Which was a completely arbitrary unforced error from a marketing perspective, setting back acceptance of video gaming as a ubiquitous thing everyone does by decades, pigeonholing them into a thing that only maladjusted angry young men do. You have the asinine marketing choices of the 90s to partially thank for the toxic exclusionary culture that still exists in many games today. They could have had every kid, girl or boy, cool or nerd, playing video games in 1995 but patriarchy said no.
Ironically, it was counter-counter-counter culture, reacting to the vestiges of Reaganite pearl-clutching that still wafted through life and politics of the time. Same influence that inspired “badly behaved” cartoons like The Simpsons and South Park. Video game advertising just leaned into that last counter too hard and landed in misogyny.
You’re totally right. The reason it happened was because video game systems were considered “toys” back in the day, and the marketing for toys was generally extremely polarized back then, all part of the social conditioning for patriarchy. Girls got to play with baby dolls, tea sets and toys inspired by domestic labor such as cooking and cleaning, and boys got to play with toys themed around heavy machinery, sports, combat/war and so on, all to prepare, socialize and condition them for the gender roles they were/are expected to perform in society.
Early video games were often sports or combat/war themed, so they became toys for boys, and ended up in a positive feedback loop. I would guess that the reason that sports and war themed video games were developed was because the people in charge of developing the games were also mainly men.
Women were significantly sidelined from computers and technology in most of the world around the time video games were being developed despite being extremely significant in the early history of computers. Whole workforces of women extremely competent with programming were fired and replaced with men who had no idea what they were doing in places, setting technological advancement back significantly.
Which was a completely arbitrary unforced error from a marketing perspective, setting back acceptance of video gaming as a ubiquitous thing everyone does by decades, pigeonholing them into a thing that only maladjusted angry young men do. You have the asinine marketing choices of the 90s to partially thank for the toxic exclusionary culture that still exists in many games today. They could have had every kid, girl or boy, cool or nerd, playing video games in 1995 but patriarchy said no.
Ironically, it was counter-counter-counter culture, reacting to the vestiges of Reaganite pearl-clutching that still wafted through life and politics of the time. Same influence that inspired “badly behaved” cartoons like The Simpsons and South Park. Video game advertising just leaned into that last counter too hard and landed in misogyny.
You’re totally right. The reason it happened was because video game systems were considered “toys” back in the day, and the marketing for toys was generally extremely polarized back then, all part of the social conditioning for patriarchy. Girls got to play with baby dolls, tea sets and toys inspired by domestic labor such as cooking and cleaning, and boys got to play with toys themed around heavy machinery, sports, combat/war and so on, all to prepare, socialize and condition them for the gender roles they were/are expected to perform in society.
Early video games were often sports or combat/war themed, so they became toys for boys, and ended up in a positive feedback loop. I would guess that the reason that sports and war themed video games were developed was because the people in charge of developing the games were also mainly men.
Women were significantly sidelined from computers and technology in most of the world around the time video games were being developed despite being extremely significant in the early history of computers. Whole workforces of women extremely competent with programming were fired and replaced with men who had no idea what they were doing in places, setting technological advancement back significantly.