YOU PLAY STARCRAFT?!

So Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty came out this week.

-cue fanboyism-

OR, in my case, fangirlism
Yes, I happen to be female.

I am by no means an expert on this game, or games in general, really. And I really wouldn't call myself a 'gamer chick' (somehow I find this title slightly degrading) but I have to say, I was as excited about this game as my brother or my male friends.
I grew up on the original Starcraft as much as any male gamer did.

However, apparently, Starcraft + girl = shock and confusion (and very occasionally, admiration).
Every time i engage in a conversation with a group of males about starcraft strategies or even just indicate that I know the names of the units, literally everyone freezes and the heads turn towards me in slow motion.
"YOU PLAY STARCRAFT?!"

On Tuesday(the day it came out), I was lining up for my copy of Starcraft II (incidentally, the line was filled with males) I received quite a few odd stares and one guy even did a double take when he saw me holding a copy of the game. Their expressions were easy to read: "YOU PLAY STARCRAFT?!"

SO I thought it would be a very good starting point for a discussion on gaming and gender and the supposed lack of female gamers.

I think it would be worthwhile considering briefly what it means to be a 'gamer'.
Does one qualify as long as they play games?

"NO" would be the outraged answer of a 'hardcore gamer'.

So what games do you have to play in order to be considered a gamer?
Do games like Super mario brothers, Final Fantasy, Pokemon or Tekken (to name a few) count? Because I see no lack of a female audience for these games. Gaming consoles are common nowadays in most households and played with my females as much as males.

I see social norms/stereotypes as well as the deeply ingrained social psyche as the root of the problem of the lack of females in games like Call of Duty, Halo or Starcraft. To put it simply, war games. Most girls seem to naturally not have any interest guns, machinery, armour, aliens or intergalactic war. But perhaps it is because they are taught, subconsciously, not to? As children, they are not given transformer robots, toy soldiers, toy guns or spaceships to play with. They are given soft toys or barbie dolls. Social norms mean that girls cannot identify with such games because they did not grow up being encouraged to have an interest in such things.

Also, I think girls find it more difficult to get into games such as Starcraft or Call of Duty is that they cannot relate to the characters.  It is dominated by male characters becasue women traditionally do not take military roles. Consequently, girls do not gain any sense of empowerment in playing such games.

This brings forth the issue of female characters in games. They usually take on a more passive role as either healers or, if they are part of the attack force, mages (which relates to the age old idea of women as witches). Examples include Aeris in Final Fantasy VII and Lulu in Final Fantasy X.
In Starcraft, there are not many female units. The medics are female. They speak girlishly and of course, allude to nurses who are also traditionally female. Dropship pilots are also female. They cannot deal any damage, it is again a passive role.
Of course it is not to say that female characters do not have more active roles in games. However, they are still a minority and there are not enough to attract a large female audience.

I'm rambled on long enough. One last thing:
It was mentioned in the lecture this week that perhaps the reason males play more/are better at games is because of growing up with older male role models such as older brothers. I think this is also a truth for girls with older brothers. They are, it seems, more likely to have an interest in games.
I am one of those people i guess.

_

Notes on the first lecture

So welcome to the class blog. Although we'll talk about the blog in more detail during the first tutorial, please don't feel you have to wait til then to start the conversation. Only the posts you select will be graded - so there's no risk in getting your toes wet straight away.

I want to begin with a follow-up to the first class yesterday. If you want to listen again to the word from Wordcamp on how to write for blogs—you know, the one that told us never to link by using "click here"—then, um, click here. It was great to hear some voices of dissent challenging this drive to streamline our language to the point of strangling it. What would be excellent is if others could share their views on what makes for good blog writing style either by replying to this post or posting anew.

Perhaps you want to relive the religiosity of the Very Reverend Steve Jobs launching the iPhone back in 2007 (sans my edits)? Thanks to Hugh for pointing out to me after the lecture that I had omitted to mention the resonances with the "Holy Trinity" (an ipod, a phone and an internet device; an ipod, a phone and an internet device; an ipod...)

The movie I showed the sequence from is Office Space (Mike Judge, 1999).

Finally, I highlighted some of the statistics in Technorati's State of the Blogosphere 2009 report. They organize their findings into Day 1, Day 2 etc. and you have to browse through these to see the kinds of stats I was pulling yesterday.

I have posted my ppt slides from the lecture on CECIL.

I'd like to encourage you to use this forum to discuss (and hopefully challenge and critique) the lectures, the readings and the debates in this class. I look forward to the conversation.