Tue 14 Sep 2004
As David Thomas noted, it feels a bit odd to be surrounded by so many women… While I sadly was not able to attend the Women’s Game Conference, there is an overwhelming sense of women+games coverage in the press recently (from the BBC, to CNN and news on a new female scholarship, etc).
Even the recent PBS documentary on games covered the topic of girls/games/etc, with two extended essays up at their web site (”Solving the Mystery of the Missing Girl Games” and “What Women Want“).
Aleks Krotoski did a nice job of quickly chronicling the women’s conference (day 1 and day 2), and even provided a great executive summary of her ELSPA-sponsored report: “Chicks and Joysticks: An exploration of women and gaming“.
All those positive comments/coverage aside, I did find Aleks’ commentary of day 2, wherein she describes the close-mindedness of the male developers across the hall, quite sad. It is amazing to me how often people are blind to opportunity, or are so set in their ways that they can never dream of new horizons. It is that kind of myopic thinking that leads us to “exploiting” digital vixens and hearing one of the industry’s founding fathers rant so heavily on the need for change.
Games are a cultural product. If you don’t involve a diversity of input (ie, gender, age, race, etc), then how can you expect a true diversity of consumption?


September 15th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
I find Aleks’ comments in her articles, bashing men for not attending some of the WGC sessions, to be as narrow-minded as the behavior she accuses the men of. Yes, the men should be seeking to understand women better, no question. But bashing men for not attending the sessions, actually bashing men in the sessions, and then crowing about it in her articles, is not a winning strategy for encouraging men to attend.
The WGC would have gotten more diverse attendance if there had been any mention of it in the AGC conference materials - there was not. Nor was there a schedule posted except for in front of the room itself. Attendees of the AGC had to know that the WGC was occurring, AND that they were welcome to attend sessions, AND then they had to find the room (which was quite a distance from the rest of the sessions and not well marked), AND then they could look at the schedule, which was only posted at the room itself.
I found the sessions I attended useful and enlightening, and I would have liked to see more men there. However, Aleks’ comment “…if any of the men […] had any sense, they’d have [had] the cahones to attend a couple of the sessions at the sister gig” just doesn’t jive with the reality of the situation.
Props to all of you who put on the WGC. I hope next year it is more inclusive.
September 16th, 2004 at 3:18 pm
As one on the panels that were mentioned in Aleks’ comments, I’ve posted my own rundown of the events, which contain more of the content of those particular panels for anyone who is interested.
September 16th, 2004 at 4:09 pm
Doh. My blog is at http://www.zenofdesign.com
September 16th, 2004 at 11:20 pm
I was there and didn’t quiet see it the same way as Aleks either. So, I’d love to see your summary–where did you post your stuff?
Also, sooner or later I’ll post some stuff from those panels (I finally got my WGC stuff up-www.buzzcut.com). In fact, I liked your comments. You had some great ideas!
– David