Adam Ruins Everything might be my favorite new show this year.
It’s got all the fun of Cracked-esque wisenheimer infotainment, but it attempts to be transparent about sources, and the scenario writing and production quality are leagues better than they need to be. It’s a well-produced, quirky edutainment show of the caliber of Bill Nye or Good Eats.
As part of an episode basically about things that kids like, Adam did a take down on the gendering of the video game industry, that’s pretty interesting:
I do have some beef with this portrayal, though. Basically, I think the Fall of Eden narrative of games starting out gender neutral is specious at best. They name a handful of female game designers from the 70’s and 80’s, but in doing so they name all the female game designers I can think of–hardly equal numbers to the male designers! Dona Bailey was famously the only female game designer or programmer at Atari, and Centipede was co-created by Ed Logg (Steven Kent makes some claim that Logg had more to do with the actual product than Dona, but I believe Dona had the initial idea–I’ve always been unclear on how equal the process was). Anyway, there are almost certainly more female game designers nowadays, though I don’t know how it works out by percentage.
I like the overall thrust of the piece, and I never thought about the gendered marketing of the 80’s possibly explaining the lean towards the masculine console space.
BUT.
I’ve always understood Pac Man as a conscious attempt to get women to into arcades. Are arcades incorrectly reported as being mostly male spaces–isthe current narrative revisionist history? All the shmups and military games of the 70’s seem to indicate a pretty male-dominated space. Bubble Bobble at least shows arcades as a joint, social space where people could bring dates. Though that might have been an Asian thing (the modern arcades I’ve been to in Bangkok have this vibe–lots of teen girls playing rhythm games and there’s some sort of touch game that couples like to play).
I think it would be more honest to look deeper at how gendered programming (thus video games) was in the US. When you read histories of the tech industry and computing, there are always women who pop up, but they always seem to fade. In Hackers, Levy directly acknowledges this, and one of the MIT hackers of the 50’s claims that only genetics could explain why women who worked in computers never seemed to become obsessive nerds.
I can think of another explanation. In Hackers, a clear distinction is made between grad students using computers responsibly to do their academic work and the obsessive undergrads who broke rules to get extra computer time and eventually took over the computer rooms as their territory. While much is made about the inclusiveness and territoriality of the hacker sub culture at MIT, this ultimately sounds like a very competitive, insular space, based around having few social concerns. How many women of the 50’s who made it to graduate studies at MIT are going to feel the sort of freedom that allows one to waste one’s genius on silly computer diversions? Sure, making Space War turned out to be more important than rigorous STEM work being done by straight-laced grad students, but it makes total sense to me that of the ten people who threw their lives away to worship at the altar of the bit, a statistically non-existent amount happened to be women.
It’s unsurprising that programming started as a male space, and so it’s unsurprising to me that it continued as one. It’s therefore unsurprising to me that games continued as such. Though I totally buy that advertising and in-store branding masculinized the console market. I just don’t think it was divergent from the general historical trend.
And yeah: everything said after that is spot on. It’s a cool thing to have been on TV, for sure. It just…maybe could have been a bit less deceptive about bending history to fit a whodathunk narrative.