Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Laralyn McWilliams: "It was time to be willing to stand up"

Laralyn McWilliams: "It was time to be willing to stand up"

Thu 13 Mar 2014 3:02pm GMT / 11:02am EDT / 8:02am PDT
PublishingDevelopmentCasual Connect

It took a hashtag and a Facebook scandal to pull Laralyn McWilliams into the debate on gender

In the second part of this interview with Laralyn McWilliams - the first part can be found here - the conversation turned to what has become a common topic for coverage of women in the games press: gender balance and gender equality, issues that are now part of the daily discussion in an industry that knows it must forge ahead, but often does so with a lack of grace, and in every direction at once.

In a 20-year career that started with her own studio, The Gloating Goat Company, in 1994, and comprised roles at High Voltage Software, Pandemic, Edge of Reality and Sony Online Entertainment, McWilliams carved out success in what are increasingly regarded as 'the bad old days' for women in the games industry. It wasn't until #1reasonwhy swept social media late in 2012 that she started talking about her experiences during that time, and then, thanks to the actions of one games journalist, the conversation escalated to an entirely new level.

In January this year, McWilliams posted a Facebook conversation between one of her close friends from the industry and a member of the games press. It showed the journalist - later identified as IndieStatik's Josh Mattingly, though not by McWilliams - making a series of crude and unsolicited sexual comments that ultimately caused an outcry, forcing him to resign from his job.

In the following conversation, McWilliams explains how her attitudes have changed with the passing years, the distance the industry has travelled, and just how far it still has to go.

Q: Full Spectrum Warrior is almost ten years old, and your career in the games industry stretches back another ten before that. The issue of gender balance has been at the forefront of discussion for a few years now, to the point where I think the press feels obligated to raise the subject whenever they talk to a female developer. Do you enjoy talking about it? Do you dread it?

"If we need games for 10-year olds do we need to hire 10-year olds to make games?' If I can't make a game for someone else I'm a shitty designer"

LM: Well, as you may know from my blog, I didn't talk about it pretty much ever until recently. Only once have I even been on a panel about being a woman in game development.

Q: Why is that? Were you avoiding the topic?

LM: Because for years... I started back in the days when I might be the only woman at a company, or one of the few at a company of 60 or 80 people.

Q: That was the mid-Nineties, right?

LM: Yeah. Coming out of that environment, at that time I was very disappointed to go to GDC as a speaker and see that all the other female speakers were talking about being women in game development, and not about what they actually did. And I was saying, 'I don't want to talk about that. I want to talk about my area of expertise. It doesn't matter that I'm a woman.'

I would get so frustrated when people would say things like, 'If we want more games for women we need more women in game development.' I thought, 'What the hell? If we need games for 10-year olds do we need to hire 10-year olds to make games?' If I can't make a game for someone else I'm a shitty designer. Before Full Spectrum Warrior the most military game I'd ever played was probably Castle Wolfenstein.

1

Q: That's an interesting point. When you look at other art forms, there is more of an expectation that the best creative people should be able to speak to audiences of all kinds, and not just their own gender. If a male novelist can't write convincing female characters, for example, it's generally seen as a weakness in his talent, and the same is true of filmmakers. We seem to think about games in a slightly different way.

LM: Yes, and the game I'm working on now [with The Workshop Entertainment] is probably the most male-oriented game I've ever worked on.

#1reasonwhy was probably the first time I ever spoke out about some of the bullshit. To be honest, to some extent I have the lack of social skills to just call somebody on it when they do something. It's not like being ballsy; it's just that the social part of my brain skips out and my programmer brain kicks in.

I guess the best example was I was put into the role of producer at a company where I hadn't been a producer before. I went to my first producer meeting, and somebody who had worked with me as a designer at that company for a couple of years already came into that meeting and said - not kidding - "I hope this goes better than the last time there was a woman in the producer meeting."

Q: Wow.

"If something bad is happening to me, robbing me of the ability to talk about it isn't even letting me own the situation. It's mine"

LM: And my programmer brain kicked in and I said, "What does that mean?" He said they like to tell off-colour jokes, and I said, 'What are you talking about? I have, like, the dirtiest mind, and you know that. You know me. We've worked together for two years!' It wasn't until I was out of that situation that I realised how incredibly crappy that would be for somebody who was new. I'd been at the company for a long time so I was confident, and it didn't even occur to me to be at all scared of that - 'What a dick,' was my thought [laughs]. It was only afterwards.

#1reasonwhy was the first time I really talked about anything like that, and some of it was so surprising to me. I tweeted about meetings with publishers taking place in strip clubs, and there were all these people responding in shock. I was like, 'You must be new.' This is five years ago that this was still happening. This is not the old days at all.

Q: Absolutely. When I first started covering the games industry back in 2005, visiting a strip club often seemed to be on the agenda on press trips. It wasn't forced on you at all, but the opportunity was often there at the end of the night.

LM: Yeah, exactly. So the hashtag got me talking about it a little, but, honestly, it wasn't until my friend - and I'm sure you know the incident I'm talking about - that was the first time my name was dragged into it. Well, I shouldn't say 'dragged in' - I did it.

Q: Yeah, that situation really got people talking.

LM: And I have another female friend going through that as well, and another female friend working in [another entertainment] industry who recently spoke out about - without naming any names - some of the incredibly shitty things that have happened to her over her career. One thing on the scale of what Mattingly did, and another thing where she was groped at a conference. But one of her former employers basically flipped out, even though she didn't name any names and the timing of it made it very clear that she wasn't at that company [at that time].

I won't say they were threatening her, but they were definitely very hostile toward her speaking out about what had happened. I just had enough at that point. Even though it wasn't happening to me, it was happening enough with friends of mine that felt it was time to be willing to stand up.

Q: It does make me wonder where the line is between sexist industries and sexist individuals. They don't strike me as the same thing necessarily, though I suspect a lot of people discussing these issues see them as interchangeable. What did you make of the tone of the discussion when the Mattingly incident really blew up? Was it constructive?

"I tweeted about meetings with publishers taking place in strip clubs, and there were all these people responding in shock. I was like, 'You must be new'"

LM: I think it's unfair to expect people who have experienced something to be pressured into not talking about it. It was kinda the same for me with my cancer, because a lot of people wouldn't have talked about it publicly and I definitely thought about that. But I decided to talk about it, and when I got a little bit of pushback from people; from a professional perspective, maybe it would make potential clients of the company I was working for nervous. I remember very clearly how that felt.

If something bad is happening to me, robbing me of the ability to talk about it isn't even letting me own the situation. It's mine, and I need to feel like I have some control over at least talking about it. I think that's why I was willing to talk about what happened to my friend.

What's disheartening to me is that it seemed like people immediately divided into camps. There's the, 'I'm gonna light that dude on fire' camp, but he doesn't necessarily deserve to be lit on fire. That's not the intent. Let's just have a discussion. Then there's the second camp of, 'Let's all flood this guy with hate tweets and death threats.' And then there's the third camp of the people who seem to feel so much personal guilt for whatever reason that they start to attack little bits of it.

That third camp is the most disheartening. I expected the other two groups, but I didn't expect, 'it was her fault because she didn't stop him'. I hadn't really encountered that before, and then I started to see how often it really happens.

Q: If the industry could be considered sexist, it's probably in that unwillingness to recognise certain kinds of behaviour as problematic, and the reluctance to give people a platform to air their grievances. In any large group of people there will always be some who act in anti-social or offensive ways. That's never going to change, but everyone deserves support and protection.

LM: And it's all fuzzy lines. There's always ambiguity, like it happened at a party, or maybe they had dated in the past. Honestly, one of the reasons that I didn't talk a lot about these issues before is because sometimes I've found myself on the other side of the conflict.

Q: What do you mean?

LM: It's died down a little bit now, but for a period of four or five years most of the talk was about why women weren't getting hired in certain roles. I'm in design, which has one of the lowest populations of females. And to me that was very frustrating, because during that period of time where there were so many complaints about women not getting hired, [but] it was often for games that they didn't play. And I was like, 'Sorry' [shrugs her shoulders].

"I vote with my mouth and with my dollars, and if I think something is shitty to women I'll tweet about that and I won't buy it - but it has a right to exist"

Personally, I have no problem working on a game that's made for men. That's the audience, right? I also don't have a problem with games that don't have a female playable character, if it's a game intended for men. I don't have a problem with a game that has a sexy female lead if it's intended for men. There's nothing wrong with making something for a particular audience and marketing it to them.

Q: This reminds me of a conversation that started around Grand Theft Auto V, where Rockstar was criticised for not having a playable female character. I couldn't understand that, because even when we've achieved a perfect balance there will still be games with only male playable characters, and with a predominantly male point-of-view. The solution is surely creating new games that serve different groups of people better, rather than just changing those that already exist.

LM: It has a right to exist as a product. I vote with my mouth and with my dollars, and if I think something is shitty to women I'll tweet about that and I won't buy it - but it has a right to exist. In the same way, I will not go out of my way to hire a woman for a position if she's less qualified than a man, unless she has something unique to bring to the table.

And she probably does. That's the thing.

I'm old enough to have watched how Dungeons & Dragons changed, because it used to be a bunch of dudes hanging out in the basement. No women. And all of the adventures were, 'Roll the dice, kill some shit, grab the loot, and get out.' But as they started to get older and brought their girlfriends in, these stories started to evolve. It evolved into what it is now, and I think women being in that audience played a part.

Full Spectrum Warrior had a deeper story because I was a part of it. It was very much a team effort, but there's one part that I felt the most ownership over: it was the system that drove the cut-scenes and the way the soldiers talked to each other. There was actually a pretty complex AI system behind that dialogue, and I had to rally for that system, because - and I've seen this on game after game - things that let the characters express emotion are lower priority than having six additional levels. I think that's something that, a lot of the time, women can bring to the table that men don't.

Q: And it's the sort of nuanced outcome that isn't obvious at first glance. More women on development teams won't just mean something as straightforward as more female characters. It could also mean that, of course, but there will be other, more subtle benefits. Amy Hennig's work at Naughty Dog is a good example of that. Nathan Drake is a pretty classic male archetype, but there's something different about the way he's written.

LM: Yeah, exactly.

2

Q: Given when you started, and how relevant these topics still are to the way the industry is changing, I guess you could be viewed as something of a pioneer. Are things getting better?

LM: They're getting better in a lot of ways. I definitely see more women now. But I think there's one way that it's still kinda the same: games that aren't for men are still in the ghetto. They get low budgets. They get the B or C or even D teams at the larger companies. Nobody's going to put the God of War team on a game like that. They always get the short end of the stick.

And then there's one way in which it's worse. Whether it's just because social media was less prevalent, or whether it's because the internet has just condensed assholes....

Q: There have been times when I'd suggest the second one.

"Games that aren't for men are still in the ghetto. They get low budgets. They get the B or C or even D teams at the larger companies"

LM: I've been exposed to a lot of petty bullshit in my years in this industry, but never actual hate. In the past, it was more like casual exclusion, or just surprise that there was a woman - like, 'What?!' - but not hate. Now, sometimes you get hate just for being a woman, and that, in some ways, is worse. But I think it's people feeling threatened.

Q: They can sense that things are changing, maybe. There's something in the wind.

LM: Yeah. From my personal perspective, the shame of the situation we're in today is that, if we had two equally qualified candidates for a design job on the game I'm working on - which, as I've said, is a very male-oriented game - if they were completely equally qualified I might lean toward the woman, just to balance the workplace a little. But I might lean toward the man. It depends on personality and other stuff, too. I'm even.

But if we were filling a community manager role, for example, there has to be this other level of debate: If you're making a game for a male audience, can you have a female community manager? Will she be as effective in her role as a man would be, because of the audience? Now, I feel very lucky to work at a company where the owners would say "That's bullshit!" and hire the woman anyway. If she's the right one for the job, she's the right one for the job.

What sucks is that we have to have that conversation. I've had the conversation about me, too. We have to consider whether I'm in any way going to be a public voice for this game, and my company's answer is, 'Of course you are, if you want to be.' But it's still crap that you have to have that conversation, and it's crap that gender has to play a role.

But then it's a business, and, like with free-to-play, sometimes as a business you have to make decisions that aren't the ones you'd like.

Q: And that's odd, because if you look at movies, TV, books, the spending power of female audiences is huge: Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, you name it. And yet that has been neglected by these big companies that are all struggling to make money from games.

LM: Because game companies are owned by men, and games are designed and built by men.

Q: For now.

LM: Yeah, for now.

18 Comments

Tom Keresztes Programmer

685 340 0.5
Unfortunately Full spectrum warrior was only a niche success, but i really liked that game. Especially that soldiers could not just die, but they could get wounded and/or disabled and you actually had to had get them to a medic, while snipers where still shooting at you (and the medic). It was originally designed as a training simulator for the US Army, if i remember correctly so its quite far from the usual Hollywood style depiction of modern warfare.

Posted:7 months ago

#1

Tim Carter Designer - Writer - Producer

578 322 0.6
Games that ARE for men are still in the ghetto.

Posted:7 months ago

#2
Wow. I would love to know what publishers held their meetings in strip clubs.

Posted:7 months ago

#3

Craig Page Programmer

384 220 0.6
No wonder AAA budgets are increasing exponentially, they're holding ALL of their meetings in strip clubs.

Posted:7 months ago

#4

Gareth O'Neill Environment Artist (Contract), Ubisoft Reflections

30 23 0.8
if they were completely equally qualified I might lean toward the woman, just to balance the workplace a little. But I might lean toward the man. It depends on personality and other stuff, too. I'm even.
This in itself is part of the problem, you can't really follow that statement up with,
I'm Even
. Clearly your not because of your previous sentence. to be even all you would have said is.
if they were completely equally qualified I might lean toward the woman, But I might lean toward the man. It depends on personality and other stuff, too.
Even If I Understand the whole wanting to balance things out part from your own personal point of view, putting someone's job on the line which could be their life, you never know they may need that job to keep a roof over their heads to feed their kids, to essentially live. To deny them that for the Sake of Balance? How would you tell them?

"Hey guys look your both perfectly equally qualified, and your personalities are both great I could work with either of you I really Could. But sorry Mr, I''m gonna go with the girl cos there's already a lot of men here."

I'd hate to be denied a job on those grounds alone.

Sorry I agree with most of your sentiments but that really stuck out to me as hypocritical.

Posted:7 months ago

#5

Helen Merete Simm Senior UI Artist, Codemasters

49 262 5.3
@Gareth O'Neill
I think she made it clear that leaning towards hiring the woman was because the woman could bring more to the workplace (in terms of a different perspective)? If you read back towards the part about Amy Hennig it makes a little more sense.

Posted:7 months ago

#6

Gareth O'Neill Environment Artist (Contract), Ubisoft Reflections

30 23 0.8
That's not how it reads though, her statement about women bringing more emotion than men is not connected to the statement she made below it.

You can make a connection and conclude that via Assumption, but it is only a personal assumption that, that was what she meant. That's not what was written and it's not even implied in that sentence, "only for the sake of balance" is implied nothing more.

I'm not meaning to be annoying, in my eyes to be truly equal thoughts of balance, imbalance equality and inequality should not even enter your head.

It's like that internet meme that did the rounds a few years back, the one about the life game If you think about the game, you lose the game

You can't win that game by actively trying to win it because your concious of it, the only way to win the game is for you to be busy living your life that it never even enters your head.

A Child does not have this problem of thought until the problem is made aware to them (either through experienced adversity, or through being taught it exists and they should not do it). It is society and human nature as a whole that needs to just accept everything and everyone for what they are, strengths and weaknesses included.

I realise I'm sounding preachy now, but I just wish the world could just stop squabbling at each other and just all get along :)

Posted:7 months ago

#7

Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany

822 654 0.8
Popular Comment
Each time a girl demands something as logical as equality and to be taken seriously we have an outcry, mostly coming from men.
And some people still insists that there is no such thing a "gender problem". Yes, sure...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 14th March 2014 11:49am

Posted:7 months ago

#8

Neil Young Programmer, Rebellion Developments

305 389 1.3
@Alfonso "Lewis's Law"

Posted:7 months ago

#9

Helen Merete Simm Senior UI Artist, Codemasters

49 262 5.3
Popular Comment
@Gareth

"I'm not meaning to be annoying, in my eyes to be truly equal thoughts of balance, imbalance equality and inequality should not even enter your head."

Its awesome that you can live in a world where imbalance, in equality and sexism don't force their way into your life on a daily basis.
And I hope one day women can too.

Posted:7 months ago

#10

Gareth O'Neill Environment Artist (Contract), Ubisoft Reflections

30 23 0.8
I really don't think anyone has actually understood what I was saying or at least trying to say. I'm not good at explaining my thoughts, though I did take the time to try and articulate them as best I could, however I don't wish to entertain sarcasm in place of an intellectual debate which may ruin the comments for others, so I think it's time to call it a day and enjoy our lives :-)

Posted:7 months ago

#11

Jessica Hyland Character Artist

337 1,438 4.3
Popular Comment
Sadly Gareth, being determinedly ignorant of the issues that impact other people's lives is exactly what leads to inequality in the first place. We do not live in a world free from sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or all the other horrible little prejudices that hurt people's lives and opportunities so adopting the position that ~not thinking about it will magically solve the problem~ is not going to help anybody except the status quo.

Posted:7 months ago

#12
Run Gareth Run. ;-)

Posted:7 months ago

#13

Aaron Johnson

23 34 1.5
I like Laralyn more and more everytime she opens her mouth. Please, more interviews like these.

Posted:7 months ago

#14

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Its awesome that you can live in a world where imbalance, in equality and sexism don't force their way into your life on a daily basis.
And I hope one day women can too.
Nobody lives in that world; some just live on the better side of it.

It can be - nay, is - hard for someone on the advantaged side to admit that a good portion of where they are in the world is not due to their ability or hard work, but simply luck. It's built in to human nature that we want to take credit when things go well (even if it has little to do with us) and blame circumstances when things go wrong. And when things go well for us but not someone else, we really want to say that it's because we are somehow better than that other person.

I"m not saying this to excuse such behaviour; I'm just saying that's how it is. That seems to be built in so deep that I don't see any way to change that.

Posted:7 months ago

#15

Mohammed Alsadoon Staff Writer, Gaming Bus

21 12 0.6
You know, I never felt that Full Spectrum Warrior really had a deep story. The characters were quite one dimensional and in the middle of a firefight the soldiers were talking about going back to the base and kicking each other's asses on the Xbox.

Brothers in Arms, it was not.

Men are no better or worse than women in any creative discipline. If someone has a boring D&D campaign, it wasn't the fault of their gender.

Posted:7 months ago

#16

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
The first step to shrinking it is making them aware of it (because if you don't know your thought process is flawed you can't work to improve it).
Thanks for your complements. You're about half -way to what I was really thinking there (I probably wasn't entirely clear); but my main point is that this is not just something that people have difficulty with even when they know about it: it's something they actively don't want to believe because it will make them feel bad. Merely educating them about it won't change their feelings about it. The introspection illusion mentioned in your bias blind spot link comes closer to summing it up: even when you tell people about human cognitive biases, they think they're less susceptible to these biases than other people.

Posted:7 months ago

#17
@Curt Sampon

"It can be - nay, is - hard for someone on the advantaged side to admit that a good portion of where they are in the world is not due to their ability or hard work, but simply luck. "

You do realize that as you said blame circumstances when things go wrong that statement could easily be written as.

"It can be - nay, is - hard for someone on the disadvantaged side to admit that a good portion of where they are in the world is not due to them being discriminated against, but simply down to them not being good enough. "

Whenever anyone comments that they didn't get ahead for this reason or that and need support to right the injustice just remember that.

This is the reason why anecdotal evidence has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's possibly a clouded one-sided view of what actually took place. By all means investigate and support the accuser but the accused always deserves due process.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by John Owens on 19th March 2014 10:59pm

Posted:7 months ago

#18

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now