But It's Worse in Games Because They are Interactive

FeministFrequency recently released a new Episode of their Series "Tropes vs Women". This time, they discuss Women as Background Decoration, especially the prevalence of female Sex Workers in Videogames. As always, the critical perspective is welcome and the accumulation of examples is seriously disturbing.

I noticed that throughout the episode, the show makes a common argument which continues to struck me as questionable.

Variations of the above argument are also common in the criticism of violence or racism in videogames. The idea being that detrimental aspects of media are especially harmful in videogames because of their interactive nature. Here is why I find this argument debatable.

Great Resposibility Without Great Power

To begin with, the argument is used almost exclusively to argue AGAINST videogames - to justify harsher restrictions, a more scrutinous treatment. If the argument was true, the opposite should also be true. Games ought to teach more effectively. Games ought to makes us more virtuous by portraying morally positive themes. Games ought to convey stories in an even more griping way. Games ought to make art even artier.

However, this argument never seems to be made. Even in the Games for Change movement, the understanding is that games need to be specifically designed for tease out the positive effects. Meanwhile the negative influence seem to be always there whether intended or not.

When listing the positive ways in which games influence people, even the most avid games proponents seem to come up with tamely pragmatic ideas like "improved hand-eye coordination" - as if our society was suffering under an epidemic of bad hand-eye-coordination.

It would be ridiculous to claim that interactivity made games the overall superior medium. So why do we seem to accept the flip side so easily - that interactivity makes games overall the more dangerous medium?

My Medium Could Kick Your Medium's Butt

In fact, we can distill a universal form of the argument and apply it to any other medium.

"Negative aspects in [medium X] are especially harmful because of [what makes medium X distinct]"

... and so on. Of course, all of the above statements are true. That's because the initial argument is actually as a kind of tautology. Of course each medium has their own, uniquely effective means of communicating ideas. If the ideas are problematic, they will be communicated in a way inherent to that medium. It is no excuse to single out a specific medium. You could just as well single out any other medium. It is also not practical to measure and compare the effectiveness of different media. They work in inherently different ways. Apples to oranges.

I think games are often singled out here because of different reasons. Maybe because they are just the newest kid on the block? Maybe because they are so popular with younger audiences? Maybe because games don't offer enough positive counter-examples? Whatever the reason is, the "because they are interactive" argument seems more like an a-posteriori rationalization. It should be contested and never is.

Is this Necessary?

Going back to the original Feminist Frequency video - what also strikes me is that the argument is actually not necessary to the line of reasoning there. Yes, the series looks at the problematic portrayal of women in videogames. It is not necessary to reason why it does so. It is the premise of the series.

A frequent argument against the Feminist Frequency series is that sexist tropes exist in other media. The obvious answer is that just because other media use those tropes, it doesn't mean it is ok to use them in games. But conversely, if sexism is clearly harmful in other media, it shouldn't be necessary to emphasize that it is harmful in games.