Girls aren’t a monolith, but male geeks are

Feminist misandry plays out in a number of ways. One of the more insidious forms is an attack on a marginalized group of males. While there are a number of reasons why it occurs, for the most part the feminist attack on marginalized males happens because those males are easy targets. Few will object to such attacks, and few will come to those males’ defense. Such attacks take the form of “objective analysis.” These critiques do not usually include evidence supporting any of the conclusions, and the conclusions are always the same: the group of males are misogynists.

Case in point, feminist blogger Restructure attacked male geeks and geek culture. No substantive evidence was presented demonstrating that geek culture revolves around excluding feminists or women, nor did she present evidence that all, most, or a substantial minority of geeks are misogynists. There are a lot of assertions and anecdotes, but nothing that comes close to supporting the claims about male geeks:

Most male geeks believe that they are subverting traditional masculinity by reclaiming and self-identifying with the term “geek”. For most male geeks, geek identity is defined partly as a rejection of the “jock” identity. According to the traditional high school male social hierarchy, jocks are high-status males and male geeks are low-status males; jocks are alpha males and male geeks are beta males; jocks are masculine and male geeks are “effeminate”. Thus, when a man proudly self-identifies as a “geek” in response, what he is doing is redefining what it is to be a man, redefining geek identity as masculine.

Typical male geeks argue that to be a geek is to be masculine by interpreting the scientific, mathematical, and technological achievements of overwhelmingly male persons as definitive proof that science, math, and technology are inherently male and define maleness. Such male geeks typically argue that there are innate differences between male and female brains that make success in science, math, and technology exclusive to men. Thus, arguments and studies that suggest otherwise are perceived as a direct attack on the masculinity and male identity of male geeks. According this male geek worldview, if women are equally capable in science, math, and technology, then male geeks lose their claim on masculinity and become low-status, beta, and “effeminate” males once again, because there would be nothing left to separate male geeks from women. Thus, male geeks—much more than non-geek men—tend to be emotionally and socially invested in maintaining the idea women’s brains are hardwired against understanding science, math, and technology to the same extent as men.

Again, not a strip of evidence was offered to support any of the above claims. Restructure did not link to any male geeks stating, implying, or even inferring anything she wrote in her post. Her core issue appears to be this:

[M]ale geek bias prevents an objective discussion about women in science, math, and technology from occurring. We need to recognize the existence of and motivations behind this male geek bias to truly address the hostility in geek communities against the idea of female geeks.

Perhaps Restructure should first recognize the existence of and motivations behind the feminist bias that prevents objective discussions about males from occurring, if only to truly address the hostility in feminist communities against the idea of non-sexist males.

Of course, that would require not painting with a broad brush, which would in turn undermine the intent of these kinds of feminist critiques.  Likewise, there is no reason to “recognize the motivations behind male geek bias” since these kinds of critiques revolve around a host of preconceived notions about those motivations. Feminists like Restructure already believe they know what motivates “male geek bias.” The intent is not to bring that to light, but to convince male geeks that what these feminists say about them is true and that male geeks should just own up to it. That some of what gets viewed as “bias” might stem from mistreatment against male geeks by females not only does not seem to occur to these feminists, but also apparently does not count. Thewhatifgirl stated:

The male geeks that I hung out with in high school seemed just fine with my company – and the company of a lot of the other girls I knew. But maybe they could recognize better than you that even though we were “girls”, we weren’t the girls who teased, harassed, picked on, or otherwise abused them.

In other words, like Restructure! said, we’re not monolithic.

But apparently male geeks are. Male geeks can be summed up as “typical male geeks” and “most male geeks.” Likewise, feminists can be summed up in the same way, as long as it is something positive or neutral, as Restructure explains:

I think it depends on the context, if the description of a “typical feminist” rings true to me. If someone said, “the typical feminist is white,” or “the typical feminist is racist,” I would not find it offensive. However, I would find “the typical feminist wears birkenstocks,” offensive, because I would think this is a stereotype and false.

The latter objection is ironic since she dealt in stereotypes about male geeks. The irony worsens when she later explained that she was really referring to a specific set of geeks, namely IT geeks. So despite the term “geek” encompassing a broad group of people, the blogger made no clarification as to which group she was speaking about. More so, she did not hesitate to later deal in direct stereotyping of male geeks when she stated:

Yep, in high school, heterosexual male geeks typically don’t even see female geeks as dateable, and go for the high-status, alpha, feminine girls.

That comment came in response to thewhatifgirl dismissing the argument that female geeks have the social power to pick on male geeks by taking advantage of the notion that guys are supposed to be chasing girls.  She asserted that male geeks ignore the female geeks that are interested in them in order to pine over unattainable girls, and therein monolith themselves. There was no acknowledgment that female geeks might do the same or that female geeks might not make their interest known, probably under the assumption that the boys are supposed to approach them.

Unfortunately, the “male=bad, female=good” double standard appeared throughout the comments, although some people like Danny and Cessen did challenge those hypocrisies. What makes their challenges so ironic, and the responses to them so hypocritical, is that if the same challenges were made in the reverse none of the feminists there would object.

This is the blindspot that misandry, or any bias based on preconceived notions, causes. If one already presumes to know the problem and the solution to the problem, there can be no discussion. A discussion implies that one will talk through problems, but if one refuses to see the other side’s perspective or treats that perspective with open hostility how can one work through those problems?

The above assumes that a person actually wants to have a discussion. That does not seem to be Restructure’s intent. Her intent seems to be to shame and deride male geeks and geek culture. It is a very dismissive and antagonistic way to treat any group of people, particularly if you want to join that group’s community. The attitudes expressed on that blog post and in the comments might provide a some explanation for why some male geeks react negatively when women, particularly feminist women, try to join their communities.

40 thoughts on “Girls aren’t a monolith, but male geeks are

  1. Smart argument as usual. Some feminist has gone into extremist direction, like what men has done in the centuries past. They have been repeating the mistakes males has done before.

  2. I was a classic geek in high school. I was pretty much ignored by pretty much any girl who was desired by any guy. So were my friends. We were laughed at, ridiculed, and insulted by everyone. We got used to it from the other guys, but it hurt when it was the girls. But there was a small group of girls who befriended us. They were rejects just like us.

    They weren’t very desireable, but they were nice. They would sit with us at lunch and during stuydy hall. We dated occasionally, but they weren’t really interested in us as dates. We were nothing more than their ticket to the school dances, football games, etc. Sometimes it seemed we weren’t there to do much more than provide transportation and to pay their way. We were happy to do it. Just being seen with a girl, any girl, was better than being laughed at for not being able to get a date.

    The school dances were the worst. We would start by trying to dance with the girls, but they more or less ignored us on the dance floor and would end up dancing with each other. Eventually us geeks would end up back at our table watching our dates have a good time.

    I don’t think any of us redefined geekdom as masculinity. We weren’t gay. We weren’t effeminate. Math, science, chess, and video games were just things we were good at. So we did them and we really didn’t want girls around. But how many girls were allowed to play football or basketball with the jocks? Not many. They got to watch. Because playing was about competition and male bonding. In that respect we weren’t any different from the jocks, it was about competition and male bonding. The girls couldn’t compete and really weren’t all that interested anyways. They watched, they cheered us on, and on the occasions when we did invite them to play, they lost, and then they complained that we should have taken it easy on them and let them win once in a while. Maybe we should have.

    We had a bunch of rejects who used us as dates to make themselves feel wanted and attractive. Of course we used them for the same thing, the difference was that we paid for it. But, we would have loved to have had some girls as geeky as we were. I found one a few years ago and married her. Now we have a couple of geeky little boys.

    I guess the point is that we never looked at geekdom as being a men’s club. We just found something we were good at and we did it. We would have loved to have found some girls interested in the same things who were also interested in us. There just weren’t any.

  3. She couldn’t be more full of it.

    I’m a woman. I identify as a geek. Does that make me a man, or masculine?

  4. So, just to recap:

    Saying “feminists are typically awesome, brilliant and gorgeous” is acceptable because it is true. On the other hand, saying “feminists often use tendentious logic to blame men for all of the world’s evil” is a slanderous lie.

  5. I’m a woman. I identify as a geek. Does that make me a man, or masculine?

    In the comments Restructure explained that she was not gendering geek as meaning man or masculine. Her intent was to suggest that male geeks gender geek as meaning man or masculine.

  6. Walter, thanks for the comment. I think you hit on some important points that often do not get acknowledged. Lot of geeks group just to hang out with other guys who share the same interests, to compete with each other, and essentially bond. Like you, I also noticed that there were not a lot of girls interested in the same things I was. A lot the girls I knew found anime, comic books, and sci-fi topics stupid at best. I think the most important thing you mentioned was this:

    But there was a small group of girls who befriended us. They were rejects just like us.

    They weren’t very desireable, but they were nice. They would sit with us at lunch and during stuydy hall. We dated occasionally, but they weren’t really interested in us as dates. We were nothing more than their ticket to the school dances, football games, etc. Sometimes it seemed we weren’t there to do much more than provide transportation and to pay their way. We were happy to do it. Just being seen with a girl, any girl, was better than being laughed at for not being able to get a date.

    The school dances were the worst. We would start by trying to dance with the girls, but they more or less ignored us on the dance floor and would end up dancing with each other. Eventually us geeks would end up back at our table watching our dates have a good time.

    One of the things missing from the feminist critiques is an acknowledgment of how girls treat geek boys. Obviously, this is not a one-sided situation where all geek girls get their way while all geek boys do not. However, what happened to you happens to a lot of guys, especially in high school. Geek girls are just as capable and sometimes just as likely to reject geek boys as any other group of girls.

    I wonder how that treatment by girls who share the same interests affects the boys who go own to form their own communities. In effect those girls simply used them, and one must wonder whether some of the hostility that happens in geek communities occurs as preemptive defense against getting used again.

  7. Interesting you should mention so, Toysoldier.

    Feminism these days likes to slander with the label “Nice Guys”.

    In the case of Walter, he encountered girls whom were just “Nice Girls”. All the qualities feminists despise in “Nice Guys” were found in these girls. Except we’re not allowed to “Monolith” those girls.

  8. You’re right. it was all about hanging out with people who were interested in the same things I was and who would treat me like a human being. There wouldn’t have been a single one of us who would have rejected a girl who was actually interested in us, especially in a romantic sort of way. As it was we were more than happy to be exploited by the few girls who would lower themselves to be seen with us.

    I should give them more credit, they were nice girls. We liked them and they liked us. We each got something out of our relationships, even if sex wasn’t part of the deal. But that left us open to being exploited by other girls who weren’t so nice. We got teased and taunted and set up to be humiliated by girls who knew they could take advantage of our social awkwardness and normal teenage boy horniness. I’d have given anything for a girl who was was actually interested in me and not just looking for a guy to take them to a dance just so she could ignore him and have fun with her friends, while thinking that a quick peck on the cheek or even the lips as she said goodnight would make up for it.

    As I read what I’ve written, it sounds like I was a loser, and sometimes I felt that way. Other people thought so, but I never did. I’m certainly not now. I won’t say that I’m the most successful guy from my high school class, but I’m certainly one of them. Not to mention that I found a girl who was interested in me and she’s good-looking and smart. being a geek in high school may not be the best way to spend those years, but it definitely has a payoff later on.

  9. I wasn’t going to comment, because I thought this post was full of strawmen, but since you corrected Sonja’s strawman, maybe it’s worth saying something.

    First of all, I’m not implying that male geeks are a “monolith”; that would mean I think that all male geeks are a particular way, and I had put qualifiers before all instances of “male geeks”.

    Secondly,

    nor did she present evidence that all, most, or a substantial minority of geeks are misogynists.

    Slashdot and Digg, as well as other tech geek sites, implement a comment rating system to deal with trolling and poor-quality comments. The community rates the comments, and so the comments themselves have a numerical value associated with how much the community values the comment. (You don’t have to be loud or vocal to vote; most voters of a comment would be lurkers.) When the community approves of the comment, the comment has a positive value and is boosted, but when the community disapproves, the comment has a negative value and is buried. As a general trend, sexist comments are rated positively by the community – see here for a Slashdot example and here for a Digg example. Thus, there is quantifiable evidence that the majority of male geeks at Slashdot and Digg are sexist (since sexist comments are rated positively and large-positively, meaning more people agree than disagree with the sexist comments).

    Thirdly, I am not attacking “geek culture”. I am a geek, a female one, and I am criticizing the sexism in my culture, which is primarily perpetuated by male geeks.

  10. As usual, it’s all the guys’ fault. Geek boy pining after a woman who isn’t interested in him? He’s an entitled ass drunk on his own male priviledge

    Same geek ignoring the she-geek who only wants to be noticed by him? Well, now he’s an ass ignoring the awesome woman right in front of him.

    Good lord, they couldn’t see the hypocrisy if it was standing right in front of them wearing a neon-orange grass skirt and playing an accordion.

  11. I wasn’t going to comment, because I thought this post was full of strawmen

    What strawmen?

    First of all, I’m not implying that male geeks are a “monolith”; that would mean I think that all male geeks are a particular way, and I had put qualifiers before all instances of “male geeks”.

    You used qualifiers initially, but as your post continued the qualifiers disappeared, resulting comments like this: “When male geeks discuss the topic of women in science, math, and technology, the skeptical and critical attitudes towards anecdotes normally valued in geek communities are eschewed in favour of narratives that appeal to male-geek self esteem and superiority.” That kind of statement treats male geeks as a monolith.

    Slashdot and Digg, as well as other tech geek sites, implement a comment rating system to deal with trolling and poor-quality comments. The community rates the comments, and so the comments themselves have a numerical value associated with how much the community values the comment. […] As a general trend, sexist comments are rated positively by the community […]. Thus, there is quantifiable evidence that the majority of male geeks at Slashdot and Digg are sexist (since sexist comments are rated positively and large-positively, meaning more people agree than disagree with the sexist comments).

    Not exactly. One, anyone, including non-geeks, can rate comments. Two, we do not know what percentage of those who rated the comments are male geeks. Three, agreement with a particular comment does not mean agreement with a particular position. That said, your post was not about the male geeks who comment on Slashdot and Digg. Your post was about male geeks in general. You must demonstrate that the male geeks who comment and rate on those two sites are representative of “typical male geeks” or “most male geeks,” keeping in mind that those designations include gamers, comic book fans, sci-fi/fantasy fans, otaku, etc.

    Thirdly, I am not attacking “geek culture”. I am a geek, a female one, and I am criticizing the sexism in my culture, which is primarily perpetuated by male geeks.

    I am unsure whether you are using scarequotes here, although I am sure that you are equivocating.

  12. There are too many strawmen to point out, but I had highlighted some in my first comment.

    You used qualifiers initially, but as your post continued the qualifiers disappeared, resulting comments like this: “When male geeks discuss the topic of women in science, math, and technology, the skeptical and critical attitudes towards anecdotes normally valued in geek communities are eschewed in favour of narratives that appeal to male-geek self esteem and superiority.”

    True, the qualifier did disappear (so my previous claim about “all instances” is wrong), but in this sentence, the eschewing is done by the “geek communities” (as an aggregate). A community is not monolithic.

    Not exactly. One, anyone, including non-geeks, can rate comments. Two, we do not know what percentage of those who rated the comments are male geeks. Three, agreement with a particular comment does not mean agreement with a particular position.

    Anyone can rate comments, but there is no reason to believe that those who vote up the sexist comments would be demographically different from those who vote up non-sexist comments. Two, if you spend time reading the comments (because of an interest in tech and science news, for example), you would find that the community generally self-identifies as “geeks”. Three, agreement with a comment means agreement with the comment’s position.

    That said, your post was not about the male geeks who comment on Slashdot and Digg. Your post was about male geeks in general. You must demonstrate that the male geeks who comment and rate on those two sites are representative of “typical male geeks” or “most male geeks,” keeping in mind that those designations include gamers, comic book fans, sci-fi/fantasy fans, otaku, etc.

    I’m using what some call the “80s definition” or old-school definition of “geek”, which is people interested in science, tech, and math, with an emphasis on the computer geek part.

    I am unsure whether you are using scarequotes here, although I am sure that you are equivocating.

    Those are not scarequotes. I put “geek culture” in quotes, because you introduced that term as something that I’m “attacking”, when my post has nothing to do with “attacking” geek culture over non-geek cultures.

  13. True, the qualifier did disappear (so my previous claim about “all instances” is wrong), but in this sentence, the eschewing is done by the “geek communities” (as an aggregate). A community is not monolithic.

    A community is “a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the ): the business community; the community of scholars.” A community is by definition monolithic, i.e. representative of a specific set of people.

    In your sentence the eschewing is actually done by male geeks, not geek communities as male geeks are the subject of your sentence. In that sentence you treat male geeks as a monolith, implying that all or most male geeks eschew anecdotes normally valued in geek communities in favour of narratives that appeal to male-geek self esteem and superiority. Some male geeks might do that, but with such a broad group it is very difficult to claim all or most or typical male geeks behave in that way.

    Anyone can rate comments, but there is no reason to believe that those who vote up the sexist comments would be demographically different from those who vote up non-sexist comments.

    That is true, however, since anyone can simply create an account, rate a comment, and not offer their own comment, it is possible that people who vote for comments are not necessarily the same people who regularly participate on those threads.

    Two, if you spend time reading the comments (because of an interest in tech and science news, for example), you would find that the community generally self-identifies as “geeks”.

    That does not address my point. My point was that there is no way of telling what percentage of those who rated comments are male geeks. They could be male or geeks or both, but there is no means of determining that based solely on a comment’s high rating.

    Three, agreement with a comment means agreement with the comment’s position.

    Not necessarily. I can agree with your comment that some male geeks may discount anecdotal narratives that they usually support without agreeing with the comment’s position that male geeks do this in order to “appeal to male-geek self esteem and superiority.” In other words, I do not have to agree with an entire statement to find part of it informative, interesting, or valid.

    I’m using what some call the “80s definition” or old-school definition of “geek”, which is people interested in science, tech, and math, with an emphasis on the computer geek part.

    I am aware of that. However, I did not become aware of that until I read your responses to comments made on your thread. If you mean a specific group of geeks, then you should clarify that from the beginning. Likewise, once it is clear that there is confusion, you should modify your statements to reflect the correction. You have not done that, and because you continue to use “male geeks” without qualifiers or modifiers, people will fairly assume you mean all or most geeks regardless of their subset.

    Those are not scarequotes. I put “geek culture” in quotes, because you introduced that term as something that I’m “attacking”, when my post has nothing to do with “attacking” geek culture over non-geek cultures.

    As I said, I think you are equivocating here because you are criticizing male geeks behavior and beliefs. A group’s behavior and beliefs make up their culture, and most geeks are male. Technically, you are criticizing geek culture. I used the word “attack” because you made unsubstantiated claims about a very broad group of people, claims that became increasingly more antagonistic as you responded to people’s comments.

  14. A community is “a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the ): the business community; the community of scholars.” A community is by definition monolithic, i.e. representative of a specific set of people.

    The shared common characteristic of a geek community is being a geek. That doesn’t mean that the community is monolithic. Geeks can come in all genders, races, ages, etc.

    In your sentence the eschewing is actually done by male geeks, not geek communities as male geeks are the subject of your sentence.

    Actually, re-reading it, the subject of the clause is “the skeptical and critical attitudes”, and since it is in the passive voice, it is unclear/ambiguous who is doing the eschewing.

    In that sentence you treat male geeks as a monolith, implying that all or most male geeks eschew anecdotes normally valued in geek communities in favour of narratives that appeal to male-geek self esteem and superiority.

    I disagree with the “monolith” assertion for reasons I gave, but yes, I mean “most”, but not “all”.

    That is true, however, since anyone can simply create an account, rate a comment, and not offer their own comment, it is possible that people who vote for comments are not necessarily the same people who regularly participate on those threads.

    I never claimed that they were the same. But why would people who have accounts and just vote up comments (including comments about geek identity) be significantly less geeky than people who have accounts and comment?

    Not necessarily. I can agree with your comment that some male geeks may discount anecdotal narratives that they usually support without agreeing with the comment’s position that male geeks do this in order to “appeal to male-geek self esteem and superiority.” In other words, I do not have to agree with an entire statement to find part of it informative, interesting, or valid.

    True, but some comments that have no content other than sexism are often highly rated.

    I am aware of that. However, I did not become aware of that until I read your responses to comments made on your thread. If you mean a specific group of geeks, then you should clarify that from the beginning. Likewise, once it is clear that there is confusion, you should modify your statements to reflect the correction. You have not done that, and because you continue to use “male geeks” without qualifiers or modifiers, people will fairly assume you mean all or most geeks regardless of their subset.

    Fair point, but I am not sure how to refer to this specific group, who identify as just “geeks” and may not agree that “IT geeks” or “computer geeks” is an accurate description.

    As I said, I think you are equivocating here because you are criticizing male geeks behavior and beliefs. A group’s behavior and beliefs make up their culture, and most geeks are male. Technically, you are criticizing geek culture.

    I don’t agree with this at all, because saying “geek culture is really male geek culture” is saying that geekiness is inherently male.

  15. Restructure: “I’m using what some call the “80s definition” or old-school definition of “geek”, which is people interested in science, tech, and math, with an emphasis on the computer geek part.”

    No you didn’t. In the beginning of your article, you were using the “Typical Male Geek” as an identifer, labeling all male geeks as one and the same. Nowhere did you state the context as “80s definition” or old-school definition.

    You began with a generlisation and quantified it only when commentators called you out on it. Wouldn’t it have been better to ouright state your context rather than write out a generalisation and leave it there for all to read, get offended, then try and aquisese afterwards when the giant wave crashes down on you?

  16. I’ll just chime in to say again that if people really want to get rid of the woman hatred from male geeks that the source of the pain that turned into woman hatred must be found and addressed. Its real easy to just snort that they need to change. It takes a bit more to take the time to figure out how they got that way.

    Paul:
    “As usual, it’s all the guys’ fault. Geek boy pining after a woman who isn’t interested in him? He’s an entitled ass drunk on his own male priviledge.

    Same geek ignoring the she-geek who only wants to be noticed by him? Well, now he’s an ass ignoring the awesome woman right in front of him.”

    Sadly there is truth to this. If a geek guy (or hell just about any guy for that matter) only has eyes for the popular girl then he is a jerk for ignoring the girls that are interested in him. He needs to pay attention the girls that are interested in him. In other words he needs to change his standards. How dare he like a girl “above his station”.

  17. Why do a lot of feminists seem to have a pathological inability to admit when they’ve said something wrong?

  18. Restructure, let me try again, then.

    “Typical male geeks argue that to be a geek is to be masculine by interpreting the scientific, mathematical, and technological achievements of overwhelmingly male persons as definitive proof that science, math, and technology are inherently male and define maleness.”

    Do you have a link? Because I’ve worked in IT for over 5 years, and have yet to find this theory posited anywhere.

    “According this male geek worldview, if women are equally capable in science, math, and technology, then male geeks lose their claim on masculinity and become low-status, beta, and “effeminate” males once again, because there would be nothing left to separate male geeks from women.”

    Almost every geek I’ve spoken with is of the opinion (backed up by what I’ve seen throughout my career and study before then), is that women JUST AREN’T INTERESTED in geeky pursuits, and more than a few have expressed a desire to see more women in the IT industry.

    “The mere possibility that women and men may be equally capable in science, math, and technology threatens the typical male geek’s self-identity.”

    See above. I’ve yet to find a male geek who felt emasculated by having women in the area who were as good or better than they were at what they do.

    “In other words, male geek bias prevents an objective discussion about women in science, math, and technology from occurring.”

    Bullshit. WOMEN are stopping themselves from getting into it because, as I’ve said before, THEY’RE NOT INTERESTED.

    The whole time I spent studying, I came across very few women in the more technical classes, and a lot of them never finished. Most of them didn’t have the gift of working with computers that made it so easy for others to get through.

    In addition, one workplace I was in actively sought women to join the service desk because EVERYONE (at the time, there was about 4 women and 20-25 men) wanted more women around. People I would identify as “GEEK”, who had NO issue with having women who were as good as they were, and I had a great working relationship with all of them. My MALE boss had no trouble promoting me or anyone else he saw as being good at the job – gender simply never came into the equation.

    I don’t see the sexism you purport is all over the geek world. You’ve yet to show me conclusive proof, since most of the links in your post were to your own blog.

  19. Pingback: Weekend Link Fest – Sizzling Summer edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord

  20. While not geek myself I did spend the eighties working as an IT professional in serious geekdom ie one of the largest computing environments in the southern hemisphere.

    Restructure! has now managed to offend me mightily. Unless she is between forty and fifty years of age she is not competent to comment in any way regarding the geeks of that era.

    Simply put Restructure! you were not there and as such you have no realistic basis to be making any claim about those who were.

  21. I disagree with the “monolith” assertion for reasons I gave, but yes, I mean “most”, but not “all”.

    Very well, but you still must substantiate the claim that most male geeks eschew anecdotes about women, and nothing you presented comes close to doing that. Nothing you presented actually supports any claim that all or most or typical male geeks are sexist. The only fair conclusion a person can draw from what you presented is that some tech-interested male geeks are sexist towards women.

    I never claimed that they were the same.

    If you do not believe the people who rate comments are the same people who participate on the thread, then how can you claim that a highly rated comment that you find sexist is representative of the attitudes and opinions of the male geeks participating on the thread?

    But why would people who have accounts and just vote up comments (including comments about geek identity) be significantly less geeky than people who have accounts and comment?

    We do not know that they are. However, we do not know that they are not. We also do not know that those who rate comments are male, white, heterosexual, or libertarian. We have zero knowledge about any of the people who rate comments. That is the problem with using ratings as proof of sexism against women. We have no idea what prompted the people to rate the comment. What you are doing is akin to Limbaugh claiming that people voted for Obama because Obama is black.

    True, but some comments that have no content other than sexism are often highly rated.

    That depends on what one considers sexist, but for the sake of argument I will agree with your point. However, there are also comments that have no content other than some satirical remark or off-the-cuff joke or random opinion that are highly rated. That something you find offensive gets high ratings does not mean the people who rated the comment are sexist. Likewise, that a comment you find offensive gets high ratings does not mean that the majority of people participating on a thread, let alone a majority of people harboring a specific identity, agree with the comment or are sexist.

    Fair point, but I am not sure how to refer to this specific group, who identify as just “geeks” and may not agree that “IT geeks” or “computer geeks” is an accurate description.

    It made no difference to you when you wrote your post, so why should it make a difference now? You are aware of terms that specify the group of geeks you are speaking of. None of those terms are offensive, so there is no reason not to use them unless the geeks they are applied to object.

    I don’t agree with this at all, because saying “geek culture is really male geek culture” is saying that geekiness is inherently male.

    I never said geek culture is really male geek culture. I said that a group’s behavior and beliefs make up their culture, and most geeks are male. This is akin to stating that a group’s behavior and beliefs make up their culture, and most feminists are female. That in no way implies that feminism is inherently female, although it does imply that feminism focuses primarily on female behavior and beliefs. It is possible that males are more likely to be geeks as a result of biological predispositions that may make them more interested in certain activities. There is plenty of research arguing the same thing about females in regards to empathy, socialization, communication, and multi-tasking, which to my knowledge few feminists object to. I must wonder whether your comment simply reflects a disapproval of the fact that most geeks are male and that their communities were created primarily for them to discuss their interests and as a form of male bonding.

  22. I think restructure displays the usual feminist ideology.
    Men found and establish, when the men have taken all the thorns and ridicule, then feminists come along and blame the phenomenon for not being inclusive enough, or being hostile to women. Maybe we should ask restructure and her ilk to start their own societies and check how inclusive they are going to be to men.

  23. Men found and establish, when the men have taken all the thorns and ridicule, then feminists come along and blame the phenomenon for not being inclusive enough, or being hostile to women.

    In some instances male communities are hostile towards females. However, that hostility is not always born out of sexism. Sometimes it occurs as a result of mistreatment by women. Similarly, some male communities do not include women. However, that lack of inclusion is not always born out of sexism. Sometimes males just want spaces for themselves. It seems that this does not occur to many feminists like Restructure. It must be driven by sexism and misogyny and male privilege. It is because of that disconnect that I am not too upset when, for instance, gay men like my brother have a problem with straight women coming into gay male spaces or when fanboys have problems with feminists coming into their spaces.

    Maybe we should ask restructure and her ilk to start their own societies and check how inclusive they are going to be to men.

    Feminists have their own communities and for the most part those communities are hostile towards males, whether non-feminist or feminist. This gets discussed in feminists spaces occasionally, and usually the response is that men just have to understand why the female feminists are upset and otherwise “check their privilege.” So there is an interesting hypocrisy at work here.

  24. I am really fascinated why women and feminists are so obsessed with getting into these misogynist places. Are they driven by pure masochism?

    I for example am a second generation non-white immigrant, I don’t make lengthy speeches about not being included in the local white supremacists community.

  25. Men aren’t allowed to have our own spaces anymore. That’s why “men’s only” clubs and gyms and the like pretty much no longer exist.

    Apparently it’s inconceivable to women that there might be times when we just don’t want them around.

    But a women’s only gym? Well, that’s not sexist at all.

  26. I for example am a second generation non-white immigrant, I don’t make lengthy speeches about not being included in the local white supremacists community.

    That is a good point, one I often have to resist asking for the sake of continuing a conversation. I do not understand why anyone would want to become part of a community they believe hates them and does not want them.

  27. TS: “I do not understand why anyone would want to become part of a community they believe hates them and does not want them.”

    That’s not really a puzzle when you consider that feminists are often disingenous about their beliefs.

    They use millions of keystrokes to rant about what violent, oppressive, restricting, intimidating beasts men are… but if they really believe that, does the _constant provocation_ of these violent beasts make much sense?

    Most men are not going to lift a finger to restrain them. At all. And a lot of feminists are perfectly aware of that.

    This Restructure individual probably believes about 1% of what she says. The remaining 99% is play-acting for the entertainment of her friends.

    (You gonna let this post languish too?)

  28. @ Toysoldier:

    I do not understand why anyone would want to become part of a community they believe hates them and does not want them.

    It’s quite simple really.

    Anything a man has that a woman wants he must have taken from her unlawfully.

    When a woman wants something, her wanting it means she’s entitled to it.

  29. Restructure’s whole discourse is arrogant and dispalys so deep a sense of entitltement that it is hard to know where to begin

    I’ll start with her arrogant presumption in commenting on geeks sense of masculinity.She does not know and cannot k now anything much about masculinity in the frst place, and her sense of gneder chauvinissm and entitlement is showing just in the fact that she een comments. I know how far a man would get in comenting on her or any other woman’s femininity and what it’s based on. Her arrogance starts with assuming she has any real insight in the first place.

    Then there is the superficiality of her supposed analysis. It should be obvious to anyone by now, 25 years after Warren Farrel laid this out, why geeks and men in general feels so strong a need to exclude women from activities they base their sense of masculinity on – boys are under the absolute control of women for the first 20 years of their lives. This societal misandry is more than enough explantion for the misogyny she sees in the exclusion she has experienced. Yeah it’s misogyny – waaaaaaah. A lot of women worked very hard to build this misogyny.

    Oh, and double waaaaah – it’s pretty rich, a woman complaining about being excluded, when women routinely exclude men from full parenting, ususally with the full systematic and insitutional backing of the legal system. On the personal level it’s called mommy-blocking; on the institutional level it’s called the family law court system.

  30. You gonna let this post languish too?

    No, because unlike the others this post is not deliberately hostile.

    This Restructure individual probably believes about 1% of what she says. The remaining 99% is play-acting for the entertainment of her friends.

    I think Restructure believes what she says and writes. I have no reason to think otherwise. That said, I also think Restructure, like many feminists who share her views, is well aware that things are not as black and white as she presents them. I think she knows, for instance, that the male geeks who criticized a study claiming that boys are not innately better math and science skills were not claiming that females cannot learn math and science or that females cannot be as good in those areas as males. However, it makes for a much better feminist argument to say that anyone saying that males have innate skills in certain subjects is sexist. And as I noted above, feminists do not make the same argument in regards to assumptions about females being innately better at reading, writing, and verbal communication. The only feminists I can think of who might object to that are not highly regarded in the feminist community. So there is a curious double standard at play.

  31. It should be obvious to anyone by now, 25 years after Warren Farrel laid this out, why geeks and men in general feels so strong a need to exclude women from activities they base their sense of masculinity on – boys are under the absolute control of women for the first 20 years of their lives.

    From my own experiences and what I have read, it seems that males group together in order to form their own identities as males. We seem to do this without any prompt. We exclude women from these groups because the presence of women changes the dynamic and prevents male bonding from occurring. This does not mean women cannot be in groups with men, just that in some instances boys and men will want to group by themselves in order to bond as males. I do think that in some instances there maybe be the Tyler Durden “We’re a generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.” aspect that occurs.

  32. Now I might have some kind of socipathic personality disorder, but the only male bonding I want to do, after years of being subjected to male bullying it to teach my tormentors that the business end of a .50BMG bullet administered to the torso is extremely painful.

  33. Actually, Toysoldier, the Tyler Durden quote is:

    “We are a generation of men raised by our mothers.”

    He was lamenting the lack of fathers, father figures and male role models in the new generation of men’s lives.

    Kind of fits what Jim talks about concerning boys and men raised by women for the first 20 years of their lives.

  34. Eagle, during that scene Durden was talking about mothers and fathers, but the actual quote is “women,” not “mothers.”

  35. TS: “So there is a curious double standard at play.”

    Dude, there’s nothing curious about it whatsoever.

    Well, if you think that feminists are sincere about all the “equality” noise that they make then, yeah, maybe it’s a very curious double standard.

    Let’s do a thought experiment: Imagine, for a second, that feminists aren’t sincere about “equality” but say that in order to make them feel righteous as they advocate massive double-standards all over the place.

    So now it’s not so “curious.”

    In reality, there are no double-standards in feminism. There is a single-standard: give women the advantage while giving lip service to “equality.” And this thesis is pretty testable.

    Ever see a feminist devote energy beyond lip-service in getting women included in Selective Service?

    Sorry, there’s nothing very “curious” at all about feminists who have double-standards.

  36. Pingback: Top posts of 2010 « Toy Soldiers

  37. “That is a good point, one I often have to resist asking for the sake of continuing a conversation. I do not understand why anyone would want to become part of a community they believe hates them and does not want them.”

    Depends how desirable this community is for them.

    If it’s a choice between mainstream community not understanding them, and this one fringe community who has similar interests…well.

    Like trans women, not being accepted in mainstream community, certainly not understood. If they were rejected within BDSM (which has put forward trans-friendly ideas and understands generally the distinction between cross-dressing and transsexuality), they might object from being rejected by someone who understands them most and with which interests interact mosts.

  38. If it’s a choice between mainstream community not understanding them, and this one fringe community who has similar interests…well.

    I understand that, but it makes little sense to me that someone would want to join a community that the person thinks oppresses and hates them. I suppose if one were masochistic it would work out fine, but if one simply wants a group to fit in with it seems like an unnecessary headache. In a way, it is like trying to befriend someone who does not want to be your friend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s