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.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/fakegeek.png?resize=573%2C541&ssl=1)
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.
…
FUCK THIS IS LIKE LOGIC BUT IT’S STUPID
Yes, when I say I am white that means there are other identities that are the same.
But when I start auditing other people’s skin colors, that’s when I become an agent of exclusion.
And you know that.
DISHONEST
Can we just ignore this guy till he goes away? The whole theories for dummies thing is getting old.
follows up with accusations of intellectually dishonesty whenever someone tells him he’s wrong or uniformed.
Unlike every other commenter, here, I specify the exact reasons for using the label of intellectually dishonest. If you use intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactics then I will label you as intellectually dishonest and give specific argumentation supporting my utilizing the label.
I argue for my positions and most others, here, do not. Willingness to argue for one’s position without resorting to the various dishonest rhetorical tactics is the hallmark of intellectual honesty.
Asher, if we’re so intellectually beneath you, feel free to fuck right off at any time. You won’t be missed.
Yeah I am sick to fucking death that my gender somehow affects people who are not me. Or, more to the point this time, that identifying as one thing, and thus not as others, is some sort of exclusionary tactic.
pecunium — sorry dude, but I’m going to have to exclude you as you’re all cis like and shit and I’m not. It’s nothing personal you see, it’s just the natural consequence of us identifying differently!
*cracks up* The African violet cuttings still look good, I’ll have to get a better look at the sundew cutting when I do today’s water change on the 30g. Since you have a functional memory and I don’t, remind me later?
“There’s this moronic sentiment out there that women regularly and systemically receive abuse on the internet just because they’re women.”
But trolling a site that has a shitload of women posters has no emotional incentive for you? Liar.
But when I start auditing other people’s skin colors, that’s when I become an agent of exclusion.
The term “leftist” is exclusionary because it excludes non-leftists. All identities are exclusionary, every single last one of them. What you are doing is relying on current, general sentiments to to establish a notion that some identities are “bad”, in an Absolute sense, but that others are okay. But since your notions of “bad” are simply rooted in current, general sentiments that means that they are subject to change and not some timeless, universal Absolute.
@cassandra says
Sure, I’m fine with ignoring him. He was entertaining maybe the first few posts I saw but after more than three he’s really, really boring.
But trolling a site that has a shitload of women posters has no emotional incentive for you?
No, it does not. And, unlike you, I don’t speculate on other’s emotional states – another intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. You get a payoff from being here, Asher, or you would fuck off already.
No one has speculated as to your emotional state, you dishonest fuckwit.
comes from a bunch of cultural things,
And where do those “cultural things” come from? What you want to say is that those “cultural things” are some ultimate cause and are not the product of even further prior causes. This is what is wrong with much of current social science.
(If I want the thing, I can’t get it unless the other person agrees too)
Agreed. So, what is it of which men are gatekeepers that women aren’t (in the long run, of course).
Asher, nobody here buys the idea that women are the gatekeepers of sex, much less your total non-sequitur that men must therefore be the keepers of something else. Holy fuck you’re stupid.
So if lesbians have no sex, do gay man have all the sex since they have so much testosterone?
“No, it does not. And, unlike you, I don’t speculate on other’s emotional states – another intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic.”
You made speculations about the sexual drives of lesbians. What’s stopping you? 😀
You’re all about untestable conjectures, remember?
I can read a 1200+ comment thread and enjoy myself when the argument is, yanno, one where all participants are engaging honestly.
From what I’ve noticed I am the only one who has consistently stuck to addressing the specific claims and arguments of others. Everyone else has engaged in various speculations about myself or argument by insinuation. I am the *only* one in this conversation who has been consistently intellectually honest.
Dear gods, it’s a broken record.
“Dear gods, it’s a broken record.”
No, it’s a special snowflake of intellectual honesty and truth!
So long as that truth fits within a preconceived framework and doesn’t require evidence to support it.
I know I’m supposed to be ignoring asher but I can’t stop laughing at this statement.
He meant to say “consistently boring”, right?
Then what’s your motivation? Are you trying to use us to validate some twisted beliefs in your head? Since it isn’t working, what is your motivation for being here?
Men are the gatekeepers to sex with men. Women can’t have sex with men unless the men allow it. See? Gatekeeping!
“The term “leftist” is exclusionary because it excludes non-leftists. All identities are exclusionary, every single last one of them. What you are doing is relying on current, general sentiments to to establish a notion that some identities are “bad”, in an Absolute sense, but that others are okay. But since your notions of “bad” are simply rooted in current, general sentiments that means that they are subject to change and not some timeless, universal Absolute.”
*has a small screaming fit*
Ok, now that that’s out of my system. In what fucking world does identifying as one thing mean all other identities for that category of thing are BAD? And not just DIFFERENT? No, seriously, because you just fundamentally said that my identifying as non-binary means that binary trans* people and cis people are bad in current sentiments. Which might be your biggest crock of shit so far.
I’ll even grant that you are, in a very pedantic sense, correct that identifying as one thing means excluding other identities in that category from your definition of yourself. And thus, en masse the group identity excludes other groups. In label.
What I will not, ever, grant is the idea that establishing an identity, of any sort, means relying on general sentiments to establish other identities as BAD.
You made speculations about the sexual drives of lesbians.
No, I didn’t. There’s quite a bit of actual research on the human sex drive that pretty much indicates that males are the initiators of the contexts involving sexual activity; men provide the context and women the consent. A couple of months ago in Slate (I think, maybe the DAily Mail) a lesbian caused a stir by admitting that women are, by nature, more passive than men.
“lesbian bed death” About 163,000 results (0.21 seconds)
Ah, someone has said this before – it’s babies, isn’t? Cos all the ladies wants a baby.
Unlike your notion of “bad,” which is rooted in tracing everything back to when we were paramecia and then ranting about how things are going to cause the end of civilization as we know it.