Should gaming be a “safe space” for nerdy dudes who hate women? The Men’s Rights perspective
I’m back from a brief vacation in Migraineland, and thinking about the ways in which Men’s Rights Activists love to appropriate the language of feminism and other progressive movements, usually in ways that are face-palmingly ass-backwards.
Take this recent discussion on the Men’s Rights subreddit of the dire threat of “fake gamer girls” invading the “male space” of gaming. The generically named guywithaccount sets up the discussion with this post:
![I want to talk about "fake geek girls" (self.MensRights) submitted 9 days ago by guywithaccount For those of you who don't know about this, there's a bit of a controversy in what I'll call the geek community. Apparently, when women attend geek conventions (that is, those celebrating e.g. video games, comic books, sci-fi and fantasy), some men accuse them of being "fake geeks" or demanding that they prove their "geek cred" by correctly answering trivia questions made up on the spot. Here's one article (of many) that talks about it: [1] http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2013/08/08/the-fake-geek-girl-nonsense/ My concern for this issue is that, like anything else that involves gender, feminists and feminist sympathizers are attempting to dominate the discussion and frame the whole thing from a feminist and gynocentric perspective. The prevailing analysis might be summed up as "geek culture is deeply misogynistic, and the people complaining about fake geeks are just sad little losers who hate women." IMO, the geek subculture has provided a somewhat-safe space for many men who have been snubbed by the rest of society, where they are not expected to prove their value to each other by carving notches in a bedpost or exemplifying traditional masculine traits. The increase in mainstream appeal and female participation over the past decade or so threatens the safety and exclusivity of this space, and the backlash from male geeks is a somewhat-predictable response to the invasion of their space. Of course, there are few spaces just for men, and when someone tries to create or preserve one, they're accused of misogyny. I suspect that some of you don't give a crap about any of this and see the whole thing as petty, but realize that it's not happening in a vacuum. I believe it's merely a symptom of the fact that men have almost no voice in gender discussions and their needs are routinely denied or ignored.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/fakegeek.png?w=604)
Now, there is a teensy bit of gold in this pile of bullshit: the notion of a “safe space,” where oppressed people can come forward and discuss their issues without fear of being talked over or shut down by those outside their group — who have more power in the world and who may not have their best interests at heart (or who may just be Blabby McBlabbypants types).
But there are a couple of giant problems with this notion when it comes to gamer dudes declaring gaming a “safe space” for men. The first is that, despite lingering resentments over being “snubbed” in high school or wherever — evident in the OP and in comments throughout the discussion — these guys are not actually an oppressed people by any measure that really matters.
Indeed, many of them — as tech dudes in a male-dominated tech world — are in fact in fairly privileged positions. For them to claim they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from the evils of “fake gamer girls” is a bit like Klan members claiming they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from blacks, Jews and Catholics. (Which is more or less what Klan members have argued over the years, albeit in less PC language.) No, I’m not claiming that all MRAs are the equivalent of hood-wearing Klan members. Only some of them are.
The second problem with the “game world as safe space for men” aregument is that YOU CAN’T JUST DECLARE BIG CHUNKS OF THE WORLD TO BELONG TO MEN. Yes, men dominate the gaming world in sheer numbers, both as game-makers and game-players. (While women make up nearly half of all game players — 47% — men tend to dominate the “serious” games that many geek dudes claim are the only ones that really count.) But gaming doesn’t “belong” to men any more than, say, novel-reading “belongs” to women — even though surveys suggest that women make up a staggering 80% of the fiction market in much of the English-speaking world.
Yep, that’s right: Women dominate “noveling” much more dramatically than men dominate gaming. Yet you don’t find women denouncing “fake noveler boys” or declaring that the male brain isn’t wired to understand the subtleties of written fiction.
No, in fact men are actively welcomed into book clubs. And my best friend, a woman, has spent much of the 18 or so years or our friendship trying to get me to read this novel or that novel, though over the years she’s only succeeded in getting me to read maybe one or two of her suggestions, which were pretty good, I have to admit. (I do plan to read some of the others, really.)
If you’re a socially awkward guy and want a safe space to discuss that, find a therapist, find a support group. Don’t pick on women gamers and pretend this is somehow your right because you’re oppressed as a socially awkward guy.
Anyway, here are some other dumb comments from the Reddit thread. YetAnotherCommenter warns feminists that they may lose some powerful allies if they continue acting so feministy.
Speaking of nerds who can’t get laid — which we weren’t but which these guys keep bringing up (and identifying themselves as) again and again — guia7ri seems to harbor some lingering resentments from high school, and who better to take that out on than attractive geeky women?
Hey MRAs, if you wonder why feminists sometimes describe MRAs as bitter men who hate women because they can’t get laid, it’s because MRAs like gui7ri so often EXPLICITLY DECLARE THEMSELVES BITTER MEN WHO HATE WOMEN BECAUSE THEY CAN’T GET LAID.
Meanwhile Byuku blames it all on evil feminists pretending to be geeks in order to make trouble. Because that’s what feminists do.
That’s how they get you!
EDIT: Added a sentence to temper and clarify my assertion that men “dominate” gaming.
Posted on August 20, 2013, in a woman is always to blame, all about the menz, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, bullying, creep-shaming, dozens of upvotes, entitled babies, evil women, facepalm, female beep boop, geek girls, imaginary oppression, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, no girls allowed, oppressed men, reddit, straw feminists, video games and tagged antifeminism, fake geek girls, gaming, geek girls, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, reddit, video games. Bookmark the permalink. 1,189 Comments.
“Sure you can. You are arbitrarily restricting science to controlled lab experiments.”
No, I said you must observe you cannot conjecture. I didn’t say anything about lab experiments.
Quick poll: Which song do you guys prefer for mocking obnoxious know-it-alls who claim to be experts on everything?
“I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical,
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I’m very well acquainted too with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news—
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.”
or
“I can bench press a car, I’m an ex football star
with degrees from both Harvard and Yale
Girls just can’t keep up, I’m a real love machine
I’ve had far better sex while in jail
I’ve designed the Sears Tower, I make two grand an hour
I cook the world’s best duck flambe
I’ll take the pick of the litter, girls jockey for me
I don’t need these lines to get laid”
Asher, labels are defining concepts, they serve to help define a persons spirituality, thinking, goals ect. Exclusion is a totally different concept, although it is often aimed at different labels.
To define is to exclude. All defining acts are exclusionary acts. When we define what something *is* we are simultaneously setting aside different then as *not is*.
That’s what identity is.
Call like things alike – Nietzsche
And this implies do not call unlike things alike.
No, I said you must observe you cannot conjecture.
Science begins with conjecture. I suggest you go read some Karl Popper and get back to us.
RE: katz
Oh, no fair, I like BOTH of those songs! This one seems more the Major General type though.
observation is what takes place after conjecture. No conjecture, no science.
All I will suggest you to do is to just read what I said again. If you’re already this pedantic, surely you are capable of understanding what people mean by what they say.
So it matters that some nerds aren’t nerdy like all other nerds.
Yeah…..I think the absurdity of such a statement doesn’t need to be explained.
You’re quite a character.
@ Ally
Again, you’re studiously ignoring the obvious point, which is that arguing and fighting over identity has been a central and ubiquitous feature of human life. I gave a specific example outside of “nerds” where this is clear and unambiguous and no one disputes that it has real meaning to people.
For you to avoid that and keep on insisting that arguing over identity is absurd is verging on intellectual dishonesty, on your part.
And aw, Asher’s friendzoned me. :( He’s not playing with me anymore.
Quick, everyone, say the most pretentious true fact you can think of!
“Tim Burton stole all his trademark techniques from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari!”
Pretty sure he just admitted to being a robot.
And also to not loving his son, since he only likes children under 2 and his son is three.
If arguing over one identity is absurd then arguing over all identities is absurd. Otherwise, you’re arbitrarily picking and choosing which identities are trivial and which are meaningful. What I suspect male geeks take umbrage at is that their cultivated identity is being trivialized by outsiders who are very unlike them but who want to appropriate the identity for themselves.
RE: Asher
arguing and fighting over identity has been a central and ubiquitous feature of human life
arguing over identity is absurd
I fail to see why these two are mutually exclusive. I mean, there are a LOT of absurd things that are central and ubiquitous features of human life. I dare say that ALL of human life is pretty damn absurd, when you think about it.
Also, how I define me is different than how I define YOU. If I say I’m a nerd, my personal definition doesn’t have to apply to anyone else. If you say you’re a nerd because you like kittens, that’s fine by me.
LBT, I’m with you on this one: He’s fuckin’ hilarious. The sheer number of times he’s said “I’m not defending group X!” and then proceeded to defend group X, for instance.
I “ignored” it because it’s irrelevant to the idea that complaining about people who aren’t “real” nerds is ridiculous and absurd. Not all arguments about identity are reasonable. This is one of them.
This is just like kinksters getting angry at other kinksters for not being “real” kinksters.
This reminds me of what happened when my dad bought me my Coleco Vision in 1982. I was 6 1/2 at the time, & learning to play the games that we bought, plus the in-pack game, which was “Donkey Kong”. (I had a great interest in video games that had been developing since 1979, & my dad bought me the CV console because I was much too young to go to arcades, & plus arcades were a rip off.)
My older cousins start coming over to the house, kick me off my own console, & tell me that girls can’t play video games. They do this enough times that I start to lose interest, aside from playing certain games like “Venture”, which IMHO, is still one of the best games ever. I gave into their bullying, & believed their garbage & lies.
All of these cousins (most are married) still play video games (& their wives don’t at all) – mainly things like WoW, & they also have LAN parties. I, other the hand, am still playing games like Tetris on my iPhone.
I have a spreadsheet on my computer that I used to calculate a recipe for homemade kitten formula with the optimal amino acid balance for cats.
RE: Asher
What I suspect male geeks take umbrage at is that their cultivated identity is being trivialized by outsiders who are very unlike them but who want to appropriate the identity for themselves.
Okay, here’s the thing I don’t get. I see this pattern enacted in every group you can name–multis, trans folks, queers, EVERYONE. What I don’t understand is what the big deal is.
Like, take me. I’m trans. What do I care if you’re trans and are an ass, or experience that identity differently than me? As long as you aren’t actively harming me, why should I care? YOUR identity as trans and MY identity as trans are two separate circles of a Venn diagram, and they don’t touch.
And geek men have a lot less to be protective of than other folks’ identities.
I dare say that ALL of human life is pretty damn absurd, when you think about it.
By this standard parents shouldn’t much care whether their child turns out to be the person who discovers the cure for cancer or turns out to be the next Charles Manson, yet, most parents very much care about the difference between those two outcomes.
Your statement is an excellent expression of nihilism and betrays a hatred of life.
@ LBT
Nah, sorry, I’m bored. We’ve heard all of this before, and occasionally in a less dry tone. This is like being trolled by a DVD instruction manual.
RE: katz
I have a spreadsheet on my computer that I used to calculate a recipe for homemade kitten formula with the optimal amino acid balance for cats.
I like you. I like you very much.
RE: Asher
By this standard parents shouldn’t much care whether their child turns out to be the person who discovers the cure for cancer or turns out to be the next Charles Manson, yet, most parents very much care about the difference between those two outcomes.
Wait, what? I seriously have no idea where you got this from.
Your statement is an excellent expression of nihilism and betrays a hatred of life.
…
*snrrrrrrk*BWAAHAHAHAHAHA. I love you, man, never leave. *tousles your hair*
Okay, here’s the thing I don’t get. I see this pattern enacted in every group you can name–multis, trans folks, queers, EVERYONE. What I don’t understand is what the big deal is.
Clearly, human beings are hardwired to be somewhat tribal, with a standard distribution. Here’s the thing, I, personally, am not a very tribal person; if there was some metric I would probably be in the one percent least tribal. That said, tribalism is an evolved feature of human psychology so you’re just going to have to deal with it. It took me a long time to understand why everyone like me personally but I didn’t really fit in anywhere: most people are much more tribal than I.
Whaaa appropriation. Because the geek label only belongs to men, right?
Says the guy who was quoting Nietzsche five seconds ago. You really don’t listen to yourself, do you?
“observation is what takes place after conjecture. No conjecture, no science.”
Hypothesis and conjecture are not interchangeable terms in the discipline of psychology.
A scientist must observe the natural world before forming a hypothesis. The evidence collected from further observation is part of the study.
RE: CassandraSays
But he thinks I’m a nihilist! That’s AMAZING! Or maybe it’s just that it’s absurdly late and I’m high on sleep-dep.
Wait, what? I seriously have no idea where you got this from.
If life is absurd then every instance of life is equally absurd. If all possible outcomes for one’s child is equally absurd then there’s no reason one should prefer their child turn out to be a great humanitarian or a mass killer.
There’s a number! It’s SCIENCE!
RE: katz
You really don’t listen to yourself, do you?
I think the answer to that is overwhelmingly obvious.
If you’re finding this guy in any way entertaining I think you need to get some sleep ASAP. Either that or this has been the most boring week ever so far. Now I’m worried about you!
A scientist must observe the natural world before forming a hypothesis.
All hypotheses occur in the context of things we already know. While hpotheses and conjectures may not be interchangeable in psychology there is no psychology without conjecture, or any other science, for that matter.
“If X is Y, then every instance of X is equally Y.” You call that reasoning?
“If mice are small, then every mouse is equally small.”
“If cake is delicious, then every piece of cake is equally delicious.” (Even the middle piece with less frosting.)
“If the internet is a good timesuck, then every site on the internet is an equally good timesuck.”
Cassandra, would you find him more entertaining if we steered him back into the “downfall of civilization” rut?
@ katz
Tribalism is clear a human trait. It also clearly has a normal distribution, like height does. I am less tribal than the vast, vast majority of people I meet. The exact number doesn’t matter for it to be science.
See, science, properly understood, is a branch of philosophy and those lab techs aren’t scientists, but just bureaucrats who are really good at conducting lab experiments.
“All hypotheses occur in the context of things we already know. While hpotheses and conjectures may not be interchangeable in psychology there is no psychology without conjecture, or any other science, for that matter.”
Conjectures are not testable. Hypotheses are. I am stating that the entire discipline of evo psych is based on conjecture.
I’m sorry you are too unfamiliar with the language of the field to understand the distinction.
Can you give him a personality transplant? That might help.
who said anything about the “fall of civilization”?
RE: Asher
If life is absurd then every instance of life is equally absurd. If all possible outcomes for one’s child is equally absurd then there’s no reason one should prefer their child turn out to be a great humanitarian or a mass killer.
Wow. I meant ‘life’ as in how we experience it, not the VALUE of human of life. I think human life is valuable. I just think that sometimes the lives we lead are awfully funny and absurd. It’s very tiny, and very important, and very painful, and very funny, and really, it’s just an amazing thing.
It’s not pretentious because it’s true! (Also, you have not earned the right to the phrase “properly understood,” duder.)
Conjectures are not testable. Hypotheses are. I am stating that the entire discipline of evo psych is based on conjecture.
Psychology is just as based on conjecture as is Ev Psy. The very method of induction is a conjecture. This is not a new concept.
(Also, you have not earned the right to the phrase “properly understood,” duder.)
That “right” is “earned” by making better arguments than the other guy.
RE: Asher
See, science, properly understood, is a branch of philosophy and those lab techs aren’t scientists, but just bureaucrats who are really good at conducting lab experiments.
And you thought I hated life. Oy vey.
RE: CassandraSays
If you’re finding this guy in any way entertaining I think you need to get some sleep ASAP. Either that or this has been the most boring week ever so far. Now I’m worried about you!
I probably am very sleep-deprived. But I can’t leave now! What if Asher says something AMAZING? He’s already claimed science is philosophy, doesn’t like puppies, and accused all of us of intellectual dishonesty. I’M RIVETED.
Also, I have not had a very funny week, between the SSI, another not-fun email from our father, and playing Dear Abby for another teenager on DA. (Though this one wanted to self-induce dissociative multiplicity because they thought a headmate would be more trustworthy than a corporeal person. HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU BUDDY BUT THAT IS SO WRONG.)
Like I said.
Guys, who’s more obnoxious and disingenuous – Joe or Asher? I vote Joe, still, but Asher’s pretty damn close.
“Psychology is just as based on conjecture as is Ev Psy.”
Psychological study, as it pertains to behavior, is based on making a observations and forming a testable hypothesis. Then testing it.
You are confusing conjecture and hypothesis.
Where in this explanation are you tripping up?
My mistake, it was actually the “collapse of society.”
Let me give you an example: Dunbar’s number. Robin Dunbar measured the frontal cortext and found that the nature social group of primates, numerically, was highly correlated to the size of their frontal cortext. The best research I’ve seen indicates that Dunbar’s number for humans is around 150.
Now, we can’t go back in time, say 100k years to see what Dunbar’s number was for humans at that point. But it is absurd to think that just because we cannot observe humans back then that Dunbar’s number does not apply to humans in that era.
Gaslighting extraordinaire.
Equivocating little fuck.
RE: katz
Still bollocks by the way. Or do I just know waaaaay too many unusually genderful people?
My mistake, it was actually the “collapse of society.”
Which is not the same thing as the fall of civilization. The first is both a death of something and a hopeful new start. The latter, not so much.
Equivocating little fuck.
Just because you can’t directly observe something in the way you’d like doesn’t mean it isn’t science.
And, yes, induction is a conjecture. Not sure how that is equivocation.
Re: Asher
Oh good, that means I can totally root for the collapse of society, if it means this ‘men and women are irrevocably different’ idea will just fucking die already.
Standing by for, “why can’t society be restarted after a collapse?”
Oh good, that means I can totally root for the collapse of society, if it means this ‘men and women are irrevocably different’ idea will just fucking die already.
It won’t. You can try and chase out Nature with pitchfork but she will always come back with a vengeance.
Where would the “demise of culture” fall on that spectrum? How about the “implosion of community?” The “deterioration of polity?”
A correlation as evidence of a cause? I’m not impressed.
He never DID tell me why he cared about my sister’s mechanical or reading habits either. I feel so abandoned and left in the lurch.
RE: Asher
It won’t. You can try and chase out Nature with pitchfork but she will always come back with a vengeance.
You keep saying that like it’s true. When really, the differences of individuals dwarf differences of genders.
“Just because you can’t directly observe something in the way you’d like doesn’t mean it isn’t science.”
You would need to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.
Oh good, that means I can totally root for the collapse of society
America isn’t one society but an empire comprised of many different societies. That, btw, is a central reason for the argument over the identity of nerdiness. The more culturally homogeneous is the less internal debate there is over identity; the political entity *is* a salient identity.
Then you will like puppies, Asher.
You would need to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.
The problem with modern psychology is that it arbitrarily stops at one cause as an ultimate cause. In fact, every cause you find in psychology is just an effect of prior causes. That’s the central problem with most social science.
oops, my post at 1:58 should have read “the more culturally homogeneous a political entity is”
I’ll root for the downfall of whichever society one has that stupid Men/Mars Women/Venus idea then.
The problem with modern psychology is that it arbitrarily stops at one cause as an ultimate cause. In fact, every cause you find in psychology is just an effect of prior causes. That’s the central problem with most social science.
It’s
intellectual dishonestyturtles all the way down!“The problem with modern psychology is that it arbitrarily stops at one cause as an ultimate cause. In fact, every cause you find in psychology is just an effect of prior causes. That’s the central problem with most social science.”
So, the problem with modern psychology is that it doesn’t allow for a simple-minded, reductionist approach which ignores environmental, cultural, and societal factors in the manifestation of behavior?
Oh, the bliss of easy certainty. Your mind must be untroubled by doubt and curiosity.
LBT
“women are the gatekeepers to sex” is not something I originated but anyone who denies that is a complete fool. Women, not men, are the gatekeepers to sex. So, if women are the gatekeepers to sex then men must be gatekeepers to something else. What is that something else?
Arbitrarily? Do you really even understand what modern psychology is? Wow.
Cause
Effect