MSC/DIPLOMA TITLE: Gender and International Relations

CANDIDATE NUMBER: 65824

UNIT NUMBER: M3013

UNIT TITLE: Feminisms and International Relations

UNIT TUTOR: Jutta Weldes

ESSAY TITLE:The Masculinisation of War in Video Games:

An Analysis of “Battlefield 4”

WORD COUNT: 3889

1

The Masculinisation of War in Video Games:An Analysis of “Battlefield 4”

Introduction

In this essay I address the following question: How do military style First Person Shooters masculinise war, and what are the implications for international relations? Using a post-structuralist approach, I analyse the dominant discourses or texts within the First Person Shooter (FPS) genre, and use Battlefield 4 as a case in point. I shall begin by providing a brief description of Battlefield 4, before addressing the research question, which I split into two parts. Firstly, I find that Battlefield 4 masculinises war by glamorising violence and destruction; utilising spectacles over narratives; idealising hyper-masculine military ideals; and creating feminine ‘others’. Secondly, I argue that implications for international relations include: violence as an acceptable form of engagement in conflict; the justification of military spending; potential military recruitment; and the maintenance of masculine hierarchies. Since the impact of popular culture on international relations is still (unfortunately) underrecognised (Rowley, 2010: 309), I find it prudent to note that video gaming is an important form of popular culture that is increasingly being consumed by the Global North, thereby having a large impact on perceptions of the world and international relations. As Enloe (2000: 197, emphasis added) argues, “[The] consumer-marketer relationship not only mirrors changing global power dynamics, it is helping to shape those dynamics.”

Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4 is a new release from EA Games, with millions of pre-orders. The game franchise is mainly famous for its online multiplayer mode. This involves large interactive maps with fully destructible scenery, a wide range of high tech vehicles for use in combat, and spectacular graphics. It has won over 30 game industry awards (Battlefield Official Blog, 2013) and can therefore be seen as celebrated part of contemporary popular culture. Battlefield 4 is a military style FPS which means that all you can see of your character on screen is their hands and the gun they are holding. When other characters interact with you they look through screen, thereby ‘breaking the fourth wall’ (speaking directly to the audience). This concept is utilised so that players identify with their character more fully, and therefore immerse themselves in the game, even to the extent that they might physically dodge bullets (Murphy, 2004: 231). The weapons used in Battlefield 4 are all real life models, as are the vehicles and gadgets available. The only deliberately fictional concept in Battlefield 4 is the scenario that players find themselves in. The year is 2020 and China is ‘rising’. There are two modes of game play, storyline and multiplayer. In the storyline mode players control the character Recker, who leads a small elite US military squad. Their aim is to defeat General Chang who is single-handedly leading a violent uprising. In order to do this the squad has to complete various missions such as gathering intelligence, rescuing hostages, infiltrating Shanghai, escaping prison, and blowing up a dam. While this provides a back-story, online multiplayer mode is the main reason why people buy the game. This mode enables players to compete against each other on various maps (all in China) where the aim is usually to defeat opposing teams through

2

holding objectives (strategic defenses), possessing bombs, or killing the most enemies. Battlefield 4’s selling point is the playability of physically destructive maps, where ‘levolution’ allows players to blow up various structures, including a giant satellite, a hotel, gas pipelines, and even an entire skyscraper (all in spectacular graphic detail). As I shall argue, all of this contributes to how Battlefield 4 masculinises war, and this in turn has significant implications for international relations.

The Masculinisation of War: Destruction, Spectacle, Military Ideals, and the Feminised Other

Destruction

Battlefield 4 masculinises war through a focus on destruction and violence as opposed to dialogue and peace building. Peaceful solutions to violence are an essential, albeit less recognised, aspect of war engagement. For example, Elworthy and Rifkind (2005: 11) argue that the use of arms is “woefully inadequate” in dealing with conflict and preventing future violence. In Battlefield 4, however, there is a constant use of weapons and explosives in order to complete missions or win rounds. Furthermore, Recker (the player) is given no voice whatsoever in the storyline. Although characters speak directly to him, ask him for orders, explain missions and so on; the designers felt no need to give Recker a voice. While this may lead gamers to further identify with him1, it also means that the game is solely playable through action – by using Recker’s hands, which hold various weapons. While FPSs such as Battlefield 4 sell themselves as being one of the most realistic genres (Cowlishaw, 2005), they are clearly an unrealistic, limited, and highly masculinised version of conflict. There is a very real sense that not only are you playing the game, but the game is playing you (Cowlishaw, 2005) as the player must sacrifice virtual agency (decision making) within the game in order to play2. In this way the player is actively performing a type of masculinity that involves a strategy of violent problem solving. Destruction, then, not only involves the spectacular graphics of explosions, blowing up buildings and crashing vehicles; but also the destructive use of soldiers that shoot first and speak… never. This masculinises war as violence is glorified as a legitimate solution to complex problems through the beauty of explosions, and the insignificance of dialogue.

Spectacles

The use of spectacles over narratives further illustrates the masculinisation of war in Battlefield 4. In storyline mode the narrative comes second with players given the option to skip all dialogue and just get straight to the action. Spectacles within missions include graphic renderings of your squad surviving buildings collapsing, blowing up a dam, cutting off a comrade’s leg, escaping a sinking car, being tortured,

1 Murphy (2004: 232) explains how a character having an independent identity (in this case a voice) to the player results in a disconnection between the two, and hence disrupts immersion in the game.2 It is worth noting that many games exist where decision making is inherent to game play, such as the popular Mass Effect (2007) series, in which it is possible to prevent violence through negotiation.

3

surviving a typhoon, and destroying a warship. They become spectacular through the use of incredible graphics, realistic noises and the use of ‘force feedback’ technologies that “…allow gamers to actually feel the rumble, shock and action of the game as corporeal sensations linked to onscreen game play” (Murphy, 2004: 224). These events all completely overshadow any narrative on why, where and how the squad finds themselves in these situations. Indeed, there is a deliberate focus on the immediate problems at hand that lends itself to the breathless pace of game play. Interestingly, the use of constant life threatening events/spectacles also prevents any meaningful dialogue taking place between characters. For example, throughout the storyline Irish keeps putting off calling Dunn’s wife to tell her that he’s dead. Every time he brings it up the squad suddenly find themselves in peril. Similarly, Irish is on his way to speak to their Captain about his unauthorised decision to take 396 refugees (“mostly women and children”) onboard, but this is forestalled by the sight of one of their warships sinking. The game never tackles any politics, emotions or relationships fully, preferring to use sudden-death survival spectacles as a means to avoid addressing tough questions and issues. In turn, this has the effect of belittling dialogue, human relationships and narratives. This masculinises war as it gives the impression that dialogue has no place in conflict, leaving violence and military engagement to be the only option to prevent war.

Military Ideals

On the one hand Battlefield 4 facilitates typical masculine hierarchies within the military as described by Barrett (1996: 133), while on the other hand it idealises hyper-masculine soldiers that flaunt discipline and order. For example, Barrett (1996: 135) describes a jet pilot (who is perceived as the alpha male in the Navy) who likens his best flight experience to a video game. This suggests that the freedom of a video game experience trumps even the top of the masculine hierarchy in the US Navy, as the “subordination and surveillance to which all the military personnel are subject” does not exist (Barrett, 1996: 140). Battlefield 4 combines independence with traditional military masculinities, such as physical strength, bravery and perseverance, resulting in a hyper-masculine soldier. For example, in multiplayer there is no obligation to complete objectives or engage in the game scenario, players can instead choose from a range of vehicles and go for ‘joy rides’, or blow up structures for fun. In the storyline mode you are made the squad leader and can choose to ignore orders such as, “Don’t fire your weapons unless absolutely necessary”, and are not punished for destroying various Chinese infrastructures (in fact you score extra points). Furthermore, the design of game play in FPSs enables a form of a ‘cyborg soldier’ (Manjikian, 2013: 7), with on-screen maps, mission information, health, and ammo being readily available for use. The hyper-masculine soldier is therefore created through the combination of traditional military masculinity, independence, and the fusion of technological and physical ability.

However, while Battlefield 4 hyper-masculinises soldiers in a number of ways, it still retains a masculine hierarchy of players. For example it echoes the US Navy in that masculinity is very public and never secure, making it necessary to continually demonstrate it (Barrett, 1996: 137). This is apparent in Battlefield 4 as the ranking system is very public – at the end of each multiplayer game players are ranked in order of kill/death ratios. Also, during game play if a player is killed then they are shown a picture of their killer, the weapon used, and the number of times they have

4

been killed by them. There is also a constant stream of information at the top of the screen during game play announcing who has killed who, and what objectives have been taken. This is the equivalent of what Barrett (1996: 135) describes as a ‘down’ – when a soldier makes a mistake and is humiliated publicly. Inexperienced players in Battlefield 4 often undergo this, finding themselves to be easy targets for higher ranked players. Masculinity is then demonstrated through ‘not quitting’, one of the most meaningful masculine traits of the military (Barrett, 1996: 133). This dynamic illustrates the game’s masculine hierarchy as new players develop from boys to men through spending time playing the game and learning to kill their opponents more skillfully. Furthermore, once a player becomes absorbed in game play, it then becomes difficult to critique the high ranked/masculine players as real life ‘geeks’ or ‘slackers’ because this would undermine the player’s own identity which is now invested in the game. This demonstrates how, “hierarchical structures of masculine power are constructed by more than willing subjects” (Carver, 2007: 315). Furthermore, the exclusion of women soldiers from multiplayer mode helps to reinforce this hierarchy as, “…to allow women entrance into the essential core of the military would throw into confusion all men’s certainty about their male identity and thus about their claim to privilege in the social order” (Enloe, 1988: 15, emphasis in original). Overall, military ideals are both utilised and subverted in Battlefield 4 to create hyper-masculine soldiers and hierarchies of masculinity, resulting in a highly masculinised impression of war.

Feminised Others

Battlefield 4 masculinises war firstly by reinforcing traditional gender roles, and secondly by feminising racial ‘others’, thereby legitimising domination by hegemonic masculine identities. Traditional gender roles are reinforced through the absence of female soldiers in multiplayer mode, despite the fact that, “Most major militaries around the world allow it – from Australia to France, Germany to South Africa and Israel to America” (Barnett, 2013). There are a few female characters in the storyline mode, however their identities are reduced to the tropes of dishonest (Hannah), hysterical (unnamed mother), ball-breaker (Major Greenland), doctor (unnamed), and bad driver (codename: firebird). Hannah is the main female character and a core member of the US elite squad. However she is alienated as she is the only member to not have a nickname (unlike Recker, Irish, Pac, and Dunn); her uniform is different and notably lacks a US flag; she doesn’t join the squad until halfway through the story; and when she does join she turns out to be working for the Chinese secret service. Furthermore, she is repeatedly told that “trust is earned” and therefore has to prove herself through displays of physical combat prowess, loyalty, and aggression (whereas the men on the squad are assumed to be trustworthy and capable). The depiction of female characters in Battlefield 4 therefore reinforces traditional gender roles and suggests that war is a masculine domain.

The feminisation of non-white racial identities is rife within Battlefield 4. In the storyline mode all figures of authority are white (including Recker). On the squad there is a black male named Irish who is feminised by his emotional outbursts to do with saving refugees - lives that are not mission priorities. In contrast, Pac is a white male who seems boyish (Irish calls him ‘little brother’), but is told by the US Captain that he will make a great leader. It is also interesting that at the end of the game the player is forced to sacrifice either Irish or Hannah, clearly illustrating the notion that,

5

in war narratives, “…every character that is femininely invested has to die” (Cohn, 1999: 474). The enemy throughout the storyline is the Chinese, who are given very little voice, personality or individual characteristics, leading them to be dehumanised and othered (Leonard, 2003: 3). China as a country is also overtly feminised through the repeated destruction and domination of its landscape. In multiplayer mode players can find themselves embodying Chinese soldiers in team matches, which serves to legitimise the destruction of China, as even the Chinese soldiers are complicit. As Leonard and King (2009: 2) argue, these military FPSs, “…reiterate a set of colonial clichés about civilization and savagery, the necessity of violence, and the cultivation of White masculinity”. Overall, Battlefield 4 reinforces gender stereotypes, and casts non-white racial identities as feminine and subordinate, legitimising domination as a form of masculine war making.

Implications for International Relations: Violent problem solving, Military Spending, Recruitment, and Feminine Subordination

Violent Problem Solving

The masculinisation of war through the glorification of destruction, killing, and fighting, has implications for international relations as it legitimises violence as a form of problem solving. Violence as a solution to conflict becomes accepted at the individual level as well as in terms of foreign policy. For example, video games like Battlefield 4 have the propensity to influence players’ perceptions about what is suitable in conflict, such as the use of extrajudicial killings. Clarke et al. (2012: 721) argue that, “when a squad leader in a video game engages in torture or extrajudicial killing, this provides the signal to players that such behaviour is implicitly authorized”. Furthermore, Turse (2003) argues that the popular use of violence in video games not only leads to the conclusion that violence is the first, last, and only resort, but that games also, “…strike from debate the most crucial decisions young people can make in regard to the morality of a war - choosing whether or not to fight and for what cause.” FPSs have also been used to help soldiers become desensitised to violence, in order to strategise better or to help therapeutically with their experiences of war, for example as a treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Power 2007: 282). The fun language and phrases used to describe conflict are similar to what Cohn (1987: 690) coins ‘technostrategic language’ in that they playfully disguise gruesome realities. For example, soldiers in Battlefield 4 are never ordered to kill enemies, only “take them out”; and within the storyline mode you can order your squad to shoot at enemies by ordering them to “engage”. Although it is possible to kill enemies up close by cutting their throats, on the whole killing is very sanitised with no blood whatsoever. As Leonard (2004: 5) argues, war is not only presented as fun but also as safe, with gamers having the opportunity to, “…die and kill others without having to face the graphic realities of war”. The repetition of destruction and violence reinforce these ideals much like propaganda; as Oberschall (2000: 993) explains, “…studies of propaganda routinely find that repetition is the single most effective technique of persuasion. It does not matter how big the lie is, so long as it keeps being repeated”. Overall, the staging of violence and destruction as key components of war, coupled with playful language, sanitised deaths, and frequent repetition, leads to the implication in international relations that violence is an acceptable means of problem-solving in war.

6

Defense Spending

The type of masculinised war that Battlefield 4 presents has implications for international relations in that it helps to justify defense spending and arms manufacturing through the glorification of expensive weapons, explosives and vehicles. Firstly, in Battlefield 4’s multiplayer mode players can choose to drive various types of tanks, helicopters, planes, speedboats, jet skis, quad bikes, and jeeps; as well as take control of drones. The vehicles are wrecked and destroyed frequently during a single game scenario, and like soldiers, are ‘respawned’ (reappear with full health). Whereas in previous Battlefield games players had to work a little to access vehicles, in Battlefield 4 you can choose to begin game scenarios in any vehicle, even if they’re already on the move. The superior firepower, fun controls, daredevil tactics, and expendable nature associated with vehicles make them a popular option, and reinforce the notion that they are essential in real life conflicts. Weapons and explosives also become coveted, as players are only able to unlock better models once they’ve racked up their kill count. Hence, the glorification of vehicles helps to justify real life military defense spending (Cowlishaw, 2005). Secondly, Parkin (2013) explains how games companies must pay licensing fees to arms manufacturers if they want to include real life models in their games; illustrating that there is a direct link between realistic military FPSs and money spent on weapons. Furthermore, Parkin (2013) argues that the weapons included in games act as an advertisement for players to purchase them in real life, and companies strive to make sure their weapons are only used by the ‘good guys’ rather than enemies, in order to make the guns more desirable. Therefore the masculine emphasis on weapons and vehicles in Battlefield 4 has implications for international relations as it justifies high military expenses and contributes to the advertisement and funding of arms manufacturers.

Recruitment

Battlefield 4’s hyper-masculine conception of soldiers leads to a heroic perception of the military, which acts as an advertisement for recruitment. Most academic research on military style FPSs has focused on more realistic and strategic games that have been made in collaboration with the US military, such as America’s Army, Rainbow Six: Raven Shield, and Full Spectrum Warrior (Leonard, 2004: 3). America’s Army is a free online game that was created with the sole purpose to increase recruitment, as Leonard (2004: 3) argues, “Costing taxpayers upwards of eight million dollars, America’s Army has been a huge success, with over 1.5 million registered users.” Cowlishaw (2005) explains that, “…since the game was released in 2002, recruitment has spiked; the video game is the most effective recruitment tool since the Uncle Sam “I Want You” posters during World War II”. If America’s Army (a low octane, strategic, slow paced game) has had such a positive effect on recruitment, then what effect does a high octane, fast paced, action hero game like Battlefield 4 have? It is probable that the better graphics and explosion spectacles are even more likely to influence the player’s perception of the military as a fun, exciting and masculine institution to join3. Battlefield 4 is clearly a more attractive game, unlike America’s Army which, “…requires players to follow rules of engagement and punishes players for killing allies, prisoners, and noncombatants; they must even minimize harm to

3 For example there was a spike in US Navy recruitment after the film Top Gun was released (Evje, 1986).

7

local infrastructure” (Schulzke, 2013: 67). While Schulzke (2013: 65) argues that video games do not actively train players how to fight, in Battlefield 4 the controls in the use of drones are not dissimilar to real life, and players are remotely detached to the realities of war just as in the use of real drones. Not only is this a form of indirect training, it also gives players the sense that they could do the real thing. Overall, this has implications for international relations, as military jobs will be seen as desirable as opposed to questionable.

Feminine Subordination

Finally, the masculinisation of war depicted in Battlefield 4 has implications for international relations as it reduces the acceptablility of women in the military and feminises foreign identities which in turn legitimises international conflict. As discussed previously, female characters in Battlefield 4 are either non-existant or alienated due to their gender. Their representation within the game only serves to legitimise the continuation of masculine military ideals. For example, Thomas (2009: 102, emphasis added) argues that, “Strategies and representations of the inclusion of women as soldiers, morale, recreation and welfare personnel, and recruitment aides cement traditional gender relations rather than change them”. In this way men are portrayed as dominant, purposeful and confident, whereas women are seen as unprofessional and relations oriented (Thomas, 2009: 103). Foreign identities are also feminised in a negative way. For example, the feminisation of China and Chinese soldiers leads to the perception that China is weak, but also a dangerous ‘other’ to be controlled. Hence, Battlefield 4 is clearly supporting the structural realist notion that China is a threat in international relations (as argued by Mearsheimer, 2006: 160). The feminisation of female and non-white soldiers has implications for international relations as it reinforces dominant, white, male identities. This not only alienates people of colour and women, but also emasculates white men that do not fit the masculine hegemonic stereotype. The result is that war becomes the domain of these hegemonic identities, with an emphasis on masculine perceptions of war such as the need for violence, mistrust and competition.

Conclusion

“By hiding ugly realities and producing cinematic cotton candy, the games make real war seem exciting, heroic, even fun. And so hawkish political candidates seem not bellicose, but reasonable. Rapidly escalating defense costs look not wasteful, but common-sensical. Thus our two-front war rolls on and on and on.” (Cowlishaw,

2005)

In conclusion, Battlefield 4 masculinises war through the use of high octane destructive game play; spectacles that override narratives; the use of military ideals while disregarding discipline; and the feminisation of women and non-white identities. This has a number of implications for international relations. Firstly, the glorification of destruction legitimises violence as a form of problem solving in the international arena. Secondly, the reliance on spectacles as entertainment undermine the importance of dialogue in war and also result in the glamorisation of high tech weapons and vehicles thereby justifying large military expenses. Thirdly, a form of military hyper-masculinity becomes idealised, facilitating military recruitment and

8

training. Finally, identities that oppose hegemonic masculinity become feminised resulting in the negative othering of women and foreign, non-white identities. This feminisation serves to legitimise offensive American foreign policy (such as treating China as a threat). It is clear therefore, that entertainment media in the form of military style FPSs have real life implications for international relations and gender. Finally, I would like to note that in order to increase awareness of this, there needs to be more education around media literacy (Leonard, 2004: 2), as this will help to counterbalance strong, masculinised discourses, and ultimately foster a more reflective society.

REFERENCES

Barnett, Emma. (2013) ‘Meet the Female Soldiers Proving the Case for Women on the Front Line’, available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10363980/Meet-the-female-soldiers-proving-the-case-for-women-on-the-front-line.html, accessed 6 January 2014.

Barrett, Frank. (1996) ‘The Organisational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The Case of the US Navy’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 3 (3): 129-142.

Battlefield Official Blog (2013) ‘Over 30 Game Industry Awards Earned by Battlefield 4’, available at http://blogs.battlefield.com/2013/10/battlefield-4-awards/, accessed 21 December 2013.

Battlefield 4 (2013) console game: Xbox, Electronic Arts Inc.

Carver, Terrell. (2007) ‘GI Jane: What are the Manners that Maketh a Man?’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9 (2): 313-317.

Clarke, Ben., Rouffaer, Christian. and Senechaud, Francois. (2012), ‘Beyond the Call of Duty: Why Shouldn’t Video Game Players Face the Same Dilemmas as Real Soldiers?’ International Review of the Red Cross, 94 (886): 711-737.

Cohn, Carol. (1987) ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, Signs, 12 (4): 687-718.

Cohn, Carol. (1999), ‘Missions, Men and Masculinities: Carol Cohn discusses Saving Private Ryan with Cynthia Weber, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1 (3): 460-475.

Cowlishaw, Brian. (2005) ‘Playing War: The Emerging Trend of Real Virtual Combat in Video Games’, available at http://www.americanpopularculture.com/archive/emerging/real_virtual_combat.htm, accessed 14 December 2013.

9

Elworthy, Scilla. and Rifkind, Gabrielle. (2005) ‘Hearts and Minds: Human Security Approaches to Political Violence’, Demos, available at http://www.demos.co.uk/files/heartsandminds.pdf.

Enloe, Cynthia. (1988) Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives (second edition), London: Pandora Press.

Enloe, Cynthia. (2000) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (second edition), London: University of California Press Ltd.

Evje, Mark. (1986) ‘'Top Gun' Boosting Service Sign-ups’, available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-05/entertainment/ca-20403_1_top-gun, accessed 28 December 2014.

Leonard, David. (2003) ‘“Live in Your World, Play in Ours”: Race, Video Games, and Consuming the Other’, Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, 3 (4): 1–9.

Leonard, David. (2004) ‘Unsettling the Military Entertainment Complex: Video Games and a Pedagogy of Peace’, Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, 4 (4): 1–8.

Leonard, David., and King, Richard. (2009) ‘Replaying Empire: Racialised Violence, Insecure Frontiers, and Displaced Terror in Contemporary Video Games’, Ethnicity and Race in a Changing World: A Review Journal, 1 (2): 2-14.

Manjikian, Mary. (2013) ‘Becoming Unmanned: The Gendering of Lethal Autonomous Warfare Technology’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/14616742.2012.746429#tabModule, accessed: 20 December 2013.

Mass Effect (2007) console game: Xbox, Electronic Arts Inc.

Mearsheimer, John. (2006) ‘China’s Unpeaceful Rise’, Current History, 105 (690): 160-162.

Murphy, Sheila. (2004) “Live in Your World, Play in Ours’: The Spaces of Video Game Identity’, Journal of Visual Culture, 3 (2): 223-238.

Oberschall, Anthony. (2000) ‘The Manipulation of Ethnicity: From Ethnic Cooperation to Violence and War in Yugoslavia’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23 (6): 982-1001.

Parkin, Simon. (2013) ‘Shooters: How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers’, available at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers, accessed 14 December 2013.

Power, Marcus. (2007) ‘Digitized Virtuosity: Video War Games and Post-9/11 Cyber-Deterrence’, Security Dialogue, 38 (2): 271–288.

10

Rowley, Christina. (2010) ‘Popular culture and the politics of the visual,’ in Shepherd, Laura J. (ed.) Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 309-325.

Schulzke, Marcus (2013), ‘Rethinking Military Gaming: America's Army and Its Critics’, Games and Culture, 8 (2): 59-76.

Thomas, Tanja. (2009) ‘Gender Management, Popular Culture and the Military’ in Schubert, Rikke. (eds) War Isn't Hell, It's Entertainment: Essays on Visual Media and the Representation of Conflict, North Carolina: McFarland.

Turse, Nick. (2003) ‘The Pentagon Invades Your Xbox: A new and powerful form of propaganda aims to indoctrinate young video gamers’, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/14/opinion/op-turse14, accessed 14 December 2013.

11