When Condemning Govindia Isnt Enough
Written by El Scorcho.
“I'm against [“Condemn Govindia”] for two reasons” explained Todd McCloud, “(1) I don't want to give him any more attention and (2) He'll argue it to the death. Literally, to the death. I'd almost rather people just know why he should be condemned and be done with it”. Todd McCloud speaks words of wisdom here, but outside of The World Assembly Security Council, Govindia has been condemned in various regions: England, The South Pacific, Europeia, Osiris and Equilism to name just a few.
I should be clear, I do not doubt that Govindia has done some terrible things — there is very substantial evidence to suggest that Govindia has had a long history of harassing (mostly) female players in NationStates. Furthermore, I am not a so-called men’s rights advocate, nor an apologist for the behavior of Govindia. Throughout this article I will be looking at NationStates through a feminist lens to suggest that condemning Govindia barely scratches the surface of addressing patriarchy and serious gender disparities in the politics of NationStates. NationStates Gameplay as a political organism is a microcosm for the politics of real life; it reflects the same systemic inequalities against female players as real-life politics bears against female politicians. The issues for feminism here are not confined to issues of simple inclusion/exclusion, there have been many successful female politicians in NationStates (e.g., Pope Hope, Naivetry, Ananke and Fudgetopia) — the issues facing women in NationStates are more systematic and deeper than that.
On Sept 18 2012, Equilism, published an extensive memorandum regarding the banishment of Govindia — reaffirming that “violence against women is a very real and very serious problem” (true) and insisting that the tough stance against Govindia was supposed to serve as a sign to other sexual harassers. However, harassment is stratified by power and privilege in NationStates just like it is real life: those with political connections and power are much harder to ostracize and persecute for disreputable behavior, while we kid ourselves as though we’re doing everything we can to combat abuse in NationStates by focusing on one individual. Govindia is, for the sake of an analogy, the shadowy bogeyman who can be persecuted with ease and attacked politically because he has few allies and little power, trust or political capital, but there have probably existed many players in the history of NationStates equally deserving of condemnation who avoided such circumstances because of their power and privilege.
Equilism went out of its way to get fourteen signatories on the memorandum — a collection of names of whoever in the region wanted to be seen “taking down” Govindia. This is because it is politically opportunistic to attack bogeymen like Govindia and being seen standing up for the rights of women. Taking a stance against the behavior of players in the game who have real political traction and connections in the game, however, takes real conviction and strength.
Ultimately, female politicians in NationStates have a very narrow window in which they must frame themselves: they must always been seen as compromisers, as universally-adored sweethearts and someone who rarely if –ever– calls out someone publically on anything. This is the nature of political capital for female politicians — the similar “compromiser” behavior of almost all the famous and highly successful female politicians in NationStates is not a reflection of some innate “female” method of leadership, but a reflection of patriarchy’s limitations set upon them. Among male politicians in NationStates history, one can find a rich variety of compromisers, motivators, iron-fist and Machiavellian leaders, not because men are more heterogeneous, but because they are not nearly as restricted by political capital. When the male politician feels threatened by the female politician, his options are numerous, but the most popular opinion is to question his opponent on the basis of their “bedroom history” — to degrade their persuasive political arguments as nothing more than the “brainwashing” manipulations of a scarlet vixen.
To some extent, there does exists a history of sexual persuasion and manipulation in NationStates, but only because the options available for female players to have an impact on their political systems are so limited. For a female player who wants to remain popular in NationStates Gameplay without necessarily playing the politics of their fellow women, their options are also restricted but the most common route is to be apolitical: to focus your entire existence in NationStates on cultural activities, social life and choosing cute avatars. My hat goes off to any woman in NationStates Gameplay who has challenged the norm of female leadership and tried to act in a way unique to them — many of them have been since framed as manipulative or outright, crazy “bitches”.
Perhaps one of the more obvious elements of patriarchy, however, is male leaders who rely on masculinity to define their character and provide them with political capital. The “alpha male” in NationStates is rarely if ever called out for his behavior, but they accumulate their political capital directly from the public humiliation of their male and female opponents which is both toxic and degrading. Meanwhile, the whole region suffers from leadership under an “alpha male” who puts his own personal grudges and competitions before the interests of the region.
NationStates is teeming with unsuspecting but influential aspects of patriarchy. For example, female politicians to sustain their image as “compromisers” become indebted to their own “dragons” — male players who do their “dirty work” on their behalf, like debating and attacking opponents. Moreover, have you ever noticed that “culture” is often one of the lowest priorities of a government? “Hard” areas of the government like foreign affairs and defence often receive the most attention, resources and are most requested by experienced (male) cabinet ministers, while “soft” priorities like culture and orientation are shifted to less experienced ministers. The tragic consequence of this masculine bias is that culture is often overlooked as a government priority, even though it is probably one of the few areas that are vital in seriously strengthening a region. Finally, there’s the institution of marriage in NationStates. Perhaps I am alone in viewing the practice as nothing more than dozens of young men fighting like vultures over every new fresh meat introduced to the NationStates ecosystem. But a wise female player once cynically advised me, “the way to get married in NationStates is to get them when they’re young – as soon as they join a forum or IRC channel for the first time, before you know them and before they know you, propose to marry them”. Although, there have been a few (very cute) exceptions, the vast majority of these so-called “marriages” in NationStates are simply young men satisfying their ego and attaining a higher level of status in NationStates. Grow up guys.
So to recap: next time someone tries to sell you a cock-and-bull political myth that women’s salvation in NationStates is secure with removing the Big Bad Govindia from their region, think again. There’s a lot of other problems out there and most of them aren’t banned from any region, let alone as many regions as Govindia has been banned from.