“Inclusive” isn’t what some people say it means

I’ve been following the GamerGate thing for a bit, and I’ve come to one simple conclusion. No matter what you think of the supporters of GamerGate, the “Social Justice Warriors” and Feminists are not thinking of games simply being “inclusive.”

When you hear “inclusive” or “fair” (like “fair share” from Progressives), it means “not for thee.” Let me explain. The common theme among the SJW’s and “critics” is that games, and “gaming culture” need to be more inclusive and not so “masculine.” Now, in a free market, anyone can enter and provide a product/service and make it available for sale. This is no different in the gaming industry (tabletop, electronic, etc.) With freely available tools, the Internet, and cheap computers anyone with an idea and the desire to build that idea can get a game out there. The key to take from this is that no one is stopping women from making games. In spite of the high-profile victims of late that seem to crop up on MSNBC and Internet Radio, today is a golden age of self-publishing and nearly limitless marketing potential.  Sure, it’d be nice to make a game alone and have EA pick it up and sell millions of copies. The same thing flies through the heads of prospective musicians when they want to “make it big.”

The key is that not everyone will make it, in spite of their talent or ideas. Of course the definition of “make it” varies from person to person, but the general sense of being a musician mogul or a Lord British style developer is what most people feel is the definition of “making it.” So, if we’re to take that definition of “make it” and apply it to the “inclusive” rhetoric of the SWJ’s, there still is nothing stopping a determined person (regardless of gender) from attempting and possibly succeeding in their endeavors.

The problem arises when SWJ’s and feminists (feministfrequency.com is a prime example of this) criticize stereotypes, narratives, depictions of women, and other “shortcomings” of games, they are not jockeying for an equal voice in the market. No, it’s much more sinister. They are attempting to eliminate the things they don’t like in video games so that only their games and their vision for games is allowed.  How do I know this? If they criticize a game for being “sexist”, they do not offer an alternative, and in the case of many feminists, they merely point out how pervasive it all is. That, like “fair”, is their way of saying “I want this type of game stopped.”

The same tired “institutional” sorts of barriers supposedly accompany everyone but white men in the gaming market. I don’t see that at all (considering the plethora of Asian gaming moguls), and attempting to insert Western Culture into Asian gaming is going to fall flatter than the XBox in Japan. If feminists want to make their own games, that’s fine. I applaud their efforts. I most likely will skip them because I am “part of the problem” (a white heterosexual male), but I won’t belittle those who want to try them or even support them.

The problem for me arises when the SJW’s attack games with the most tenuous of examples to reinforce their view that games are all sexist. They are not being critical…. they are attempting to get a groundswell of force to coerce game companies to stop making those types of games. It’s not technically censorship, but it certainly reeks of collectivism.

So the next time you see a SJW saying “inclusive”… be wary. They aren’t talking about you.

%d bloggers like this: