This anthology addresses assumptions around gender and computer games, and proposes a variety of strategies for spanning the technological gender divide(s). As part of this project, the contributors to this anthology engage critically with research around male and female technology use in terms of current and proposed computer games, as well as some of the ideological and strategic contradictions inherent in the project of creating games with girls in mind.

Part of the contradiction lies in the alliance of feminists, who are interested in gender equity (however that is conceptualized), with industry leaders, who are interested in market expansion. This dialectic provides an interesting picture of the problems with translating epistemological stances into material practice; however, many solutions are provided which are both problematic and rewarding.

Cassell and Jenkins identify their method as feminist in two reasons: first, they are concerned with representations of women, both in the cultural and corporate sense; second, they are concerned with the project of optimizing equity in various spheres.

One of the central issues in this volume is the difference between girls and boys in terms of identity and technology use. This stance is interesting, and perhaps somewhat reductive, given the great deal of feminist work on the multiple layers of difference. While a few articles in this book nod to multiple differences, such as the interview with Marsha Kinder where race, sexual orientation et al are identified as significant, most of the book is concerned with sexual difference as the difference which is of note. In spite of this explicit stance, the book implicitly reflects differences among women to some degree, and one article argues that gender differences vary according to context. Noticeably absent from the discussion is the role of class and access to the technology (at least in the sense of being able to purchase and actually be near a computer).

Computer game use is seen as a significant issue for girls because of its links to computer literacy and comfort with technology. This has implications for future career choices as well as cognitive skills. This kind of skill development is important because research suggests that girls are not inherently less skilled than boys, but learn to become so through gendered processes of knowledge and skill acquisition. If a conscious effort is made to teach girls computer skills, they perform equally well. Thus the problem is less in the actual skill development and more in the area of getting girls to use the technology in ways that are positive, empowering, educational, and fun.

This is not to say that much of the increased attention to girls' use of computers is driven by feminist interests; rather that market for traditional boys' games has largely been saturated, so that software firms have to look to new consumers for their products in order to keep expanding. In part this book addresses "entrepreneurial feminism", a kind of feminism which attempts to mediate a course between feminist ideals and corporate savvy in order to develop games aimed at girls, as well as advance women in business. To make a clear delineation between academic feminists and corporate leaders is problematic, since, as many examples in this book show, many women are both, and/or consciously try to incorporate feminist ideals into product design in various ways. Thus, argues the book, this presents new opportunities and challenges for feminist strategy and theory. A central tension which results from this is that of providing "what girls want" (which often takes very stereotypically feminine forms) and actively seeking to transform gender roles. Given that toys are often viewed as substantial tools of gender socialization which serve both descriptive and prescriptive purposes, this tension is highly significant.

One response to this tension has consisted of the argument that girl game creators need to get a "foot in the door", or a bit of a hold on the market, before attempting something transformative, and that this is achieved through catering, to some degree, to the status quo. Part of this argument consists of the notion that dismissing traditionally feminine elements perpetuates sexist ideologies that devalue the feminine; as such "girl culture" needs to be valued as empowering and positive. Furthermore, this posits girls as active mediators and translators of the culture around them, who engage in making their own meanings from what they are offered. Another response to this tension has been to argue that the previous approach essentializes girls' wants and needs, and that the solution is to explore new formats and to develop games which challenge traditionally feminine genres and structures.

Cassell and Jenkins point out that much research on girls and games has been predicated on some problematic assumptions, namely that girls and boys are fundamentally different, that their preferences can be clearly determined from market research, and that the best response to this difference is the creation of separate forms of media for girls. This approach may inadvertently reify the male-female technological division (with male as norm and standard), as well as the notion of essential gender differences (which, furthermore, erases differences within genders). In addition, this approach often uses a model of gender which is static and fixed, rather than context-dependent, performative, and dynamic. Without a critical feminist sense of structures of power, efforts to solve the "problem" of girls and games may end up perpetuating the same systems that they attempted to challenge.

It appears here that rather than an "either-or" paradigm which argues for either girls-only games or better games for girls and boys, a "both-and" paradigm which takes account of context, diversity, and change is more appropriate and useful. The examples in this book show that female technology use, far from being a monolithic category, represents a wide range of behaviours and attitudes. In addition, it would appear that re-thinking evaluative categories is a fundamental part of this project.

Kaveri Subrahmanyam and Patricia Greenfield, Chapter Two, "Computer Games for Girls: What Makes them Play?"

In this chapter, Subrahmanyam and Greenfield discuss "the problem of girl appeal in game software."(p.46) Immediately I am struck by this delineation of the issue. They analyze the success of the "Barbie Fashion Designer" CD-ROM with young girls in the context of research on games, children's play, and software development. Given that the majority of game software is developed with boys in mind, Subrahmanyam and Greenfield are interested in exploring the reasons for the "Barbie Fashion Designer" success.

They note that "[g]ender differences in game creation are replicated by gender differences in game consumption."(p.53) BFS caters to girls in that it provides "nonaggressive play activities that allows them to create fantasies set in familiar settings with familiar characters… [it] becomes one more accessory in their role play."(p.66) Thus, in this model, the ideal game for girls is congruent to their ascribed play patterns, and functions primarily as an "accessory" (one might also say "tool").

Cornelia Brunner, Dorothy Bennett, and Margaret Honey, "Girl Games and Technological Desire"

In this article, Brunner et al use sociological and psychology-based theory to examine fantasies around technology. They hypothesized that exploring the nonrational element of interpretation of technology would reveal both how people make meaning from technology, and how they use technology to think through particular kinds of fantasies.

In their research Brunner et al identified two kinds of fantasies, which corresponded to gender divisions. Women tended to fantasize about technologies which allowed them to communicate, share ideas, and which fulfilled a variety of concrete functions. Men tended to fantasize about transcendence through bionic implants, access to information, and control over nature. One conclusion drawn by Brunner et al was that this reflected "that women and girls are much more likely to be concerned with how new technologies can fit into the social and environmental surroundings, whereas men are much more likely to be preoccupied with doing things faster, more powerfully, and more efficiently regardless of social and environmental consequences."(p.77) Females are less likely to push the boundaries of what technology can do, and try to work with or improve existing forms of technology, while males are more likely to "draw upon their technological imaginations to extend the capabilities of technologies…"(p.77)

Based on these observations, Brunner et al turn their attention towards new game designs to point out features which would expand options for game players, female and male.

Brunner et al argue that as girls' and women's lives are contradictory, so should their software be in terms of presenting challenges and scenarios that are complex and flexible: "[g]irls need games in which they can rehearse and express the ambiguities and contradictions of femininity."(p.87)

Yasmin Kafai, "Video Game Designs by Girls and Boys: Variability and Consistency of Gender Differences"

In this chapter, Kafai argues that "gender differences are not as consistent as one might believe. It is possible that children display more versatility and range in their play interests and that particular factors such as game structures or context settings might have an impact.. structures of toy and play settings can elicit certain behaviours from play participants."(p.91) Kafai argues that gender differences are context-specific, and sets this thesis against both current research on gender differences in computer play, and her own research in game design by girls and boys.

Katai notes that most research on gender differences stresses static differences between girls and boys, "documenting gender differences in relation to computer interest, use, and performance."(p.91) Much less attention has been devoted to dynamic and relational conceptions of children's behaviour and attitudes. In addition, a good deal of the research has assumed the "hypodermic" model of response to ideologies presented in computer games, in that children are posited as passive recipients of good or bad images. Katai proposes instead that we view children as actively mediating subjects who engage with and make meaning from their media. Thus, in constructing a study of gender differences, we must ask, "What differences exist?" (a deceptively simple question); "What is their magnitude?"; and "What is their significance?" Katai concludes that "while gender differences are prevalent, there is a much richer picture behind what motivates and interests children in the playing with and making of interactive technologies. What this research pointed out is that girls are interested in making video games but that their video games look different from those designed by boys."(p.93)

Suzanne de Castell and Mary Bryson, Chapter Eleven, "Retooling Play: Dystopia, Dysphoria, and Difference"

Female underrepresentation in certain kinds of technological fields is now being seen as a "problem". However, as de Castell and Bryson argue, "girls and women live, paradoxically, in a state of intimate connection with technologies while finding themselves represented as perenially inadequate…technophobic, and Luddite."(p.236) Furthermore, research on ascribed gender differences in computing "may be more the result of 'ventriloquating' responses seen as 'acceptable' than a record of respondents' actual beliefs and perceptions…"(p.236)

De Castell and Bryson use the literature on early childhood gender development to show that notions of "gender identity" and "gender constancy" rely on normative models of sex-role socialization, in which failure to properly assimilate stereotypes is regarded as dysfunctional. They write: "[a]s long as we maintain our assumption that gender constancy constitutes a major and positive developmental achievement, however, the 'differently gendered' can be pathologized under the labels 'gender identity disorder' or 'gender dysphoria'…"(p.242) To relate this to educational pedagogy around girls and technology, sex-differentiated modes of pedagogy "serve as a far more readily acceptable basis for creating computer-mediated environments for girls than do either critical or postmodern conceptions of gender."(p.245) The "vive la diffèrence" approach, however it is constituted, reifies binary and normative models of gender.

Evoking Ahmed's "differences that matter" approach, de Castell and Bryson ask in whose interests is the replication of "essential" gender differences in play? "[A]re we producing tools for girls, or are we producing girls themselves…?"(p.251) What is the role that education should play? Should it shore up gender norms or "allow girls to develop that vast range of skills and interests and abilities of which they have always been capable but which have been denied to them"?(p.253)

According to de Castell and Bryson, various strategies have been employed to achieve gender equity in so-called nontraditional fields, all of which constitute females as the problem. The positivist model argues for a resocialization of females, the constructivist model argues for a pedagogy more in line with "women's ways of knowing", and the critical model which rejects notions of technology as "always already" gendered. All three approaches do not fundamentally challenge normative gender structures.

One significant flaw in the de Castell and Bryson and article is its strategic implication, in that the reader is left wondering what their model would mean in terms of concrete projects. While they argue in favour of postmodern pedagogies that disrupt static and dualist gender models, they provide no suggestions for what this might actually look like in practice.

Henry Jenkins, Chapter Twelve, "'Complete Freedom of Movement': Video Games as Gendered Play Spaces"

In this article, Jenkins examines "boy culture" to argue that "[v]ideo games constitute virtual play spaces which allow home-bound children… to extend their reach, to explore, manipulate, and interact with a more diverse range of imaginary places than constitute the often drab, predictable, and overly-familiar spaces of their everyday lives."(p.263) Thus Jenkins provides a "cultural geography" of video games, and situates it within the context of children's play patterns, particularly the relationship between "boy culture"/space and video games and its implications for game design for girls.

Jenkins argues that to blame video games for children's restless or lethargic behaviour is to miss the point of children's altered play patterns in present sociological conditions of restricted and confined play spaces. Technology, proposes Jenkins, actually provides a way of positively responding to domestic confinement brought on through material conditions like urban organization and development. Furthermore, children's access to play spaces is fundamentally gendered. Boys are able to more fully explore and roam play spaces, even confined ones, while girls are heavily restricted. The implications of this for girls is the significant limitation of their sense of freedom, control, and self-confidence, while the implications for boys of declining access to play spaces has a more dramatic effect in that it is a relatively new development.

Jenkins identifies "boy culture" as a social geography which emerged in the 19^th century as a result of the growing split between public and private spheres. Boys, now prevented from working with their fathers, escaped from female-identified private spaces to the outdoors, "freeing them to participate in a semi-autonomous 'boy culture' that casts itself in opposition to maternal culture."(p.269) Jenkins notes pointedly that "[o]ne of the many tragedies of our gendered division of labour may be the ways that it links misogyny… with the process of developing self-reliance."(p.270) In terms of gender development, boy culture necessitated an active repudiation of everything linked to the private and female sphere, while girls developed a more interdependent relationship with domestic activities (which consequently limited their autonomy).

Jenkins compares characteristics of 19^th century boy culture with those of contemporary game culture.

• 19^th century boy culture was independent from adult realms; video games are likewise independent although more physically restricted to the house
• 19^th century boy culture valued and recognized feats of daring; likewise video game culture rewards risk and bravery
• 19^th century boy culture valued mastery and self-control; video game culture also values goal-driven activities which require mastery (technical skill) and control (manual dexterity)
• 19^th century boy culture was hierarchical and status was gained through challenge and competition; video game culture likewise privileges these things which play out in such things as arcade competitions
• 19^th century boy culture was physically aggressive and violent; video games shift this violence and aggression into a symbolic realm
• 19^th century boy culture found amusement in excretory and scatological humour; video games have often been noted for their cartoonish use of gore
• 19^th century boy culture used role-playing games such as "settlers and Indians" through which adult ideologies were examined and evaluated; video game culture relies significantly on role playing, and particularly role playing that is action-oriented: race car drivers, fighter pilots, etc.
• 19^th century boy culture used play to develop social bonds which later developed into adult male affiliations; video game culture is more contradictory in this regard, since children are often physically isolated while playing these games, although social interaction around game play does occur

Thus, argues Jenkins, 19^th century boy culture shows strong ties to present video game culture, with the important difference being the change in actual spatial organization. Children's play worlds ideally provide "an unpoliced space for social experimentation, a space where they can vent their frustrations and imagine alternative adult roles free of inhibiting parental pressure."(p.276) One important problem of the present video game culture is that it is created and sold by adults to children, and as such represents as much about adult anxieties and prescriptions as it does about children's needs and desires. In addition, both 19^th century boy culture and present video game culture are highly gender segregated, with femininity accorded a derogatory status.

Jenkins notes the parallels between the narrative conventions of boys' 19^th and early 20^th century adventure stories and current video game genres. Girls' narrative space, on the other hand, offers "a space of one's own in a world that offers girls too little room to explore."(p.280) Having already mastered access, boys set out to conquer the world they are permitted to explore, while for girls, success lies in access to and safe ownership of a little piece of turf. Jenkins argues that although these gendered genres provide some clues about designing games for girls and boys, "we must guard against simply duplicating in the new medium the gender-specific genres of children's literature."(p.290) The gendered segregation of genre is as significant for male as female identity. When girls and boys occupy the same play spaces, they often engage in "borderwork", or active delineation of gender boundaries, although, as Jenkins notes, this more often happens within structured activities rather than informal and spontaneous play.

Thus the project of designing new forms of game genres for girls and boys requires familiarity with how gendered narrative, physical, and cultural spaces are created. In the next chapter, Cassell takes up the role of narrative and storytelling in the production of gender and its relation to technology.

Justine Cassell, Chapter Thirteen, "Storytelling as a Nexus of Change in the Relationship Between Gender and Technology: A Feminist Approach to Software Design"

In this chapter, Cassell provides a new model for children's relationships to technology: that of storyteller. In the process of creating narratives for and on the computer, children "engage in the serious business of learning about themselves, constructing a social identity, and collaborating with others in the process of understanding that identity, all the while attaining technological fluency."(p.299) This model of interaction challenges the notion of "girls-and-technology" which posits that "there is a gender of 'girl'—as if what 'girls' is is static and ontological rather than dynamic and performative. And yet much research in the social sciences has come to see gender as constituted rather than pre-existent."(p.299) The implication for this shift in perspective in terms of program design, according to Cassell, is that designing "games for girls" is asking the wrong questions and "missing the point". (p.300) Beyond the project of providing "what girls want", beyond "expanding options for girls", is the project of allowing girls to bring themselves into being, using the computer "as the very site for children to make meanings, express themselves, and play out the range of identities that will constitute themselves… in such a way as to make sense of their social sphere and develop an understanding of themselves."(p.300)

Cassell identifies two problems in newer narrative "games for girls", arguing that they do not allow girls to "construct a flexible and performative gender identity… they are so specifically games for girls, rather than for girls to be who they wish…" (p.301) The first problem is that given the asymmetrical valuation accorded to all things female in our culture, games for girls have been designed to repel boys, as well as girls who do not fit stereotypical norms of femininity. The second problem is that the narratives are not about the child herself, nor are they sufficiently flexible to allow for a range of gendered identities and behaviours. Instead, Cassell argues in favour of giving girls the role of narrator and allowing them to choose whether or not (and how) to be the subject of their own narration, thus giving voice to children.

Thus Cassell's argument is focused in two ways. First, she argues for a more user-centred vision of authority, in that most of the game design, structure, and content is determined by the user. In fact, the process of design and manufacture of the game is the game. Second, she proposes that "interactive storytelling games be the field on which we practice feminist game software design, because telling one's own stories and constructing one's own storytelling software can allow the finding of one's voice, a key way to distribute authority…"(p.302)