my gaming experiment.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 by vanillaface
I agree with many of Bertozzi’s points, so carried out my own sort of experiment if you will with my border-line addicted gamer boyfriend (who we'll call... john) and his flatmates to test some of Bertozzi's points:
1. The consequences of challenging males: I asked John and his flatmates if I could play their multi-player-Halo-game-thing and the second I asked, 4 faces looked at me with an expression that easily read "err... why...?". To them, this was not a woman’s domain. As Bertozzi says in her article, there was hostility as I challenged the gender norms as it questions the very definition of masculinity. Directly, their masculinity.
2. Civility & chivalry: Although they were clearly uncomfortable with me in ‘their’ domain, they were very chivalrous when teaching me how to walk through floaty orbs, change from one gun to another that was apparently better, and ride big machine things. However, when I was playing (if you can call it that), I was ignored. Not a shot was fired at me and they ran past me like I was invisible, which backs up Bertozzi’s point about Catch 22 in cross gendered play. There was no glory in killing ‘just a girl’.
3. Female unwillingness to excel at cross-gender play: Even though I had 3 opportunities to kill John’s character, I did not want to. While I’m no 50s housewife, subconsciously I didn’t want to disrupt the gender norms that are constructed around me. The generalisation of male egos stems from somewhere and being beaten by a girl deals it a huge blow. I didn’t want to beat John at what is socially decided to be ‘a male thing’ for the very reason Bertozzi says in her article, not being seen as a ‘ball-breaker’ or appear less attractive to him.
So does this make me passive? A slap in the face to women’s rights activists? I think no. I believe it makes me someone who understands male/female differences and what each desires. For him, it’s getting the most kills out of his robot peers. For me, it’s as simple and cheesy as seeing him happy (but knowing I could kick his ass in Halo if I really wanted to.)
1. The consequences of challenging males: I asked John and his flatmates if I could play their multi-player-Halo-game-thing and the second I asked, 4 faces looked at me with an expression that easily read "err... why...?". To them, this was not a woman’s domain. As Bertozzi says in her article, there was hostility as I challenged the gender norms as it questions the very definition of masculinity. Directly, their masculinity.
2. Civility & chivalry: Although they were clearly uncomfortable with me in ‘their’ domain, they were very chivalrous when teaching me how to walk through floaty orbs, change from one gun to another that was apparently better, and ride big machine things. However, when I was playing (if you can call it that), I was ignored. Not a shot was fired at me and they ran past me like I was invisible, which backs up Bertozzi’s point about Catch 22 in cross gendered play. There was no glory in killing ‘just a girl’.
3. Female unwillingness to excel at cross-gender play: Even though I had 3 opportunities to kill John’s character, I did not want to. While I’m no 50s housewife, subconsciously I didn’t want to disrupt the gender norms that are constructed around me. The generalisation of male egos stems from somewhere and being beaten by a girl deals it a huge blow. I didn’t want to beat John at what is socially decided to be ‘a male thing’ for the very reason Bertozzi says in her article, not being seen as a ‘ball-breaker’ or appear less attractive to him.
So does this make me passive? A slap in the face to women’s rights activists? I think no. I believe it makes me someone who understands male/female differences and what each desires. For him, it’s getting the most kills out of his robot peers. For me, it’s as simple and cheesy as seeing him happy (but knowing I could kick his ass in Halo if I really wanted to.)
Great report 'from the field'!