1. 1
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

2. 2
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

3. 3
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.

4. 4
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

5. 5
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,

6. 6
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.

7. 7
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
3 For example there was a spike in US Navy recruitment after the film Top Gun was released
(Evje, 1986).

8. 8
for killing allies, prisoners, and noncombatants; they must even minimize harm to
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

9. 9
military hyper-masculinity becomes idealised, facilitating military recruitment and
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.

10. 10
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.

11. 11
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.