Interesting article about Sexism in Geek Communities

[Cancer]

I have a goatee for two reasons:

...

2. It hides the fact I don't have a chin.

I have known a number of guys over the last forty years where this, or similar issues is a key. By "similar issues", for example, I knew one guy who had a beard because it covered what he considered to be disfiguring scars from an auto accident.

 

To veer back towards thread topic, I recognize this is an option most women do not have open to them.

[mhd]

As we've heard, plenty of men don't have this option either. There's also no good way to do a lazy half-hearted attempt, where you just shave parts of your legs (cf. goatee). On the other hand, there is some feminist backlash against a "duty" to shave ones lower extremities/armpits/R-rated areas, whereas I haven't seen the same for men (patchy beards, back hair...) -- quite the contrary, even though full bears are hip again, the general trend toward manscaping is more mainstream than ever. So, there, sexism.

 

I often do wonder how things would look like if a solid permanent epilatory solution would exist (no lasers, no chemical burns). No shaving vs. never having the option of having a beard?

We'd probably get protests from all sides, men "being emasculated" and women "having to mutilate themselves".

[Markdoc]

There's no problem with having a preference for shaved leg/pubes/face/whatever. The problem only comes into being if a person insists that others have to conform to their preference. I like redheads - always have. But I'm not insisting that women with hair another colour have some kind of problem. My morbid dislike of neckbeards is already documented upthread. I'm not advocating mandatory barbering though (although I can dream ....)

 

So yeah, the assumption that women have some sort of requirement to shave, when men don't is sexist - even more, since it has nothing to do with function but is overtly sexual in nature. And to be fair, any assumption that men have a requirement to shave - even their loathsome back fur* - would be an imposition.

 

Oddly enough, if both genders had a generally accepted requirement to shave unsightly hair, I guess it'd stop being sexist and merely become intrusive .

 

Cheers, Mark

 

*I never claimed to be without body prejudice - I'm just open that these are my own prejudices, not natural laws

[Nolgroth]

Ok let me see if I can get this straight. She manufactured outrage where there was none? Or she used the very real, alarmingly aggressive reaction to her opinion on women in video games to become famous? Thereby having her address posted on the internet, having people threaten to harm her physically and sexually...and this was her plan from the beginning? It's all a sympathy rap?

 

Yes, I believe that she knew the firestorm her project would bring. Some might think her brave, but I think it was carefully crafted storm intended to bring her fame/infamy. Do you think she would have gotten the same reaction if she had tried the same old tried and true outlets like pornography or cinema? I don't. Those fields have been plowed before and whatever tempest in a teapot reaction she might have gotten was nothing compared to the nerd rage you so brightly showed us in your post. You take a culture that is populated with poorly socialized misfits and then you threaten that culture with unwelcome and, to the members of that culture, frightening change? You either have planned for that outrage or you are simply the stupidest person to walk the face of the Earth. For all that I disdain Anita Sarkeesian, she is not stupid.

 

Let me digress here a bit. I do not necessarily disagree with Anita Sarkeesian's message. I think her goal posts move around a lot, but the basic concept of evaluating how a certain class is treated in media should be looked at. I think that the culture that promotes that kind of insular thought process needs to be challenged. I find her focus on female characters in video games one-sided. She pretends that the same sort of things don't happen to male characters and claims as much across her video series. Well at least it was until E3 this year. Now it seems as if her focus has transcended from female treatment to generic violence in video games. All in an effort to stay relevant and in the public eye.

 

Finally, allow me to congratulate Anita Sarkeesian. I actually envy her a bit. She did her research. Came up with a plan. Acted upon that plan and profited from it. I'm not against her earning a buck or two hundred thousand. I still think, despite your rant, that profit was her primary motivation and any social commentary was a byproduct of her campaign. That is where I really get that slithery feeling. I love that she had the opportunity to make a profit. That is the so-called American way. It is the fact that she used a Cause to get there that riles me up. It strikes me as akin to the money grubbing televangelists that use religion and God to bilk millions out of their audience. That sort of huckster con artistry always rubs me the wrong way. It may turn out that I am wrong about this and that Anita Sarkeesian is truly a champion for women's rights, but I cannot shake the feeling that my gut feeling is right. In a way though, Anita Sarkeesian did accomplish one part of her stated goal; the treatment of women in video games has become a topic for serious discussion. It's too bad she is debasing herself with antics like arguing with the imbeciles in Gamer Gate to actually meet with game publishers to discuss her agenda. (If she has, I was not able to find any news stories that she has. All I found is the rhetoric she posts around the net and an article about a "we're sensitive too" award she received from organizers of the GDCA. Please correct me if I am wrong.)

 

Now I am officially done giving this person any more of my time and energy. I knew from the beginning that it would just be cumbersome but sometimes you have to slog through it to get to the other side. Agree with me or disagree with me. Free country. Just don't think that an explosive rant is going to shame me to silence. It isn't. I still hold the same exact opinion as before and unless Anita Sarkeesian does something to convince me otherwise, I am going to continue to believe she is a false prophet with shady goals.

[Enforcer84]

Fair enough. I'll consider the case closed. 

Like I said. I don't follow her, but I was there for the ground zero of her Kickstarter and the diatribes against her. 

And like-wise don't expect a reasonably edited and wordy opinion to sway me

[Pattern Ghost]

 

 For all that I disdain Anita Sarkeesian, she is not stupid.

 

 

 

She may not be stupid, but she's "bright" at best. I watched some of her non-gaming videos when this stuff first started up, since she didn't have many gaming ones up. Her arguments were frequently sophomoric and off point. I think she's a mediocre talent who got lucky in the publicity department. (Not that the death threats and other scumbaggery causing the attention are a good thing. Quite the opposite.)

[gewing]

Were you actually planning to buy itin the first place?

 

I love the design work in FE but its a strategy game which I suck at, so I wouldnt buy it to begin with.

never heard of it before this, but I ca still keep my wallrt folded.

[gewing]

Perhaps you should write that story.

 

"They said I was too delicate and feminine to build a robot! They called me Girly! GIRLY! I'll show them! I'll show them all!"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary and I flee the giant mechanical woman while she is distracted with reducing the boys' pathetic wind up toys to scrap metal

 

PPS (Post palindromedary stuff) - for those who haven't seen the story, the actual reason given for having a robotics class for boys only was that they thought girls in the community were doing okay educationally but the boys had more need for a little academic enrichment. Still strikes me as a policy that wasn't thought through properly. And a girl building a giant killer robot to beat up the boys' robots because she was laughed at and told girls can't build robots makes a great story.

Breakthrough can be traumatic for Sparks, and worse for those around them...

[Cancer]

Most definitely not about geek communities, but this week's Science has a feature article about the research programs ongoing to vet women for ground combat roles, how to set gender-independent benchmarks to qualify, search for injury/fitness issues that may be gender-related. AFAICT the studies are honest and going for hard data, trying to refine to true combat capacity and not merely noncombat exercise benchmarks, and so on.

 

This is certainly behind the subscriber wall, but the url is http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/468.full

 

31 July 2015 issue, vol. 349, pp. 468-471. See if you can get to a library and check it out.

[Cygnia]

 

Dissenting Opinions May Occur: Some Thoughts on Yesterday’s Troubling “Writing Women Friendly Comics” Panel

 

[Pattern Ghost]

Great choice in moderators. Is this the same Bill Willingham who did line art illos for the old D&D red box set and modules way back when?

[SKJAM!]

Yep!

 

Had a decent independent comic series titled "Elementals" which slowly went off the rails as it got more obvious what Mr. Willingham's politics and thoughts on gender roles were--not helped by the publishers going under and having to restart several times.  He eventually moved over to the writing side full time.

[Pattern Ghost]

I knew about his going off the rails, had always wondered if it was the same guy as the D&D artist. Thanks.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Since when did GENCON have non-roleplaying related panels?

 

I have never been to gencon and I would very much like to go, but it was my impression that gencon was roleplaying focussed. When did that change?

[bigbywolfe]

GenCon is more game focused than role play focused. Some people go just to demo new board games or just for the magic tournament.

I've only been attending GenCon for 6 years now so I can't speak to its original setup, but in my time there it has always had panels on writing, fantasy, and Sci fi as well as gaming and game design and GMing advice and whatnot.

[Netzilla]

Even when I went a few times back in the early 90s you always could find non-gaming panels and events.  I can remember video games being debuted, anime showings and discussions as well as panels on books, movies and comics.  Heck, I remember one year when GWAR had a room set up to sell their merchandise.

[Cygnia]

https://megancondis.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/adam-sandler-is-a-fake-geek-guy/

[Markdoc]

GenCon is more game focused than role play focused. Some people go just to demo new board games or just for the magic tournament.

I've only been attending GenCon for 6 years now so I can't speak to its original setup, but in my time there it has always had panels on writing, fantasy, and Sci fi as well as gaming and game design and GMing advice and whatnot.

 

 

It's been about 20 years since I last went to Gencon, but even back then they had panels and sessions on fantasy/Sci Fi wrting, art and films. So it's pretty safe to say that if it hasn't been there from the start, it's at leats been a part of Gencon for a long, long time.

 

cheers, Mark

[Cygnia]

 

Women take a place at the pinball table

 

[Cancer]

Heh. Used to be pinball was something for the social reject guys; it was something you did (and became good at) because none of the girls wanted you in the same time zone as them.

[wcw43921]

The same could be said about video games back in the day--like the kid in

[NuSoardGraphite]

https://megancondis.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/adam-sandler-is-a-fake-geek-guy/

because Adam Sandler doesn't profess to being a geek in his real life maybe....

 

I know a few fake geek guys.  They play call of duty and watch Dragonball Z and like to call themselves geeks because it's popular now.  They don't know who Bib Fortuna is, they've never played dungeons and dragons in their life, have never read one line of Tolkien nor could they name a single Pokemon (maybe Pikachu.  maybe).  They are just as fake as the "geek" girl who plays bio-ware WRPGs and watches Dr. Who and that's it.  Both fake.  Nothing to do with gender.

 

A real geek (guy or girl) is someone who can go to a marvel movie with me and don't need me to explain who the villains are, what the significance of the Infinity stones are and who already knows who the Winter Soldier really is.

[Sociotard]

I don't know. The pantheon of potential geeky interests is so large, I doubt I could ever be sufficiently immersed in all their facets to be a geek to all of them. 

 

I knew who winter soldier was and so forth, but I've never read Watchmen. (I'm used to the look of modern comic art, and the old stuff grates).

 

I can name lots of cards and their abilities from an obscure CCG called Anachronism, but I've never tried Magic or Pokémon. (I can name three)

 

I've played several pen and paper RPGs, but only DnD 3.5 and after. None of the advanced. I don't know THACO.

 

Nah, Geek is a word that has lost all meaning.  the fandoms are too many and too large.

[Cancer]

Nah, Geek is a word that has lost all meaning.  the fandoms are too many and too large.

I think that's close to true. Without further qualification, self-attribution as "geek" doesn't carry much weight. Probably I count as a geek now only on grognard points (First RPG experience: June 1975), since I haven't read comics to any extent since 1971, have never watched a number of precious "recent" geek franchises, haven't touched a new computer game since Diablo 2, and so on.

[Markdoc]

Agreed. The whole idea that there is such a thing as a "real geek" and a "fake geek" is so precious as to be laughable. There's a crapton of fandoms/hobbies out there, and people are immersed to a greater or lesser degree in some/many of them. There are also many geekdoms that have nothing to do with gaming or fantasy at all. There doesn't exist some platonic ideal  ubergeek who masters every geekdom in depth.

 

I like scifi and fantasy, medieval music, play RPGs and videogames. Have done since long, long before any of those things were cool. But I'm otherwise pretty straight-up: I also like most of the the things that white middle class males are supposed to like.  Does that make me a "real" geek? Or not? I'm pretty sure some people would say yes, and some would say no, but the smart ones would say such a question is, at base so asinine as to not waste any time worrying about it.

 

Personally, when I check my give-a-**** meter, it's not registering this question at all.

 

cheers, Mark