Based on the reading, games are accessible for both males and females, but are advertised in a way that targets mostly males. Is this simply a poor advertising strategy on the part of the game producers? Are they only targeting half of their possible audience?
And on page 132 when Chloe says that Lara Croft is a "male fantasy figure," this is an interesting interpretation. Men often play games in which they assume the identity of really cool typical alpha male type characters, so was the character of Lara Croft designed as a sort of alpha female character to appeal to women? What were the pitfalls of the design of this character?
On page 134, Thornham defines or rather describes how "geek" gaming is culturally viewed. She writes, "Geek gaming is excessive and anti-social pleasurable gaming, laden with signifiers of the lone, perverted male, essentially fulfilling all his perverted pleasures and desires through the technology (which makes up for his social/sexual "lack"). Harsh!
Why is it that solo gaming is linked with perversion? What makes excessive solo gaming more frowned upon than other solo activities done excessively? Is it the technology aspect or the solo aspect? How can this discription of "geek" gamers be connected with our discussion of Second Life?
Thornham describes of a situation where the women in a particular household state that men are more likely to finish the task or mission of a game than women are. The woman says that that the women of the household will be more likely to stop playing and find something more important to do. Does this situation play in theory that video games are more gendered for males or does this speak more to the competitiveness of men?
Reading between the lines, what do you think is the reason that on page 136 that a number of gamers in one of the households admitted anonymously that they will game by themselves? Do they fear being grouped in the category of the "Geek" that Thornham previously mentioned in the article?
Going off Rachel's post, Thornham's idea of a "questionable sexuality" is interesting here because he essentially is describing two opposing sexual behaviors. "Carl" mentions that it is obvious that geeks "have a massive social deficiency and quite clearly a questionable sexuality"(134). Thornham then goes on to give clues that a questionable sexuality pertains to "perversion" and even perhaps an addiction to internet porn, but these statements tend to suggest that these are heterosexual men who are just awkward with the opposite sex. Yet, Thornham's actual example (geek gamer hugs a normal gamer) is suggestive of a homosexual or more "deviant" type of questionable sexuality.
Which one is it? If we are comparing this to a heteronormative masculinity backdrop then it would seem that both would be a threat, but which one is the author really asking us to consider as "questionable sexuality"? The awkward geek or the homosexual geek? What are the implications for either interpretation?
Can the concept of a "geek' only refer to the male? The way it is described seems that way.
Also, I wonder if there is a different point of view for videosystems like Wii from a gender standpoint? I wonder what he would say about that clearly different type of gaming experience and what it means in terms of whose playing it and why?
On page 131, Thornham quotes one of her study subjects relating gaming to football and the masculinity associated with participation in such "social games." In terms of sports and video games, what do you think the significance of "Fantasy Football" is? I don't know much about fantasy leagues, but I would think that they serve the same purposes as both public sports and video games played in the privacy of someone's home. Why are these kinds of games widely socially accepted whereas solo gaming is not?
On page 133 the author discusses the idea that what men and women are supposed to say and do is important in video game participation and discussion. How does this relate to the ide of passive audiences, and what does it say about gamers and our culture, in general?
In conjuction with the other posts, I'm curious as to why there is such a social stigma around solo gaming. Why were the subjects so hesitant to say they played alone, and why were they so defensive in explaining that they only play with other people? Is this society's way of creating an "other?" Also, I am confused as to the idea of solo, excessive gamers being of "questionable sexuality" (134). I would argue that men who play video games are, in fact, submitting to acceptable gender roles, thus solidifying their status as male.
Lastly, on page 141 Thornham quotes Sara: "Gaming is just another way to play out roles." Why is gaming so problematic in terms of gender roles and social stereotypes? Do you think they cause only hamr, or are they good in some ways? Why or why not?
On page 132, Thornham talks about when females play the games, they "say what they're supposed to say." He explains this as using certain terms that are associated with the games. Is this "saying what you're supposed to say" common in other areas of society. Sports? Technology?
I agree with Rachel that the comment made on 134 was a bit harsh. Are all geek gamers lacking in social and sexual areas? Are specific games designed to reach out to these geek gamers?
Based on the reading, games are accessible for both males and females, but are advertised in a way that targets mostly males. Is this simply a poor advertising strategy on the part of the game producers? Are they only targeting half of their possible audience?
ReplyDeleteAnd on page 132 when Chloe says that Lara Croft is a "male fantasy figure," this is an interesting interpretation. Men often play games in which they assume the identity of really cool typical alpha male type characters, so was the character of Lara Croft designed as a sort of alpha female character to appeal to women? What were the pitfalls of the design of this character?
On page 134, Thornham defines or rather describes how "geek" gaming is culturally viewed. She writes, "Geek gaming is excessive and anti-social pleasurable gaming, laden with signifiers of the lone, perverted male, essentially fulfilling all his perverted pleasures and desires through the technology (which makes up for his social/sexual "lack"). Harsh!
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that solo gaming is linked with perversion? What makes excessive solo gaming more frowned upon than other solo activities done excessively? Is it the technology aspect or the solo aspect? How can this discription of "geek" gamers be connected with our discussion of Second Life?
Thornham describes of a situation where the women in a particular household state that men are more likely to finish the task or mission of a game than women are. The woman says that that the women of the household will be more likely to stop playing and find something more important to do. Does this situation play in theory that video games are more gendered for males or does this speak more to the competitiveness of men?
ReplyDeleteReading between the lines, what do you think is the reason that on page 136 that a number of gamers in one of the households admitted anonymously that they will game by themselves? Do they fear being grouped in the category of the "Geek" that Thornham previously mentioned in the article?
Going off Rachel's post, Thornham's idea of a "questionable sexuality" is interesting here because he essentially is describing two opposing sexual behaviors. "Carl" mentions that it is obvious that geeks "have a massive social deficiency and quite clearly a questionable sexuality"(134). Thornham then goes on to give clues that a questionable sexuality pertains to "perversion" and even perhaps an addiction to internet porn, but these statements tend to suggest that these are heterosexual men who are just awkward with the opposite sex. Yet, Thornham's actual example (geek gamer hugs a normal gamer) is suggestive of a homosexual or more "deviant" type of questionable sexuality.
ReplyDeleteWhich one is it? If we are comparing this to a heteronormative masculinity backdrop then it would seem that both would be a threat, but which one is the author really asking us to consider as "questionable sexuality"? The awkward geek or the homosexual geek? What are the implications for either interpretation?
Can the concept of a "geek' only refer to the male? The way it is described seems that way.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wonder if there is a different point of view for videosystems like Wii from a gender standpoint? I wonder what he would say about that clearly different type of gaming experience and what it means in terms of whose playing it and why?
On page 131, Thornham quotes one of her study subjects relating gaming to football and the masculinity associated with participation in such "social games." In terms of sports and video games, what do you think the significance of "Fantasy Football" is? I don't know much about fantasy leagues, but I would think that they serve the same purposes as both public sports and video games played in the privacy of someone's home. Why are these kinds of games widely socially accepted whereas solo gaming is not?
ReplyDeleteOn page 133 the author discusses the idea that what men and women are supposed to say and do is important in video game participation and discussion. How does this relate to the ide of passive audiences, and what does it say about gamers and our culture, in general?
In conjuction with the other posts, I'm curious as to why there is such a social stigma around solo gaming. Why were the subjects so hesitant to say they played alone, and why were they so defensive in explaining that they only play with other people? Is this society's way of creating an "other?" Also, I am confused as to the idea of solo, excessive gamers being of "questionable sexuality" (134). I would argue that men who play video games are, in fact, submitting to acceptable gender roles, thus solidifying their status as male.
Lastly, on page 141 Thornham quotes Sara: "Gaming is just another way to play out roles." Why is gaming so problematic in terms of gender roles and social stereotypes? Do you think they cause only hamr, or are they good in some ways? Why or why not?
On page 132, Thornham talks about when females play the games, they "say what they're supposed to say." He explains this as using certain terms that are associated with the games. Is this "saying what you're supposed to say" common in other areas of society. Sports? Technology?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel that the comment made on 134 was a bit harsh. Are all geek gamers lacking in social and sexual areas? Are specific games designed to reach out to these geek gamers?