On Geek Privilege

[1066]

I know that this is going to get me some flak if it's even seen, but if people want to talk about 'privilege' then people really need to stop trying to play victims every time they're told no. Privileges are not necessarily a bad thing; scary, I know.

There are very long and interesting discussions to be had about the dangers of safe spaces, starting with (to save time) Apartheid and ending with Echochambers/intellectual inbreeding - all good things to have out there and discussed, really - but let's look at the examples given.

A gay bar. A place (presumably) set up by gay men for the enjoyment of gay men in the company of other like-minded individuals. Some, who enjoys the place, knowingly decides to bring in people who do not fall into that demographic. Not for reasons of exposure or introduction...

One place I might call out something called Gay Male Privilege, though I wind up calling it 'I've met a lot of self-righteous pricks who think I can't not be attracted to them, but this is not a male-only thing.

...accepting and warning that there may be a stigma on them or warning that your presence in a place may reasonably be taken as a declaration of your preferences; but rather because he enjoyed the experience when he was there alone. He, and they, ignored the rules of the community and place (which he does not own or have say in its management, btw) and they were horribly treated by...

Getting watered down drinks and having to wait extra-long for those drinks. In short, having it made clear that they weren't welcome in a place not made for them. Oh, and overtly denying entry so they didn't waste their time at all was said to be worse.

In short: You are not welcome here, please leave.

Somehow, of course, 'We do not want people who are not gay men to be here' became 'Women exist to serve men.'

Um... no.

But let's roll with it. This is now a form of Male Privilege, fine.



Now, three guys knowingly walk into a lesbian bar and are told to leave or made to feel unwelcome.

Of course, now, this is proof that those women believe that men exist solely to serve women, yes?

Or is it Male Privilege for them to feel they had the right to walk in in the first place? Especially if the bar's intentions were made clear with a sign like 'Testosterone-free zone,' which I've seen.

In my experience, anyone who uses the word 'privilege' in that sense will give you the same answer. Usually based on 'well, they only went in there to...' and so on.


A call to remove this kind of 'privilege' is a call for an end to every demographic-based community. This includes all religion, all race/ethnicity-based group and all sex-based entry criteria. The oft-cited Curves coming to mind first.

Now, I like Curves. I think it's a great thing. It's a place catering to people/women who are uncomfortable or disheartened in gyms due to the extremely fit regulars (something I feel as well when I'm there) or feeling judged or compared to them by others, notably men. It's a place for women to feel comfortable in the company of like-minded individuals. Let them have that space, it's a good thing.

I know of very few people who say anything but good things about Curves and I've never heard any real public issues concerning it.

But a gay bar...

Not because of any moral issues with homosexuality, but because they didn't fully cater to someone outside their demographic; but defending similar the right of similar places to solely serve their preferred demographic is progressive and good.


Now, on the subject of 'women exist to serve men,' there are real things to point to. I may not always agree, but they're there as a discussion. Any place that exclusively hires women as servers and entertainers, but only allows male clientele is a fair place to point. There was a time when a lot of casinos would hire black entertainers and staff, but not allow black patrons. Before that, there was slavery and everything between the two. On sexism, there's places like strip clubs, topless steakhouses (still surprised that's a thing), hey, even why most of the cash-people at MacDonalds are young girls. On the last, people respond better to non-threatening, frankly cute, people; especially during a soft-sell (would you like fries with that?).

Yes, that's sexism, but it's also sexism that the guys are stuck in back on the grill. Not that I cared, I'm not a fan of the public. I like people, mind you, just not the public.

But let's move on. Urkel.

Let's see

whose central character arc over nine television seasons was aggressively pursuing the romantic attentions of an uninterested target in a manner that would red-flag him as stalker

Um... no? It's worth mentioning that this is a TV show and that joke was played for laughs in a time before the current geekdom had any real sway over the mainstream. Moreover, Steve put down that particular torch about halfway through the series, even if it was picked up again years later.

Even better, it was done after they wrote in a story where he got a taste of what he'd been doing to her and he backed off, turning it into a Aesop about precisely what was said to be bad thing and the character changed as a result. these are good things.

All that said, in the show, Steve's actions were the same for everyone. He was always just as forward, claimed the same moral highground and had the same personal space issues with everyone he spent time with. Most of that time, especially later, was spent with Carl. Why they put up with it was a question always answered by them going to him first whenever the family had issues, and he'd come through for them.

Laura cast as a villain for 'withholding sex' is also flatout wrong. When this was done, it was done because she would often take advantage of his affections to get him to do things for her. If she was a villain or a bully, it was because she was using sex to get him to do what she wanted, then pull back the carrot when she was done with him. Granted, this too came to a head and was changed after she browbeat him into driving her across the country due to something that was her mistake and, after his car broke down and he paid for a motel room, she ordered him to sleep in the bathtub.

The other, of course, was the forced moment whenever Steve would put himself out there or on the line to serve (and often enough protect) her and he hoped for a kiss or somesuch for what he'd done, the other Winslow-wide catchphrase came in: "Go home, Steve." And he would, though only in these moments would the counter not get used. "I don't have to take this, I'm going home."


Going past the whole issue of internet anonymity, which is related but separate, my experiences in Geekdom and conventions have always been inclusive, unless the community sees itself as under attack. Yes, there are always jerks, always elitists, but of both genders. Cosplayers of both genders will have their costumes judged harshly.

The argument of 'men aren't expected to be sexy like women are' is something I'll laugh in someone's face if they say. To any man who holds to that, I offer the following: If you have a less-than-ideal physique, dress up like the current big Bishie. Honestly, just mention in conversation with any female cosplayers that you plan to and watch what happens. Characters that are marketed on being sexy will have their costumes judged on whether they are or not, this is genderless. There are more famous female characters judged that way, no question. If that's the concern, I'd suggest that the Players look more to Shoujo animes than Shonen ones for their characters.

The Fake Gamer Girl thing still makes my eyes roll in the same way. Fake gamer guys exist, btw. We call them 'Uh huh... well, you're an idiot. Go away, I'm playing here." Similarly, with what little I know of Alan Moore, wearing an anything-Watchmen related costume near him is just asking for scorn.


At its worst, Geek Culture, if you want to use that term, is like any other. What was given here is mostly - not all but mostly - about a group of people who have put in a lot of time, blood, sweat and tears to build an identity and community, and just not being all that keen on changing or bestowing the good parts of being part of that community (or their gatherings) on people who are not otherwise a part of it, have not been through the bad parts, or are simply walking in and expecting those changes to be made for them and place be made for them within it.

In this case, in all my experience, places will be made for those who want to be a part of it and are willing to do the 'work' required to be part of the group. Often, as simple as actually being able to read a character sheet for things like D&D, or even asking to try and agreeing to follow the lead of someone who knows what they're doing.

I'm reminded of Firefly and the scene with Kaylee at the Shindig. I swear that was written by someone who's been a part of it. Call it sexism, but girls you can actually have a meaningful conversation with about something you love are rare and often precious as pearls.

Call it benevolent sexism if you want.

What's being presented, though, is the story of the Little Red Hen, except that the hen is being cast as the villain in this case and everyone else who was told to leave because they were only showing up for the free bread are victims. It's baker's privilege, don't you see that?

What 'privileges' the individual geek gets are based on them being harmless (if annoying) most of the time, but extremely useful, easily manipulated or coerced when you need them, and largely disposable when you're done.

 

[Gorrath]

snip

There's a lot there to respond to, but Bob tried to nip your whole first paragraph in the bud with his argument about how 'geeks didn't suffer enough for their grievances to count' bit. We can't draw comparisons between what geeks do and what other abused minority groups do because it would just be awful to seriously compare your negative experiences as a geek to the negative experiences of someone who suffered for being a certain race or sex or have a certain sexuality. Or so people would have me believe anyway.

As for your discussion of Urkle, there's no need for a more nuanced approach to this look at the work. Urkle's sexual advances were obviously wrong, falling between objectification and misogyny. On the other hand, him being used by her in turn, as if he were merely an object to perform whatever tasks she wished, isn't a big issue because there is no historical context of oppression for men and objectification that isn't sexual, doesn't count.

All devil's advocacy and sarcasm aside. Thanks for taking the time to write all that up.

 

[mecegirl]

Snip

It's times like this when I wish there was an upvote system on the Escapist. Couldn't have put it better myself. I don't have experience of the race element, but you described my experience of being a teenage girl trying to get into geek culture perfectly.

I wish it had been different for you...But no, it's not an uncommon experience.

Hmm Ya know I never here this part. I guess I was wrong about the demands of women "just" showing up.

There have always been female geeks...I don't even know why anyone would assume otherwise. I'm only 28 and back during the time that I was speaking of there were women and girls that I interacted with that were older than me. Or take some of the female contributors to the articles and videos of this site. What exactly do you think they have been doing this whole time? Waiting for the 2000's to pop up so that they could join the club? It's just becoming more socially accepted for women to be geeks. So more women feel comfortable being overt about it. I find it odd to hear men who are around my age talk about the women just showing up. I'd expect that sort of talk from some random 50 year old dude. But dudes in their teens, twenties, and thirties are spouting such nonsense. And it's like, they are all technically new to the scene too, and yet they are treating their year mates like the outsiders.

If any I still feel put out that it seems all social justice begins and ends with a cry of offense and then expected obedience to the offended princess.

There is no offended princess, there is another person who deserves respect. What exactally do you think would happen if the "social justice" people won? You act like it would be a bad thing if people stopped being unnecessarily shitty to each other.

If it means anything I don't resent most gamer girls or girl geeks I meet. I have been known to mistreat them but mainly because I seem unable to tune "I am asking a request" as being something they are actually asking or truly demanding.
Also the social scene in geek spaces increases with female participation but that just means there is more social dynamics, add in the apprehension/fear you get ... well secrets and drama. Surely you noted *that* on fanfiction,net and livejournal

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. We all come to sites like these for the same reason, to talk to people who share the hobbies we enjoy and to keep up with news relating to our hobbies. But If anyone feels the need to change the dynamic because of the genders involved they need to change their thinking. There doesn't need to be secrets and drama just because of the genders involved. Debating the merits of a game, show, or book creates more than enough. So while there was an occasion hick up race wise for me in those spaces, there wasn't much secrets and drama going on.

 

[camazotz]

The entire basis for this article disappears if you unplug the internet and walk outside for a bit. When I do this, I see neighbors dealing with domestic violence, latchkey kids, a grandmother trying to take care of a granddaughter who was born prematurely, an eighteen year old neighbor who is neglected by parents and dropped out school on his fast track to being nothing....none of these people are on the internet.

I'm not saying this isn't some sort of problem to address (and I have to say Bob's outlining of the problem feels a little to anecdotal; for ex. I've known of plenty of welathy families in my time who wanted their kids to get sports scholarships and venerated sports over other more intellectual academic studies; the poor family struggling with hopes of a sports scholarship is just a part of a larger mosaic).

Just because you can frame an argument in a certain very specific context does not make it a reality or truth. These problems with geek culture aren't actually related to geek culture, they are problems of much larger scope in our society and we do ourselves a disservice when we mistake cultural norms across a broad range of subcultures as specific to one little corner of internet fandom.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The problem here is few are actually trying to "sweep the problem under the rug" they just don't like having what they identify to be their culture blamed for actions that aren't inherent to that culture.

Except there are plenty of people willing to sweep it under a rug. Just look on The Escapist whenever the issue of sexism or gender in gaming comes up. There's a whole cadre of people who loudly post about it being "white knighting" and trying to dismiss the issues. And that's just here. It's a lot worse in many other places.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well, it would begin with 2 words: I'm sorry.

But that would have to come from the people who bullied you, not random other people.

AS I said about, mixing the new crowd with the old guard was going to be rough, but we took the wrong path to make it happen. Instead of building bridges and trying to mend some very broken people, things ran very quickly to vilification, which has confused the crap out of me because I don't see how making someone the bad guy is going to make them more friendly to you. Hell, the attitude of "your wants, your feelings, your concerns: all are worthless in the name of my wants and feelings" is very dehumanizing, only entrenching the anger already there. I've reached the point where, I can say it isn't vengeance for childhood. I'm legitimately mad at people that act like my emotions are there to please them, and am now starting to wonder if this is all still about the bullies versus the bullied, but people just expecting certain behaviors, attitudes and values from people (regardless of how they actually act) on one side, and people that resent having such things dictated to them (with no consideration to themselves) on the other.

I just don't see how this comes down to "old guard" vs "newcomers" or "nerd culture" vs "others."

There are plenty of people with in "nerd culture" - even the old guard who are unsympathetic towards people's experiences and suffering. There are plenty of newcomers and outsiders who are. I think, especially among the privileged upper-middle-class nerd demographic there are lots of selfish and insensitive people there, because they have always had privilege (and probably explains why Libertarianism is seeming so popular with the wealthier nerds).

So, as the article Bob linked about the movie Revenge of the Nerds said, there's a lot of unhealthy dualism and cultural grudges going on in people's heads. It's understandable how that happened, but we really need to work past it.

 

[wulf3n]

The problem here is few are actually trying to "sweep the problem under the rug" they just don't like having what they identify to be their culture blamed for actions that aren't inherent to that culture.

Except there are plenty of people willing to sweep it under a rug. Just look on The Escapist whenever the issue of sexism or gender in gaming comes up. There's a whole cadre of people who loudly post about it being "white knighting" and trying to dismiss the issues. And that's just here. It's a lot worse in many other places.

There's a whole lot more talking about the issue, and that's just those willing to post in a pointless thread.

Of course it looks like there's a lot if that's all you focus on.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Focus instead on the inequalities for those not born to these "privileged" positions and figure out a way to elevate them, give them the same opportunities. The solution isn't to tear those in "privilege" down, it's to build those who are disadvantaged up until there is no privilege and we all have an equal shot.

But there's the problem with privilege. People in privileged positions tend to like to keep that privilege by stomping on the less-privileged to keep them down.

The privileged also don't tend to recognize their privilege. They usually believe that they are in that position because they are super-intelligent, or have worked so hard, and that others who aren't able to achieve that are just stupid and lazy. When usually access to certain life options, schools, etc, is heavily influenced by being born into a certain socio-economic status. There are people out there who are just as intelligent or hard-working, but are not born into situations where they can make the most of those qualities.

You can see this in spades in the current political climate over welfare, healthcare, taxes, etc., with many privileged people taking a "screw the poor" approach.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I mean, Sarkeesian anyone? People are still making up lies to discredit her without bothering to address any of her actual ideas.

Throw in the towel, she's not worth defending.

But what makes her worth attacking? So, she makes some fairly well-trodden arguments, and some fairly weak arguments. Why does this provoke the need to aggressively go after her? If she's so weak and unimportant, then why not just ignore her? Why not just allow her own arguments fail?

Especially as, going hand-in-hand with the "critiques" of her actual work are usually personal attacks, or at least attacks on her for earning "too much" money from her Kickstarter - which is completely irrelevant to her ideas.

It's funny how her critics simultaneously demonize her, while also saying she's weak and incompetent.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Clearly we gamers at large must be at fault.

Who said that? I think you might be putting words into somebody's mouth.

What Bob, and many like him want to achieve is a percentage where he can't read about it happening anymore.

Wow, how is it that you know what Bob wants? Did you mind-meld with him or something?

Again, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions. You also seem to be upset just with the idea of people writing about these problems. That by just writing about them, they are somehow personally blaming you for them.

The only group that truly has it bad, is people who are something other then straight.

Wow. That's an incredible statement. The only people with real problems are the ones with non-heterosexual gender identities?

Wow. So those struggling with poverty or racial discrimination, they don't really have it bad if they're straight? Those forced into prostitution don't have it bad unless they're queer or transsexual? Those women who are beaten by their husbands don't really have it bad because they are straight?

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Or again, hipsters

Okay, having subjected myself to that broken up response that you gave, I'll respond to you.

Sorry if you don't like that method of reply, but to me it's usually the best way to manage these discussions, and has been since back in the USENET days before the web existed. It's the best way to keep different points of an argument straight, so things don't go off-track and readers and participants alike know what is being referred to.

As to the first point: My understanding of privilege, as it is defined by feminists and such, is that, to have it, you have to be at the top of some social structure. White privilege, male privilege etc comes about because those groups have been at the top of the totem pole for so long that they don't even consider the troubles of others who aren't part of that group. Considering that gay men can't marry in most of the US and face verbal or physical assault just for being who they are, it seems stupid to argue that they have the same sort of privilege. Maybe some of them are jerks, but that doesn't mean that there is some kind of privilege that exists.

Well, I think a lot of what we are talking about is privilege within a group. That even within minority or oppressed groups there are hierarchies of privilege. Having said that, being an upper-middle-class white gay man living in a Western city is still a pretty damned privileged position to be in. They have a hell of a lot more privilege than a straight, white homeless man, for example. And there are plenty of wealthy gay men out there, and gay men with political and social status and power. There are openly gay men with very successful political careers.

So, while there are plenty of poor and suffering gay men out there, there are also a substantial enough number who are well-off and not under physical threat.

Now, about women in gay bars: I'm not saying that they should ban women or anything, but it seems like common courtesy for people to understand when they are unwelcome somewhere. Rather than writing an article criticizing gay men for wanting to mostly associate with other gay men at night clubs, this author might have tried to see it from their point of view.

I think you missed the point of the article. It was not about "criticizing gay men for wanting to mostly associate with other gay men at night clubs" it was about the objectification and misogyny against women in the gay community.

Now, are they being completely upstanding citizens who are inclusive and tolerant of everyone at all times? No, obviously not, but I don't necessarily think that it is wrong. It's just a human response.

I think it absolutely is wrong. Just because it's "human" doesn't make it right. Murder has too often been a human response to things, too.

You turned this on its head by asking if straight people would be justified in being annoyed at gay people in their social spaces. I'll do the same by asking if straight people flooding a gay bar would be failing to check their privilege. This stuff isn't black and white, and I'd say that expecting to be welcomed everywhere you go in every social circle might be the definition of unchecked privilege, as much as I hate that term. It's not like they're breaking a law, but maybe they're committing a faux pas, and are too clueless to realize it.

If straight people deliberately "flooded" a gay bar and caused disruption, that would be one thing. Not if it was just the natural result of hanging out with their friends and they aren't causing any trouble. Similarly the women in gay bars usually aren't causing any trouble or getting in the way of the men doing their thing.

I'm not sure who the people who are talking about who are "expecting to be welcomed everywhere they go" - they might exist, but I've never come across them. Pretty much everybody who isn't a sociopath has some sense of social boundaries. People have the right not to be abused wherever they go, but to be "welcomed" is another matter.

Now as for the hipster comparison, I guess that you're right. People should be more inclusive. I just hope that these fandoms don't suffer from having a more widespread appeal.

I'm not so on board with that. Fandoms can be pretty terrible things, and I think we'd be better off with fewer of them.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I am so sick of hearing about privilege this and privilege that. What is the point of this? Why can't people just enjoy what they do and have a good time without someone trying to label and categorize them? I play video games and I work with computers but that does not make me a part of any culture. I am just an individual enjoying hobbies and I can't remember the last time somebody gave me shit for it. I just don't see the purpose of this article. I understand what the writer wanted the purpose to be I just don't see why the writer cares about something as stupid as this.


edit: I also feel like this needs to be said. Freedom is biased towards true equality. When I say true equality I mean in the sense that the privilege and oppression obsessed mean it. Everyone is treated the same, has the same (or no) privileges, and everyone has equal outcomes which stifles the freedom of others to achieve more and enjoy life more when they do. Pseudo-marxist freedom seems to be what these people want. Real freedom does mean that some people end up getting treated differently, end up making different salaries and yes even have certain privileges that other people don't get. Some of them you will get just because of your skin color or gender but its important to remember just about everyone has some form of privilege AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

The use of privilege is all about shaming another party, trying to guilt them so as to seize the moral high ground.

It is pathetic, anti-fun and as you say, really tiresome.

Yet it keeps on coming, even when you smash privilege theories into the ground for being simplistic reductions that don't consider the complexity of class or ethnicity. Unfortunately, Americans seem quite in the grip of talking about privilege.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Well, it would begin with 2 words: I'm sorry.

But that would have to come from the people who bullied you, not random other people.

AS I said about, mixing the new crowd with the old guard was going to be rough, but we took the wrong path to make it happen. Instead of building bridges and trying to mend some very broken people, things ran very quickly to vilification, which has confused the crap out of me because I don't see how making someone the bad guy is going to make them more friendly to you. Hell, the attitude of "your wants, your feelings, your concerns: all are worthless in the name of my wants and feelings" is very dehumanizing, only entrenching the anger already there. I've reached the point where, I can say it isn't vengeance for childhood. I'm legitimately mad at people that act like my emotions are there to please them, and am now starting to wonder if this is all still about the bullies versus the bullied, but people just expecting certain behaviors, attitudes and values from people (regardless of how they actually act) on one side, and people that resent having such things dictated to them (with no consideration to themselves) on the other.

I just don't see how this comes down to "old guard" vs "newcomers" or "nerd culture" vs "others."

There are plenty of people with in "nerd culture" - even the old guard who are unsympathetic towards people's experiences and suffering. There are plenty of newcomers and outsiders who are. I think, especially among the privileged upper-middle-class nerd demographic there are lots of selfish and insensitive people there, because they have always had privilege (and probably explains why Libertarianism is seeming so popular with the wealthier nerds).

So, as the article Bob linked about the movie Revenge of the Nerds said, there's a lot of unhealthy dualism and cultural grudges going on in people's heads. It's understandable how that happened, but we really need to work past it.

I'm not necessarily arguing that: just that vilification, shaming, and blaming "geek culture" is not going to achieve that. It doesn't break the dualism. It worsens it with an attitude that the other side is the only one that has to change and your side is perfect in every way. I mean, imagine how faster bridges might have been built with "I'm sorry, that must have been rough to go through" rather than "get over yourself and grow the fuck up." It's kind of a reality: if you don't give a fuck about someone, they'll probably not give a fuck back.

Indifference to personal baggage, stereotyping as sexist, racist, and homophobic, statements about all our "privilege" when we don't change on command, none of this is helping, just antagonizing further. I get that it's a self centered culture at this point, but I still find it astounding how many people seem surprised that vilifying statements don't lead to a rousing round of "wow, I've been an asshole and better change because everyone else says so." The culture won't change if you don't treat it like a person instead of something in the background their to appeal to you and your sensitivities. That was the mindset behind bullying and social ostrization from our younger days: that we weren't people allowed to be ourselves, but things to be given hell or shunned if we didn't conform. Sympathy is a dying concept, but if you aren't showing any, you're part of the problem.

 

[Phasmal]

Hmm Ya know I never here this part. I guess I was wrong about the demands of women "just" showing up.

There have always been female geeks...I don't even know why anyone would assume otherwise. I'm only 28 and back during the time that I was speaking of there were women and girls that I interacted with that were older than me. Or take some of the female contributors to the articles and videos of this site. What exactly do you think they have been doing this whole time? Waiting for the 2000's to pop up so that they could join the club? It's just becoming more socially accepted for women to be geeks. So more women feel comfortable being overt about it. I find it odd to hear men who are around my age talk about the women just showing up. I'd expect that sort of talk from some random 50 year old dude. But dudes in their teens, twenties, and thirties are spouting such nonsense. And it's like, they are all technically new to the scene too, and yet they are treating their year mates like the outsiders.

Soooooooooo much this.
I get tired of trying to speak about my experiences of being dismissed as fake or not a `real` gamer for x or y reason and people go `Oh well the 'old guard' and 'newcomers'...`
Uh, NO.
I've been playing games my entire life. I didn't `just get here`.

Also +1 about not wanting to be a surrogate for the girl who ignored you in high school.

 

[AstaresPanda]

Humans are animals at the end of the day no matter how you try and sugar coat it. And we are territorial, so yes we might get pissed off at the fact now that "geek culture" has become the newest thing to exploit for profit with the success of stuff like Big Bang and the steady growing popularity of comic book movies over the past decade.

Alot of us grew up in school being one of the handful of "geeks". What everyone else is into simply never interested us, so what happend ? You would get huge amounts of shit for not liking what everyone else likes. So we found comfort in our own little groups. Or alone which was the case for me untill i went to collage and met other people who shared the same interests. Also what ive found it was not only the stuff we were into that attracted us to our little group, our view was generally very different from everyone else. We grew up with the bullshit so would not dare do the same to another. BUT that being said we are territorial of out "geek group" coz it was hard enough to find other people. So yes when other random people are just into it coz its the flavour of the month you sure as fuck can spot them a mile away, compared the noobs who are just getting into it. Its OUR group, you fucks were never interested in and gave us shit for, NOW you want it coz its popular? and you think we should be happy about that ? And not call them out for the hypocrites they are ?
Like ccdohl pointed out, its abit of a dick move to kinda high jack somone elses group. men hating women in gay bars was the example. You'd not have gay men telling them to get the fuck out. But kinda defeats the point does it not ??

But this is a topic mr Bob has done alot, and again its not our dam problem or our responsibility to root out the few bad apples. Taring everyone with the same brush coz of a few dicks is not cool. There dickheads in every group.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I'm not so on board with that. Fandoms can be pretty terrible things, and I think we'd be better off with fewer of them.

Well, I think that we may have gotten to the point of just disagreeing over interpretations and word meanings.

Yeah, I probably should say that my above statement uses poorly chosen words. It's not that I want members of fandom to stop having their interests in anime, science fiction, cosplay, etc. It's just that I want those things just to be aspects of broader culture and society, rather than specific subcultures - because that's where cliquishness and extremism resides.

I'm pretty much against subcultures in general - sure, they have their place when a certain activity is under siege and needs shelter from the majority - such as queer culture, etc. But ultimately, they should just be accepted and not need to be isolated. Because this isolation can cause these strange oppositions and divisions, particularly the "You're not a true X" for people who aren't as obsessively into something as another.

In an ideal world, there would be one culture - human culture. There'd be more "freakishness" in the normality, and more normality in the "freaks," if you will. Not that we'd all become homogenous, but that we'd be more accepting of multiple individual characteristics.

Because I so often see subcultures becoming just as conformist and one-dimensional as the supposedly "normal" culture they reject.

Thanks for being a civil and intelligent person

No

with whom to disagree at least.

problem

Even if you do do that

at

multiple quote thing.

all,

Drives me nuts.

mate.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I mean, Sarkeesian anyone? People are still making up lies to discredit her without bothering to address any of her actual ideas.

Throw in the towel, she's not worth defending.

But what makes her worth attacking? So, she makes some fairly well-trodden arguments, and some fairly weak arguments. Why does this provoke the need to aggressively go after her? If she's so weak and unimportant, then why not just ignore her? Why not just allow her own arguments fail?

Especially as, going hand-in-hand with the "critiques" of her actual work are usually personal attacks, or at least attacks on her for earning "too much" money from her Kickstarter - which is completely irrelevant to her ideas.

It's funny how her critics simultaneously demonize her, while also saying she's weak and incompetent.

Different groups of people have different reasons to hate her.

On the one hand, there's those who resent her minimalist, overproduced youtube show getting more money than anyone of us will see in our lifetimes. There's those who despise her troll baiting or acting like people saying mean things on the internet (specifically the Chan's. It's called the Final Boss of the Internet for a reason people!) is somehow newsworthy. There's those who hate her arguments for being under-researched, biased, and antagonistic, making out products designed to APPEAL TO MALES as some vicious misogyny rather than a coldly calculated business move. And there are those who hate radical internet feminists in general and ones who demonize games specifically. The hate is only going to get worse because it seems she now has the ear of several publishers and game designers. It's also not just male gamers who hate her guts either; you will find quite a few irritated lady gamers with rebuttal video of their own on youtube. KiteTales for example.

Point is, there are a tone of reasons to hate Anita Sarkeesian.

My personal reason is how she's turned herself into an internet meme, and now the thread is guaranteed to descend into anarchy now.

(ps to mods; is this too antagonistic? I don't want to use up my last suspension.)

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Point is, there are a tone of reasons to hate Anita Sarkeesian.

Those all seem like rather pathetic reasons to hate somebody. A lot of them sound more like jealousy more than anything, particularly the ones about how much money she got on Kickstarter, and how much attention she got. Especially when a lot of that money and attention is due to this kind of hatred. It all seems rather self-defeating.

Also, reducing the death threats and massive campaigns of hatred against her as simply "saying mean things on the internet" seems well off the mark. If the treatment that she got is considered normal "on the internet" - then that's a significant problem. It also has a logical problem that somehow separates "the internet" fro the rest of life, when for most of us, the internet is a significant part of life, and it's no less real than anything else.

But to hate somebody for something as trivial as an under-researched video? The mind boggles. There are hundreds of thousands of under-researched essay being produced by students every day. Do they deserve hate for it?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Point is, there are a tone of reasons to hate Anita Sarkeesian.

Those all seem like rather pathetic reasons to hate somebody. A lot of them sound more like jealousy more than anything, particularly the ones about how much money she got on Kickstarter, and how much attention she got. Especially when a lot of that money and attention is due to this kind of hatred. It all seems rather self-defeating.

Also, reducing the death threats and massive campaigns of hatred against her as simply "saying mean things on the internet" seems well off the mark. If the treatment that she got is considered normal "on the internet" - then that's a significant problem. It also has a logical problem that somehow separates "the internet" fro the rest of life, when for most of us, the internet is a significant part of life, and it's no less real than anything else.

But to hate somebody for something as trivial as an under-researched video? The mind boggles. There are hundreds of thousands of under-researched essay being produced by students every day. Do they deserve hate for it?

You really don't want me to answer that.

Contempt can easily turn to hate if given an echo chamber. Push hard enough and the push back can be... enthusiastic.

Besides, hate is a useful emotion.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Besides, hate is a useful emotion.

What's it useful for? I think it's the opposite of useful. It clouds judgement and just leads to bad decisions.