Recently there has been a bit of a moral outrage concerning a new video game that will be released in this coming year. EA is planning to release a video game titled "Battlefield 1," the setting of which is The First World War. Gamers can enjoy an immersive next-gen experience as if they were actually in Verdun, or Flanders, or any one of the notable battles from history.
However, much like anything that enters the public sphere, the game was held up to the famous ‘modern media scrutiny,’ and a few journalists and bloggers paraded the game as sexist, since there will be no female characters in the multiplayer mode of the game. That’s right, you won’t be able to play as a female character in a game mode that takes place on the western front of The First World War. It is worth noting, however, that despite condemnation of the multiplayer mode, you will be able to play as a female character in the main storyline of the game, the part which takes place in the Arabian Peninsula
According to these journalists, the game has been labeled as sexist (source), and they claim that the only reason there will be no female characters in the multiplayer is because ‘boys wouldn’t buy into it’. To reiterate, according to these journalists, the portion of the game that takes place on the western front of The First World War does not allow you to play as a female in the game is sexist, despite the fact that in the main game mode, you will play as a female.
The concept known as “historical revisionism” can mean two entirely different things. It can mean either of the following: the legitimate correcting of historical views that did in fact occur. Or the distortion of these views to fit a certain viewpoint. As an example, the events of the Holocaust are historical fact. However, that doesn’t stop certain people from claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen. Usually, these people are proven to be antisemitic with no real basis in facts or truth, hence revisionism. They ‘re-vision’ history to fit their view.
Now I’m not saying that the media's journalists and bloggers who claim that this video game is sexist do so because they want to engage in historical revisionism. I’m not saying that their intention is to distort history to invent a world where sexism never existed. It would be impossible for me, or anyone, to prove what the motives are of the journalists are with any certainty. I, myself, however, can make the claim that by including female combatants to the western front in the video game is to engage in historical revisionism. Additionally, it would also send the message that ‘if we don’t like something from history, we can just change it by distorting the past.’
There is no logical reason for including playable female characters into a game mode that takes place on the western front, in which there were, historically, no female combatants . Instead of harping on the fact that the video game is following actual historical events, perhaps they should praise it for allowing you to play as a female in the game at all, which is in story mode. Instead of attempting to revise history when we don't like something, perhaps we should focus on the parts of history that we do enjoy, like playable female characters on the Arabian peninsula.
In our current culture there is a precedent for keeping historical faults while addressing them as we can see from the Warner Brothers Production Company. Adding this disclaimer doesn't engage in denial of things that did happen, which don't hold up to modern moral scrutiny. Perhaps the journalists who cover the emerging story that is Battlefield 1 could take a lesson from the correct perspective that Warner Brothers has laid down. Additionally, instead of focusing on the negative of presumed sexism, perhaps they should focus on the addition of diversity as the combatant for sexism. For instance, some of the empowered roles in which we see women in modern culture taking on, like in the show "Game of Thrones."
