Though Men’s Rights activists devote an enormous amount of their time denouncing feminism – or at least the imaginary version of feminism that exists only in their own heads – they’re happy to appropriate feminist concepts when it suits them. One that many MRAs seem especially eager to claim for themselves is the idea of the “safe space.”
Of course, their version of the “safe space” bears only a slight resemblance to the feminist original. Feminists seek to create spaces for discussion in which say, rape survivors can discuss their experiences without being triggered by insensitive arguers and trolls and mansplainers in general.
When MRAs talk about “safe spaces,” by contrast, their goal is often to exclude women not just from discussion spaces but from full participation in society, essentially declaring giant arenas of work and play, from STEM fields to video games, to be places where feminists, and women in general, should fear to tread.
And so it’s hardly surprising that more than a few MRAs are arguing that the Zoe Quinn “scandal” proves that women and gaming don’t mix – or, at least, that they shouldn’t.
Consider the little manifesto recently “pinned” as the top post on the Men’s Rights subreddit, in which a fellow calling himself mradiscus lamented what he called “a pattern of female feminists migrating to formerly male spaces, demanding to be accommodated and eventually causing conflict and alienation.”
The “male spaces” he has in mind – the “hacking scene,” atheism, and the video game industry – won’t come as a shock to anyone familiar with the current state of nerdboy rage, but might trouble anyone who thinks that women are, you know, equal to men and have the same rights to choose their own careers and have their own interests and beliefs.
Not only that, but there is just a teensy bit of irony in that the way that MRAs and others are trying to drive off the feminist, er, invaders is by harassing them. That is, MRAs are appropriating the concept of “safe spaces” — designed to protect those in them from harassment and abuse — and using it as an excuse for … harassment and abuse.
But let’s step back a bit, because we still don’t have an answer as to why any of these “spaces” should be defined as male in the first place. How is atheism – the lack of a belief in god or gods – only a dude thing? When did guys get the right to call dibs on the gaming business?
Well, as mradiscus sees it, these “spaces” have traditionally been essentially nerdboy preserves, and should be protected from the pernicious influence of “female feminists” who, presumably, have no real interest in hacking or gaming or skepticism and whose real goal is just to make life hard for already beleaguered nerd dudes:
A scene predominantly populated by rather introverted young males becomes popular and attracts, among others, young women with a feminist mindset. Some of these women then go on and demand to be accommodated. Their demands are mostly met, and so we see the emergence of “gender awareness teams” at hacking conferences, no-means-no campaigns at anime conventions and a whole lot of conference panel slots devoted to “feminist this” and “gender that”.
Mradiscus then offers what I can only call a “revisionist” history of the harassment of feminist women from Rebecca Watson to Zoe Quinn:
What we also see is a whole lot of scandals. What seems to spark them most of the time is a overreaction to a minor offense, blown way out of proportion by a semi-popular feminist and her fan base who then proceed to launch an attack on the whole “misogynistic” scene. The young men feel cornered and unfairly attacked and retaliate with inappropriate and infelicitous measures which only leads to the feminists seeing their prejudices confirmed. Rape threat allegations are launched, there’s doxxing and name-calling all-around and new-found fame for a brave and courageous young feminist who may or may not proceed to make a career out of her struggle.
I should point out that none of the women who have allegedly “made … career[s] out of [their] struggles” actually asked to be harassed and demonized. If the harassers are angry that their harassment allowed Anita Sarkeesian to raise a lot more money than she asked for, they really have only themselves to blame.
Mradiscus ends with an ominous prediction-slash-threat that young men aren’t going to remain “patient” for much longer – and that things could get much worse for feminists venturing into these “male spaces.”
I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if the patience of these young nerdy men turns out to be a shallow well that’s drawing to a close. I sense quite a bit of alienation in the hacking and gaming sub-cultures when it comes to feminist topics. What do you think?
I think that you have a very strange notion of “patience.”
Naturally, MRAs being MRAs, mradiscus’ little manifesto – dripping with unexamined misogynistic assumptions and a quiet, curiously passive-aggressive rage – won praise and more than one hundred upvotes from the subreddit regulars.
The most extraordinary response to mradiscus’ rant was also the top-ranked comment, a long screed from a fellow calling himself a0i that argued, with complete seriousness (and occasional very confused references to the theories of Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci), that
The logic of how feminists target predominantly male spaces is very similar to the pattern of locust swarms.
Yep. Feminists are LOCUSTS.
Wherever there are men, there are targets for false accusations, male scapegoats, and fake victims. False accusations can’t happen without men, and neither can feminism. When there are too many women somewhere, you can’t claim that the environment is dominated by men, and feminists have nothing left to justify their presence. Feminists can’t thrive because they lack a scapegoat. They seek out a place where men are, and fabricate outrage at finding too many men in once place, at one time.
They have to find fresh environments with concentrations of male majorities, for “structures of misogyny” to pretend-struggle against. Thus, nerd culture being targeted, video games being targeted, Anita Sarkeesian making up being attacked, etc.
Yep, apparently all those hundreds of thousands of comments you might have seen attacking Sarkeesian all over the internet are nothing but a mirage. That Flash game in which you could cover her face in bruises? You must have dreamed it.
It’s telling that a major feminist concern is for “women’s exclusive space”, while another feminist concern is for “women’s inclusion in male-dominated spaces”. They fight to get in, just to kick the men out. …
Feminists demand unlimited access for women, as proof of men’s commitment to equality, but demand limited access for men, to prove men’s concern for safety.
Wat? I’m pretty sure no feminists are talking about excluding men from video gaming.
This works, despite the irony that — if you believed in their equality, you wouldn’t make special accommodations for their safety.
Uh, no, because if one group faces systematic oppression because of prejudice, the only way to ensure an egalitarian society is by making “special accommodations for their safety.” That’s why we have hate crime laws.
In the case of gaming, and atheism and tech in general, the only “special accommodations” feminists have asked for have been, you know, protection from sexual harassment and assault. Protections that also apply to men.
If there is one principle to understand about the tactics used to engineer women’s privilege over men in society, it is this:
- “what you intend to do to an opponent, you must accuse them of doing to you” …
Frame your victim as your victimizer, put them in a position to want to prove themselves innocent. Frame your attacks as self-defense, frame your transgressions as righteous. Frame the enemy as using propaganda, make this part of your propaganda. Frame the enemy as a threat, before you launch your attack. Pretend to be a victim, while attacking the accused.
Apparently MRAs are utterly oblivious to irony.
One thing that Plato did was stick to a point. There was a central question at stake, Socrates would ask for an answer, someone would provide it, and the questioning would go on until the answer was rejected or a contradiction was reached. However, it always went back to that central question.
I’ve met a great many people who think they do the same, but what they actually do is just keep trying to catch any sort of contradiction, spiraling off into tangents until the initial point was lost, asking questions with no direction just for the sake of asking questions until nobody remembers how the whole thing started. I’ve definitely done the same in the past.
InsanityBytes, you are not Plato.
Didn’t MB get a ban for a very similar reason, although he was advertising his blog in his comments so it’s not exactly the same thing. But he was also using content from here, misrepresented on his website. And doing those stupid challenges.
It’s kind of like trying to argue with a drunk, except that most people are far more amiable and amusing when they’ve been drinking.
Why did I see this coming?
But two people can play that game.
You realize that your arguments against Feminism and the fashion industry also lead to the conclusion that feminism and the fashion industry are concepts that exist? Why?
You can decide what is fashion, you know. It’s just a thing people do to their bodies. IF you don’t accept the male control of the fashion industry, it doesn’t really exist for you. After all, no industry is workable without industry of the spirit, and by showing that in a different directions, you automatically disacknowledge the acknowledgement of clothes.
And you are no pig in human clothing, a mere slave to threads that cover our body. After all, people have worn fashion throughout the entirety of human history.
Which just tells us that people are the slaves of the clothes they wear.
Clothes makes the man after all.
So a man without clothes is no man at all.
It’s interesting that you, an awovedly antifeminist for the conversation of the human pair bonded special species relationship that is known as a family, would be for the oppressive structure of strict strings stricture against the showing of human flesh.
I mean, you are for the original natural nature thing, right? The conservative approach would be towards the modern anti fashion feminist ideal.
Why aren’t you naked, Insanitybytes22?
What do you have against nature?
Are you some kind of slave of clothing?
Ah, so she really does think that we’re all identical ferrets in a David suit.
I’m a cat in a David suit. Don’t invade my cats in David suit space!
It really is fascinating. She’s less coherent than Owly, who knew that was possible?
To be more specific, it seems like the demand for a white male “safe space” would be a very natural result of the “men’s rights” “movement”.
It’s pretty easy to extrapolate this nonsense, just take a random feminist/race-critical text and replace all the occurrences of “black” or “womyn” with “white” or “man”.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
I’ve been staying out of this conversation because I am not much of a gamer, but I am most definitely a geek. I just wanted to point out one thing. Women did make a space for themselves to celebrate their contributions to geek culture. And do you know what they did?
They invited everybody…INCLUDING MEN!!!
http://www.geekgirlcon.com/contact-us/about-us/
(Scroll down to read “Our Values.”)
So, I refuse to believe that women are trying to take over “men’s space.”
It’s not that Insanitybytes22 is actually incoherent, it’s just that she’s coherent on another plane entirely.
“The entire fashion industry is dominated nearly exclusively by men. Unless you’re suggesting that half starved models and clothes designed for little boys in drag came from the realm of women?”
The industry is indeed “dominated” by men. Historically speaking, clothing such as stockings, high heels, wigs, and lace were worn by the aristocracy… particularly men in high court. Just look up say… Louis the XV and admire his lovely long stockings, his powdered wigs, his high heels, and his his lovely lace. His predecessor also wore high heels, stockings, and lace as well. I never suggested anything about drag, however, if we’re going by historical ideas of what people are to wear, a woman wearing pants could be considered “drag”… even within the last century and in some current cultures, still is. A woman wearing stockings and heels in the past would have been “drag”. I also never mentioned models…
So again, how is it that I should have to create games, I should have to create a female gamer community, I should have to create something separate and new because my existing in a group that has never been just males lest I hurt or infringe or otherwise bother with my existence, the poor nerd dudes? Would I likewise need to build my own fashion industry to wear high heels or to enjoy silky stockings or to be able to comment about such items on a forum or suggest improvements?
How about my “reinvent the wheel”… should I literally reinvent the wheel before I comment on car performance, their looks, or otherwise intrude into the manly hobby of enjoying cars? Which hobbies is it okay for a woman to have? Which do we have to start all over because we don’t want to hurt men’s delicate… fee…err sensibilities? I’d like a list, just so I can get to work before I accidentally do or enjoy anything dominated by men.
weirwood: “Then why did you say “it’s not about women?” It gets a little tiring, as a woman being mansplained about how clear misogyny really must be about something else. Misogyny is about misogyny. Nothing else. It’s very condescending and annoying to pretend uou know better.”
I apologize if I’m not being clear enough, but I’m not saying any of what you’re accusing me of saying. At all. Not even a little bit. Also, I can’t “mansplain” anything because I’m not a man. “Mr. Nick” is just a character from a film that I like.
I’m just going to leave it at that.
If you have to invent contradictions, were they ever really there in the first place?
It’s simply a part of society. That’s why MRAs trying to own it is so ridiculous… part of why it’s so ridiculous anyway.
You’re assuming a dichotomy here – either they’ve always been there, or they’re demanding inclusion. That dichotomy doesn’t exist. Women have always been there. For the past couple of decades, there’s been a shift toward catering to male geeks to the exclusion of female geeks. The women who have always been there, along with some women who are new to the table (because that’s a thing that can happen – new people turn up) now (and for the past couple of decades) want to be included again.
That’s not a bizarre and contradictory argument, it just includes the idea that it’s possible for women to have always been there, while there are some women who have just arrived. It’s because women aren’t just an amorphous lump of matter, y’see.
Mr. Nick
Benefit of the doubt and all… that might not be what you were saying but it is what you said.
Oh looky, Inanity has decided to grace us with her bons mots of high wisdom again. How’s life among the turnips, Inanity?
Athywren, in which case I apologize.
I’ve been involved in geekery since the 1980s, so my first-hand geek memory goes back farther than a lot of these people who style themselves keepers of the eternal flame.
I think what these sexists are objecting to is not the presence of women in geekdom. They like having us there as long as we sit down, shut up, and wear a chainmail bikini. What they object to is women speaking out about mistreatment — exclusion, harassment, lack of safety, etc.
It’s not all that different from feminism in the larger world, actually.
Also, is “if you don’t like it, you shouldn’t critique it, just create your own” a recognized logical fallacy? Because it comes up often enough that it should be.
You mean like YOU do, every time you come here and throw straw-feminists at us, and try to set people off on tangents just so you can claim you’ve exposed a “contradiction” that was, in fact, all hashed out and dealt with definitively two pages before you showed up? I’m talking here about the fact that women have been gaming ever since computer and video games were invented, and programming since computers were invented. Look up Ada Lovelace if you don’t believe me; she’s a little before your time, granted, but ignorance is no excuse. And don’t forget that the relatively gender-neutral gaming world of the ’80s got hijacked by sexist marketers, onaccounta our 70 cents aren’t worth as much as some dude’s dollar. All of which got mentioned BEFORE you showed up to show us how smart you’re not.
Those “Older Comments” links are there for a reason, you know. Try using them.
@Fibinachi
I see someone has been watching Kill La Kill
“Women do tend to swarm all over where men are.”
Is so sad when people project their asses off — or mistake wishful thinking with plain old facts.
FWIW, I don’t think insanitybytes22 is stupid. I do think she’s determined to believe that she’s right and all of us are wrong, and that she’s not actually interested in hearing and processing our responses to her. I do think her perceptions are off-base, and I vehemently disagree with them. But these are not the same things as being stupid.
@Incognita: it probably boils down to the definition of “stupid”. She is clinging to her incorrect assertions in the face of evidence that she is wrong, and she has the capability of changing her assertions/conclusions, but is refusing to do so when presented with evidence. That is stupid behaviour – stupid is as stupid does.
Geez, you could make the same argument about black people trying to play soccer back in the 1920’s.
I’ve definitely come across it myself, especially with movies, and wish there was a name for that inane line of reasoning. “Reverse-Criticism”? “The Impossible Goal-Post”? Eh, doesn’t sound right…
Those who generally make that arguments are, unsurprisingly, people who enjoyed the work and see criticism (even the most constructive kind) as a personal insult. So, of course, they’ll silence those critics by putting forth a proposal that is impossible for any single person to do – forgetting that they have not made a movie/game/comic/etc. themselves either. It seems they presume that simply liking the work means they “understand” it better than anyone else, thus anyone who is negative is simply “trash talking.”
A lot of people like to shit on movie critics for their generally negative stances on major releases, but they do not realize that many of them live and breathe cinema more than they do. They’ll say the critics are simply expressing opinions, ignoring that some opinions are more well-informed and based on extensive knowledge or experience. Those who simply consume movies as little else than entertainment shouldn’t make a big deal when, with those who’ve made movie-watching a personal passion, may not enjoy them as much as they did. The idea that one who treats cinema a nothing more than a momentary novelty has a more valid position than someone who may’ve studied in and graduated from a film school is completely absurd.
As I said at another post: it’s funny that many of Anita Sarkeesian’s “critics” have claimed that she should just shut up and try developing a videogame (which is pretty difficult given entire teams of developers are used to make them) even though, honestly, the same can be said about them and would be far more fitting. Sarkeesian is analyzing fictional tropes and storytelling dynamics which tend to perpetuate or at least court sexist ideas, often without second thought, which actually takes some effort. Her “critics” are talking heads on YouTube who…spend their hours complaining about a woman for making videos they didn’t like. Sorry if I can’t help but think its her “critics” that need to stop whining and do something constructive, ’cause what they’re doing now sure as fuck isn’t…