So, basically, this is a very long winded way of saying "posers and manipulative people suck"?
Also, regarding defining one's self -- I agree on the "don't let the media you consume define you". Frankly, don't ever let anything you can't control *define* you. Because then you have given control of who you are, away to something, or in many cases, someone, else. I love HIMYM, I call myself a HIMYM fan, but it does not *define* me. If HIMYM goes away, I will be sad, but I will then move on.
It's a topic I've seen come up on the forum before, and when I tried prodding for explanations back then the responses were generally based on the concept being self-evident somehow. Which it clearly isn't. Or maybe I'm fucking stupid. Either way I'd still like to see one of the original presenters of it (like @Pony) explain it to me.
Here are my thoughts, although obviously I can't claim I can add any insight into what Pony or others were thinking :
1. Don't define yourself by stereotypes. So don't say "because I'm a gamer, I can't like playing sports, and I must be dismissive to people who do." Or "because I like Star Wars, Star Trek geeks are the worst." It's depressing how often I saw fellow geeks doing this sort of thing back in college. People usually grow out of the worst of it, but it's part of what causes artificial strife in pieces of our sub-culture.
2. Do what you like, be who you are, but always be willing to try new things. Which is a bit of an extrapolation, sure, but it boils down to not letting yourself be limited by the things you already like. So even though you know you're a lifelong fan of grape jelly, don't be afraid to try marmalade once in a while.
3. Don't treat the things you like as sacred cows. Accept that others won't like them as much as you do (or at all!) and they may still be able to function as human beings, and maybe even have other qualities you like. And that not every criticism against something you love requires you to leap to defend it, or try to figure out why the other person could dislike what is obviously an amazing thing.
Not sure that these are sufficiently different, but they're different takes on what I get from "don't define your identity by the media you consume." Which boils down to some combination of "have some perspective", "don't be closed-minded," and, of course, "don't be a dick."
I mean, there are lots of things people do and ways people think that are not healthy for them and I feel bad for them and wish they would get their shit together even if it has no direct effect on me personally.
So if someone identifies as a collectable card game player, this is not healthy? Explain it to me. Honestly, I do not understand how this is a problem.
Avowing one's self to be a person who enjoys a particular media or hobby is not the same as defining one's identity by the media or hobbies one enjoys. Everyone in this thread is, I hope, smart enough and well-adjusted enough to understand the difference. If not, any attempt to explain the difference on my part is probably futile.
So here's a serious question: what are some healthy responses when one feels that the things or qualities they once defined themselves by are losing their "specialness" and/or exclusivity? What are good ways for someone to start building a new identity?
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
This issue is super interesting to me because it warps up a couple of rightly-criticizable trends with the poor socialization of the current critics.
1) The self-labeling of "geek" in general extends a lot of different directions - social science, politicians (see e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28390800/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/obama-full-on-geek-or-just-nerd-adjacent), all of the web 2.0/social-media self-promoters who tout their expertise in a faux self-effacing way by calling themselves a "total geek" about "x". So a lot of people self-label as geek disingenously. Contrast that with someone like Nate Silver, who is genuinely a geek and would never talk about himself that way.
2) The industry and media's promotion of women who aren't really interested in whatever geek topic they are covering or are offered not for their exceptional geekiness, but for their physical attractiveness. Cringe inducing all around - it's obvious they're not as passionate as their audience for the subject, though they gamely try.
So, 3) this sets up really obsessive types for a lot of disappointment. The media narrative is incomplete, and goes something like "Geek guys see women in their spaces, and freak out because they're threatened and create higher standards for women newcomers than men newcomers." I think that's partially right, but I think for a lot of hardcore geek guys, what happens is that they initially think "Oh, here's someone as obsessive as I am about the same things, I have a shot romantically." Approach, and get shot down by a woman who recoils in terror because the guy is (a) personally unkempt and gross, (b) only into his narrow set of geek culture, and/or (c) entirely unable to relate to women. So then because they didn't hit it off, he starts assuming they are fake geek girls.
The kernel of truth in there, IMO, is that women get monomaniacally obsessive about things in fewer numbers than men. I don't know if that's a product of socialization or genetics, but it forms the basis for the fake geek girl thing. Scalzi's point here (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/26/who-gets-to-be-a-geek-anyone-who-wants-to-be/) and numerous other articles is that this is OK - you can have distributed interests and still be a geek.
As a result, I think the next step for a lot of the people angry about the fake geek girl thing is to diversify their own interests - be curious and consume eagerly, but the people who get upset about this stuff are almost certainly people who have hypertrophied interests in fantasy/sci-fi or MTG or LOL and almost no knowledge of poetry or film or politics.
For example, my GF and I are unicorn-hunting on OKC and she lists an interest in battlestar galactica on her page. When that section is up, guys write novels to her about BSG. She likes BSG, and we play the board game (I bought her the base game, and she promptly went out and bought all the expansions) with friends once or twice a month. So, super geeky by most standards, but she is not intrigued by a guy who writes a dissertation to her about BSG even though it comes from his honest and genuine excitement that he has found a girl who likes something cool that he also likes. I don't think that makes her a fake geek girl, and I think a lot of geek girls probably have similar responses to people they encounter in the community.
Magic: The Gathering, fighting games, and many other sections of gaming have a high barrier to entry to girls because their culture is actively fucking toxic to women and does everything in its power to repel them
Not so much the event (it doesn't necessarily show more than a few isolated assholes), but the internet response. There's a couple people defending that shit in the PA thread comments, but go elsewhere on the internet with a bit more vested interest, like say Street Fighter facebook groups, and there was deafening community support for this poor oppressed man who could no longer walk the Earth making unprovoked menstruation jokes.
Hevach on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
So here's a serious question: what are some healthy responses when one feels that the things or qualities they once defined themselves by are losing their "specialness" and/or exclusivity? What are good ways for someone to start building a new identity?
Well, in a broad sense, you shouldn't be motivated to like things because they are special or exclusive. You should like things for their intrinsic quality, and if you get into something you will discover the more obscure parts of it if you want cred in whatever relevant subculture there is. You should always be trying to experience and do new things even if you don't regularly repeat all the things you try or do. A lot of my core sense of worth, though not my identity, comes from my profession (which is a little special but not exclusive) and the good I can do volunteering.
This issue is super interesting to me because it warps up a couple of rightly-criticizable trends with the poor socialization of the current critics.
1) The self-labeling of "geek" in general extends a lot of different directions - social science, politicians (see e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28390800/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/obama-full-on-geek-or-just-nerd-adjacent), all of the web 2.0/social-media self-promoters who tout their expertise in a faux self-effacing way by calling themselves a "total geek" about "x". So a lot of people self-label as geek disingenously. Contrast that with someone like Nate Silver, who is genuinely a geek and would never talk about himself that way.
2) The industry and media's promotion of women who aren't really interested in whatever geek topic they are covering or are offered not for their exceptional geekiness, but for their physical attractiveness. Cringe inducing all around - it's obvious they're not as passionate as their audience for the subject, though they gamely try.
So, 3) this sets up really obsessive types for a lot of disappointment. The media narrative is incomplete, and goes something like "Geek guys see women in their spaces, and freak out because they're threatened and create higher standards for women newcomers than men newcomers." I think that's partially right, but I think for a lot of hardcore geek guys, what happens is that they initially think "Oh, here's someone as obsessive as I am about the same things, I have a shot romantically." Approach, and get shot down by a woman who recoils in terror because the guy is (a) personally unkempt and gross, (b) only into his narrow set of geek culture, and/or (c) entirely unable to relate to women. So then because they didn't hit it off, he starts assuming they are fake geek girls.
The kernel of truth in there, IMO, is that women get monomaniacally obsessive about things in fewer numbers than men. I don't know if that's a product of socialization or genetics, but it forms the basis for the fake geek girl thing. Scalzi's point here (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/26/who-gets-to-be-a-geek-anyone-who-wants-to-be/) and numerous other articles is that this is OK - you can have distributed interests and still be a geek.
As a result, I think the next step for a lot of the people angry about the fake geek girl thing is to diversify their own interests - be curious and consume eagerly, but the people who get upset about this stuff are almost certainly people who have hypertrophied interests in fantasy/sci-fi or MTG or LOL and almost no knowledge of poetry or film or politics.
For example, my GF and I are unicorn-hunting on OKC and she lists an interest in battlestar galactica on her page. When that section is up, guys write novels to her about BSG. She likes BSG, and we play the board game (I bought her the base game, and she promptly went out and bought all the expansions) with friends once or twice a month. So, super geeky by most standards, but she is not intrigued by a guy who writes a dissertation to her about BSG even though it comes from his honest and genuine excitement that he has found a girl who likes something cool that he also likes. I don't think that makes her a fake geek girl, and I think a lot of geek girls probably have similar responses to people they encounter in the community.
That's a super good insight, and I think you're right about girls (in general, not every girl obviously) tending to spread out over a broader range of interests. Guys seem to be more likely to devote themselves to one or a few things. Might have something to do with the spaghetti vs. waffles idea.
I mean, there are lots of things people do and ways people think that are not healthy for them and I feel bad for them and wish they would get their shit together even if it has no direct effect on me personally.
So if someone identifies as a collectable card game player, this is not healthy? Explain it to me. Honestly, I do not understand how this is a problem.
Avowing one's self to be a person who enjoys a particular media or hobby is not the same as defining one's identity by the media or hobbies one enjoys. Everyone in this thread is, I hope, smart enough and well-adjusted enough to understand the difference. If not, any attempt to explain the difference on my part is probably futile.
Remember how we all used to be on GameFAQs talking about how Micro$oft Xbox sucked Playstation 2's dick? Those are people who identify too closely with the things they like. When an attack or criticism on things you like starts to feel like a personal attack or criticism of you, that's a problem, and it leads to things like witch hunts for posers and dismissing sincerity.
So here's a serious question: what are some healthy responses when one feels that the things or qualities they once defined themselves by are losing their "specialness" and/or exclusivity? What are good ways for someone to start building a new identity?
It sounds like that person needs to do some self-examination and figure out why the exclusivity is appealing. What is it about other people -- or maybe a specific person -- that makes them want to keep them out of the club house? Where does that come from? What is the person's responsibility in that situation? Most people would be excited to find out someone likes what they like. How can you resolve any possible biases to be at peace with certain types of people joining your cause?
I'm so glad they did this, not that I think it will have any major dent in how things are, but I'm still happy they did this. Thankfully I'm still reclusive on the internet so I haven't personally had much trouble but I know that only makes me lucky.
DS: 2667 5365 3193 | 2DS: 2852-8590-3716
0
Options
AnosognosWho wants to playvideo games?Registered Userregular
This comic is perfect.
The art is good, the joke is hilarious, and the message contains the appropriate level of vitriol for such bullshit.
The sort of shit this comic talks about it is pretty much a massive inhibition in my fiancee playing multiplayer games with people who aren't her close friends and me
Not because this sort of shit is the majority of gamers on the internet, but because it doesn't need to be to be unpleasant.
I feel that's something some folks miss in sputtering attempts at No True Scotsman and disclaiming that the sort of shit the character of Gabe is being used as a mouthpiece for in this comic doesn't represent the majority of gamer culture.
It doesn't have to be the majority, it just has to be A) Loud enough that it's almost always present and more importantly Tolerated and ignored by the majority.
All shitty people need to be shitty is for the majority of decent people to not call them on it. And these kinds of gamers, who spout this sort of hateful, misogynistic bile, aren't challenged enough by the kind of people Tycho is representing in this comic: the kind that will say stop, listen, you're being an idiot.
I really do favor diplomacy and understanding in trying to change people's ignorance on the interpersonal level, but when it raises its ugly head directly and with malice and not enough people step up to the plate to rebuke it, it just slides and the people who propagate it take the silence as taciturn endorsement.
I'm glad the comic is taking this stand. I'm glad that most gaming news outlets are taking an appropriately large shit on the Dead Island Riptide Collector's Edition. I'm glad for the #1reasonwhy movement. I'm glad that this sort of conversation is happening and I'm glad there's a growing voice of men, in particular, who are saying to other men stop this fucking bullshit right now.
There are times for diplomacy and trying to enlighten people's ignorant-ass views, and there's times for just putting a firm hand up and saying "Stop, I won't stand for this, what you are doing here", and any time you see someone huff up about "fake gamer girls", that is one of the latter times.
It's unfortunate that things this heinous have to happen before the unmoved middle on the issue stand up and go "wait what the fuck", but at least it's happening more often now.
So here's a serious question: what are some healthy responses when one feels that the things or qualities they once defined themselves by are losing their "specialness" and/or exclusivity? What are good ways for someone to start building a new identity?
Maybe build relationships with all the new people who are starting to enjoy what you've enjoyed for years?
This reminds me of one time I was playing TF2 and there were a couple girls playing mic'd up and nobody cared, we were all just yelling at each other to fucking heal me already you fucking horrible fucking medic I hate you forever argleblargle.
And then some dude came in and was immediately like, "oooh, listen to all these ladies, Heeeelloooo laaaadies you're sounding loooovely toniiiight, rowr"
So everyone on mic just go, "Oh look everyone, it's That Guy!" and basically just stopped playing and made fun of the idiot for like 5 minutes until he stormed off.
Then we all had a good laugh and went back to calling each other fucktards for putting a sentry there, why isn't anyone spychecking, etc. I was sort of proud of that group of random video-game players.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
This reminds me of one time I was playing TF2 and there were a couple girls playing mic'd up and nobody cared, we were all just yelling at each other to fucking heal me already you fucking horrible fucking medic I hate you forever argleblargle.
And then some dude came in and was immediately like, "oooh, listen to all these ladies, Heeeelloooo laaaadies you're sounding loooovely toniiiight, rowr"
So everyone on mic just go, "Oh look everyone, it's That Guy!" and basically just stopped playing and made fun of the idiot for like 5 minutes until he stormed off.
Then we all had a good laugh and went back to calling each other fucktards for putting a sentry there, why isn't anyone spychecking, etc. I was sort of proud of that group of random video-game players.
Also mainly targeting young women and saying they only do this to gain the attention of men is really super gross and leads certain types of guys feeling entitled to said young women.
So here's a serious question: what are some healthy responses when one feels that the things or qualities they once defined themselves by are losing their "specialness" and/or exclusivity? What are good ways for someone to start building a new identity?
I would say focus on how those things pertained to them, rather than other people, and figure out why those things resonated so deeply that they became part of who that person is. They obviously mean more to the person than their face-value, but what exactly do they represent and how can this translate into other aspects of their life? No need to build a new identity when the current one can still be explored in a meaningful way that makes one less vulnerable to something as transient as "specialness" and/or exclusivity.
Guys who have made video games their primary (and sometimes exclusive) main intake for entertainment could very easily hold misogynistic views of being entitled to women. I mean shit, how many video games involve the dude protagonist getting the girl at the end as part of their victory?
When you have that as an undercurrent in the majority of the media you take in and you don't really like
socialize with women often enough and shit
it is completely unsurprising that a dude would end up seeing himself as the protagonist in his own life and growing increasingly frustrated at how the princess always seems to be in another castle. After a while he just starts asking where's my fucking princess? and he starts blaming women and finding conspiratorial notions to support his growing bitterness over not getting what his media engrossment of choice has inadvertently trained him to expect.
So am I required to believe that posers don't exist, or that none of them are female, or that noticing that someone is a poser is a thought crime if they're also female, or what? What's the orthodoxy here? I'm certainly not giving up the ability to judge whether people are geeks or not. It's all that's keeping me from asking some hairy biker or eighty-year old man what their favorite anime is.
So am I required to believe that posers don't exist, or that none of them are female, or that noticing that someone is a poser is a thought crime if they're also female, or what? What's the orthodoxy here? I'm certainly not giving up the ability to judge whether people are geeks or not. It's all that's keeping me from asking some hairy biker or eighty-year old man what their favorite anime is.
Stop giving a shit. Learn to talk to people about a wide variety of things, gain some fucking diversity in your interests if you want to socialize with other human beings outside of comic book shops and anime conventions and tumblr, and maybe... just maybe... stop thinking it's so important to know whether they are like you to know if they're worth your time.
I discover people's interests by talking to them. Sometimes, they give me some easy short-hand, like they're wearing a Green Lantern t-shirt or something, but I don't trust that as an automatic inroad to a conversation about comic books (maybe they bought the shirt at a flea market, maybe it was a gift, I don't know). I talk to them, I suss out what they're into, and if it's something I am either interested in myself or interested in learning more about, I try to talk to them about it.
It's not fucking alchemy. You socialize with human beings, you try to figure out what they're like and what they're interested in, and you go from there in how much you want to interact with them and in what way. If they say they're into something, you take that to mean as sincerely as they seem to put it, and you respond accordingly. If it turns out they didn't mean what you thought they meant, then you adjust your understanding of their interests.
This idea, that people need to share all your hobbies or whatever in order to associate with them, is farcical and childish. Get over yourself. People are varied, interesting, and complex. Get to know them on their level, and you might expose yourself to ideas and feelings and hobbies and interests that had you not, you'd have never experienced on your own.
It's the issue of the label "gamer girl", or really any label, being used, and it's silly. No one cares when you say you play games, lots of people do. When you go out of your way to call yourself a "gamer" or "nerd", that's when people get up in arms. If you're playing Angry Birds on your phone and claim "I'm such a nerd", people who identify as "nerds" are going to get offended. When you talk like comic book guy in the Simpsons, people are going to make fun of you for being "nerdy". Just enjoy what you enjoy, labels or not. If you want to call yourself something, that's fine, it's a great way for people to get a quick look at what you're into. You have to accept that when you use a label though, other people can use it too, and sometimes in ways you don't want (see Big Bang Theory or King of the Nerds).
The same applies to "gamer girls". The gender of the people I'm playing a game with does not effect me in any way, shape or form. No one should care if you're playing Counter-Strike with Big McLargeHuge, Jessica Rabbit or the Thing. The issue is when people come into a game or whatever and try to make a big deal out of them being a girl, or Marvin the Martian. If you draw attention to it, of course people are going to say something, and that's probably what you want. You can even test this, jump into any game you like and say something in another language, and watch how people respond. Give anonymous people something to latch onto and they will run with it as a joke, mean spirited or otherwise. Don't make it a big deal and other people won't, plain and simple.
So am I required to believe that posers don't exist, or that none of them are female, or that noticing that someone is a poser is a thought crime if they're also female, or what? What's the orthodoxy here? I'm certainly not giving up the ability to judge whether people are geeks or not. It's all that's keeping me from asking some hairy biker or eighty-year old man what their favorite anime is.
The issue is, what's a poser? How can you tell? What's the difference between a poser and someone learning their way into a new subculture? What do you gain by kicking out posers? How is this any different from high school cliques?
It pertains to women because people tend to not give them the benefit of the doubt. A girl's geek cred might be questioned if she doesn't know that there have been 4 Robins in the Batman comics. A guy might be forgiven for having different geek interests if he doesn't know the difference between the original Star Trek & Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Stop giving a shit. Learn to talk to people about a wide variety of things, gain some fucking diversity in your interests if you want to socialize with other human beings outside of comic book shops and anime conventions and tumblr, and maybe... just maybe... stop thinking it's so important to know whether they are like you to know if they're worth your time.
Obviously if I can tell the difference between someone who is a geek and someone who is not, it must be the only thing in the world I care about, right? Fuck off with this sanctimonious bullshit.
There will never be a subculture that doesn't hold certain standards, however vague, or which doesn't turn a skeptical eye toward what it perceives as interlopers. That's what makes it a subculture. It doesn't justify being a huge asshole over the subject or making some sort of crusade of it, because ultimately who deserves to be in the Star Trek club or not just isn't that important, but don't tell me I'm not allowed to notice people or decide whether I think they fit in.
Or do, but good luck arguing with basic monkey socialization type stuff.
A guy might be forgiven for having different geek interests if he doesn't know the difference between the original Star Trek & Star Trek: The Next Generation.
A couple of years ago I wrote a paper comparing gamer culture to the way that Scandinavian countries have dealt with immigration--basing my argument off the quote "if a group is small, and identifies itself by otherness, even the smallest admixture of an outside group causes problems". The basic point was that nerd culture defined itself from the mid-20th century on as an outside group, which is part of what it has had a difficult reaction to the mainstreaming of a lot of nerd culture.
The most obvious of these reactions has been the violent attack on women who identify as nerds (including the most recent 'fake nerd girl' trope), but it's also led, more and more, to these odd performances of nerddom, where simply liking something or identifying as a nerd isn't enough, one has to know all the quotations of this and that, react in the proper way to obscurely referential humor, and have a favorite (insert superhero franchise). All of these things are, to some degree, intentional barriers to entry by a group that sees its otherness threatened.
Sorry for the academic bs talk, I got in a mode. But what I've seen over the past few years is that the 'otherness' part of nerd culture has come in conflict with it's ideal of acceptance. It's been very ugly and it's part of why I don't identify as a nerd anymore.
I'm just posting to note that, once in this thread, the fighting game community was mentioned as being "fucking toxic to women." As someone who has been deeply immersed in the fighting game scene for the last decade, I don't appreciate that. If you're an outsider and are just reading articles on the Internet about that thing Aris did, you don't know what you're talking about and you shouldn't be making judgement calls on a whole community. If you go to a fighting game major, you will be surprised to find that females are present and are playing games free of harassment! Now, the ratio between men to women could be as much 1 woman among every 10 or even 30 people... and that's extremely typical of any gathering of geeks. The fighting game community is girl-repellant only in the same way every other nerd community is. (The exception to this would be stuff like anime cons, where the ratio is closer to 1 to 1.) People are reading online articles, without having any experience in the community, and taking an incident of Aris being as asshole and extrapolating that Aris is your average fighting gamer.
I'm actually offended that a user put it right alongside Magic the Gathering. Dude, girls don't go to MtG tournaments for the same reason they don't go to tabletop conventions. Girls don't go to that stuff, that's almost a hard and fast rule. The small amount of women you see at competitive video game tournaments is immense compared to their showing at card game tournaments.
Fun but tangentially-related fact: Despite their reputation for being outrageously sexist, women usually prefer Soul Calibur and Dead Or Alive to other fighters.
Do you think that perhaps the huge amount of barriers to entry (the stuff I discussed being one thing, the casual slinging about of sexually abusive terms being a big other) are problems for women? Even women who like these games?
Do you think that perhaps the huge amount of barriers to entry (the stuff I discussed being one thing, the casual slinging about of sexually abusive terms being a big other) are problems for women? Even women who like these games?
The biggest barrier of entry to fighting games is that fact that fighting games are hard to play. This repels male gamers as much as it does female gamers. I mentioned how DOA and SC are more popular with women; this is probably because they are popular franchises that pride themselves on being easy to understand and having a low dexterity requirement. Compared 2D fighting games and Tekken that demand a lot of you: game-knowledge, dexterity, reaction speed and understanding extremely abstract concepts.
The competitive fighting game community is a niche, for both men and women.
I would just like to say that taking a stance of "I'm vaguely aware the issue exists, but really have no fucking idea what's going on," is pretty admirable.
Also, Gabe's face in panel three makes me think of a puppy who's been kicked and doesn't understand why.
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
A couple of years ago I wrote a paper comparing gamer culture to the way that Scandinavian countries have dealt with immigration--basing my argument off the quote "if a group is small, and identifies itself by otherness, even the smallest admixture of an outside group causes problems". The basic point was that nerd culture defined itself from the mid-20th century on as an outside group, which is part of what it has had a difficult reaction to the mainstreaming of a lot of nerd culture.
The most obvious of these reactions has been the violent attack on women who identify as nerds (including the most recent 'fake nerd girl' trope), but it's also led, more and more, to these odd performances of nerddom, where simply liking something or identifying as a nerd isn't enough, one has to know all the quotations of this and that, react in the proper way to obscurely referential humor, and have a favorite (insert superhero franchise). All of these things are, to some degree, intentional barriers to entry by a group that sees its otherness threatened.
Sorry for the academic bs talk, I got in a mode. But what I've seen over the past few years is that the 'otherness' part of nerd culture has come in conflict with it's ideal of acceptance. It's been very ugly and it's part of why I don't identify as a nerd anymore.
if you still have this paper kicking around can you like
There's a lot of hand-wringing and pontification over this very simple topic.
Maybe you're all just too young to remember.
Once upon a time one was ostracized, largely in school, for liking tabletop games, video games, computers, chess, comics, what have you. It was not "cool." It was something that generally repelled women and invited the ire of so-called "normal" people. Those interests were considered "geeky" and made one a "nerd" or a "dork." Having a deep interest in these topics invited scorn and rejection. So, nerds and geeks would typically seek out fellow nerds and gather with them at the local comic book shop and maybe a convention or two.
So, you have all these people who have experienced rejection and were ostracized socially for most of their lives. Now, gaming is "cool" and all things nerdy are "cool" and interesting to all these people who, years ago, wouldn't have been caught dead playing gaming or playing Dungeons & Dragons or reading The Avengers. So, nerds, who felt that they created a safe space for themselves, where they fit in,
It's fairly simple human psychology. Various social groups have safe spaces for themselves, in which they are surrounded by only like-minded people. There's even a "Gaymer Convention" coming up: http://gaymerconnect.com/
I'm curious as to why none of you seem to understand this very simple concept.
It's pretty much just "I feel safe here. I feel like I can be myself here. With these people whose lives have been similar to mine. They understand me... Oh no! Those people, who are unlike me, who are 'normal' are invading my safe space."
I guess a lot of you were never socially ostracized, and you just don't get it.
Personally, I like the fact that more people are playing games, so long as games don't get dumbed-down to be more "accessible" to the new-comers. However, gaming absolutely used to be a hobby enjoyed by the social outcasts among us, and now it's being enjoyed by many people, from many backgrounds, and I'm surprised you can't understand people's resistance to their safe spaces, and exclusive being taken from them.
Posts
Also, regarding defining one's self -- I agree on the "don't let the media you consume define you". Frankly, don't ever let anything you can't control *define* you. Because then you have given control of who you are, away to something, or in many cases, someone, else. I love HIMYM, I call myself a HIMYM fan, but it does not *define* me. If HIMYM goes away, I will be sad, but I will then move on.
Here are my thoughts, although obviously I can't claim I can add any insight into what Pony or others were thinking :
1. Don't define yourself by stereotypes. So don't say "because I'm a gamer, I can't like playing sports, and I must be dismissive to people who do." Or "because I like Star Wars, Star Trek geeks are the worst." It's depressing how often I saw fellow geeks doing this sort of thing back in college. People usually grow out of the worst of it, but it's part of what causes artificial strife in pieces of our sub-culture.
2. Do what you like, be who you are, but always be willing to try new things. Which is a bit of an extrapolation, sure, but it boils down to not letting yourself be limited by the things you already like. So even though you know you're a lifelong fan of grape jelly, don't be afraid to try marmalade once in a while.
3. Don't treat the things you like as sacred cows. Accept that others won't like them as much as you do (or at all!) and they may still be able to function as human beings, and maybe even have other qualities you like. And that not every criticism against something you love requires you to leap to defend it, or try to figure out why the other person could dislike what is obviously an amazing thing.
Not sure that these are sufficiently different, but they're different takes on what I get from "don't define your identity by the media you consume." Which boils down to some combination of "have some perspective", "don't be closed-minded," and, of course, "don't be a dick."
Avowing one's self to be a person who enjoys a particular media or hobby is not the same as defining one's identity by the media or hobbies one enjoys. Everyone in this thread is, I hope, smart enough and well-adjusted enough to understand the difference. If not, any attempt to explain the difference on my part is probably futile.
1) The self-labeling of "geek" in general extends a lot of different directions - social science, politicians (see e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28390800/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/obama-full-on-geek-or-just-nerd-adjacent), all of the web 2.0/social-media self-promoters who tout their expertise in a faux self-effacing way by calling themselves a "total geek" about "x". So a lot of people self-label as geek disingenously. Contrast that with someone like Nate Silver, who is genuinely a geek and would never talk about himself that way.
2) The industry and media's promotion of women who aren't really interested in whatever geek topic they are covering or are offered not for their exceptional geekiness, but for their physical attractiveness. Cringe inducing all around - it's obvious they're not as passionate as their audience for the subject, though they gamely try.
So, 3) this sets up really obsessive types for a lot of disappointment. The media narrative is incomplete, and goes something like "Geek guys see women in their spaces, and freak out because they're threatened and create higher standards for women newcomers than men newcomers." I think that's partially right, but I think for a lot of hardcore geek guys, what happens is that they initially think "Oh, here's someone as obsessive as I am about the same things, I have a shot romantically." Approach, and get shot down by a woman who recoils in terror because the guy is (a) personally unkempt and gross, (b) only into his narrow set of geek culture, and/or (c) entirely unable to relate to women. So then because they didn't hit it off, he starts assuming they are fake geek girls.
The kernel of truth in there, IMO, is that women get monomaniacally obsessive about things in fewer numbers than men. I don't know if that's a product of socialization or genetics, but it forms the basis for the fake geek girl thing. Scalzi's point here (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/26/who-gets-to-be-a-geek-anyone-who-wants-to-be/) and numerous other articles is that this is OK - you can have distributed interests and still be a geek.
As a result, I think the next step for a lot of the people angry about the fake geek girl thing is to diversify their own interests - be curious and consume eagerly, but the people who get upset about this stuff are almost certainly people who have hypertrophied interests in fantasy/sci-fi or MTG or LOL and almost no knowledge of poetry or film or politics.
For example, my GF and I are unicorn-hunting on OKC and she lists an interest in battlestar galactica on her page. When that section is up, guys write novels to her about BSG. She likes BSG, and we play the board game (I bought her the base game, and she promptly went out and bought all the expansions) with friends once or twice a month. So, super geeky by most standards, but she is not intrigued by a guy who writes a dissertation to her about BSG even though it comes from his honest and genuine excitement that he has found a girl who likes something cool that he also likes. I don't think that makes her a fake geek girl, and I think a lot of geek girls probably have similar responses to people they encounter in the community.
Some of them are actually proud of this fact, too.
http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/sexual-harassment-as-ethical-imperative-the-ugly-side-of-fighting-games
Not so much the event (it doesn't necessarily show more than a few isolated assholes), but the internet response. There's a couple people defending that shit in the PA thread comments, but go elsewhere on the internet with a bit more vested interest, like say Street Fighter facebook groups, and there was deafening community support for this poor oppressed man who could no longer walk the Earth making unprovoked menstruation jokes.
Well, in a broad sense, you shouldn't be motivated to like things because they are special or exclusive. You should like things for their intrinsic quality, and if you get into something you will discover the more obscure parts of it if you want cred in whatever relevant subculture there is. You should always be trying to experience and do new things even if you don't regularly repeat all the things you try or do. A lot of my core sense of worth, though not my identity, comes from my profession (which is a little special but not exclusive) and the good I can do volunteering.
That's a super good insight, and I think you're right about girls (in general, not every girl obviously) tending to spread out over a broader range of interests. Guys seem to be more likely to devote themselves to one or a few things. Might have something to do with the spaghetti vs. waffles idea.
Remember how we all used to be on GameFAQs talking about how Micro$oft Xbox sucked Playstation 2's dick? Those are people who identify too closely with the things they like. When an attack or criticism on things you like starts to feel like a personal attack or criticism of you, that's a problem, and it leads to things like witch hunts for posers and dismissing sincerity.
It sounds like that person needs to do some self-examination and figure out why the exclusivity is appealing. What is it about other people -- or maybe a specific person -- that makes them want to keep them out of the club house? Where does that come from? What is the person's responsibility in that situation? Most people would be excited to find out someone likes what they like. How can you resolve any possible biases to be at peace with certain types of people joining your cause?
The art is good, the joke is hilarious, and the message contains the appropriate level of vitriol for such bullshit.
Bravo.
Not because this sort of shit is the majority of gamers on the internet, but because it doesn't need to be to be unpleasant.
I feel that's something some folks miss in sputtering attempts at No True Scotsman and disclaiming that the sort of shit the character of Gabe is being used as a mouthpiece for in this comic doesn't represent the majority of gamer culture.
It doesn't have to be the majority, it just has to be A) Loud enough that it's almost always present and more importantly
All shitty people need to be shitty is for the majority of decent people to not call them on it. And these kinds of gamers, who spout this sort of hateful, misogynistic bile, aren't challenged enough by the kind of people Tycho is representing in this comic: the kind that will say stop, listen, you're being an idiot.
I really do favor diplomacy and understanding in trying to change people's ignorance on the interpersonal level, but when it raises its ugly head directly and with malice and not enough people step up to the plate to rebuke it, it just slides and the people who propagate it take the silence as taciturn endorsement.
I'm glad the comic is taking this stand. I'm glad that most gaming news outlets are taking an appropriately large shit on the Dead Island Riptide Collector's Edition. I'm glad for the #1reasonwhy movement. I'm glad that this sort of conversation is happening and I'm glad there's a growing voice of men, in particular, who are saying to other men stop this fucking bullshit right now.
There are times for diplomacy and trying to enlighten people's ignorant-ass views, and there's times for just putting a firm hand up and saying "Stop, I won't stand for this, what you are doing here", and any time you see someone huff up about "fake gamer girls", that is one of the latter times.
It's unfortunate that things this heinous have to happen before the unmoved middle on the issue stand up and go "wait what the fuck", but at least it's happening more often now.
Maybe build relationships with all the new people who are starting to enjoy what you've enjoyed for years?
And then some dude came in and was immediately like, "oooh, listen to all these ladies, Heeeelloooo laaaadies you're sounding loooovely toniiiight, rowr"
So everyone on mic just go, "Oh look everyone, it's That Guy!" and basically just stopped playing and made fun of the idiot for like 5 minutes until he stormed off.
Then we all had a good laugh and went back to calling each other fucktards for putting a sentry there, why isn't anyone spychecking, etc. I was sort of proud of that group of random video-game players.
see, see this is good
this needs to happen more often
I would say focus on how those things pertained to them, rather than other people, and figure out why those things resonated so deeply that they became part of who that person is. They obviously mean more to the person than their face-value, but what exactly do they represent and how can this translate into other aspects of their life? No need to build a new identity when the current one can still be explored in a meaningful way that makes one less vulnerable to something as transient as "specialness" and/or exclusivity.
When you have that as an undercurrent in the majority of the media you take in and you don't really like
socialize with women often enough and shit
it is completely unsurprising that a dude would end up seeing himself as the protagonist in his own life and growing increasingly frustrated at how the princess always seems to be in another castle. After a while he just starts asking where's my fucking princess? and he starts blaming women and finding conspiratorial notions to support his growing bitterness over not getting what his media engrossment of choice has inadvertently trained him to expect.
Stop giving a shit. Learn to talk to people about a wide variety of things, gain some fucking diversity in your interests if you want to socialize with other human beings outside of comic book shops and anime conventions and tumblr, and maybe... just maybe... stop thinking it's so important to know whether they are like you to know if they're worth your time.
It's not fucking alchemy. You socialize with human beings, you try to figure out what they're like and what they're interested in, and you go from there in how much you want to interact with them and in what way. If they say they're into something, you take that to mean as sincerely as they seem to put it, and you respond accordingly. If it turns out they didn't mean what you thought they meant, then you adjust your understanding of their interests.
This idea, that people need to share all your hobbies or whatever in order to associate with them, is farcical and childish. Get over yourself. People are varied, interesting, and complex. Get to know them on their level, and you might expose yourself to ideas and feelings and hobbies and interests that had you not, you'd have never experienced on your own.
This is a great strip
Then I got it.
Then I felt stupid.
Then I larfed long and hard.
The same applies to "gamer girls". The gender of the people I'm playing a game with does not effect me in any way, shape or form. No one should care if you're playing Counter-Strike with Big McLargeHuge, Jessica Rabbit or the Thing. The issue is when people come into a game or whatever and try to make a big deal out of them being a girl, or Marvin the Martian. If you draw attention to it, of course people are going to say something, and that's probably what you want. You can even test this, jump into any game you like and say something in another language, and watch how people respond. Give anonymous people something to latch onto and they will run with it as a joke, mean spirited or otherwise. Don't make it a big deal and other people won't, plain and simple.
The issue is, what's a poser? How can you tell? What's the difference between a poser and someone learning their way into a new subculture? What do you gain by kicking out posers? How is this any different from high school cliques?
It pertains to women because people tend to not give them the benefit of the doubt. A girl's geek cred might be questioned if she doesn't know that there have been 4 Robins in the Batman comics. A guy might be forgiven for having different geek interests if he doesn't know the difference between the original Star Trek & Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Obviously if I can tell the difference between someone who is a geek and someone who is not, it must be the only thing in the world I care about, right? Fuck off with this sanctimonious bullshit.
There will never be a subculture that doesn't hold certain standards, however vague, or which doesn't turn a skeptical eye toward what it perceives as interlopers. That's what makes it a subculture. It doesn't justify being a huge asshole over the subject or making some sort of crusade of it, because ultimately who deserves to be in the Star Trek club or not just isn't that important, but don't tell me I'm not allowed to notice people or decide whether I think they fit in.
Or do, but good luck arguing with basic monkey socialization type stuff.
Not by me.
(Kidding. Honest.)
The most obvious of these reactions has been the violent attack on women who identify as nerds (including the most recent 'fake nerd girl' trope), but it's also led, more and more, to these odd performances of nerddom, where simply liking something or identifying as a nerd isn't enough, one has to know all the quotations of this and that, react in the proper way to obscurely referential humor, and have a favorite (insert superhero franchise). All of these things are, to some degree, intentional barriers to entry by a group that sees its otherness threatened.
Sorry for the academic bs talk, I got in a mode. But what I've seen over the past few years is that the 'otherness' part of nerd culture has come in conflict with it's ideal of acceptance. It's been very ugly and it's part of why I don't identify as a nerd anymore.
I'm actually offended that a user put it right alongside Magic the Gathering. Dude, girls don't go to MtG tournaments for the same reason they don't go to tabletop conventions. Girls don't go to that stuff, that's almost a hard and fast rule. The small amount of women you see at competitive video game tournaments is immense compared to their showing at card game tournaments.
Fun but tangentially-related fact: Despite their reputation for being outrageously sexist, women usually prefer Soul Calibur and Dead Or Alive to other fighters.
The biggest barrier of entry to fighting games is that fact that fighting games are hard to play. This repels male gamers as much as it does female gamers. I mentioned how DOA and SC are more popular with women; this is probably because they are popular franchises that pride themselves on being easy to understand and having a low dexterity requirement. Compared 2D fighting games and Tekken that demand a lot of you: game-knowledge, dexterity, reaction speed and understanding extremely abstract concepts.
The competitive fighting game community is a niche, for both men and women.
Also, Gabe's face in panel three makes me think of a puppy who's been kicked and doesn't understand why.
I don't know, looks like they already had kids:
if you still have this paper kicking around can you like
PM me a link to a dropbox or something?
i'd like to read it
I
What?
I'm so out of touch.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Maybe you're all just too young to remember.
Once upon a time one was ostracized, largely in school, for liking tabletop games, video games, computers, chess, comics, what have you. It was not "cool." It was something that generally repelled women and invited the ire of so-called "normal" people. Those interests were considered "geeky" and made one a "nerd" or a "dork." Having a deep interest in these topics invited scorn and rejection. So, nerds and geeks would typically seek out fellow nerds and gather with them at the local comic book shop and maybe a convention or two.
So, you have all these people who have experienced rejection and were ostracized socially for most of their lives. Now, gaming is "cool" and all things nerdy are "cool" and interesting to all these people who, years ago, wouldn't have been caught dead playing gaming or playing Dungeons & Dragons or reading The Avengers. So, nerds, who felt that they created a safe space for themselves, where they fit in,
It's fairly simple human psychology. Various social groups have safe spaces for themselves, in which they are surrounded by only like-minded people. There's even a "Gaymer Convention" coming up: http://gaymerconnect.com/
I'm curious as to why none of you seem to understand this very simple concept.
It's pretty much just "I feel safe here. I feel like I can be myself here. With these people whose lives have been similar to mine. They understand me... Oh no! Those people, who are unlike me, who are 'normal' are invading my safe space."
I guess a lot of you were never socially ostracized, and you just don't get it.
Personally, I like the fact that more people are playing games, so long as games don't get dumbed-down to be more "accessible" to the new-comers. However, gaming absolutely used to be a hobby enjoyed by the social outcasts among us, and now it's being enjoyed by many people, from many backgrounds, and I'm surprised you can't understand people's resistance to their safe spaces, and exclusive being taken from them.
Here's a nice video on the topic:
You don't get some "Act Like A Dick Free" card because your hobbies didn't make you popular in middle school.
We understand the concept. We understand why it's happening. That doesn't mean it's okay for grown people to act like middle schoolers.
I'll just leave this here.