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.
AAARGH! I go back for like… 20 minutes to reread the thread and Asher is suddenly back.
@Asher:
I know these are old, but you asked where the cultural stuff came from, implying they came from some inherent aspect of gender. That is wrong. Culture develops over time, sometimes changing quickly, other times settling in and sticking. Women ended up being stuck in the subservient role, the pursued role, the “men ask women because originally they asked the woman’s father” role. It’s arbitrary, and therefore it’s not a good idea to look to culture as an indication of what is correct.
About your slavery point, I wasn’t sure what you meant. I think you’re trying to say that the dynamics of slavery are more volatile and shorter-term than the dynamics of gender, and that’s demonstrably false. The roles of men and women have constantly changed throughout history, from women being leaders and rulers to being subservient to being equals, and they vary wildly both in the past and in the present by location. Even now the role gender plays in your societal position is being questioned and re-evaluated. Pretending that modern day stereotypes about gender are the result of a long equillibrium is… silly.
It is even sillier to make the argument that a long equillibrium is a good indication of what is morally correct or true. History affects the present rather strongly, and oppressed people can get stuck for long periods of time because they cannot get the resources to fight back. A system (like slavery, hence my original challenge), can be stable for quite a while because the people who want the system to change don’t have the ability to change it.
Right, now to find a way to jump back in (assuming Asher’s still around anyway).
I wish I had a right not to be bored. That would be awesome. Imagine if annoying people came with a mute button.
So you do support the Klan (what with slavery being how people lived for much of human history).
That I don’t support the Klan is merely a product of history, not of some a priori set of moral principles.
Says the guy who just defended reactionary lifestyles with an appeal to nature.
I openly call myself a “reactionary”. It’s just a label and the particular application of a sequence of letters doesn’t establish the function of a thing. For example, the function of a horse isn’t determined by the fact that we label it with the letters h-o-r-s-e.
“Amusingly, it’s the “citations needed” crowd who engages in the logically fallacious reasoning that if something isn’t definitively established in a peer reviewed journal then it isn’t worth considering. THAT is logically fallacious.”
If you had solid evidence to support your claim I highly doubt you’d call asking for evidence to be hand-waving.
No one said it isn’t worth considering. We said that it isn’t worth accepting as “truth”. Then again, if you had been properly trained in the sciences you would know why the term “truth” is problematic in science. Probably because that pesky peer-review system means that human beings have to hold theories and ideas tentatively. There isn’t a niche for absolutism in science.
Oh wow, I missed this gem:
I want to make the society I reside in better; therefore, I’m not systemically disadvantaged by society because of a certain trait I have.
This is the dumbest thing I have heard from you in this thread. Congratulations.
How does this
Pro-tip, the hallmark of the intellectually honest is they don’t keep one standard for themselves, and another standard for others.
Follow from this
Says the guy who just defended reactionary lifestyles with an appeal to nature.
Or were you just collecting random notions you hold and throwing them into a single post. Can you give me an example of a standard to which I hold others that I do not hold myself? No, that’s not a request for a link to a peer reviewed journal, just cite a standard I’ve exposited in these comments to which I do not hold myself.
BTW, that is what I suspect you’re referring to and I’ve already addressed it. When I say cite examples I am not restricting it to peer reviewed journals.
Oh, so I wasn’t a real soldier because I didn’t have “sexual activities [which involved] cavorting with [soldiers]“. I’ll be sure to remember that.
Not sure what the percentage of the lifers who are in the military but for many people in the US military their tour of duty is not central to their identity – I’ve had two brothers who did two to three year stints in the Army and they don’t consider it central to their identity, at all. For lifers, there is a label that their wives actually take which is “soldier’s wives”, so you’re simply incorrect on facts. Over time, the wives of male soldiers do take on a social identity distinct from women in the general population. (no, I doubt there is a peer reviewed article establishing this).
“BTW, that is what I suspect you’re referring to and I’ve already addressed it. When I say cite examples I am not restricting it to peer reviewed journals.”
Your hate crush on peer-review is most unbecoming, Petey.
Defo not letting you play with my babes now, for rizzle.
Gonna go groove to baby nautilus for a while now.
Objection: asked and answered.
Except the answer was just a rehash of the initial analogy and didn’t bother to address my objections. An intellectually honest answer would involve addressing my specific objections. One very salient and realistic objection to David’s analogy was that people are going to, over time, impute the harmlessness of male geeks to the Klan. That’s one side effect of the poor use of analogy.
Asher: I already addressed this. The act of establishing identity is an inherently exclusionary one because it excludes the things that are different.
And you are wrong. Yes, Identification is a way of defining things which are unlike. It’s not, “and so nothing which isn’t like this can ever be like this”.
Social taxonomy isn’t biological taxonomy.
Geekdom is a set of traits focused on a shared interest. Nothing in that requires the peope who share that trait to have dicks.
So your definition fails to describe the thing, and is rejected. It lacks truth.
If you look at David’s original analogy in the context of current, practical experience of the average person his analogy can cut another way. Most people have encountered a fair number of male geeks in their lives and probably no Klan members.
How do you know this? I rarely see people who run about declaring the Klavern to which they belong. What they may not have encountered is an open Klan Member. One of the interesting things about the terrorising geeks (see Jane Austin and the £5 Note) is they hide. When the are outed the deny.
Which makes it easy for weaseling cowards like you (too afraid to look at the mess in their own culture) to deny them).
What you are doing is relying on the current general social sentiments involving Klan members in order to make a specious equivalence between the Klan and male geeks. *
What you are doing is pretending to know my motives/thoughts.
What I am doing is comparing a specific activity, to another specific activity. I see parallels (the violent rhetoric, the specious logic, the false declarations of inherent different, the secrecy) and pointing it out to others.
Is the one groups shameful, yep. Guess what, that makes the other group shameful. I’m not ashamed to compare violent misogynists to violent racists.
Why? Because I want to get rid of both.
You, however, seem to think getting rid of the former (through shame and disapprobation) is wrong.
Which makes you a shitty person, who countenances evil in the world.
Liar
Asher: Unlike every other commenter, here, I specify the exact reasons for using the label of intellectually dishonest
Liar. I’ve been quite specfic (with quotations and everything) when I say you are being dishonest (intellectually, factually, morally).
So you can add that to your list of hypocrisies.
I argue for my positions and most others, here, do not.
Wrong again, you assert them, and get offended when we don’t accept them, so you reassert them; even when your former assertions have been shown to be lies (see the whole, Dave saod geeks were “just like” the Klan)
“There’s this moronic sentiment out there that women regularly and systemically receive abuse on the internet just because they’re women.”
It’s not moronic, it’s true. Men don’t get the same volume, nor the same categories, of abuse.
You should have your tongue ripped out
What women-hating trolls really believe
@Asher:
Please please please clarify this. Do you not have a set of moral principles that exclude the klan and simply don’t wish to be a social pariah, or was this just horribly worded?
Lots of racists and sexists think this way:
“Amusingly, it’s the “citations needed” crowd who engages in the logically fallacious reasoning that if something isn’t definitively established in a peer reviewed journal then it isn’t worth considering. THAT is logically fallacious.”
Your trying to validate your opinions by silencing your critics for being critical. Those who favor EvoPsych, for instance, go this route. “I know I’ll be criticized for not being politically correct, but I read a non peer reviewed study that said women don’t like sex. That conforms to what I want to believe in, so I’ll support it. Peer reviewed studies disagree with this, so I’ll claim peer review in somehow intellectually impure, because, blablabla, I’ll pull some whacked nonesense out of my ass.”
Cassandra: I like Spock syndrome.
If by “aware” you mean “supplied at least as much as half the required labor to feed/clothe/sustan the family” then yes.
“Income” clearly implies an socioeconomic environment involving large-scale societies and large amounts of production of economic commodities. Yes, it’s entirely reasonable to assume that women have always contributed roughly half of all labor required to make society function. It’s just that the specifics have involved significant differences in labor roles.
Oh god what did citations ever do to Asher. (Note, Asher, if you say quite a bit of research you should link, or at the very least, say what research you’re using).
Omilords, it’s on google it must be true.
No, actually. You do not have a right to kiss your wife. I do not have a right to hug my sister. You do not have that right. FFS this is not hard. You do not have rights over other people…
I shall borrow your terms: Saying that Dave, in the OP equated male geeks isn’t intellectually dishonest. It’s a lie.
This is like you saying red is blue and blue is red. That’s exactly what he did. Either he needs to show how male geeks are functionally the equivalent of the Klan or retract the analogy.
The second half of your assertions is also false. It’s not a lie; it’s a rhetorical device (I recommend Aristotle for a better grasp of how to use them), specifically Hyperbole.
This is truly hilarious. The actual hyperbole in this conversation is David’s original analogy. It is not hyperbole on my part to point out his hyperbole.
BTW, I’ve actually taught a uni course on Greek philosophers
It is Pell! If only, then at least we could get David to banhammer his tedious ass.
Asher, stop willfully misunderstanding the Klan reference and fuck off.
Oh god I sincerely hope not. I’d feel bad for your students.
Oh right, forgot about this one!
Asher, remember my whole rock climbers thing? The reason I brought it up is because, even if like-minded people tend to have sex, that sex is no part of the definition of their inclusion in the group. Maybe avid rock climbers do tend to have sex with other avid rock climbers; maybe this is a statistical fact. But it plays no part in determining if someone is a rock climber; that is solely based on whether they like and do rock climbing.
To put it in non sex terms; suppose I am an atheist. Suppose I do not go to any atheist conventions, have no atheist friends, have no sex with other atheists, and in general do not make my religious beliefs known. Does this make me a fake atheist? No. Inclusion under the label “atheist” is a result of my beliefs.
Therefore, saying that geek girls are fake because they don’t have sex with other geeks is painfully false, and ironic(?) considering that geeks stereotypically don’t have sex with anyone.
If it’s Pell, I’m impressed, he usually hits his Froth setting much sooner.
I feel bad for Asher’s student’s. I bet all his overheads were 8pt. font too.
Asher — I see you have chosen to ignore my refutation of the idea the identities being exclusionary inherently means other identities are labelled bad by society at large.
pecunium — you’re just like the four and out crowd, this is news to me!
Asher — way to ignore that plenty of lifer // career soldiers aren’t married.