modifies not only the women’s opinions of themselves in a negative way but also provides everyone else with a potential harmful idea of what women are like. Buffy or Zoe seeking guidance from male authority figures therefore impacts both the male and the female viewer in the sense that increases the chances of either of them naturally assuming to be fit for the position of the guidance-seeker and the guide, respectively.

The more interesting question seems to be that of how criticism of these characters should be handled given the psychological setup that is assumed to lead to their labeling as problematic. To be more specific, it seems important to consider whether the call for “real” strong or feminist female character can be as detrimental for the perception of women as the lack of these characters. It is kind of a given that a perfect feminist does not exist anywhere in the real world and it is hard to imagine what she (how come we never talk about male feminist characters in this context?) she would be like. The idea of what a ‘good’ or a ‘true’ feminist is like is rather vague and seems to be subjective more than anything. The same seems to apply to creating a ‘real’ strong female character. Real women tend to be plagued by all sorts of flaws and all sorts of doubts. A loud angry feminist might chose to spend hours in the kitchen cooking for her partner the same way a cheerleader might prove to be an expert on Judith Butler. Real women are complex and generally not even close to avoiding behaviors that could attract criticisms aimed in some variety of feminist theory. The problem with excessive criticism of female characters that do somewhat fit the bill of strong, independent or whatever else you think a good female character should be is exactly in the fact that these characters often mimic real women in ways that might seem too realistic or borderline uncomfortable. It is a peculiar twist to think about the characteristics of women that are critiqued through the critiques of fictional female characters. If young women and girls can be influenced by their fictional idols then they can definitely be influenced by the emphasizing of the flaws of these same idols. It seems rather silly to set up the stage for some variety of a stereotype threat for aspiring ‘real’ strong women or feminists.

I was personally somewhat relieved by the fact that Irene Adler did not end up being just a cold blooded, scheming dominatrix but managed to show some emotions. Considering the BBC series as an independent work or fiction, her character didn’t seem to get treated any more cruelly than that of anyone else Sherlock interacts with in the currently completed six episodes of the show. Similar things can be said of Buffy and Zoe. It seems implausible that they would break all power structures and riot instead of fighting their battles just because their superiors are men. It is problematic that there aren’t many women in traditional roles of power in either show bute neither Buffy nor Zoe seem to be such harmful role models as it sometime seems.

Finally, I want to stress that I am not trying to argue against recognizing hints of gender inequality in popular culture and various fandoms but voicing these concerns needs to be done in a way that does not reflect negatively on the fact that real women and real feminists are not perfect. At the end of the day most of these heroines get around attaining a happy ending and it seems great to know that one’s idols can make it there while sometimes suffering imperfection.

Stay tuned for a guest post on girls in gaming and the recent controversy about League of Legends and the all-female Team Siren.