Blog #7: Virtual Gender

Hopefully, I don't find myself alone in the class in saying I remember playing Super Mario Bros. 2 when I grew up. I'll admit that I never had enough opportunity (or maybe skill) to master this game as I had it's previous version. This release was novel in that it allowed you to select the avatar that you wished to represent you on screen.

The choices available are

(from left to right)

1. Mario - Male

2. Luigi - Male

3. Toad - Umm...

4. Princess - Female

Let's dispense with the obvious.

Suspenders + mustache + hat = male

Dress + crown + pink = female

But what about Toad? Honestly, it's really hard to tell. However, let's ignore Toad for a moment. Clearly we are dealing with a situation where the player is forced to pick an avatar that fits their gender identity. Obviously, this game was geared towards male players since there are two male avatars and only one female avatar. I suppose men had the option of trying on the female configuration, but in the age this game was released, that was not going to happen. This game is so sexist!

Okay, is it really sexist? Upon closer examination, while most of the characters are clearly identifiable as male or female the gender typing is really weak. Game play between the different characters is identical. They have the same skills and can be controlled in the same ways. If it weren't for the mustache (which is hard to make out) Mario and Luigi could just as easily be women. The biggest clue that Princess is female is the color of her dress (is that really a dress?) While we can quickly associate gender to these three characters, the association is not very strong. And then there is Toad, practically genderless. Is that a dress? Is Toad topless? The hat is reminiscent of something feminine, but it's hard to place and there's no mustache to give it away. With Toad we are lacking the stereotypical clues that define the character as masculine or feminine. With all this in mind, the question is, "Does it matter what character you pick?" It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that this game was designed to appeal to any gender.

I remember when this game was played, the most often selected characters were Toad and Princess. Not because we were trying on a new identity, but because the images were new and novel. We didn't imagine ourselves as being feminine, selecting them had more to do with breaking the status quo. The characters identities weren't strong enough for us to attach ours to theirs. Because we didn't identify with the avatar, even though gender is identifiable between the avatars, there were few if any gender-subject-configurations.

Schliener argues that the development of self perception is influenced by the connection of the player to the avatar.

"the construction of the player's feminine identity emerges from the reflective connectivity of the player's identification with the avatar's movements in the game space." (Schliener, 223)

Meaning that as you control the avatar, it's like looking in a mirror and so you begin to view the avatar as yourself. However, from my own personal experience and my observation of others, this connection to the avatar was not present in Super Mario Bros. 2. Without that connection, no "wearing" [of] a feminine identity (Schliener, 223) is possible. This is not to say that Schliener is wrong. In more advanced video games where there is higher fidelity, a stronger identity, and flexibility in controlling the character the connection may be strong enough to wear a new role. But I don't think the attachment is as automatic as she portrays it to be. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, attaching your identity to that of the avatar is literally in the hands of the person with the controller.

Bibliography

Schleiner, Anne-Marie. "Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons? Gender and Gender-Role Subversion in Computer Adventure Games." Leonardo 34.3 (2001): 221-26. Print.

Super Mario Bros. 2, Mario Madness. Redmond, WA: Nintendo of America Inc., 1989. Computer software.