Young women and possessiveness over "Nerd/Geek"

In My Humble Opinion
121

My definition of geek: someone with a passion for a non-mainstream subject, hobby, interest or field of study, or someone with a non-mainstream level of interest in a mainstream subject, hobby, interest or field of study.

In my opinion, self identified geek girls are offended by fake geek girls because the fake geek is displaying a shallow, outdated and somewhat prejudiced understanding of what a geek actually is. The hallmarks seem to be that they have a pair of thick rimmed glasses, they may have read at least one book at some point in their lives, and they may refer to themselves as being socially awkward even though this may not really be the case. For the girl who considers herself a true geek, her eyewear, literacy and social life are probably not the criteria that she feels qualify her as a geek.

Then, to pile on further insult, the fake geek girl is quick to disassociate herself from those elements of geekdom that she thinks are beneath her. Just as the author in the linked article did, she trashes geek fiction and movies. The message the fake geek girl is sending to geek girls is “I’m just like you! I have ugly glasses and I read the Hunger Games once, and last weekend when I was broke I stayed home and Facebooked instead of going out clubbing… until my friends dragged me out. I’m also a gamer - you don’t want to know how many hours I’ve spent in The Sims! We’re exactly the same, except everything you like is stupid.”

I don’t think the hate is directed at the fake geek girl for mislabeling herself. It’s because it exposes what she really thinks a geek is, and she is trying to latch on to some perceived cachet of a group that she simultaneously shows contempt towards. Why does she want to be part of that culture? I think she’s often a girl who perceives herself as smart. Geeks are smart, so she sees herself as a geek but, like, a cool geek and not a pathetic Dr Who watching, anime enjoying, science fiction reading geek.

To top it off, the casual misogyny of some male geeks makes female geeks feel like they aren’t taken seriously within the subculture. The fake geek girls fulfill every negative stereotype the misogynist geeks have of female geeks, and their very existence further undermines the credibility of women who are actually serious about their passion for all things nerdy. On the one hand, geek girls get limited with all the prejudiced stereotypes of being awkward, socially impaired and nerdy from society at large, while on the other they are treated like they don’t belong and are somehow lesser by some of their male counterparts.

122

Nobody owns the word “hot” or “smart” either, yet you don’t get to go around telling people that they must call you that. Ownership has nothing to do with it. Words are just tools of communication. And it seems that, without your knowledge, the term geek has picked up a meaning you don’t like.

Honestly, based on this thread, the most geeky thing about you seems to be your passion about being called a geek. Previously you were just someone who you thought had the characteristics of what you thought being a geek meant. Now you’ve become one of the geeks that’s being oppressed by these youngsters who have stolen your term. That’s exactly the type of irrational anger I was talking about in my previous post. You are just directing it towards these younger people who are apparently not really geeks.

See how easy it is to take a side and become competitive as a geek? I doubt you even really feel that way, but that’s what you are communicating at this point.

I think that, if we all step back a bit, we realize that we mostly don’t call ourselves anything. Labels aren’t all that useful when you know someone as intimately as you know yourself. Labels are a way of categorizing people before you’ve gotten a chance to get to know them.

That’s why I think poorly of all these “cool” geeks making videos about how we should accept anyone who calls themselves a geek. They are missing the point entirely. A geek doesn’t ever need to label themselves as a geek. Being a geek is not about trying to convince other people of who you are in the first place. Part of being a geek is continuing in your geeky ways even if others don’t think it’s cool.

If you are a geek, seeking out others with the same interests as you will invariably get you into geek culture. And if it doesn’t, then it makes perfect sense for people to say you’re not really one of us. Geek is just a label. Even if we call you a geek, you still don’t fit in with us because our interests don’t match. No amount of anger or PSAs from other geeks are going to change that.

That’s what bugs me about all of this. These PSAs turn natural group identification based on common interests into some sort of bigotry. We’ve just got to accept everyone who calls themselves a geek, even if we have nothing in common with them. Heck, we have to accept them even if it seems like all they want to do is insult us, like this lady did in this article.

That’s why my first inclination is to jump in and defend geeks. Heck, with this new definition, I don’t even know if I really am one. The characteristic misogyny that you guys go on about has never been a characteristic of myself or my friends, even if we were the less popular ones who were into less mainstream pursuits. We were accepting of everyone, but we also didn’t have to deal with people pretending to be one of us. Being a geek wasn’t popular like it is now.

And, yes, I did just ramble like a geek.

123

This language blames her. Is Monte Cook’s gimmick designed to make money off of geek culture? Of course not: his job is to make games he loves, because he’s a geek, and sell them to other geeks.

You’re taking a quintessential geek–someone who loves ferchrissakes cosplay so much that she’s made a career of it–and subtly placed her on the outside, by describing her chosen career as a gimmick, and phrasing her career as “making money off of geek culture,” as if she’s an outsider exploiting the culture, instead of a culture native finding a way to make a living doing the thing she loves.

You may not realize that you’re blaming her, but the way you phrase it sure makes it sound like you consider her Not Of The Tribe.

124

I suppose that’s supposed to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek but that whole schtick rubbed me the wrong way.

Who cares what his “credentials” are if everyone is supposed to have equal access to the clubhouse? Even if I’ve never written a science fiction story and couldn’t tell a Tardis from an Enterprise, aren’t I supposed to be equally embraced as a “geek” if I just show up saying “I’m a geek”?

And so, if he doesn’t speak for me, then obvious he’s not qualified to be the “Speaker for the Geeks”. Or he’s saying I’m not a geek since he speaks for them yet doesn’t have my same message.

Anyway, the whole thing seemed self-defeating. If everyone who claims to be a geek is a geek of equal stature then Joe Peacock’s opinion is as equally valid as Scalzi’s. But Scalzi doesn’t seem to actually feel that way. At least Peacock is being honest about it.

Note: I know nothing about that Scalzi guy aside from his linked column nor of the other guy. And I don’t really care either. His message was contradictory no matter how you try and slice it and whether you try to pass it off his self-proclaimed title as “humor” or not.

125

Until reading this thread I would never have guessed that there are a number of heterosexual guys who find the presence of provocatively dressed attractive women at an event objectionable.

126

Hey now, I’m RIGHT HERE!

I know, right? I mean, I’m like 90% “this is a bunch of misogynistic bullshit” and 10% “Dudes, shut the fuck up and stop driving away the hotties!”

127

Read the whole thing–he was trying to make a point, and at the end of his post, he states that neither he nor anyone else has the right to be “speaker for the geeks.” (Though if anybody did, Scalzi would have a much better claim on it than Joe Peacock.)

Also, if you read through the comments, Peacock responds, and they actually have a very civil discussion.

128

I want to say that despite my earlier post, I don’t think Nigri or whoever else is a fake geek. My point was that there are people who will certainly exploit the subset of nerds who are so desperate for female attention that they’ll fall over themselves to please her. But it really shouldn’t be a burden on a person to prove their own geekiness, it’s on whoever is accusing them of fakery. Or better yet, don’t try and prove it, because you look like an asshole and I formally disown you from my personal Grand Duchy of Geekdom. More or less: “yes, there are fake geeks, I’ll accept that. No, you shouldn’t care; just assume people are who they say they are unless they’re actively trying to scam you, personally, out of money.”

Well, it bothers me in the sense that I can’t decide whether cosplaying in provocative costumes is feminist or not. I’ve seen good arguments from both sides about how dressing as a scantily female superhero is empowering, or how it’s giving in to and resigning yourself to objectification.

The argument is interesting, but overall I just leave that as an intellectual exercise and let everyone do whatever they have fun doing. I’m not going to go up and bother every Wonder Woman about her personal views on her costume and how it relates to feminism because they probably have autographs to get.

(I say this like I go to cons frequently when I’ve only been to one and that was approximately enough cons for a lifetime).

129

No, because he’s not making money off the culture. He gets his money whether he ever actually hangs out around geeks or not. If his job were merely to promote the game out in places where geeks congregate, then, yes, he would be exploiting geek culture.

She may be a geek, but she is also on the outside, just like any other celebrity. She’s no longer one of the common people. And being paid to do something, even if it’s something you love, changes the dynamic. While she’s on the job, she has an ulterior motive in everything she does.

Just because we’re putting her in the OTHER category doesn’t mean we think she’s not a geek. She very definitely is one. And, off the clock, I’d be pretty happy to get to know her (assuming the fame hasn’t gone to her head). But, on the clock, she is just one of the people trying to sell me something or to use me to sell something, and nothing she can do would make her one of US.

And, Larry, I never said I objected to her or anyone else being anywhere, and I didn’t notice anyone else doing so in this thread. I would only object to this lady doing her thing if she were trying to keep it hidden that she’s acting as a paid shill, which is apparently what she did in a certain situation.

130

She’s doing it for commercial gain.

131

I really think this thread can be spiced with analogies to other situations we can understand better.

Justin Bieber portrays himself as “gangsta”. He hangs out with famous black people, dresses a certain way including chains and other jewlery, and generally tries to be cool.

From the perspective of actual “gangstas”, which in this context means black young americans who grew up in the ghetto and had to deal with drug gangs and violence…how do you think they feel about Bieber?

He’s an insult. He’s not brave, he’s always lived in safe places, he has every imaginable material good. (versus being someone who has to walk to school past armed drug gangs every day from a shoddy house and a mother addicted to crack).

An actual geek - someone bullied in middle school, someone who has spent countless hours on some incredible arcane pursuits - is going to be insulted by a beautiful woman suddenly slapping on some thick glasses and grabbing a copy of Enders Game and trying to join the club.

132

Pretty defensively, ISTM. “You don’t know or really care” is a pretty ridiculous answer if you were wondering why everyone got so “possessive” over the term.

133

So what’s your point? That Jessica Nigri imbibes a potion before work that turns her into something that makes her not a geek? It’s like saying a hacker isn’t a hacker if he’s on the clock as a commercial programmer. She doesn’t temporarily go through non-geek status when she’s getting paid. Would you say Wil Wheaton ceases to be a geek when he’s hosting Wil Wheaton’s Awesome Hour or running tabletop game sessions for $50?

134

This is an astonishingly shitty analogy. Do you really not see why?

135

No, not really. Bieber isn’t a “gangsta”, he’s a “weak ass punk”. Most people in gangsta culture agree on this fact. The rapper 50 cent is an actual gangsta, by contrast, by virtue of him growing up in a ghetto and being shot 9 times.

Note the misspelling of “gangster” : I don’t mean Italian mafiasos, the misspelling refers to “cool” residents of the ghetto and drug dealers.

Gangsta is just a valid a cultural construct as nerd or geek. Yet we can immediately see why Bieber showing up in a ghetto with his hat on backwards will have a negative reaction, in the same way a hot chick showing up to a D&D match and playing it badly will be reacted to negatively.

136

If I had wanted to talk about the writer, I would have provided a link in the OP so that everyone could dissect the piece. I didn’t do this because I didn’t want this thread to be about her or those specific commenters.

Goodness. It’s like this thread is full of pedants or something!

137

If geeks had been systematically oppressed by pretty women for centuries in our country, including enslavement, murder-with-impunity, and horrifying discrimination, then your analogy would be better.

If gaming conventions were centers of poverty deliberately created by pretty women via redlining policies in the middle of the twentieth century, that would make the analogy work better.

If geek children grew up in neighborhoods rife with crime, drugs, and poverty, suffering literal PTSD from a young age, as a result of the discriminatory policies of pretty women, I could see how your analogy worked.

And if after all that, geek culture had gained some cultural panache and so a pretty woman who hadn’t grown up subject to that PTSD-soaked childhood put on a Mario shirt and thought she’d thereby gain some sort of geek cred, why then your analogy would be just right.

However? Your analogy, as is, sucks balls.

138

As I said, even as a tongue-in-cheek thing it doesn’t work and only provokes the many, many “Yeah, you tell him!” comments below where people obviously DID feel he had the authority.

I didn’t read through all the comments because, frankly, blog comments are generally boring and stupid as hell. Whatever extra discussion there was was buried deeper than I cared to read. After the 20th “Yeah, you go you’re so great!” I found something new to read.

139

I searched down because at the end of the article he mentioned that Peacock had responded, and I wanted to see what he had to say. I went from that point and read the exchange for a while. For internet comments, the whole thing was surprisingly civil.

140

The discussion there is quite a bit smarter than most of the commentary in this thread.
ETA: I exaggerated. I should have said “some of the commentary in this thread.”