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.
So you won’t actually address what I said, just pretend that you meant it all along. Precious.
I don’t consider the identity “leftist” to be inherently bad. It’s just another identity, nothing more and nothing less. You read into my comment things that are simply not there; that’s on you.
Asher: First off, I am the only one who has consistently avoiding using intellectually dishonest rhetoric,
Keep telling yourself that son, it will hurt less. Maybe you will get some lurkers to support you in email.
that particular method was called the boats, and might be in Plutarch, not sure. and we know Plutarch had no agenda.
, I’m operating from a heavy understanding of developments in modern moral philosophy </i
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Um, parsimonious? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
adjective: parsimonious
1. unwilling to spend money or use resources; stingy or frugal.
Occam’s Razor is also called the Principle of Parsimony. More generally, it just means the least means required to attain some objective. Also, I just used that word once in this conversation.
“Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.”
Sustained.
“What the commenters on this site seem to want is for male geeks to conform to their particular notions of identity.”
Close but no cigar, and I’m pretty sure you’re playing with hand grenades.
We want to see people, as a whole, thus including male geeks, treat women as people. Which, uh, isn’t exactly “conform[ing] to [our] particular notions of identity”, seeing how treating people equally isn’t an identity of any sort.
It’s almost like he’s Intellectually …. whatsit, right on the tip of my tongue. Dis-something. Disheveled? No that’s not it, oh well.
@Asher:
Here’s your comment about free will (bolding is mine).
You distinugish yourself from “advocates of free will.” You also say that introducing free will inevitably breaks causality, which I’m assuming you believe is a bad thing. Little wonder why people think you deny free will. Maybe it’s more accurate to say you deny free will as a premise for anything else, but then weirdly you later say that you hold to modern moral philosophy which takes free will as a premise. Weird.
Maybe people didn’t answer because it’s a very complicated question without a clear answer. They ignore you like atheists ignore creationists who repeatedly ask “how did the universe begin” and only accept “god” for an answer, saying “you don’t know the answer, we do, therefore we’re right and god exists.”
They deserved rape and death threats? Seriously?
FUCK OFF AND FUCK YOU for not thinking that isn’t terrorization.
And that’s why you’re bragging about it now
That specific comment of mine was in response to implications of how hellacious it would be to have to grade a paper written by myself. It was a specific and direct response to the insinuation.
I was simply addressing something someone else said.
Yeah, it’s completely impossible that that person used the quotation marks only to distinguish the search query from the rest of the phrase. If the quotation marks are there, that implies they were part of the search query as well!
Except that the search *with* quotation marks produces only 8 results rather thant he odd 18 million that you asserted. (btw, the search without quotation marks does return around 18 million)
No, we want the geek subculture to not be biased in favor of men. That’s it.
Aren’t you supposed to be that smart philosophical guy who can argue cogently and parsimoniously? If so, why the fuck is it so hard for you to grasp a basic idea implied by the original post?
How has civilization not crumbled, if “punishment as a means of coersion” leads to collapse and people have and will always do so?
Interestingly, it has been my experience that left-leaning and liberal types never refer to themselves as “leftists.” It is always a disparaging term used by extremist right-wing folk. Keep this in mind if you do not wish to be misunderstood.
Learn to meme. That’s my only comment on “you keep using that word”.
And, in a strange turn of events, I’m commenting on pecunium’s comment!
“If a woman I don’t want to have sex with should express an interest, I decline, and she doesn’t get it (from me).*”
*consensually — which is rather relevant to the topic at hand
Asher — you fucking specifically linked identities being exclusionary and the idea of badness being culturally relative. With not even a sentence in between. You should learn to paragraph if you didn’t mean them to be linked ideas.
“You can make demands of me to change my style until the stars grow cold, and the universe is dark for their lack, and I shall still use the tools I think best suit the purpose; even though it cost me my very lifesblood, and loses me the taste of Paradise.”
You know I think you rock right? That may be the most emphatic statement I’ve ever heard from you, and I fear the seriousness of it will be lost on Asher.
Also, Sophia, listen to it if you haven’t any of the other times I’ve sent you it ^.^
http://youtu.be/fPaUvYPRzrM
So no, you didn’t say that being a “leftist” was bad, you said that “leftists” believe non-”leftists” to be bad.
Uh, yeah, attributing “badness” to nonleftists is pretty common among leftists. This is not rocket science. BTW, I dont’t say that leftists are bad people for doing that but just note that they are doing it. Attributing “badness” to out-groups is a fairly common feature of many identities and leftism is no different.
Don’t conflate contingent sentiments of “badness” with bad as a priori.
It was multiple lines and several sentences. You also presumed that Pecunium didn’t know about military wives. That’s a tedious lecture in my book.
Well, that obviously sounds like you’re certainly convinced and presuppose free will in all of your conjectures. That certainly goes together with a strict adherence to evo psych. /snark
Also, in re your general science-advancement-via-debate-club argument: Dude, there are no judges. No one’s going to sit at a table and award you points for making rules-lawyer-y arguments.
AshBot stuck on repeat.
Forgive me, I still have three more pages to read to catch up.
Wait, how is >>”If nerd-dom is such a defining identity then a woman isn’t probably a nerd if her sexual activities don’t involve cavorting with nerd men.”<>”I’m sure that it’s possible to be a lesbian nerd and if that lesbian happens to have a sex life it’s probably with another lesbian nerd.”<>”I rock climb but it’s silly to think that rock climbing is central to my identity in the same way that it is central to the identity of male tech geeks. BTW, having been to rock climbing gyms I’m pretty sure that committed rock climbers tend to be more likely to be having regular sex with other rock climbers than with a random representative of the population.”<>”There’s this moronic sentiment out there that women regularly and systemically receive abuse on the internet just because they’re women. Um, no. That’s pretty much standard operating procedure for the average male when arguing and it’s one that I frequently see aimed at myself.”<<
Really? You have received hundreds of death and rape threats, had all your videos flagged on youtube, had your face photoshopped into porn, had your wikipedia page vandalized, were called every slur in the book, and someone made a game about punching you in the face? Regularly? Because you disagreed with someone online? (And that’s just the experience of one woman mind you.)
My point is that it’s not uncommon for people to distinguish search queries from the rest of their text in order to avoid mixing stuff.
For instance, take this sentence: “I just searched ‘cats’ on Google.” Does that mean I literally typed in the search query complete with the quotation marks? No, because what I actually did was enter the search query without its quotation marks. I just included the quotation marks when referencing the search query because I want to clearly mark it as a search query. A sentence like “I just searched cats on Google” doesn’t have such a mark on the search query, and so it’s more ambiguous.
Who let you teach a whole course in philosophy? You should be ashamed of yourself.
I can’t believe dude is seriously having an argument about the quotes thing. Just when I thought he couldn’t get any more tedious.
You directly connected the idea of identities being exclusionary and the idea that identities are assigned “badness” based on cultural norms.
Assigning “badness” to outsiders is common in group identities and probably the norm in political group identities. People do this, have always done this and will always do this. It’s, clearly and inherent part of what it means to have a political identity.
And … so what. Grow up. Deal with the reality there are strong long-term tendencies to attribute “badness” to political outsiders.
I mean this very conversation amply demonstrates people involved in a group identity attributing “badness” to an outsider. (Not a complaint, just an observation). Hell, this entire conversation is an apt demonstration of my point.
Hopefully he’ll overheat soon.
*blasts Sophia into brain*
“Uh, yeah, attributing “badness” to nonleftists is pretty common among leftists. This is not rocket science. BTW, I dont’t say that leftists are bad people for doing that but just note that they are doing it. Attributing “badness” to out-groups is a fairly common feature of many identities and leftism is no different.”
Uh, no. Nice try. See, what I said was not that no group believes other groups to be bad, what I said was that your generalization of that was made of horse dung.
Actually, that’s too kind of me, horse dung is fairly tolerable, your generalization is fish shit from the last month caked onto a filter. Slimy, smelly, and shitty.
Oh and yes, you did imply that exclusionary identities are bad, but I need to go back 3 pages for that, so we’ll get back to it.
Whoa wordpress just ate the hell out of my comment! Let me repost…
Or, you know, what Kirbywarp said.
Wait, have you been gone again, Kirbywarp, or am I just blinded by the cute I am exposed to every day?
Only when dealing with tendentious morons. For those who understand (and appreciate rhetoric), there is no reason to avoid it, as it is sometimes the best tool to show the folly of someone else.
Which is exactly what I’m doing in a limited number of my comments. The comment involving reasoning from women consistently contributing to societies implying that women haven’t been oppressed is an excellent example. It’s not that I really believe or, for that matter, don’t believe it, but that the entire conversation about “oppression” has degenerated into complete, hyperbolic nonsense.
Whenever I hear the term “oppression” coming out of someone’s mouth I just assume they’re babbling.