Reductive
model of gender and the absence of sexuality
As a scholar interested
in genders and sexualities, I am always troubled by reductive and positivist
discussions of gender differences. While some generalizations are inevitable
in order to make any statements about broad differences between groups
of people, they should be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the limitations
inherent in that sort of thinking and in the research on which the generalizations
are based. No such acknowledgements are present in Ray's text.
In making distinctions
between male and female reactions to game characteristics and strategies,
Ray is strongest when she reports such differences in context, giving
the results of specific market research studies or user tests of specific
games. For example, in Chapter 3, "Conflict and Conflict Resolution
Styles in Game Design," Ray reports that during focus group testing
of a game in 1997 by Her Interactive, developers noted that if a mixed-gender
group of young people were brought in as participants and there were
not enough machines for everyone, the girls would generally end up watching
the boys play instead of asserting their right to have a turn, indicating
to Ray that the girls did not prefer conflict and viewed participation
as not worth fighting over. Ray correlates this information obtained
from participant research with other research indicating that females
prefer puzzle games involving indirect competition to argue that female
players may be more attracted to games that do not require direct conflict
and incorporate skills' tests, like solving puzzles or riddles, into
their narratives and play.
While this is persuasive
and interesting, Ray's analysis is limited in several respects. Firstly,
she bases her analysis on older anthropological studies that argue that
women's propensity toward negotiation and compromise stems from their
roles as gatherers in earlier human societies; whereas, men, who acted
as hunters, developed desire for and skill in direct conflict and aggression.
While people historically assumed these roles in some cultures, much
has occurred in the interim and attributing the origins of present behavior
as the products of evolutionary processes seems simplistic and somewhat
dangerous.
Secondly, because
Ray's analysis ignores the role of sexuality and heteronormativity in
influencing the behavior of individuals assuming male and female roles
in relation to technologies, she misses a layer of meaning that could
help to further explain the designers' observations in the participant
research described above. As Linda Stepulevage (2001) argues, sexuality
is just as regulated as gender, and women and girls may feel pressure
to perform as female in an unmistakably heterosexual manner. Feminism,
Stepulevage (2001) adds, has lesbian associations, thus, in certain
contexts, females may attempt to avoid self-assertive or feminist acts,
such as demanding equal time to use a computer, for fear of appearing
different or as anything but completely heterosexual. Ray makes much
of sexuality in terms of sexual appearance of avatars and the sexual
jokes aimed at game characters throughout the text, yet she does not
mention how the cultural regulation of sexuality may affect players'
interactions, or lack thereof, with computers and computer games.
Finally, throughout
the text, Ray deals with female and male as binary categories with no
mention of the lack of homogeneity within them or any acknowledgement
of other positions related to sexualities. If heterosexual women are
not considered as a market for the gaming industry, the heteronormativity
present within the industry reflected in the narratives set up within
the games and the graphics that support them denies the very existence
of homosexuality and completely excludes gays, lesbians, or bisexuals
as potential targets for expanding the gaming market, for would not
individuals identifying as such be equally appalled by many of the attributes
of current games that Ray outlines as offensive to women? Ray makes
no mention of these issues.