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.
The “welfare queen” stereotype was essentially fabricated; while individuals do game the system, there is no large scale effort to do so.
“Black people like watermelon” was wholly fabricated during the slavery years to promote the idea of black people being simple and content in their slavery.
“Women are bad at math” is a stereotype that is false, but becomes true under the circumstances of “stereotype threat,” which you had better do some research on.
Stereotypes are made up, either out of whole cloth or through over-interpretation of a few data points, and can become true because social expectation is a freaking powerful force.
Nice etymological fallacy there, buddy.
I vote for Having Had Quite Enough Of Asher.
Time to start throwing pies.
Fuck off, Asher. Long past time for you to go.
BANHAMMER BANHAMMER BANHAMMER.
@Falconer:
BABIES! SQUEEE!!!! SO CUTE!!!!
Mk. That brightened my day in this thread a little.
We didn’t substantiate it because David already did, dimtwit.
Right here:
In the following analogy
A is to C
as
B is to D
A and B require a large body of similar function. What you are saying is that C is like D.are similar because both the Klan and male geeks are requesting a separate social space.
However, what David needs to establish is that male geeks are functionally similar to the Klan OUTSIDE OF merely seeking a separate space. in that analogy form, A and B need to be similar in things outside of the specific references in the analogy. True, both male geeks and the Klan share a feature of wanting a “separate space”, but that is all and if you are relying solely on that feature to make the comparison then your analogy becomes self-referencing and tautological. In other words, the analogy says nothing outside of itself and is useless for purposes of demonstrating anything other than that both the Klan and male geeks want a separate space.
Consider the following analogy:
The Klan asked for a separate space for themselves
Feminists ask for separate space for women
Therefore, Feminists are like the Klan
Of course the reasoning is completely specious because the analogy is simply noting that Feminists and the Klan share one specific feature, that they want a special space, which is not something that is inherently bad.
For that analogy to work and be intellectually serious one would need to demonstrate other share features between the klan and male geeks/feminists.
If david had simply offered a post saying that
Neo nazis want a separate space
Male geeks want a separate space
Therefore, neo nazis and male geeks share that feature
then it would not have been intellectually dishonest. Vacuous and meaningless, but just that. However, DAvid nestled that analogy within the broader context of a larger argument. However, the analogy is a bad one because the only manifestly observable feature shared by male geeks and neo nazis is that they are exclusionary.
And … so what. All identities are exclusionary.
He never met an etymology he didn’t fuck up.
BANHAMMER BANHAMMER BANHAMMER
ASHER OFF THE ISLAND
Seconding grumpygatisagirl!
I’d ask him what his views on taxation are, but that’s probably leading the witness.
In econ, my undergrad, the concept of a public good is a very specific one. Taxes used to fund public goods provide stability. Taxes used for things other than public goods produce long-run instability. Notice that I didn’t say they were “bad”.
Asher brings up Nazis a lot. did he come here from Stormfront? He’d fit right in.
Notice that I didn’t say they were “bad”.
Asher: Can you specify the male geek equivalent of the Birmingham church bombing that killed four little girls?
So… death threats phoned to someone’s house aren’t terrorism?
Letters sent, with photos of someone at work, aren’t terrorism?
E-mails that say they know where your kids go to school aren’t terrorism?
Nice set of morals you got there.
This, “combatant” analogy you are working with, you don’t want to go there.
It’s a bad analogy. It’s interesting that you, the anti-feminist, are the one promulgating the idea of killing those to whom you are opposed.
Because, oh parsimonious one; he who chooses his words with exacting care (so as to say exactly what he means), combatants get killed; they are fair game for death (see above, my comment re krypteia (with which you, oh master of the Greek Philosophers, ought be well aware):
You are telling us that killing feminists is something you think to be fair game for killing.
And you are the one arguing for the morality of your position? The one saying the people on the Geek Gatekeeping side of the debate aren’t like the Klan.
I think you hate that analogy because it hits right on the mark, and you were standing where the arrow fell.
If I take a random assortment of animals from many different phyla and weight them I can come up with an “average”. It’s practical applicability is probably zero but it is an “average”. That’s what you are doing, here.
In the context, of human social and moral philosophy “norms” are things that are accepted as customary in a specific social context.
Dammit.
Notice that I didn’t say they were “bad”.
That’s all the analogy was intended to do, so your point is wholly unimportant. It was nothing more than a goddamn comparison.
@Asher:
I pointed this out before and I’ll point it out again.
From the OP:
The context is right freaking there, dude. Just read the actual words. The simile is not “male geeks are like the clan,” it is “male geeks demanding safe spaces from women is like the clan demanding safe spaces from non-whites.” The thing in common is a privileged group demanding social protection from a non-privileged group in order to retain their privileged status.
And, with that I am done, I leave your door, and clap the dust from my sandals.
Am I correct in forecasting another couple hundred comments over privilege?
Oh, so being a feminist means it’s open season for every asshole to send you rape and death threats. I see.
When I was in grad school I taught at a private tutoring service. One of my students was the son of the program manager of a local conservative talk radio station. His family received regular death threats and he spent his entire high school life being chauffeured around by bodyguards.
This is sort of what happens when politics turns into a winner take all power struggle and there’s precious little for me to do about it.
Personality, my politics involves breaking the US up into separate sovereign nations of maybe between 10 and 30 million people and allowing for a period of time where people can transition into a nation that best suits their particular moral sentiments. An empire comprised of a ruling class with its own particular set of moral seniments ruling over a vast hodge-podge of different peoples, each with their own moral sentiments, seems like a recipe for lots of conflict, to me.
If I take a random assortment of animals from many different phyla and weight them I can come up with an “average”.
Also,
Is Asher thinking this is what David said?
“Male geeks”:”KKK” as “demanding safe spaces from women”:”demanding safe spaces from minorities”?
Cause that’d be hilarious and sad.
bigotry.
Another horribly abused term. A bigot is someone who refuses to address opposing positions and arguments. What you are really saying is that a bigot is anyone who takes a position on anything (excepting yourself, of course, since you have the correct positions).
So which side of the Mississippi will all the men end up on?
@Asher:
No. Bigots are people who are bigoted against groups. Talk to any white supremicist and they will go all day long trying to show the “scientific” reason for why white people are the superior race. I know you like defining words to suit your self (like your definition of “norms,” which completely misses the mark of the standard usage), but this is absurd.
Some brain bleach