Gender politics and the bizarre world of 'e-sport'

[Metaphor]

From Canberra Times:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/dig...ts-for-esports-federation-20140704-zsvn4.html

The International e-Sports Federation (IeSF) has changed its rules so that it will no longer hold any male-only events after a chain reaction of negative attention.

Of particular concern to many was that some events at Assembly Summer 2014, including a tournament of Blizzard's popular free-to-play card game Hearthstone, were only being held for one gender, meaning women were blocked from participating entirely.

When challenged, the FeSF stated that they were not happy with the situation, but they were restricted by the rules put in place by the international body, the IeSF.

The decision was made "in accordance with the International e-Sports Federation's (IeSF) tournament regulations, since the main tournament event is open to male players only", confirmed event adminstrator Markus Koskivirta. "This is to avoid possible conflicts (e.g. a female player eliminating a male player during RO8) among other things."

The problem faced by FeSF was that, since their event was a qualifying round for international competition governed by IeSF, they too had to employ IeSF's gender divisions. If they were to hold a mixed-gender event and a female competitor were to win, then she would not be able to progress to the international level of the league.

"We would also like to point out that the Finnish eSports Federation is currently lobbying for the equal rights of male and female players in the IeSF tournaments," Koskivirta added.

IeSF, for their part, claimed that the gender-segregation was part of its efforts to both promote e-sports (high-level competitive gaming) as a legitimate international sport, and also to promote female participation in eSports.

A spokesperson for IeSF told PC Gamer that most "legitimate" sports around the world are divided into male and female leagues, and cited the example of chess being gender-segregated. PC Gamer's Phil Savage countered this claim by pointing out that while chess has a separate female league, "women can enter the World Chess Championship and compete against men. Just ask Judit Polgár."

IeSF also said that having a female-only league increases the visibility of female cyber-athletes and promotes their participation in events that can often seem to be dominated by men.

A day after the incident first began creating headlines in the video games press, the IeSF changed their policy.

"IeSF shall have two event categories: 'Open for All' events and events that are reserved for women. The events which were initially set aside as the male division will now be open to all genders, and the events which were initially set as the female division will remain as they were," they said in a statement.

IeSF's motivation for the original rules was reportedly inspired by a push to gain Sport Accord membership, essentially meaning that e-sports would be officially recognised as a sport. This would then open up opportunities such as sporting scholarships for cyber-athletes.

However, Sport Accord membership requires that applicant bodies actively promote female participation, and IeSF decided that this would be most easily accomplished with gender-specific competition.

The irony, then, is that what appeared initially to be sexism supposedly arose from a desire to encourage female cyber-athletes to participate and to raise their public profile.

My first comment is that, even though I used to be a non-serious gamer from way back and I am still friends with many serious gamers, calling playing a computer game an 'e-sport' and calling the players 'cyber-athletes' is a breathtakingly ludicrous, vainglorious, absurd and pompous (dare I say Orwellian) abuse of language one feels whatever happens to someone who would call themselves a cyber-athlete should not enter our sphere of moral concern.

But putting that aside, I find this to be a sexist solution to a sexist problem.

If women are not as good at gaming, and therefore cannot compete with men, and this would demoralise them, then perhaps there should be gender-segregated tournaments. Of course, as in the world of actual sport, the women's tournament will neither be as prestigious nor as popular, because they aren't as good. If they were as good, they wouldn't be gender segregated.

But if, in fact, they are as good as men, then there should not be any gender segregation. That way, whoever wins knows for sure they are the best, and not merely the best woman (or the best man).

But the 'solution' above is a mixed gender event (the 'open') and a female-only event. What kind of message does this send to female 'cyber athletes'? It says 'if you're really good, you might be as good as some boys, but if you're not, best compete with your fellow lady gamers, and afterwards you can menstruate and talk about makeup and boys'.

 

[Togo]

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

What your article above, misses, is that the female only and male only streams were not playing the same games. They divided the games into 'male games' and 'female games'. Women who wanted to play, say, Heartstone, weren't allowed to play at all.

That's not how the Sport Accord rules work, that's not how the vast majority of sports work. That's just the IeSF.

 

[Metaphor]

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

What your article above, misses, is that the female only and male only streams were not playing the same games. They divided the games into 'male games' and 'female games'. Women who wanted to play, say, Heartstone, weren't allowed to play at all.

That's not how the Sport Accord rules work, that's not how the vast majority of sports work. That's just the IeSF.

All games should have been open to all genders, playing the same tournament (not gender segregated ones).

 

[bigfield]

IeSF, for their part, claimed that the gender-segregation was part of its efforts to both promote e-sports (high-level competitive gaming) as a legitimate international sport, and also to promote female participation in eSports.

A fine example of "how to do exactly the opposite of what you need to do to succeed."

Link to the Tournament lists Togo is alluding to:
http://ie-sf.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=iesf_notice&wr_id=105

Why would they EVER think gender segregation was a good idea? Are they seriously so stupid that they looked at the gender segregation in physical competitions and thought "hey we should do that."

And the term "e-sports"...holy fucking shit. Is that because "world cyber games" is taken?

IeSF also said that having a female-only league increases the visibility of female cyber-athletes and promotes their participation in events that can often seem to be dominated by men.

{Emphasis added)

When you make decisions based on feelings rather than cold reason, this is the kind of stupid that happens.

 

[Enigma]

In defense of the term e-sports:

My understanding is that the term got largely popularized by the rise of professional competitive Starcraft (and later Starcraft 2) tournaments in South Korea where it required a non-trivial amount of fitness (Do you happen to be physically able to make meaningful inputs to micromanage units at a rate around 250-300 actions per minute on a consistent basis over the course of a 15 minute to hour long game, leaving aside for the moment that one playing the game would also have to handle proper tactical planning/build order management simultaneously?) and it effectively got published and broadcasted (with a dedicated TV channel) in a manner equivalent to any other physical sport. It is not an unreasonable statement to say that Starcraft/Starcraft 2 are one of the main national sports of South Korea.

Like normal sports, e-sports in those terms is basically people playing a game that the people watching could play but at an insanely higher proficiency and skill level than the vast majority of people watching could ever get to. A good example of this is the fairly recent Sandisk Shoutcraft Invitational.

Now in terms of games like Hearthstone, sure, that is about as much of a sport as Magic: The Gathering and/or Poker. However, effectively the term e-sports has generally become the catch-all term for competitive gaming in common use. Language moves on, I suppose.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

 

[Togo]

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

Depends on what actually changes. The change referenced in the article still leaves some games only playable by one gender only. I'd be interested in seeing whether they've actually rethought their position, or have just taken the minimum possible action to stop their sponsors from panicking. Or to put it another way, has the attitude actually changed, or are they just doing as they're told?

 

[West]

In sports like darts and snooker women have their own championship series as they don't beat the men, apart from very occassionally.

I would guess that e-sports has been set up like it has for similar reasons.

 

[dismal]

Why is this a problem for the collective "we"?

The organizers should be allowed to organize it the way they think is best. Even if some or many of us think it is stupid.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I am all for letting everyone who wants participate in any sport, if they can hack it. It's about performance and results, not about dangly bits, clothing, or shopping preferences. I am adamantly against the segregation of any sport into gender-exclusive leagues for any 'official' purpose, and that goes both ways. If you can't hack it at the higher levels, that's why there are lower levels in any sports structure.

As to E-Sports being 'real' sports, they are. A sport is any game that has been turned into a formal competition to find the best player. At least these sports don't just assess who has the most grotesquely mutated body.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hmm... Been a long while since I saw a case women being excluded based on gender. These days it is usually the other way around.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why is this a problem for the collective "we"?

It's not a problem for the collective "we", it's a problem for those who might want to join but are unable to because of a ridiculous restriction that doesn't have any reason to exist and is completely unnecessary. It stands to reason that nonsensical restrictions are to be done away with. If we followed your philosophy, there would be very little social change. What's the harm in protesting against their actions? That they'll have to stop doing something they have no reason to be doing and excludes a specific group of people? Why should it be put up with?

 

[Metaphor]

In defense of the term e-sports:

My understanding is that the term got largely popularized by the rise of professional competitive Starcraft (and later Starcraft 2) tournaments in South Korea where it required a non-trivial amount of fitness (Do you happen to be physically able to make meaningful inputs to micromanage units at a rate around 250-300 actions per minute on a consistent basis over the course of a 15 minute to hour long game, leaving aside for the moment that one playing the game would also have to handle proper tactical planning/build order management simultaneously?) and it effectively got published and broadcasted (with a dedicated TV channel) in a manner equivalent to any other physical sport. It is not an unreasonable statement to say that Starcraft/Starcraft 2 are one of the main national sports of South Korea.

Simply requiring skill and being competitive does not make something a sport. Competitive Rubik's cubes solvers require very good physical dexterity but solving a Rubik's cube in competition is not a sport.

Now perhaps gamers want to co-opt the term 'sport' and 'athlete' because of the insane amount of deference and celebrity that actual athletes get, compared to the popular image of a gamer being an asocial, either obese or terribly underweight, socially awkward nerd. But mangling language is not the way to do it.

 

[Metaphor]

As to E-Sports being 'real' sports, they are. A sport is any game that has been turned into a formal competition to find the best player. At least these sports don't just assess who has the most grotesquely mutated body.

I play board games, and many of these have tournaments at conventions. To call the competition a sport is laughable, and the winner an athlete, absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

They changed their rules to make most games open (good) but they left other games female-only. That deserves ridicule.

 

[Metaphor]

Why is this a problem for the collective "we"?

The organizers should be allowed to organize it the way they think is best. Even if some or many of us think it is stupid.

Who said they shouldn't be allowed

Tell me, if I criticise your choices, have I made that choice unallowable?

Do you think that criticising someone's bad taste means you've banned them from having bad taste?

And do you think that an organisation should not listen to the feedback of its customers?

 

[Enigma]

In defense of the term e-sports:

My understanding is that the term got largely popularized by the rise of professional competitive Starcraft (and later Starcraft 2) tournaments in South Korea where it required a non-trivial amount of fitness (Do you happen to be physically able to make meaningful inputs to micromanage units at a rate around 250-300 actions per minute on a consistent basis over the course of a 15 minute to hour long game, leaving aside for the moment that one playing the game would also have to handle proper tactical planning/build order management simultaneously?) and it effectively got published and broadcasted (with a dedicated TV channel) in a manner equivalent to any other physical sport. It is not an unreasonable statement to say that Starcraft/Starcraft 2 are one of the main national sports of South Korea.

Simply requiring skill and being competitive does not make something a sport. Competitive Rubik's cubes solvers require very good physical dexterity but solving a Rubik's cube in competition is not a sport.

Then I have to ask what exactly is the demarcation line you are using between sport and non-sport? In other words, why are high level golf, pool, and/or bowling sports, while high level Starcraft 2 isn't?

My first thought was that the first three involve balls as part of play, but I don't think so, partly because that criteria would disqualify boxing and/or ultimate frisbee, and partly because it would make your stance on the whole sexism discussion seem rather ironic.

Now perhaps gamers want to co-opt the term 'sport' and 'athlete' because of the insane amount of deference and celebrity that actual athletes get, compared to the popular image of a gamer being an asocial, either obese or terribly underweight, socially awkward nerd. But mangling language is not the way to do it.

Oh no, people are using language in a manner that may be potentially incorrect.

How dare people use the term email when the so called "electronic mail" involves no envelope, postage, or any ability to contain any sort of physical message!
People keep using the term robot without acknowledging that, as part of its introduction into the English lexicon, it is derived from the Czech word for slave, therefore is obviously talking about slaves, and therefore people who joke about "Sex robots" are horrible human beings who are, at best, completely amoral in terms of talking about modern sex trafficing.
People often say that they don't have the bandwidth to do something when absolutely nothing is wrong with their network connection (or wifi spectrum in general), but rather when they are short on time.
Heck, it's even gotten horrible on Star Trek where any Star Trek after the original series has it where the vast majority of people who would reasonably be called "redshirts" aren't actually wearing red shirts, and the guys who die who are wearing red shirts tend not to be "redshirts", but rather important people who die and have some significant impact on plot (i.e. Spock in Wrath of Khan was wearing a red shirt, but sure as heck wasn't a "redshirt").

People using words in new and different ways, stretching metaphors, and developing the culture-wide equivalent of "in-jokes" is practically how English (and pretty much any other language) is built. The main time when such word stretches are horrible is when it renders a term meaningless. Like literally. Screw the abuse of literally. Literally literally didn't deserve to end up like that.

 

[Derec]

I think it is discriminatory to have a women's league but then say women must be allowed into hitherto men's leagues making them in effect coed. Either maintain men's and women's leagues or make everything coed and just separate by level.

 

[Metaphor]

Then I have to ask what exactly is the demarcation line you are using between sport and non-sport? In other words, why are high level golf, pool, and/or bowling sports, while high level Starcraft 2 isn't?

My first thought was that the first three involve balls as part of play, but I don't think so, partly because that criteria would disqualify boxing and/or ultimate frisbee, and partly because it would make your stance on the whole sexism discussion seem rather ironic.

Huh? What would be ironic about it?

Physical ability has to be a major component for something to be a sport. Chess is not a sport, even though it is a game with a high level competition. A quadriplegic could play chess and be a legitimate champion, even if someone else has to physically move the pieces. Card playing is also not a sport.

A sport does not need to involve balls. Sprinting and running are sports.

But I'll go to my grave before I call someone ganking a n00b on Warcraft a 'cyber athlete'.

 

[Jarhyn]

I play board games, and many of these have tournaments at conventions. To call the competition a sport is laughable, and the winner an athlete, absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

They changed their rules to make most games open (good) but they left other games female-only. That deserves ridicule.

Flawless execution of the no-true-Scotsman. I do not know your exact motivations for it, but your desire to deride the sports you don't like in favor of your deference to grotesque mutations playing at violence is laughable. The new sports are better for the collective 'us' than the old ones.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So they will forbid male-only leagues but still support female-only leagues? This is the politically correct double standard. It reminds me of a conversation back in my home town when the last male-only gym was forced to admit women. A feminist liberal friend of my was thrilled with the decision, and the conversation we had about it was rather interesting.

Me: But you go to a womens only gym.
Her: Yes. Women need to have a place to work out without worrying about being stared at by men.
Me: But what if men want to work out without worrying about women staring at them?
Her: But those men might discuss business when at the gym and exclude the women.
Me: But the women at your gym might discuss business.
Her: But they need a place to work out without worrying about men staring at them.
Me: But what about the men who don't want to be stared at?
Her: They might discuss business.
Me: Aren't you setting up a double standard here?
Her: No, why do you ask?