Postfeminism and the Girls’ Game Movement: Destined for Failure

Postfeminism and the Girls’ Game Movement:

Destined for Failure

Renee Powers

COMS 697 – R. Brookey

Northern Illinois University

August 3, 2011

POSTFEMINISM AND THE GIRLS’ GAME MOVEMENT

“As long as they refuse to acknowledge that they’re only making ‘games’ to

satisfy SOME little girls, they’re enforcing a stereotype.”

-Stephanie Bergman, as quoted in Jenkins (1998)

Introduction

The girls’ games movement of the 1990s emerged with good intentions:

Girls were not playing digital games as much as the boys and therefore would be

forever behind in their technological savvy. To rectify this, and to ensure girls’

lifelong interest in technology, the computer game and video game industries

developed games with girls in mind. However, they did not achieve the

economic prosperity that they had hoped for. Girls still did not take interest in

digital games.

In retrospect, we can understand why these games failed. Instead of

creating universally good games, computer and video game developers designed

games that spoke to postfeminist desires in a culture that has not yet achieved

feminist goals. The games in the girls’ games movement reinforced traditional

femininity, in line with the conservative hindering rhetoric of postfeminism, or

essentially feminist backlash. These games did not cultivate authentic identity

formation, rather persuaded its players to develop socially sanctioned identities in

accordance to traditional fixed gender norms. The marketing of such games also

reinforced these stereotypes with advertisements speaking to fashion, fun, and

frivolity instead of challenges, puzzles, and mindbenders. The games were

relegated to specifically girls’ sections of retail stores where they could bask in

the pink and purple glory of other traditionally girls’ activities.

2


This paper seeks to understand the failures of the girls’ games movement

in light of postfeminist rhetoric. I will first outline what exactly is postfeminism

and why it is difficult to define. Accordingly, I discuss the major tenets of

postfeminism and how it codifies femininity through economic and narrative

choice. And importantly, I highlight how postfeminism differs from other types of

feminism. From there, I introduce the girls’ games movement in depth,

borrowing from literature inspired by a groundbreaking one-day symposium on

gender and computer games, hosted by MIT in the late 1990s. I analyze where

the girls’ games movement went wrong in its essentialization of femininity and

adherence to postfeminist ideals. I discuss what draws women to gaming in the

first place and how girls’ games were fundamentally misguided. Finally, I

propose an alternate way to discuss gender and gaming.

What is Postfeminism?

The definition of postfeminism, as informed by Diane Negra (2009), relies

on three tenets. Firstly, postfeminism is the theory that regards all of feminism’s

goals regarding gender equality as achieved. For postfeminism to exist,

feminism must be complete and in the past. Secondly, postfeminism relies on a

capitalist, consumer-centric society to thrive. It is in this way that female

empowerment is oriented toward consumer choice, favoring free market

capitalism. Not just any choice will suffice; postfeminism codifies the right

choices, often essentializing femininity through a series of correct choices.

3


Thirdly, underlying economic choice is the conservative rhetoric of individualism,

borne of the Reagan administration, which also favors traditional family values.

The correct choices in accordance to postfeminism rely on traditional femininity.

For instance, postfeminism understands poverty not as a systematic crisis that

disproportionately affects women, rather the effect of the “wrong” choices a

woman is more likely to make. In order for that woman to make good, she must

find a good man to support her, as is often the case in Hollywood films. The

“choice” to marry is considered one of the most valued characteristics in

postfeminism.

There are many different definitions of and assumptions about

postfeminism and these differences are articulated even in volumes dedicated to

essays on postfeminism (see Tasker & Negra, 2007). The difficulties of defining

postfeminism lie in its interweaving of feminism with capitalism. This suggests

that the definition of postfeminism relies on a fixed definition of feminism, as it is

deemed by feminists and academics to be the backlash of feminism. “What

appears distinctive about contemporary postfeminist culture is precisely the

extent to which a selective defined feminism has been so overtly ‘taken into

account,’ as Angela McRobbie has noted, albeit in order ‘to emphasize that it is

no longer needed’” (Tasker & Negra, 2007, p. 1). As is suggested here, the term

“feminism” is just as widely disputed and can be as fluid as any political term.

Many postfeminists have rendered “feminism” nearly meaningless. Sarah Palin

has recently embraced the term “feminist,” though it is clear her definition and

use varies greatly from the uses employed by Gloria Steinem or even Hillary

4


Clinton. Thus, the differences in definitions of postfeminism and how it is

received directly correlates to the differences in the definitions of feminism. This

complicates discussions of postfeminism, yet for the purpose of this paper,

postfeminism refers to the backlash to feminism. Postfeminism assumes all

feminist goals regarding gender equality have been achieved, therefore any

choices a woman makes can be considered empowering, unlike the feminist

sense of empowerment as the ability to self-define and self-value. However,

postfeminism works subversively within traditional conservative rhetoric to

persuade the public to maintain strict gender roles. The choices proffered to

women are framed to emphasize women’s traditional place within the home.

McRobbie (2007) sees postfeminism as the epitome of the “double

entanglement.” She contends that postfeminist women adhere strictly to

traditional gender roles and family values while also maintaining an open mind in

regards to the plethora of choices families can make, e.g. gay civil unions and

adoptions. In this definition, postfeminism blurs the line between itself and

feminism. Popular understandings of feminism recognize that working towards

equality for non-traditional families is a feminist endeavor. However,

postfeminism understands marriage and family as the most desirable goal

(Leonard, 2007). Again, this emphasizes the traditional gender roles allotted to

women.

Postfeminism does not affect solely adult women. As we will see in the

analysis of the girls’ games movement, young girls are affected by the rhetoric of

individual choice. In her analysis of Time and Newsweek covers, Sarah

5


Projansky (2007) posits multiple examples to come to the same conclusion about

postfeminism: that these representations limits the discourse surrounding young

girls. She claims that girls on the cover of these news magazines are displayed

as “at-risk, “can-do,” or a combination of the two, yet all these representations

are indicative of postfeminism. At-risk girls are those that abuse postfeminism,

taking the liberties too far. Projansky lists “having sex, using recreational drugs,

and choosing to be mean” PAGE # as poor choices made possible by

postfeminism, though these freedoms are also often attributed to feminism.

However, these poor choices, in regards to postfeminism, are solely the

responsibility of the at-risk girl. Conversely, the can-do girl is the girl “who has

successfully taken hold of the opportunities that feminism, postfeminism,

commodity consumption, deregulation in the workplace, and democracy afford

her.” PAGE # She is the girl that has made the “correct” choices under

postfeminism. Yet can-do girls also serve as cautionary tales, as Projansky

illustrates through the April 22, 1996 cover of Time. This issue featured 7 year-

old Jessica Dubroff, who attempted to pilot an airplane across the United States

but died when she crashed. This suggests that can-do girls who attempt

masculine activities are attempting something quite dangerous and would,

perhaps, be better off at home where it is safe. As Projanski puts it, at-risk and

can-do girls “illustrate both the promise and the disaster of postfeminism.” PAGE

#

Postfeminism’s relationship to the feminism embraced by progressive

young women is often confounded. One must not mistake the emerged third

6


wave of feminism for postfeminism. Third wave feminism enjoys many of the

liberties provided by the second wave movement but it does not recognize

feminism’s goals as completed. Third wave feminism maintains sexism as a

critique, whereas postfeminism believes we are beyond institutional sexism; any

instance of sexism is simply an individual occurrence. In regard to sexist

advertisements, postfeminists may understand them as ironic. If we have

achieved all our goals in terms of gender equality, then it is now deemed

acceptable to make biased statements about a gender. Leonard (2007) neatly

sums up the difference between third wave feminism and postfeminism:

Whereas postfeminism is best approximated as a cultural tendency that

is either openly hostile to feminism or simply takes its precepts for

granted, third-wave feminism is a self-conscious activist movement

defined by its attempt to reformulate a feminist politics less restrictive in

terms of class, race, and sexuality than was second-wave feminism.

PAGE #

For third wave feminists, empowerment is still characterized by the ability to self-

define. For postfeminists, empowerment is choosing from socially sanctioned

choices.

The problem with a society permeated by postfeminism is the way in

which popular culture persuades women to make traditional choices. Negra

(2009) typifies popular women-centered cinema as stories of “miswanting” or

“narratives of adjusted ambition.” PAGE # By this, Negra claims chick flicks

perpetuate the idea that a career is not necessarily what the female character

7


wanted in the first place. That is, in fact, what she “miswanted.” Instead, the

female protagonist realizes by the end of the film, she wants romance and family.

Often, though, a career will lead the protagonist to romance, thus her career is

deemed necessary but only as a means to an end. Once a romantic partner is

secured, the woman’s true calling can be claimed: domestication.

Correspondingly, Suzanne Leonard (2007) contends that the female

worker is both a feminist and a postfeminist reminder. As a feminist goal, women

in the workforce meant that women had achieved financial independence, no

longer necessitating support from fathers or husbands. On the other hand, as a

postfeminist goal, the female worker is also celebrated but “reconfigures the

ideological underpinnings of this discussion, in many cases, to reaffirm the

centrality of heterosexual marriage.” PAGE # Whereas feminist notions of work

allowed women to free themselves from the necessary institution of marriage,

postfeminist notions of work insists that women can now marry for love instead of

money. Postfeminism persuades women to marry, as marriage is the ultimate

goal. Furthermore, Leonard also suggests that the discussion of female workers

no longer is a feminist discussion about finding good work, rather a postfeminist

discussion on how finding any work may hinder marital happiness, persuading

women to stay at home to become traditional housewives once a partner is

secured.

One glaringly obvious critique of postfeminism is its lack of

acknowledgement of class difference. Postfeminism does not regard those

women who must work due to economic necessity, only those who choose to

8


work. Postfeminism is only for privileged women, and these women turn a blind

eye to those who are less privileged than they are. This again exemplifies how

well postfeminism works alongside the conservative rhetoric of unregulated

capitalism. Underlining all postfeminist decisions is the quest for upper-class

luxury, as can be purchased through myriad consumer goods.

Negra (2009) combines domesticity and body grooming as similar markers

in postfeminist notions of “authentic” femininity. The authentic self, as Roberts

(2007) deems it, is

…a sexier self, in which sexual attractiveness has been magically

transformed from an oppressive imperative of patriarchy into a source of

power over it, a brave new postfeminist self requiring continual self-

monitoring and investment in salons and spas, fashion stores, and regular

visits to the gym. PAGE #

Negra suggests that self-surveillance is one of the most distinctive features of

postfeminism, which includes striving for the culturally determined ideal female

body as well as keeping the perfect home, while making it look effortless. The

essential postfeminist female nurtures her family through her efforts within the

home: cooking gourmet meals, decorating an enchanting living room, and

keeping her bikini line waxed. Indeed, these ideals are often determined in

accordance to male heterosexual desire. This ideology relies on strictly fixed

gender roles. Thus, postfeminism renders female choice as empowering

consumption, only in accordance to patriarchal standards.

9


Consumer choices for women often revolve around the beauty and

fashion industries, and rightly so, as beauty and fashion choices are considered

empowerment towards an authentic femininity:

If feminism has historically aligned itself with the Marxist critique of

consumer society, elaborating a critique both of the commodification of

women themselves and of models of femininity inseparable from mass

consumption (fashion, cosmetics, etc.), the discourse of postfeminism has

proceeded to stand this critique on its head, articulating a model of

feminine identity unthinkable outside consumption and constructing a logic

in which ‘empowerment’--perhaps the central tenet of postfeminist

ideology—is shown as dependent on self-confidence and sexual

attractiveness, which in turn depend on the services of the fashion and

beauty industries—all of which, needless to say, must be purchased

(Roberts, 2007). PAGE #

The power of the postfeminism is not simply to consume, but to consume

correctly. For example, Negra (2009) makes the point that aging is distasteful in

postfeminism but women can combat aging through a variety of consumer

choices. Women have the choice to use various anti-wrinkle creams, undergo

cosmetic surgeries such as breast augmentation, and subject themselves to

Botox or collagen injections in the attempt to hide or reduce the effects of aging.

While it is true that women can choose whether or not to combat growing older,

postfeminism is preoccupied with presenting the right choices, such as those to

combat age, as this is the traditionally feminine thing to do. Postfeminism

10


renders all women to be similar, or “…bound together by a common set of innate

desires, fears, and concerns” (Negra, 2009). PAGE # One of these assumptions

is the importance of youth or looking younger than one’s age.

Postfeminism is likewise obsessed with time, not just aging. This

obsession includes the perpetuation of the idea that a woman must always

consider her biological clock; that is, a woman must find a partner and procreate

while her body is still capable. This is complicated by a woman’s career, thus

postfeminism suggests a woman should leave her career to do more “meaningful

work”—raising a family. As has been discussed already, this is one of many

ways in which postfeminism works against the goals of feminism in order to

enable traditional feminine values.

Regarding this obsession with time, or as she deems it, women’s “chronic

temporal crisis,” Negra (2009) makes a poignant observation: “Postfeminist texts

so often obsess about the temporal because they half suspect postfeminism’s

own historical misplacedness, that is they recognize at some level the premature

and deceptive nature of any conceptual system that declares feminism obsolete.”

PAGE # With this observation, we understand the tenuous position of

postfeminism and its relationship to and reliance on the definition of feminism.

Postfeminism and feminism cannot coexist harmoniously, as postfeminism

depends on the posting of feminism. It is the obsession with time that clearly

articulates this struggle and premature declaration of feminism’s end.

Although postfeminist culture is ubiquitous, it is not necessarily

unchecked. Roberts (2007) points out that one of the flaws of the critiques of

11


postfeminism is that they do not take into account the possibility of resistance.

Attributing the argument to Gramsci, de Certeau, and Hall, Roberts contends, “…

no power can be absolute, and that all power is at best provisional and

precarious.” PAGE # Thus, postfeminism may run rampant, but this does not

mean women are cultural dupes. Second wave feminists are still active and third

wave feminists are reformulating feminism to suit their generation’s needs

Young women have grown up with feminism in the water. They can speak

the language of feminism because they were raised by women intimately familiar

with the second wave feminist movement. Yet many young women do not

recognize such language as feminist. They do not recognize the struggle for

women’s rights because they have not needed to overtly fight for many of those

rights. Springer (2007) writes, “This distinction between language and struggle is

crucial because it is this difference that allows postfeminism, perhaps more

insidiously than antifeminism, to appropriate feminist language and exploit

feminism’s key weakness, namely, a call for equality without including racial

analysis.” PAGE # It is no secret that the second wave of feminism was criticized

for being racially exclusive. (Third wave feminism prides itself on being inclusive

for all races, though it often overlooks to what degree second wave feminism was

inclusive as well.) However, if second wave feminism ignored racial difference,

then postfeminism seeks to render race obsolete. Postfeminism and post-race

go hand-in-hand, as explored in Banet-Weiser’s (2007) discussion of Dora, the

Explorer, to be discussed in the next section. However, if feminism taught white

women that they can have it all, and postfeminism taught white women that they

12


do not need to have it all, then postfeminism for black women encourages them

to be “everything for everyone else and [maintain] a sense of self” (Springer,

2007). PAGE # Yet, for Springer, this means black women fall into categories of

norms: the diva, the mammy, or the evil black woman. Postfeminism and post-

racial culture disciplines black women into these safely legible roles through

narratives of empowerment. In this way, postfeminism works similarly for women

of all races: Postfeminism seeks to get women out of the public sphere in order

to reduce the threat women present to the patriarchy.

Postfeminism and the Girls’ Games Movement

Postfeminist women and girls have economic independence that allows

them to purchase commodities being branded especially for them, or rather what

the women and girls perceive as especially for them. Sarah Banet-Weiser

(2007), in an article discussing the marketing and commodification of race and

gender in Dora the Explorer, suggests that this commodification works to “diffuse

the politics” from race or gender formation, creating cultural capital out of identity.

It is in this way that postfeminism exploits the personal for economic gains. Dora

the Explorer “takes feminism into account” in that the main character, Dora, is a

bright, inquisitive, cheerful girl who is ambiguously raced. She is a can-do girl

that exemplifies a multicultural United States. Banet-Weiser explains, “Dora…is

clearly a product of a culture that recognizes the importance of ‘positive’ gender

representations yet does not call attention to any kind of feminist politics other

13


than the politics of representation.” Thus, not only does Dora embody

ambivalent postfeminist ideals, she is also representative of a marketing shift

towards a “global” audience. Dora’s positive but ambiguous racial identity makes

Dora endlessly marketable. She speaks English and Spanish on the show,

appealing to a vast array of young Americans. Yet this marketing is not out of

young consumers’ best interest. Nickelodeon, the company that created the

show, may brand itself as an educational, inclusive, diverse channel, but it does

so for economic gain. In other words, diversity sells well. Appealing to broad

demographics allows Nickelodeon to take advantage of often segmented

markets. The lumping together of segmented markets is exactly how the girls’

games movement of the 1990s emerged.

According to Jenkins and Cassell (2008), the girls’ games movement was

characterized by a number of goals. Economically, girls’ games would secure a

company’s viability through tapping into a new market. Politically, girls’ games

would encourage more females to enter the hard sciences. Technologically, the

CD-ROM allowed girls to play games without having to buy a console.

Entrepreneurially, women could open businesses dedicated to designing

products for other girls or women. And aesthetically, the girls’ games movement

made game play more creative in terms of content, style, feel, and interface.

However, I argue that it is the creation of games towards the postfeminist female

that ultimate led to the girls’ games movement’s demise.

The video game industry has attempted to make games for the elusive

“unicorn-girl.” This girl represents the goals of postfeminism in that she is

14


beautiful, domestic, successful, flawless, independent, and effortlessly so. She

makes all the right choices in accordance with postfeminism and is a product of

consumer empowerment. Yet, like the beautiful unicorn, she does not exist.

Barbie is the best example of the unicorn-girl. She is white, tall, blonde, thin, has

large breasts, great hair, and all the clothes one could imagine. Her career

changes at whim and her handsome partner Ken is always by her side when she

wants him to be. But Barbie does not exist; in fact, she cannot exist because her

proportions are impossible. In other words, postfeminism urges women and girls

to strive for unattainable, non-existent perfection, such as that of a unicorn.

Marketers assume all girls and women are striving towards this goal of socially

sanctioned perfection. Thus, the unicorn-girl is a catchall for marketers. To

many in the video game industry, girls are a singular, all-encompassing

demographic, exhibiting an inherent culturally-defined femininity. During the

1990s, girls were the sought after demographic in the video game industry.

Broad generalizations are made to market to this demographic, leaving little room

for the girls to develop independent, individual identities.

The girls’ games movement was informed by good intentions. Computers

were seen as gateways to careers in hard sciences, yet boys often dominated

computers in the classroom. In fact, as articulated by Cassell and Jenkins

(1998), “too often the very design of computer games for children has meant

designing computer games for boys.” Girls’ supposed interests went largely

ignored by developers, though many claimed to be listening to what the girls

wanted to play. Instead, games were created to appease the stereotypical

15


unicorn-girl. The thought followed that by creating games specifically for girls,

they would become more comfortable with and more interested in computers.

This would lead to more women in careers in hard sciences, a noble endeavor

considering the gender gap in technological careers.

On the other hand, the intentions of girls’ game movement cannot be

removed from capitalist objectives. Girls were a market that video game

developers had not tapped into thus creating what seemed to be the ideal

demographic for new game creation. Some companies certainly had the girls’

best interests in mind but lacked name recognition. Other companies went

directly for the unicorn-girl and created an identity for her.

The movement began, in part, by the popularity of “Barbie Fashion

Designer” in 1996. This popularity made game designers question what about

the game made girls so interested in it. Certainly it was not simply an interest in

fashion or an extension of Barbie play. Instead, Subrahmanyam and Greenfield

(1998) attributed the game’s success to girls’ inherent desire to nurture,

cultivated by creating the most fashionable clothing for Barbie. This article is

representative of a series of studies informing video game literature in academia

yet is indicative of how studies of girls and games have made broad

generalizations. Often, these generalizations work to reinforce postfeminist

notions of femininity. If “Barbie Fashion Designer” was so popular because it

speaks to the unicorn-girl’s need to nurture, as Subrahmanyam and Greenfield

conclude, then it follows that more games for girls will be designed with similar

16


goals. This underlines how postfeminism in the gaming community works to reify

traditional gender roles.

Subrahmanyam and Greenfield do make a valid point:

Perhaps in an ideal world, girls would be included in the digital revolution

through the development of games that appeal equally to boys and girls.

In reality, however, most games have attracted at least three boys for

every girl. Therefore games targeted specifically toward girls may be

necessary to reach a mass audience of girls (1998).

Yet, still, the “mass audience of girls” is only necessary for capitalist gains. Not

all girls need to flood the hard sciences as careers, therefore not all girls need to

play computer games. Furthermore, the “mass audience of girls” refers to the

non-existent demographic of the unicorn-girl, who can be put in a box and

marketed to en masse.

Underlying intentions of the girls’ game movement was the

commodification of gender for profit: “Smaller start-up companies that are

female-owned and largely female-staffed…are motivated both by a desire to

transform gender relations within American culture and to create a new and

potentially profitable market” (Cassell & Jenkins, 1998). Suzanne de Castell and

Mary Bryson (1998) recognize the capitalist agenda of the girls’ games

movement and its relationship to fixed gender roles. They write,

Since the spectacular runaway best-seller, ‘Barbie Fashion Designer” …

major corporate-sponsored research campaigns have been launched to

identify the differently gendered play patterns of boys and girls and to

17


discover what girls like best. This astonishing breakthrough into the

previously dormant market for computer based playware for girls ushers in

a retooling of technology—a retooling accomplished, however by affirming

rather than challenging received gender stereotypes that preserve girls’

historically assigned locations in the gender order [emphases mine].

Again, like many postfeminist economic endeavors, the best interests of their

pocketbooks trump the best interests of the girls in question.

Brenda Laurel, cofounder of Purple Moon, a girls’ video game developing

company, discusses her goals in creating Rockett of “Rockett’s New School”, her

most popular game, in an interview with Jennifer Glos and Shari Goldin (1998).

This interview is striking in its adherence to postfeminist rhetoric. Laurel

contends, “Rockett is a resilient woman. She speaks her mind…she has some

qualities that I feel are off-stereotype in terms of outspokenness, self-awareness,

and clarity.” However, Laurel does not overtly market Rockett as off-stereotype

game. She goes on to say: “We’ve been very consciously positioning ourselves

as fun, engaging, and entertaining, as opposed to enriching, empowering,

enlightening, uplifting, and all those other words that we hope are true about our

products, because that’s not how we’re going to leverage popular culture.” It is

obvious that Laurel is trying to balance feminist ideals in a postfeminist

environment. Her statement about marketing as entertaining and not

empowering is indicative of feminism being taken into account. “Rockett’s New

School” sold well, relatively speaking, as feminism in postfeminist packaging.

18


Girls grow up with feminism in the water but do not engage in it, because fun and

entertaining sells better.

Many articles in Barbie to Mortal Kombat (1998) claim designers of girls’

games listened to what girls wanted to play and designed games around that.

Yet the games still failed. Perhaps the girls told the designers what they thought

they wanted to hear. One other reason may stem from retailers. As empowering

as a game might be, girls are not financially independent. There are systematic

problems getting such games to girls; the retailers act as gatekeepers. If the

games do not sell almost immediately, they will be pulled from the shelves.

Because the games are not selling, the logic will follow that girls do not like

games. Caraher sums it up as such: “The basic truth is that the market won’t

tolerate mediocrity.” In an interview with Glos and Goldin (1998), Lee McEnany

Caraher from Sega explains her belief that the fault lies within the girls’ games

developers. They created mediocre games in the pursuit of the elusive unicorn-

girl and the movement ultimately failed. Caraher claims boys and girls will play

the same games as long as it is a good game. For Sega, at the time of the

interview’s printing, 33 percent of the market is girls without going out of the

company’s way to market to girls. Caraher reasons: “So if 33 percent of your

market is girls, even without trying, that indicates to me that if it’s a good game, it

will sell on both sides. But it’s just taken a long time for girls to have the

opportunity to play.” In other words, a girl-centered game is not going to help

girls play games. Girls were socialized to be anxious with technology. But girls

19


will be excited about a good game in any color package; they simply have not

been introduced to it yet.

As T.L. Taylor (2008) points out, the games people of all genders play and

enjoy are often dependent upon who introduces them to the game. If a husband

introduces a wife to a game, she is likely to continue playing. Thus, games for

specific genders do not allow for much cross-gender introduction. Certainly a

man will not introduce a woman to “Barbie Fashion Designer.” However, gender-

neutral games such as “World of Warcraft” benefit from coed introductions and

coed play. Indeed, Nick Yee (2008) discusses how a game culture, specifically

in MMOs, draw women into the game and keep them involved, as opposed to the

game’s mechanics. Yee identified the reasons men and women play MMOs,

noting that the motivations to participate are far more similar than they are

different. Women initially enjoy the sociality of MMOs, often running guilds or

maintaining guild communications. But that is not all women enjoy in gaming

culture. Yee quotes a female “World of Warcraft” player: “I think that’s also why

WoW is starting to gain female gamers: some come for the socialization aspect,

and stay for the fun.” Though a minority of women may pursue the game play for

stereotypical reasons, many players are surprised by how fun many aspects of a

good game can be.

Conclusion

20


Cassell and Jenkins rectify their push for specifically girls’ games through

Ellen Seiter’s argument that traditionally feminine interests must be cultivated,

“even as we push toward more empowering fantasies, since there are so many

other forces in society that belittle and demean girls” (1998). Yet, in doing so, the

girls’ game movement replayed traditional narratives with little room for feminist

empowerment. If empowerment is the ability to self-define, then the video game

industry is inherently postfeminist. Video games, by their very nature, create

definitions for the player because they are limited by the technology available. In

the case of girls’ games, players can only be defined through the designer’s

understanding of the girl. Cassell and Jenkins (1998) call for an expansion of

activities in video games to “encourage identity formation as a part of the game.”

However, whose identity formation is encouraged? And whose identity is formed

as a result? Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1998) write, “Games provide a safe

place to explore issues of femininity and masculinity.” Yet these issues of

femininity and masculinity are prescribed in terms predetermined by the game’s

designers. Authentic identity formation cannot occur in such environments where

the narrative is controlled by technology. In the terms of girls’ games, video

game designers and marketers were intent on creating games that appealed to

all girls, striving for the unicorn-girl demographic. In doing so, the games created

for girls in the 1990s focused on over-generalized assumptions of youthful

feminine gender identity.

Instead of studying what games appeal to the unicorn-girl, perhaps more

investigation of resistance to the separatist culture is more productive. As

21


Roberts (2007) says: “…no power can be absolute, and all power is at best

provisional and precarious.” We must further investigate how women and girls

defy the power of the video game industry in order to better understand women

in the patriarchal video game culture. Jenkins and Cassell (1998) briefly

recognize the contributions of the “Quake Grrls” in the girls’ game movement.

The Quake Grrls subverted the sexist rhetoric of the game Quake and reclaimed

the site as one of feminist empowerment. They played aggressively among the

men and truly seemed to enjoy the traditional fighting game genre. With all the

noble efforts of the girls’ game movement, it is clear that ghettoizing girls’

interests only reproduces gender stereotypes. However, studying gaming

cultures such as the Quake Grrls will give us a broader understanding of how

gender operates in gaming. The Quake Grrls help us recognize that games for

women do not have to speak to essential femininity. Rather, as Caraher (1998)

argues, a good game is simply that, a game everyone will play.

22


References

Banet-Weiser, S. (2007). What’s your flava? Race and postfeminism in media

culture. In Y. Tasker & D. Negra (Eds.), Interrogating postfeminism:

gender and the politics of popular culture (pp. 201-226). Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Brunner, C., Bennett, D., & Honey, M. (1998). Girl games and technological

desire. In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat:

gender and computer games (pp. 72-89). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Press.

Caraher, L. E. (1998). An interview with Lee McEnany Caraher (Sega). In J.

Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: gender and

computer games (pp. 192-213). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute

of Technology Press.

Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. (1998). Chess for girls? Feminism and computer

games. In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat:

gender and computer games (pp. 2-45). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Press.

De Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (1998). Retooling play: Dystopia, dysphoria, and

difference. In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal

Kombat: gender and computer games (pp. 232-261). Cambridge, MA:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Glos, J. & Goldin, S. (1998). An interview with Brenda Laurel (Purple Moon). In J.

23





Jenkins, H. (1998). Voices from the combat zone: Game grrlz talk back. In J.




Jenkins, H., & Cassell, J. (2008). From Quake Grrls to Desperate Housewives: A

decade of gender and computer games. In Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J.

Denner, & J. Y. Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: new

perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 5-21). Cambridge, MA:


Leonard, S. (2007). “I hate my job, I hate everybody here”: Adultery, boredom,

and the “Working Girl” in twenty-first-century American cinema. In Y.

Tasker & D. Negra (Eds.), Interrogating postfeminism: gender and the

politics of popular culture (pp. 100-131). Durham, NC: Duke University

Press.

McRobbie, A. (2007). Postfeminism and popular culture: Bridget Jones and the

new gender regime. In Y. Tasker & D. Negra (Eds.), Interrogating

postfeminism: gender and the politics of popular culture (pp. 27-39).

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Negra, D. (2009). What a girl wants? Fantasizing the reclamation of self in

postfeminism. London: Routledge.

24


Projansky, S. (2007). Mass magazine cover girls: Some reflections on

postfeminist girls and postfeminism’s daughters. In Y. Tasker & D. Negra

(Eds.), Interrogating postfeminism: gender and the politics of popular

culture (pp. 40-72). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Roberts, M. (2007). The fashion police: Governing the self in What Not to Wear.

In Y. Tasker & D. Negra (Eds.), Interrogating postfeminism: gender and

the politics of popular culture (pp. 227-248). Durham, NC: Duke University

Press.

Springer, K. (2007). Divas, evil black bitches, and bitter black women: African

American women in postfeminist and post-civil-rights culture. In Y. Tasker

& D. Negra (Eds.), Interrogating postfeminism: gender and the politics of

popular culture (pp. 249-276). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (1998). Computer games for girls: What

makes them play? In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal

Kombat: gender and computer games (pp. 46-71). Cambridge, MA:


Tasker, Y., & Negra, D. (2007). Introduction: Feminist politics and postfeminist

culture. In Y. Tasker & D. Negra (Eds.), Interrogating postfeminism:

gender and the politics of popular culture (pp. 1-26). Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Taylor, T.L. (2008). Becoming a player: Networks, structure, and imagined

25


futures. In Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Y. Sun (Eds.), Beyond

Barbie and Mortal Kombat: new perspectives on gender and gaming (pp.

51-66). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Yee, N. (2008). Maps of digital desires: Exploring the topography of gender and

play in online games. In Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Y. Sun

(Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: new perspectives on gender

and gaming (pp. 83-96). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Press.

26

Documents

Postfeminism and the Girls’ Game Movement: Destined for Failure