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:
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.
Well, that seems like it worked out just fine. The one that’s softer to pet is more enthusiastic about being petted.
I wonder if the coarse fur sensation puts Hazel off the pettins?
Off to work, if there are any scraps (and I have any energy) I’ll play with them tonight, otherwise I shall see you after work tomorrow.
RE: cloudiah
I’ll add your vote!
I vote for the dragon in the plaid skirt too.
You don’t need an LJ to vote; anyway it didn’t require one for me.
Saw something about free will in here. Is it really controversial to deny the existence of free will?
I hate to break it to you guys, but the dragon’s actually wearing a plaid SHIRT.
…though I suppose that doesn’t necessarily EXCLUDE it from wearing a plaid skirt as well, now that I think about it…
So this dragon has really awful taste? That would be almost as bad as double denim.
I will admit, if you guys can use the poll, that is easiest for me.
RE: talacaris
Is it really controversial to deny the existence of free will?
When it involves also claiming that science is philosophy, women have never worked outside the home, and men and women are irrevocably different and claiming otherwise will destroy society… yes. Yes it is.
Oh, sorry, I totally misread that! I was imagining more of a 70’s dragon in a lot of earth tones. Obviously I’ll have to draw my version.
RE: CassandraSays
So this dragon has really awful taste? That would be almost as bad as double denim.
Well, it IS a Hipster Dragon. Had it a mustache, it would likely wax it. And hey, I used to wear double denim!
Well, I can at least now stop searching for the clip from Doctor Who where the Brigadier shows up in a kilt.
Because, you see, he’s the Doctor’s Dragon and he’s wearing a plaid skirt.
But now it’s a dragon in a plaid shirt, maybe I should start looking for REM pics.
RE: katz
By all means! Sometimes the misread version is more entertaining than the original.
If I try to fill out the poll it asks me to log in first.
LBT: well the other claims are, i wouldnt say controversial, just wrong..
But to say that free will does not exist in a metaphysical sense, which is not to say it’s not a useful fiction, it can still be a good concept to use in ethics, law &c. Is that controversial?
Okay, I voted.
BTW, Eivind Berge and Judgy Bitch are having a discussion about rape on twitter that is exactly as terrible as you’d expect.
Obviously it’s controversial in the sense that not everyone agrees about it, but I think you meant controversial in the more colloquial sense of “bad and worthy of shunning” (as in “the controversial new book about X”). And in that sense? Not really. I’m sure there are people here who believe in a strict view of determinism.
But the real issue is what conclusions you draw from your position. Waaaaay too often denying free will is just an excuse to allow bad behavior. Everything from “You can’t punish that murderer! There’s no free will so he had no choice!” to trolly’s nonsense about oppression and shit.
In his case, he was also a) trying to force his position about free will on the rest of us and b) using just plain stupid logic. “If you believe in free will, you have to not believe in evolution or biology or conditioning or anything!” Yeaaaaaah.
RE: grumpycatisagirl
No worries; I’ll make a comment saying your vote and tally it in later.
RE: talacaris
I don’t think you understand the context of the conversation. People here would probably debate free will all the live long day, it’s just that this troll married that idea to a bunch of other fucked-up ideas and decided EVERYTHING was biology. He wasn’t arguing what you seem to think he was arguing.
My little sister is a strict determinist. But note I don’t think she’s a pain in my ass.
Also, if the dragon is more serpentine, the boundaries between shirt, skirt, and dress are very fluid, if you think about it.
That’s a subject for someone who’s read more philosophy than I have, but what happened is that he claimed a right to kiss his wife (I really hope he doesn’t have one), Pecunium (I think) said that wasn’t a right because said alleged wife would have autonomy and it was her call who kissed her, and then Ash-hole went all, but what does it really mean??? by bringing up free will.
I thought he would probably slam free will because he was all, everything has a cause and that cause is Evolution therefore we are nothing more than biological impulses earlier in the thread.
Short version: Go ahead and believe whatever you like about free will. Just don’t draw bullshit conclusions from it.
All evidence indicates you cannot understand Kant. Or a simple analogy. Or a false dichotomy. Or empathy, feminism, the English language, women, men …
So just fuck off, you willfully ignorant and hate-filled shitstain.
See, I don’t need to give Asher’s bull the dignity of thought, because my ten-year-old little sister has explained her version of no-free-will waaaaay better. In her mind, the universe is like a clockwork machine of infinite complexity, where every event triggers something else, but none of us know enough of the variables to be able to make sense out of it. Obviously, if someone WERE able to ever keep track of it all, they could see the future.
And see, she managed to discuss it without talking about morals being merely a matter of social timing.
What bothered me more was his insistence that his BS conclusion was the only possible conclusion
Evening kitty posting:
http://instagram.com/p/dXpwchl-0R/
http://instagram.com/p/dXpexol-zv/