Define "Gamer"

I was recently talking to a friend of mine about this class. He seemed very jealous that I was taking it and said that he would love to take it himself, because he loves video games. He felt the need to add, however that he was not a 'gamer' in 'conventional terms'

(whatever that means),

 because he only really ever played sport video games, like FIFA and NHL.

My confusion over this was compounded by John Brindle' article "If gamers are the educated elite then...". I was always aware of the fact that gamers were an elite, after all, games and they're 'accessories'

(I couldn't find a better word that encompassed consoles, computers and all other components involved in gaming, if you know of one, please tell me.)

 are expensive, and so is the gamers' time. But it astounded me that people who claimed to love video games and did, in fact, play them all the time, could be excluded from that elite.

I have mentioned this before in the blog, but I really find gaming and gamers' exclusion to be ironic, hypocritical and horribly contradictory. Of course, when confronted on the issue few gamers seem to actually admit to ostracizing others. Who's to know its them harassing others safely behind their avatars?

And isn't the gaming community constantly declaiming persecution by those who 'don't understand' games, and who believe they should be banned or censored for violence? Hasn't the gaming community always shown pride in its status as top of the line development technology? Isn't the technology itself an indication of our progression as human beings?

From the outside the gaming community has always depicted itself as open, tolerant and accepting, denouncing standard systems of valuation, as Brindle points out. Why, then, do women still struggle to find acceptance in such an 'open-minded' community? Why are only certain people, who play certain games for certain amounts of time a week/day/year allowed to call themselves gamers?

A society that is excluded from normative standards of valuation hungers to create its own. That can be easily understood. But is it necessary for those systems of valuation to replicate the same behaviour that denounced it in the first place?

Unfortunately I missed yesterdays lecture due to a wry neck and I probably missed a lot of discussion that would clarify the topic a bit more. Nevertheless, the more I read and talk about it, the more it outrages me, and I thought I might snap at a poor, unsuspecting, gamer friend if I didn't release a valve through this rant.

Anyone think I went way out of line? Or have their own definition of the word 'gamer'?