This is shocking, really. The implication here (which was also stated in the article) is that boys and men are more likely to play a game if it specifically excludes women (and vice versa, I expect). Why are people like this? I never have been, and I don't get it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"No Girls Allowed": Why the Stereotype of Games for Boys Exists [Polygon]
- Thread starter Jintor
- Start date
- Status
This is shocking, really. The implication here (which was also stated in the article) is that boys and men are more likely to play a game if it specifically excludes women (and vice versa, I expect). Why are people like this? I never have been, and I don't get it.
You're right of course, but even if we ignore that fact, the article really isn't without faults.
kamakazi_30
Banned
Ugh. It was a great commercial and don't take it so seriously.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
How about you quote the main body of the article, rather than use one example of a point to discredit it (which makes no logical sense). If you don't agree make counter arguments not pick at tangents.
I don't entirely disagree, but it'd be nice to have something concrete to discuss rather than to pick at the Santa Claus example.
kamakazi_30
Banned
Because of the demographic and the time and hell, even now, was/is predominatly male. Why should they cater to the extreme minority of the time.
God, I hate these threads.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Such as?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
The point he's disgusted at is that it was moulded into that gender split or at least seems that way (no way to know for sure without statistics) due to aggressive gender specific advertising because it's easier and safer that way. If the ratio's still had significant amount of females back when they first started market research, that's the most a likely cause.
JesseEwiak
Member
There's a difference between marketing toward a group and deliberately marketing against a group. For example, Lexus commercials may show well-to-do people in nice houses driving expensive cars in nice locales, but they also don't show those same cars splashing a poor guy in a 10-year-old Corolla with the driver of the Lexus saying, "I wouldn't want to be like one of those silly poors" as he drives by.
Discuss these faults.
SolidSnakex
Member
The industry is now at a point where it's playing it safe. Games cost a ridiculous amount of money so that immediately target a specific demo before they even greenlight a project. That's not to say that it's right, but that's quite clearly what's going on now. Before you may have been able to make multiple games without a worry about what will happen to your company if it didn't sell. Now you make one misstep and your doors are closed.
Gentleman Jack
Member
The audience was created by a marketing shift to refocus video games as toys, as a safe bet for consumers to buy in the already gendered toy market, not because of a pre-existing 'extreme' minority one way or the other. This was explained in the article, and several posts in this thread you claim to hate without a shred of comprehension.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Honestly I doubt we'd get much enlightening discussion about gender here. I am, however, interested in the origin of Santa Claus' modern image, as I believed that it was created by Coca-Cola, rather than merely appropriated and made popular by them.
That implication wasn't my intention. Targeting one demo doesn't mean purposely excluding another, and even if you write "males 16-25" on a form it doesn't mean you're going to exclude other players. But it does illustrate how people think about target demo, and how you can get trapped in that way of thinking. Especially if you work at/with a larger publisher, target demo is something you will discuss multiple times and for most "normal" games the easy assumption is young makes and further assumptions and decisions may spring from that.
Edit: I am highly critical of gender discussions on GAF - in my view most of them are little more than insufferable puritans throwing around words like "objectification" without thought to try to make their personal hang-ups seem like important sociological issues. But this article was pretty good, and this Santa stuff is more than a little silly. Maybe the example was flawed - move on. Marketing affects people - we know that regardless of whether that santa stuff is true. This piece deserves better than the typical "sexism would be solved if only all women wore turtlenecks" discussion we usually get.
old
Member
That's the crux of the issue. Early when the marketing was gender neutral the market was still male dominated.
The games industry and its marketing could learn from the mistakes of Lego:
Part 1: http://thesocietypages.org/socimage...istorical-perspective-on-the-lego-gender-gap/
Part 2:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimage...istorical-perspective-on-the-lego-gender-gap/
Part 1: http://thesocietypages.org/socimage...istorical-perspective-on-the-lego-gender-gap/
Part 2:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimage...istorical-perspective-on-the-lego-gender-gap/
Somebody please tell me why a gender focus was a bad thing especially taking into account historical consumerist spending habits? Why cant toys be gender focused?
This all gets back to trying to impose a macro class view that men and women are the same even though its quite obvious to anyone not entrenched in gynocentric ideology that we are not.
Catering to all sexes is more or less a norm, not because the corporate world believes in your ideologies .... but because they can extract a dollar or two out of you.
This all gets back to trying to impose a macro class view that men and women are the same even though its quite obvious to anyone not entrenched in gynocentric ideology that we are not.
Catering to all sexes is more or less a norm, not because the corporate world believes in your ideologies .... but because they can extract a dollar or two out of you.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
I understand what your saying, but it just one of those points where the reaction to this dilemma is that's all well and good but, this current predicament the industry is in, is not a temporary rut, unless something significant occurs this industry won't changes it's course, so precisely when will the industry decide to branch out if not now?
By your very argument the industry is going to play it more and more safe, as the costs continue to rise not take more risks. A more healthy growth (although not that much healthier) would be to least have more equal consumer representation of genders, rather than limiting companies to just one.
In the section entitled "A Future For Everyone", it is explicitly stated that the stereotype exists because of the video game industry and the media's coverage of it. Earlier, it's said that the stereotype exists in the video game industry because of a cautious market since the crash, which is an excuse.
The idea that gendered marketing is necessary is defended throughout the article except by an opposing viewpoint at the hopeful end part, and I would have liked to see the author stick up for it.
Depictions were already heading in that direction. If you want to credit someone with popularization, credit Louis Prang and Thomas Nast.
The article actually specifically mentioned some games that sold more to women than men before the marketing split.
entremet
Member
Some people just want to argue for argument's sake instead of real discussion sadly.
But back on topic.
This is definitely something we're seeing now with the new boxes from MS and Sony. They're basically catering to a younger male audience. Look at the launch games, shooters, driving games, etc. Look at the people lining up for these things. Very much male.
Gender is fluid, indeterminate, non-fixed, and constantly performed and negotiated.
It's too black-and-white is all. The article tries to provide simple answers to complex questions, or to the wrong questions.
The way I read it, the stereotype persists and is popularised because of the videogame industry + coverage (i.e. after it reached a critical mass it became effectively self-perpetuating), and the stereotype was originally promoted by the videogame industry because of a cautious market following the crash (i.e. doubling down on a specific targeted market was perceived as an economic necessity because the unfocused nature pre-crash wasn't profitable). The reason why it was perceived as an economic necessity, or why the audience/industry it was originally so male-dominated in the first place, is not really explored well in the article. But if you think logically through, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is because of already existing social stereotypes regarding gendered areas of interest.
I asked Tracey about this on twitter and she pointed out that in the 70s women couldn't even get their own mortgages, which seems an oblique way of pointing out that gendered expectations in wider society likely played a key role in the formation of the industry back then.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That not same as country spanning million dollar marketing campaign and you know it. Why do you think most images of myths and legends don't have such concrete depictions in modern society. Because even despite some depictions being more popular than others most of the time one depiction is not cemented as the depiction without some sort of organisation popularising it. Whether it be the church a monarchy or whatever.
Gender is defined. Behavior is not. You cant escape that and no gender ideology will ever change that.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
And this is why we can't have constructive discussions about gender here.
I can agree with all of that. I just think it's strange not to go even near to mentioning the influence of a sexist society in justifying that "caution" and creating those stereotypes. It's like the article comes from a sexism-blind author (though this doesn't seem the case at all).
Biological sex is defined, gender is a mutable social construct that's often associated with someone's sex.
Because people disagreeing with you automatically makes them either wrong or sexist. Its a great world we live in.
I constantly find myself laughing at how this applies to the games industry. Do you play games to reinforce your ideologies or for the entertainment factor? God knows if I need affirmation of my beliefs I don't go to a video game to get that extra pep I need because other people don't agree with me.
Its not an either or situation. Relying solely on social construct to define a gender is Russian roulette.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Thought it was explained quite well. It's safer and easier to market to one group than it is to market to several. If you try to please everyone you can often end up pleasing no one. So the marketers picked a group that resonated the most video games in order to secure and corner a market. Why that market resonated in the first place I don't believe is something including in the article would benefit from as it is far too complex and an that spans many cultures and a large period of time, It would dilute the article significantly if he or she explored it. That's not to say it shouldn't be explored it should. But in a article based entirely on the business side it certainly doesn't need to be explored.
Oh my, more revisionist history of videogames for a politically correct tailored "reality" where women at the beginning of videogames weren't calling us losers, geeks, nerds and so on and the vast majority of gamers weren't male.
No, it was all the marketing's fault, because companies suddenly decided to lose half of the world's population as potential customers just for fun, not because males were obviously way more interested in videogames.
No, it was all the marketing's fault, because companies suddenly decided to lose half of the world's population as potential customers just for fun, not because males were obviously way more interested in videogames.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
If you believe in science, then you are actually wrong.
I tend to seek out games that resonate with me on a personal level and avoid games that clash horribly with my worldview. Is that unreasonable?
Shit, which International Women's Council passed the resolution on how to treat men who play video games? I must have missed it.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Here we go.
Personally, I just think it's a case of word limitations. The article is already pretty long, and its focus is pretty clearly on trying to demonstrate the power of 80s/90s marketing and then talking about the self-perpetuation loop.
The Librarian
Banned
Uh...
Dear god now people are arguing about the difference between gender and sex.
The actual piece used "gender." That may not be exactly accurate but any sane person understands what the intent was. Whether or not games target the male sex vs. the male gender is both complicated and fairly irrelevant to the points being made. It's pretty fair to say that games target and exclude genders - if you need some sort of footnote to that feel free to mentally add it.
The actual piece used "gender." That may not be exactly accurate but any sane person understands what the intent was. Whether or not games target the male sex vs. the male gender is both complicated and fairly irrelevant to the points being made. It's pretty fair to say that games target and exclude genders - if you need some sort of footnote to that feel free to mentally add it.
Does it matter what I believe ?
Unreasonable, not at all.
Same here.
XANDER CAGE
Member
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6
28 eve looked at adam and said "haha nerd"
It's a pretty relevant thing to bring up when someone tries to criticize the piece based on the erroneous notion that gender is strictly defined and unchanging.
freenudemacusers
Member
show me on the doll where the woman didn't touch you
Riposte
Member
I wonder if you are letting your resentment of a hundred stalemate arguments against a hundred different people get the better of you. You really don't see why people refuse to equate "Angry Birds" or "FarmVille" to games that attempt to be more immersive and/or deeper (due in part to being much more complex and more spectacular)? Nevermind the "real game" semantics, it should be clear what is really being said. I don't see how that helps anything, especially when we are talking about other games and acknowledging their gender imbalance at the same time.
If anything we should be highlighting differences whenever we can and then looking how this is reflected in gender imbalance. Not just individual genres or games, but themes, both aesthetic and mechanic. Then we can wonder why (marketing is a good start, I agree that much). Precision is good, so is honesty, better than the pleasantness believing "50% of 'gamers' are women" may bring, when "gamer" is useless in most conversations.
I'm confused. Did you read the part of the article where Atari's ads showed girls and families playing at home together? What makes you think that games a "boy thing" by then? Seems like they were presented in the same way board games were, fun for the whole family.
Sure, maybe more guys played games than girls, but that might have to do with more girls getting into computers so that they had the impetus to make games in the first place. Girls not getting into computers... well that's a deep rabbit hole, but it probably had to do with women being expected to study "female subjects" like fashion, if they went to university at all.
Games being a "loser, nerd, geek" thing? Yeah sure, when I was younger it was that way. But that was 20 years later.
Devolution
Member
Sounds like a personal problem.
It's this kind of crap that made me throw my hands up long ago and stop debating in these kinds of threads. The fact that it's still happening even today is mind boggling. People who disagree with topics like this get hyper defensive, insulting, and downright condescending almost instantly.
- Status