Men are not to blame (from /imgoingtohellforthis)

[–]japatty 55 points56 points57 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smariroach 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GotMyFrogHatOn 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 163 points164 points165 points 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

It is sometimes amazing how women treat each other.

As a student I became a member of a 'studentenvereniging' (student association) here in the Netherlands. It shares some similar characteristics with a fraternity.

One of the differences is that it's mixed gender and each year about 80 people join (we're small, some associations have hundreds new people each year). These newcomers should then, among themselves, make little groups. These groups are men or women only. These groups are nice since they immediately give you a few people that you're forced to hang out with. They are very important, since you tend to spend a good chunk of your time at this association with this group.

You had a few weeks to try to form groups. Most people manage, but there's also some groups that don't have enough members, maybe too much, or some people left over.

One night everyone had to come together to finalize. The men and women split up into different rooms to sort it out.

The men were done in 15 minutes. A guy that didn't have a group simply asked around, and most groups were like 'Yeah, sure, we'll have a few beers together, sounds fun'. As easy as you would expect from guys. It took another 15 minutes to come up with names for our groups. We then went downstairs to start having a few beers.

It took the women two more hours to finish up. During that time three girls had come out crying. Two girls didn't even get a group, since others did not want to accept them since they weren't good enough. This meant that these girls basically didn't really have a place at that association anymore.

I know these are generalizations, but for me it showed some of the key differences in the ways in which men and women socialize among themselves.

Tl;dr If you have to make social groups, men love buddying up and just having some beers together. Women are mean.

[–][deleted] 69 points70 points71 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchangelleNiggatron 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not very active at that association so I don't know the ins and outs of the social drama, but my group of guys did recently have dinner with a group of girls from that same association.

I'm in a technical university doing an engineering course, so although I hang out with a girl or two now and then, it has been a while since I've actually sat down for dinner with a large group of girls.

What surprised me most was the gossiping. In our group we gossip. "Hey, did you hear __ got syphilis?". "Haha, yeah, hilarious. Hope __ didn't get it from her". And then we move on to other stuff. The girls would really delve into her personality to determine why she was such a slut.

I also had a girl from my study recently join, and when I asked about how she was doing one of the girls rolled her eyes and said "Oh, THAT girl". Two weeks later I saw them chatting while having a beer.

So yeah, I think you might be very right with what you experienced at your dorm. It feels wrong to talk like this since it all sounds very sexist, but I'm sure that if you researched it you would find that men and women have very different social interactions with one another.

[–]SamH123 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hunthell 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Firesand 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brookface 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Essemd 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Windows_97 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]tsingi 12 years ago* [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

It took the women two more hours to finish up. During that time three girls had come out crying. Two girls didn't even get a group, since others did not want to accept them since they weren't good enough. This meant that these girls basically didn't really have a place at that association anymore.

Love it. I've always said that men can be mean, but to be truly evil, that takes a woman.

[–]kurtu5 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wawoowoo 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lenspirate 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Typicalredditors 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lenspirate 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anakinastronaut 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First, never mention Hitler in an argument.

Eh, I don't think that's a rule- the rule is just that it always happens :P In any case I think it illustrated my very simple point just fine.

Second, never just claim misogyny without explaining why. That is the thing feminists do to avoid real argument.

How do I explain it though? He said that only women can be evil. Saying that women are evil is hateful, saying men are evil is hateful. I apologize if this isn't well articulated, I'm having difficulty putting it any more plainly than he did himself.

Third (a personal rebuttal to the rest of the argument, which is merely stupid, not horrible debate) who taught said women to associate like that? Men, or women? You can't just say they were taught that without consequential proof of who taught them said behavior.

I said may associate differently, may. I was just setting the issue aside to articulate as best as I could that I was addressing his pet phrase, not the content of this entire thread. I find it difficult to understand how you thought I claimed anything of the sort, I was clearly just trying to address his phrase.

[–]autowikibot 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a bit from linked Wikipedia article about Godwin's law :

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.

In 2012, "Godwin's Law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

^Picture ^- ^Mike ^Godwin ⁽²⁰¹⁰⁾

^{image source} ^| ^about ^| ^{/u/anakinastronaut can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete if comment's score is -1 or less.} ^| ^{Summon: wikibot, what is something?} ^| ^{flag for glitch}

[+]tsingi -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]tsingi -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]solitaryman098 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tsingi 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]CollegeRuled -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Verzingetorix -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Verzingetorix -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lenspirate 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Verzingetorix -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lenspirate 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Verzingetorix -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lenspirate 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackRayleigh -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Verzingetorix -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]npanetta 325 points326 points327 points 12 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

[–]zwirlo 68 points69 points70 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bartab -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bartab -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bartab 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bartab 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, you did it twice in two comments. What are you even talking about? Nowhere in the thread was the word "troubling" mentioned. The comic itself was pretty obviously meant to apply to all women or didn't you understand that part?

Please. It's hardly referring to "all women".

The above panels are specifically about calling out women for the way they dressed and their personal choices and implied that there was no right way to dress or correct personal choice.

It is not calling out "all women" or is it calling out "by everybody else". Neither is it implying anything about "no right way to dress". So, remove head from rectum.

In fact, the comic is all about feminists trying to claim "all men" do that, when its really specific women doing it.

Seriously, your motivations are really easy to understand but it's like you have some form of combination ADD and Tourettes.

Aww, should I go cry in my room because of your ad hominems? Now, if only I respected your opinion....or now, you.

[–]thelordofcheese -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]zwirlo 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelordofcheese 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zwirlo 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thelordofcheese 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zwirlo 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nihilist_nancy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]oneiorosgrip -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trevski 46 points47 points48 points 12 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

At what point in my above comment do I mention the fake geek girl thing? And not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are girls who do that - step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism, computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. Then they start using damseling to gain attention for themselves and control others within that population for their own purposes, doing damage to the entire group.

Calling girls out for that behavior isn't oppressive. Girls who exhibit that behavior are oppressive to those of us who were part of that population without being "girl" geeks.

Regardless, my comment above is about the fact that it is women who are sniping at women over these things, not a denial of their existence; the fact this behavior isn't an indication of oppression of women by men, but of conflict between women.

[–]Alzael 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moonchopper -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Regardless, my comment above is about the fact that it is women who are sniping at women over these things, not a denial of their existence

I'm having a really hard time believing that you are so blind to your own wording, so I would like to clarify what it is I'm seeing here, and I want to see if it matches up with what YOU believe you are trying to say:

Your statements make it sound like you believe that men do not subscribe to this kind of 'shaming/ridicule/bullying.' If this is correct, then I refer to this statement:

And not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are girls who do that - step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism, computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. Then they start using damseling to gain attention for themselves and control others within that population for their own purposes, doing damage to the entire group.

This leads me to believe that you have been one of many people to 'call out' women for subscribing to 'geek culture' before. If you are a man, then you more or less contradicted your own statement within the same post.

As I told you earlier, I believe that both men and women subscribe to this type of bullying. I believe that it is either equal in prevalence in both sexes, or that there is no quantifiable way to measure the prevalence of said behavior in either sex. I feel it's near as makes no difference, and I still believe that you are trying to misrepresent your opinions as fact.

[–]oneiorosgrip 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm having a really hard time believing that you are so blind to your own wording, so I would like to clarify what it is I'm seeing here, and I want to see if it matches up with what YOU believe you are trying to say:

Your statements make it sound like you believe that men do not subscribe to this kind of 'shaming/ridicule/bullying.' If this is correct, then I refer to this statement:

It's not that I'm blind to my wording. It's that you are taking from it what you want to argue against, instead of the actual statements I've made, and the arguments they represent. That is how you're turning feminists attribute cite this as evidence of systematic male oppression of women, when it's a mostly female-exhibited behavior into men never do this.

then I refer to this statement:

And not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are girls who do that - step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism, computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. Then they start using damseling to gain attention for themselves and control others within that population for their own purposes, doing damage to the entire group.

This leads me to believe that you have been one of many people to 'call out' women for subscribing to 'geek culture' before. If you are a man, then you more or less contradicted your own statement within the same post.

I love how you automatically assume that I'm male because I'm an MRA. No, I'm female, and this is where I've called out that behavior.

http://youtu.be/UQdSZfTEF14

What's really sick is that feminists have used the conditions created by "geek girls" - which have impacted on geeks and nerds who happen to be girls and women - as yet another excuse for their damseling. They're damseling over damage that they, themselves did to the community, and the fact that said damage has made it harder for them to get away with damseling within the community. The fact that those of us who have been involved in activities and interests that got us ridiculed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s suffer backlash from the awareness that there are now girls adopting geeky aspects of pop culture does not in the 21st century exempt those who are exploiting the popularity of those aspects from being called what they are. In fact, you can't eliminate the backlash the exploiters of "geek culture's" popularity without calling them out on that exploitation.

As I told you earlier, I believe... I believe... I feel... I still believe

Again, these aren't rational arguments. They're your feels coming to light. Get over them. They have no meaning in a discussion like this, especially when you've been presented with evidence against them.

[–]Moonchopper -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Again, these aren't rational arguments. They're your feels coming to light. Get over them. They have no meaning in a discussion like this, especially when you've been presented with evidence against them.

I use 'I feel' and 'I believe' because I recognize that I don't know everything there is to know about these topics - no one possibly could, despite how well read one might believe they are. I leave room for doubt rather than stating my own opinions as fact. I recognize that my own anecdotal experience isn't applicable to everyone, but it appears that you feel your own can be applied to everyone. Additionally, all of the evidence you have linked merely states 'Hey, women bully women. Who knew??' Certainly, it delves into the specifics of how they bully each other, perhaps even how common it is - but to bring this back to the original point, it is tangentially related to what sparked this debate in the first place: Men engage in this type of behavior, and therefore are just as much to blame as women. With the appropriate caveats, of course (not all men do this, not all women do this, etc. etc.)

Lastly, I don't believe that we are arguing a point that is clearly grounded in logic/rationality - i.e. there's no 'Because of A and B, therefore C.' Not unless you want to start making a legal case for it. But this isn't math - there is a huge grey area here, and that is where we're disagreeing on, and as I said earlier, I don't believe it's an aspect that you can quantify in a meaningful manner. I imagine there's a 'correlation != causation' argument in here as well.

The fact that those of us who have been involved in activities and interests that got us ridiculed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s suffer backlash from the awareness that there are now girls adopting geeky aspects of pop culture does not in the 21st century exempt those who are exploiting the popularity of those aspects from being called what they are.

I'm assuming that the backlash that you are referring to is about geek girls being called out for seeking attention. In the strip that OP posted, would the relevant panel not be a statement originating from someone within that very same culture? Why would someone who is NOT a geek care about someone who is pretending to be a geek? Specifically, someone would have to have knowledge of <x> band to know all the members of that band - the implication being that they, too, are part of that 'culture.' Obviously, this is just one panel of the strip, but since we're on the topic, I felt it was relevant.

Also, I'm fairly certain that most of the women that are 'posing' as geeks are likely born in the 90s or later - from my own personal experience, anyways. So I don't know that the '70s and 80s' has to do with this argument, unless you're planning on starting an Affirmative Action campaign for Oppressed Geeks.

All in all, it looks like we simply don't agree on this point.

P.S. Don't take offense to my 'assumption' that you are a man - I threw the 'If you are a man' in there as a caveat. I recognize that not everyone on the internet (or an MRA) is a man, though I did catch myself making that assumption initially. But no worries, I caught myself before replying to you.

[–]oneiorosgrip 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I use 'I feel' and 'I believe' because I recognize that I don't know everything there is to know about these topics - no one possibly could, despite how well read one might believe they are. I leave room for doubt rather than stating my own opinions as fact.

I am going to call bullshit on that. "I feel" and "I believe" are used to take a position and treat it as solid when you know it's not.

In this case, the attempt is to counter experience and references with restating a dearly held opinion that has just been countered.

I recognize that my own anecdotal experience isn't applicable to everyone, but it appears that you feel your own can be applied to everyone.

Your opinion isn't an anecdote. My experience is not unique. Listen to that episode of HBR I linked above, and you'll hear other women call in to talk about the same thing I have.

Additionally, all of the evidence you have linked merely states 'Hey, women bully women. Who knew??'

No, it describes the methods by which women bully - and the behavior we're discussing is prominent among those methods.

Men engage in this type of behavior, and therefore are just as much to blame as women.

This goes back to proportion. If women lead the behavior, and women are the main perpetrators of it, its existence and prominence aren't attributable to men.

I'm assuming that the backlash that you are referring to is about geek girls being called out for seeking attention.

No, it's about the behavior of "geek" girls who disrupt the peaceful involvement of geeks in, and their interaction with each other in relation to, an area of interest; thought and speech policing, social order manipulation, using people, the same shit this type of girl pulls in any other social group, which has been translated to this 'new' territory. But we covered that in my other reply to you.

In the strip that OP posted, would the relevant panel not be a statement originating from someone within that very same culture? Why would someone who is NOT a geek care about someone who is pretending to be a geek?

That type of undercutting isn't uncommon at all. The girl who spends a lot of effort on her looks can be resentful of the girl who gets noticed for her brains. If the looks-oriented girl is the type to respond to competition from other girls by becoming jealous, she may make exactly that kind of petty undercutting effort, even if she doesn't know jack or shit about the bands. On the other hand, just as that same panel shows, the girl who doesn't get asked out much because she isn't much of a looker may resent the standard set by the beauty queen, and call her a bimbo, or a slut, even if neither of those two titles are remotely fitting.

Also, I'm fairly certain that most of the women that are 'posing' as geeks are likely born in the 90s or later - from my own personal experience, anyways. So I don't know that the '70s and 80s' has to do with this argument, unless you're planning on starting an Affirmative Action campaign for Oppressed Geeks.

Let me rephrase that for you:
Also, I'm fairly certain that most of the white kids that are 'posing' as rappers are likely born in the late 20th century or after, from my own personal experience, anyways. So I don't know what the environment in which rap culture developed has to do with this argument, unless you're planning to start an Affirmative Action campaign for Oppressed Rappers.

So let's talk about riding the coat tails of those who were there before you. Let's talk about acting like you're something special because you're something that already existed, but you're just now drawing attention to that existence - in this case, a female involved in an area of interest that falls under the umbrella media-invented term "geek culture." Let's talk about adopting a once-derogatory, nasty-treatment-inducing label now that it's cool, adopting it because it's cool, then attempting to force those upon whom it was involuntarily imposed to alter themselves to suit you, and not understanding why that makes you the asshole.

Or you can take off the mantle of smarmy self-congratulation, and discuss this as it exists in reality.

P.S. Don't take offense to my 'assumption' that you are a man - I threw the 'If you are a man' in there as a caveat. I recognize that not everyone on the internet (or an MRA) is a man, though I did catch myself making that assumption initially. But no worries, I caught myself before replying to you.

Offense isn't the right word. You attempted to use the assumption to make an invalid point; even if I were a man, everything I've said here would hold the same legitimacy, but you were ready to dismiss my observations and experiences on the basis of my presumed sex. You didn't just catch yourself making an assumption; you have been caught making an unintended confession. I'm not personally worried about it, because it's not my problem, but you should be.

[–]Moonchopper1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I stated in my reply to you, that argument doesn't fly. It's still a statement that an opinion is made invalid because of gender. Take Anita Sarkeesian, for instance: She used someone else's work in her video, game play from a series that critiques games. She made false statements about the games themselves, and she's recorded on video stating that she is not a gamer... yet she pawned herself off as a gamer in order to collect the money she collected for making her videos. No matter whether a guy or gal calls her out, she's still a fake, and because she is a fake, it doesn't fall directly in line with the geek panel of the strip, because the geek panel doesn't portray that. It portrays accosting an individual who isn't doing anything but appearing geeky - which in and of itself is a feminist strawman of the reality, which is that most people who get questioned like that don't experience that until they do something to set it off, like issue the same challenge to another geek, present themselves as a better-than-you geek, or start demanding that a group change to accommodate their sensibilities (Adria Richards).

We are talking about two coexisting experiences: 1) The existence of aggressive fake geek girls who get called out because of group-disruptive or other harmful behavior on their part, and 2) the tendency of females to bully using relational aggression, which results in attacks on other females in all social areas as portrayed by all of the panels in that comic. That the second mimics the first in the case of some girls does not make criticism of girls like Anita Sarkeesian and Adria Richards illegitimate, nor does it make guys involved in the first type of criticism participants in or responsible for the second.

As such, it's not a moot point. It's a display of sexism on your part, under the presumption that women are allowed to make social judgements and have them considered legitimate, but men are not... which lead you to a line of questioning based on the assumption that any time a guy criticizes a girl, it's not legitimate criticism, but relational aggression. That's a hell of a bias.

[–]Bodertz-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your opinion isn't an anecdote. My experience is not unique. Listen to that episode of HBR I linked above, and you'll hear other women call in to talk about the same thing I have.

What's the plural of anecdote again?

This goes back to proportion. If women lead the behavior, and women are the main perpetrators of it, its existence and prominence aren't attributable to men.

It's not attributable to any one person, but that doesn't mean any one person isn't guilty of perpetuating it.

Offense isn't the right word. You attempted to use the assumption to make an invalid point; even if I were a man, everything I've said here would hold the same legitimacy, but you were ready to dismiss my observations and experiences on the basis of my presumed sex. You didn't just catch yourself making an assumption; you have been caught making an unintended confession. I'm not personally worried about it, because it's not my problem, but you should be.

You are reading too much into this. Your statement was that men don't do this. If you were a man, and you did this, as he/she believed, then that would be a contradiction. It isn't dismissing your argument because you are a man so much as dismissing your argument because you, as a man, are doing something you say men don't do.

And I will note that the reverse happens too. Post under an alt account pretending to be a feminist (or even just not an MRA, sometimes) and you will be assumed to be female. There is an Us vs Them issue at work here.

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What's the plural of anecdote again?

That anecdotes are not proof of cause and effect (for example, getting sick at a hospital doesn't prove that hospitals make people sick) they are proof that an experience exists. You asked for proof of an experience. Evidence for that will necessarily be anecdotal, and the anecdotes given will carry more relevance and validity than a simple statement of opinion.

It's not attributable to any one person, but that doesn't mean any one person isn't guilty of perpetuating it.

It would help if you addressed the arguments being made in this discussion - which are not whether a single person is involved, but in whether a gender is guilty. You haven't established that men perpetuate the behavior. In fact, the one example you provided led to evidence that men aren't capable of perpetuating the behavior, because society doesn't tolerate them doing so.

You are reading too much into this.

Again, bullshit - and you've had to strawman to do it, turning "this is mostly female" into "men never do this."

The reality is you were willing to dismiss the argument because of the gender making it, and then tried to twist the argument to make it fit your dismissal.

And I will note that the reverse happens too. Post under an alt account pretending to be a feminist (or even just not an MRA, sometimes) and you will be assumed to be female.

Most of us are well aware that there are male feminists. More than once I've had shoved at me "that doesn't apply to me because I'm not female" where gender was irrelevant to the discussion. I don't assume gender when in discussion with a feminist for that reason.
It's no skin off my nose if you don't want to admit your sexism. That's your problem - just don't expect me to take you seriously as a gender-issues advocate.

[–]Moonchopper0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reality is you were willing to dismiss the argument because of the gender making it, and then tried to twist the argument to make it fit your dismissal.

I already replied to this, but I wanted to call it out again - the reply that I made to you (not Bodertz - check the usernames, they jumped in on this) was a tautological argument, not one in which I was dismissing your opinion due to your presumed sex. If you reread my statement, then I think you'll find that you misunderstood me (or you yourself are attempting to set up a strawman.)

Also, it doesn't count as a strawman if I am genuinely arguing against a point that I felt you were trying to make. Looking back on your initial statement ("Men are not to blame for this"), what you stated was greatly ambiguous - It could either be 'Men (as a whole) are not to blame for this,' or 'Men (as individuals) are not to blame for this.' So, there's that.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I already replied to this, but I wanted to call it out again - the reply that I made to you (not Bodertz - check the usernames, they jumped in on this) was a tautological argument, not one in which I was dismissing your opinion due to your presumed sex.

Again, bullshit - your comment on that makes it pretty clear that you decided gender determined the validity of the argument. The added factor of you deciding gender makes the statement that there are fake geek girls also invalid only compounds that.

Also, it doesn't count as a strawman if I am genuinely arguing against a point that I felt you were trying to make.

No, arguing against a statement that I did not make and a point I did not make is still a strawman, even if you made up the point yourself in your head. There was nothing ambiguous about my statement. It simply became ambiguous in your mind because of the gender-related chip on your shoulder. Taking a statement in a discussion about gender as a whole to, by itself and without reason, suddenly mean gender as individuals as an exception to the rest of the discussion in order to argue that exception is irrational, and shows the same bias that your determination of validity-by-gender shows.

[–]Bodertz-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In fact, the one example you provided led to evidence that men aren't capable of perpetuating the behavior, because society doesn't tolerate them doing so.

Once again, that was your example, and that person clearly did partake in that behaviour, what with that person being shat on for doing so. And once again (or maybe I didn't post this), what a journalist can get away with and what people actually think are different things.

Again, bullshit - and you've had to strawman to do it, turning "this is mostly female" into "men never do this."

I think the issue is that you used a different definition of "blame" than was meant when it was first brought up. I assumed you were using the same definition, and that you therefore believed that no men were guilty of that behaviour.

Most of us are well aware that there are male feminists.

Congratulations?

More than once I've had shoved at me "that doesn't apply to me because I'm not female" where gender was irrelevant to the discussion.

And the reverse for me.

I don't assume gender when in discussion with a feminist for that reason.

That's good. Neither do I.

It's no skin off my nose if you don't want to admit your sexism.

Yeah, fuck you too.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is all pretty much answered in my reply to your other comment. This, however, is not entirely addressed.

I think the issue is that you used a different definition of "blame" than was meant when it was first brought up.

The issue is not about "different definitions" of blame. The issue is that you take offense at the idea of holding women responsible for their actions, and when you saw "men aren't responsible for this" you immediately hit it with the answer-to-do-these-pants-make-my-ass-look-fat strawman, that being taking it in the most argumentative way possible, in order to start a long, wandering, goalpost-moving argument.

You did that not because there was a logical, rational reason for it, but because, like Moonchopper, you're slave to the gender-chip on your shoulder.

[–]Bodertz1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The issue is that you take offense at the idea of holding women responsible for their actions, and when you saw "men aren't responsible for this" you immediately hit it with the answer-to-do-these-pants-make-my-ass-look-fat strawman, that being taking it in the most argumentative way possible, in order to start a long, wandering, goalpost-moving argument.

I don't, though. I "take offence" to women people being blamed for something they didn't do.

You did that not because there was a logical, rational reason for it, but because, like Moonchopper, you're slave to the gender-chip on your shoulder.

You don't know me.. You have not assumed my gender, so let us not assume my opinions, yeah?

You responded to a post that said that both men and women do this by saying, "No, men don't". It is not unreasonable to assume you meant, "No, men don't." as opposed to "No, most men don't.".

Do you have an example of a woman calling another woman out for being a fake gamer girl?

What goalposts have I moved?

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't, though. I "take offence" to women people being blamed for something they didn't do.

If that were the case, there wouldn't have been a side for you to take in this discussion, since women haven't been blamed here for anything they didn't do.

You don't know me.. You have not assumed my gender, so let us not assume my opinions, yeah?

Your behavior speaks for itself. You aren't entitled to assume that your excuses for them will be accepted.

You responded to a post that said that both men and women do this by saying, "No, men don't".

No, you're rewording the post and my response (strawmanning again) to make it what you want to argue against. The comment to which I replied indicated that men are partly to blame for the phenomenon portrayed in the cartoon, not simply that men criticize women. My answer is that they are not, and it's more reasonable to take that answer at face value, consider it at its own wording, than it is to infer upon it a meaning of your own in order to justify your offense.

Since you've done the latter, and not the former, you've made it entirely clear that your offense was internal, not related to the actual discussion; ergo, chip-on-the-shoulder.

You've already been given a link to several of us discussing Anita Sarkeesian. Regarding everyday actions and actions people take for granted (like female relational aggression,) no, you can't link to those on the internet. It only contains that which is posted to it. It is not an all-encompassing bibliography of things. Unless you're seriously going to argue that things only happen if there's a record of them on the internet, your question is irrational.

[–]Bodertz1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't see the post that got caught in the spam filter until now, but I need to study, so I won't respond until either Saturday or Tuesday. Maybe Friday.

since women haven't been blamed here for anything they didn't do.

I'm talking about women being accused of being a fake geek girl when they aren't.

Your behavior speaks for itself. You aren't entitled to assume that your excuses for them will be accepted.

We've had a conversation before this. You probably don't remember, but you did the same thing then. You read much more into my posts than what was there.

No, you're rewording the post and my response (strawmanning again) to make it what you want to argue against. The comment to which I replied indicated that men are partly to blame for the phenomenon portrayed in the cartoon, not simply that men criticize women. My answer is that they are not, and it's more reasonable to take that answer at face value, consider it at its own wording, than it is to infer upon it a meaning of your own in order to justify your offense.

"blame"

As in, some men do this, so they are to blame. I read it wrong, or you did, but the point is I was arguing against a point I thought you were making. I was strawmanning you, but not intentionally.

You've already been given a link to several of us discussing Anita Sarkeesian.

I haven't actually (unless it's in the two-parter that got stuck in the spam filter, because I have only skimmed that). You may be thinking of someone else.

Unless you're seriously going to argue that things only happen if there's a record of them on the internet, your question is irrational.

It was your question first. You said it would be easy to find examples of men doing it if it were so widespread. I turned it around on you (but not to you, I don't think) and said that it should be easy to find examples of women doing it if it were so one-sided. Again, I am talking specifically about fake geek girls.

It may be the case the women tear each other down. That gives you a reason to form your hypothesis that women are to blame for the fake geek girl thing. That needs to be tested.

And I haven't looked at the links from when you were talking to the other guy, so you may have provided it, but from the context, I think you were just showing that women argue a certain way. Again, that's a reason to form your hypothesis, but not proof of it.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

edit - wanted to add at the beginning: No worries about the wait. You should never let reddit interfere with your studies. I'll be able to read just as well later in the week... and even if I couldn't, or you just couldn't get back to the discussion, this isn't that* important of a discussion - not in comparison to your potential grades.

I'm talking about women being accused of being a fake geek girl when they aren't.

That's not consistent with your entry into the discussion. You were responding to a discussion about who is responsible for the phenomenon portrayed in the comic, which is about relational aggression. You and moonchopper have tried to use moving the goalposts from relational aggression to fake geek girls to try to find a way to make an argument that relational aggression is a guy thing, but you haven't achieved it. That doesn't make the discussion about fake geek girls. It makes fake geek girls your gimick.

As in, some men do this, so they are to blame. I read it wrong, or you did, but the point is I was arguing against a point I thought you were making. I was strawmanning you, but not intentionally.

Quit trying to pass blame for your strawmanning - Nobody read anything wrong. If you have to single out the word blame from the context of the discussion to make it fit your argument, that's because your goal was not to address my comment, but to make the argument you made.

It was your question first. You said it would be easy to find examples of men doing it if it were so widespread. I turned it around on you (but not to you, I don't think) and said that it should be easy to find examples of women doing it if it were so one-sided. Again, I am talking specifically about fake geek girls.

Again, I provided evidence (the links,) and you have ignored it. Attempting to move the goalposts from relational aggression to specifically fake geek girls hasn't stopped being a dishonest approach since it was introduced into the discussion. I've also given you double the examples of women calling out fake geek girls, in linking you to the honey badger radio archive. More than double, actually, because as I pointed out in discussion, there were other women who called into the show to talk about that issue.

It may be the case the women tear each other down. That gives you a reason to form your hypothesis that women are to blame for the fake geek girl thing. That needs to be tested.

Actually, no, you need to provide evidence that would justify assuming that out of all of the great variety of topics girls and women use in their aggressive tear-down efforts, girls in the geek community are expressly and consistently excluded from that phenomenon. Then, there would need to be investigation into what it is about the label "geek" that makes girls assuming that label so different from all other girls that they are immune to relational aggression. Otherwise, you have no basis for assuming that the phenomenon happens less to girls in that group than to any other girls in any other group.

And I haven't looked at the links from when you were talking to the other guy, so you may have provided it, but from the context, I think you were just showing that women argue a certain way. Again, that's a reason to form your hypothesis, but not proof of it.

"I haven't looked, but I'm already figuring out an excuse to dismiss your evidence..."
Brilliant. >_<

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moonchopper 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Bodertz -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

At what point in my above comment do I mention the fake geek girl thing?

Forgotten already, have we?

And not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are girls who do that - step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism, computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. Then they start using damseling to gain attention for themselves and control others within that population for their own purposes, doing damage to the entire group.

Okay.

Calling girls out for that behavior isn't oppressive.

What about calling girls out for that behaviour when they aren't partaking in said behaviour?

Girls who exhibit that behavior are oppressive to those of us who were part of that population without being "girl" geeks.

Again, I think you have a misconception about this. As you can see from the previously linked image, the "geek girl" is wearing "unaccentuating" clothes, as it were. She isn't exagerating her "girlishness". The issue is the geeks that are girls being called fake geek girls because they are girls.

Regardless, my comment above is about the fact that it is women who are sniping at women over these things, not a denial of their existence

And my comment meant that there were also men who made that accusation. I haven't seen a woman say that (barring you, but you weren't talking about anyone in particular), although I have seen men say that (Felicia Day, for instance, is accused of this. Do you think she is a fake geek girl? If so, what makes you think that?).

the fact this behavior isn't an indication of oppression of women by men

I agree. But I don't think the conflict is exclusively caused by women.

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Forgotten already, have we?

Again, you're attempting a strawman; the above comment isn't a denial of the phenomenon, simply a statement that attributing it to men is incorrect, and claiming it or anything else in this comic as evidence that men oppress women is dishonest.

Okay.

Stellar argument.

What about calling girls out for that behaviour when they aren't partaking in said behavior?

That's still not evidence that men oppress women, since it's a behavior you see from other women. Women cutting each other down is not attributable to men.

Again, I think you have a misconception about this. As you can see from the previously linked image, the "geek girl" is wearing "unaccentuating" clothes, as it were. She isn't exagerating her "girlishness". The issue is the geeks that are girls being called fake geek girls because they are girls.

Clothing isn't what makes a "geek girl" a "geek girl" instead of just a geek, but for the record, there are girls who use fake glasses as accentuating clothing. Adopting the look doesn't make you part of the community. That's not a misconception on my part - it's years of experience with other girls, being the one at whom terms like nerd and geek were thrown when they were derogatory, and dealing with shit like I described above as girls who wouldn't have previously given the guys I hung out with the time of day suddenly found reason to call themselves "gamer girls" and "geek girls" and "nerds."

The reality is that most citation of the "fake geek girl thing" is wrong. There are a lot of girls who blame getting called out as fakes on their sex, when in reality they're fake as a 3 dollar bill. And those who aren't don't get mad at being questioned, because they don't give a rat's ass what you think of them. They just want to do their thing and for you to do yours, and stay out of their business.

And my comment meant that there were also men who made that accusation. I haven't seen a woman say that (barring you, but you weren't talking about anyone in particular), although I have seen men say that (Felicia Day, for instance, is accused of this. Do you think she is a fake geek girl? If so, what makes you think that?).

Whether or not I think Felicia Day is a fake geek girl is irrelevant to the original point - that the shaming behavior is largely female oriented, not male oriented. However, I can see where Perez was coming from - Day's career is based on combining her looks and femininity with the popularity of geek culture. And questioning her cred was career suicide for him, because he's a man. As a man, he's not allowed to question the legitimacy of anything she does, and because he did, she was on the receiving end of all kinds of support. If that's your example of fake geek shaming by a guy, it's not worth much.

Regardless, it still doesn't justify ignoring the predominance of female undercutting to blame men as feminists do, and it also doesn't exempt girls who exploit whatever culture happens to be the thing at the moment for attention and status from being called out on their behavior. Wanting women to be exempt from criticism is as sexist as attempting to impose stereotypes on us.

[–]Bodertz -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Again, you're attempting a strawman; the above comment isn't a denial of the phenomenon, simply a statement that attributing it to men is incorrect, and claiming it or anything else in this comic as evidence that men oppress women is dishonest.

Jesus, do I really have to explain this?

Okay then:

Image in which fake geek girls are mentioned

CORRECT TITLE: Men are not solely to blame

In reference to the above pic, no - in this case, men aren't to blame. It's true that the shaming depicted in this is something that women direct at each other. Women and girls tear each other down like that to establish social superiority, or at least to feel like they did.

That doesn't preclude the existence of male assholes

There are assholes of both genders and all ethnicities and sexualities. The difference is that men are accused of systematically oppressing women by exhibiting the behavior depicted in the cartoon. The fact that it's a mostly female behavior contradicts that accusation, regardless of whether or not the asshole population includes men.

You've never heard of the fake geek girl thing?

At what point in my above comment do I mention the fake geek girl thing?

Forgotten already, have we?

That picture was only in response to you saying that you weren't talking about fake geek girls. It was quite obvious, I assure you. I have never said that you were denying the phenomenon (and you accuse me of strawmanning), so stop acting like I did.

Stellar argument.

I have to ask: What was going through your head that made you think that "okay" would ever be meant as a rebuttal? I am honestly and truly baffled.

That's still not evidence that men oppress women, since it's a behavior you see from other women. Women cutting each other down is not attributable to men.

I agree (and that wasn't a rebuttal, in case you thought it was).

Clothing isn't what makes a "geek girl" a "geek girl" instead of just a geek, but for the record, there are girls who use fake glasses as accentuating clothing. Adopting the look doesn't make you part of the community. That's not a misconception on my part - it's years of experience with other girls, being the one at whom terms like nerd and geek were thrown when they were derogatory, and dealing with shit like I described above as girls who wouldn't have previously given the guys I hung out with the time of day suddenly found reason to call themselves "gamer girls" and "geek girls" and "nerds."

The reality is that most citation of the "fake geek girl thing" is wrong. There are a lot of girls who blame getting called out as fakes on their sex, when in reality they're fake as a 3 dollar bill.

Okay.

And those who aren't don't get mad at being questioned, because they don't give a rat's ass what you think of them. They just want to do their thing and for you to do yours, and stay out of their business.

I dunno about that. People like to be part of a group. Or is it impossible to be a geek who likes to talk with others about their interests? I mean, Comic-Con is a real thing, and I doubt the predominately male audience are all fake geeks. Or are they? Fair enough (once again, not a rebuttal).

Whether or not I think Felicia Day is a fake geek girl is irrelevant to the original point - that the shaming behavior is largely female oriented, not male oriented

Fair enough. Just wanted your opinion. I'll bring up Wil Wheaton now: Do you think he is a fake geek?

And I don't think I agree that it is mostly women accusing other women of being fake geek girls.

However, I can see where Perez was coming from - Day's career is based on combining her looks and femininity with the popularity of geek culture. And questioning her cred was career suicide for him, because he's a man. As a man, he's not allowed to question the legitimacy of anything she does, and because he did, she was on the receiving end of all kinds of support. If that's your example of fake geek shaming by a guy, it's not worth much.

My actual examples were worth much less 'cause I was talking about people online. But is there an example of a woman accusing Felicia Day of being a fake geek (I'm sure there is. I just couldn't find it with Google for the brief minute I looked)?

Regardless, it still doesn't justify ignoring the predominance of female undercutting to blame men as feminists do, and it also doesn't exempt girls who exploit whatever culture happens to be the thing at the moment for attention and status from being called out on their behavior. Wanting women to be exempt from criticism is as sexist as attempting to impose stereotypes on us.

I agree, but you are saying men are blameless. I don't think they are.

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That picture was only in response to you saying that you weren't talking about fake geek girls. It was quite obvious, I assure you. I have never said that you were denying the phenomenon (and you accuse me of strawmanning), so stop acting like I did.

Strawmanning me in a comment in which you claim not to be strawmanning me is like inceptupidity. I can understand you getting confused once, but this is ridiculous.

I have to ask: What was going through your head that made you think that "okay" would ever be meant as a rebuttal? I am honestly and truly baffled.

I should ask you the same thing - you're the one who quite openly attempted to use it as such. Trying to weasel out of admitting that attempt failed doesn't look any better.

I agree (and that wasn't a rebuttal, in case you thought it was).

You haven't earned an entitlement to affect an attitude of superiority here - attempting one only looks petty.

Okay.

There you go again - and again, it's a statement with no value.

I dunno about that. People like to be part of a group. Or is it impossible to be a geek who likes to talk with others about their interests? I mean, Comic-Con is a real thing, and I doubt the predominately male audience are all fake geeks. Or are they? Fair enough (once again, not a rebuttal).

Generally speaking, when you see a girl getting called out as the fake that she is, it's not because she's standing around in a costume. It's because she has actively done something to disrupt others' peaceful involvement in the area of interest with which she is faking association, like making herself their personal thought police and claiming that women can't be involved in said area because of men.

Anita Sarkeesian, for instance, has been called out for her fakery and her disruption. Adria Richards - same thing.

And I don't think I agree that it is mostly women accusing other women of being fake geek girls.

Again, your opinion isn't evidence. The style of bullying exhibited by women and girls is evidence.

My actual examples were worth much less 'cause I was talking about people online. But is there an example of a woman accusing Felicia Day of being a fake geek (I'm sure there is. I just couldn't find it with Google for the brief minute I looked)?

Perhaps the reason you can't find that is that only one person in the whole world even questioned her status, and he was shot down by the entire community... which says something about the commonness of the behavior. After all, if poser-shaming was the problem you make it out to be, you'd find tons of examples. Instead, all you can do is talk about actors. Are you going to ask me next if Lauren Bacall was a fake bombshell?

I agree, but you are saying men are blameless. I don't think they are.

Men are not the cause of the female method of establishing a pecking order, which involves deciding who belongs, and in what order of how much. Women don't tear down other women because men make them do it, and men actually can't get away with doing it the way women can (as your example shows.)

[–]Bodertz-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Strawmanning me in a comment in which you claim not to be strawmanning me is like inceptupidity. I can understand you getting confused once, but this is ridiculous.

What is the position I am ascribing to you that you do not hold?

I should ask you the same thing - you're the one who quite openly attempted to use it as such. Trying to weasel out of admitting that attempt failed doesn't look any better.

...no, seriously, why would you interpret it that way instead of as agreement? I never said the opposite of that, so why am I weasling?

You haven't earned an entitlement to affect an attitude of superiority here - attempting one only looks petty.

Have I earned an entitlement to make fun of your continued expectation that I disagree with everything you say?

There you go again - and again, it's a statement with no value.

That's because I am not disagreeing with it. If you prefer, I'll leave those bits out.

Generally speaking, when you see a girl getting called out as the fake that she is, it's not because she's standing around in a costume. It's because she has actively done something to disrupt others' peaceful involvement in the area of interest with which she is faking association, like making herself their personal thought police and claiming that women can't be involved in said area because of men.

Does it ever happen that girls are accused of being fake geeks when they are not fake geeks?

Anita Sarkeesian, for instance, has been called out for her fakery and her disruption. Adria Richards - same thing.

...so, in the future, I should ignore this bit?

Again, your opinion isn't evidence. The style of bullying exhibited by women and girls is evidence.

No, it's a style. Neither of us has really offered any evidence.

Perhaps the reason you can't find that is that only one person in the whole world even questioned her status, and he was shot down by the entire community... which says something about the commonness of the behavior.

Okay, so women haven't accused her of being a fake geek girl?

After all, if poser-shaming was the problem you make it out to be, you'd find tons of examples.

How much of a problem am I making it out to be?

Instead, all you can do is talk about actors.

Wil Wheaton is barely an actor. Buy why is it a problem to bring up actors?

Are you going to ask me next if Lauren Bacall was a fake bombshell?

Are you going to accuse me of always bringing up mammals?

Men are not the cause of the female method of establishing a pecking order, which involves deciding who belongs, and in what order of how much.

And? Does this mean men don't partake in it?

Women don't tear down other women because men make them do it, and men actually can't get away with doing it the way women can (as your example shows.)

Well, no, that was technically your example, and what it showed was that one journalist who thought it a good idea to write about it got fired, but we don't even have an example of a woman doing this to compare to yet. That doesn't mean that women get away with it, and it doesn't mean that no women do it. It's meaningless right now, because it doesn't exist.

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What is the position I am ascribing to you that you do not hold?

You're ascribing to me a position in this comment which is not contained in it. You've attempted to make that position the meaning of that comment by attempting connect it to the OP instead of the comment to which it was made in reply, thereby trying to change what it refers to in order to support your focus on fake geek girls.

...no, seriously, why would you interpret it that way instead of as agreement? I never said the opposite of that, so why am I weasling?

If it was agreement, the word okay isn't what is commonly used. In that context, okay, like whatever and sure are all methods of dismissal of a point as too wrong to be worth addressing - and considering the rest of your argument, there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that your use of it is any different that what is common.

Have I earned an entitlement to make fun of your continued expectation that I disagree with everything you say?

You also haven't earned an entitlement to assume I'm going to buy your excuses. If you are going to admit the existence of and damage caused by posers, you have no business complaining about the phenomenon of treating girls within the culture as schrodinger's posers.

Does it ever happen that girls are accused of being fake geeks when they are not fake geeks?

This is a counter to the validity of calling out posers. In fact, it supports it, because posers are the reason girls aren't taken seriously as part of the culture surrounding various areas of interest that get one labeled a "geek." It's specifically the impression created by girls who fake connection to such an area of interest and then disrupt the peaceful involvement of others associated with that area of interest. What's really sick is that feminists have used the conditions created by "geek girls" - which have impacted on geeks and nerds who happen to be girls and women - as yet another excuse for their damseling. They're damseling over damage that they, themselves did to the community, and the fact that said damage has made it harder for them to get away with damseling within the community. Those of us who have been involved in activities and interests that got us ridiculed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s suffer backlash from the awareness that there are now girls adopting geeky aspects of pop culture and then attempting to manipulate the culture of the areas of interest from which those aspects stem. That does not in the 21st century exempt those who are exploiting the popularity of those aspects from being called what they are. In fact, you can't eliminate the backlash from the exploiters of "geek culture's" popularity without calling them out on that exploitation, particularly when, like Anita Sarkeesian and Adria Richards, they're disrupting others' involvement in the area of interest with which they fake association.

No, it's a style. Neither of us has really offered any evidence.

Not a style. The style that is under discussion here - which is why those links are evidence.

How much of a problem am I making it out to be?

Since discussion of it is based on the OP, unless you want to clarify, you've been discussing it as a social phenomenon. Since the claim you're supporting is that it's not a predominantly female behavior, you should be able to demonstrate more than just that you can find one guy on the internet questioning one gal's "geek cred," especially since he was socially pummeled for doing so.

Wil Wheaton is barely an actor. Buy why is it a problem to bring up actors?

You appear to be attempting to manipulate the discussion with those questions. You could try being straightforward and asking for the definition or claim you want to get me to establish, instead. However, I will point out before you ask, whether there is or is not a definitive, standard, immutable, non-circumstantial line to draw between being a 100% certifiable geek, and being not at all a geek, as if such a find would have no relevance to the discussion. It would not validate falsely representing one's associations with an area of interest which earns an individual the label "geek" and then trying to impose one's social preferences upon those genuinely involved with it, nor would it invalidate the choice to call women out who do this. It also wouldn't change the differences in bullying tactics exhibited by female humans as opposed to male humans. So you can continue on your line of questioning if you choose, but if you do make that choice, do it with full knowledge that I'm never going to give you what you're trying to get with it.

Are you going to accuse me of always bringing up mammals?

Keep trying - it doesn't make the discussion better, but it shows your limits.

And? Does this mean men don't partake in it?

It means that blaming the female method of establishing a pecking order on men is dishonest, much like blaming a 27 car pile-up in highway traffic on the last impacting cars would be dishonest. It would also be dishonest to blame it on the first car to hit another vehicle if the vehicle that actually caused the driver responses that led to the accident wasn't actually involved in it... much like how the behavior of a particular poser isn't necessarily directly involved in another girl's experience of being accused, but a wary geek's response to the behavior of malicious or exploitative posers can have the impact of causing him to doubt every girl who calls herself a geek. So can witnessing other girls' responses to one they think is fake, which communicates to the guys in a social group "this is the position you have to take in order to continue belonging."

Your need to couch your arguments in absolute terms ('is not always' becoming 'is never' and so on) is not helping your position.

Well, no, that was technically your example

No, you're the one who brought up the criticism of Felicia Day - which makes it your example. And what it shows is that men can't commonly question a woman's connection to the social group with which she identifies herself, because if they do, they face significant social censure. We have, on the other hand, the links I provided which do show that females regularly engage in bullying that involves tearing each other down.

[–]Bodertz-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're ascribing to me a position in this comment which is not contained in it. You've attempted to make that position the meaning of that comment by attempting connect it to the OP instead of the comment to which it was made in reply, thereby trying to change what it refers to in order to support your focus on fake geek girls.

Yes, that's what a strawman is. I'm still not clear on what position I ascribed to you that you do not hold, however.

You said:

In reference to the above pic, no - in this case, men aren't to blame. It's true that the shaming depicted in this is something that women direct at each other. Women and girls tear each other down like that to establish social superiority, or at least to feel like they did.

What "pic" were you talking about? And again, can you define "blame"?

If it was agreement, the word okay isn't what is commonly used. In that context, okay, like whatever and sure are all methods of dismissal of a point as too wrong to be worth addressing - and considering the rest of your argument, there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that your use of it is any different that what is common.

Give people the benefit of the doubt, yeah?

In fact, it supports it, because posers are the reason girls aren't taken seriously as part of the culture surrounding various areas of interest that get one labeled a "geek."

Okay, girls "aren't taken seriously" because of the real fake geek girls.

You think the reason for this is that women put down other women. Now, you've said that this isn't a really big problem, but I'm sure that there are some examples of women calling other women fake geek girls when they aren't fake geek girls. You have already provided one example of a man doing this.

You also haven't earned an entitlement to assume I'm going to buy your excuses. If you are going to admit the existence of and damage caused by posers, you have no business complaining about the phenomenon of treating girls within the culture as schrodinger's posers.

Really? Now, when we are dealing with the more rapey German scientists, a common refrain is to change it to black men: They are Schroedinger's thieves. Now, I am assuming that that was bait due to how obvious it was, but I am interested nonetheless the see your trap.

Not a style. The style that is under discussion here - which is why those links are evidence.

I hadn't seen the links when I posted that. I'll look at them tomorrow, maybe.

Since discussion of it is based on the OP, unless you want to clarify, you've been discussing it as a social phenomenon.

I don't really know what a social phenomenon is. It's a thing that happens, if that's what you mean.

Since the claim you're supporting is that it's not a predominantly female behavior, you should be able to demonstrate more than just that you can find one guy on the internet questioning one gal's "geek cred," especially since he was socially pummeled for doing so.

Right, and you can do the reverse because you believe that women are to blame for this "phenomenon".

You appear to be attempting to manipulate the discussion with those questions. You could try being straightforward and asking for the definition or claim you want to get me to establish, instead.

Okay.
^^^^<sup>Sorry.</sup>

However, I will point out before you ask, whether there is or is not a definitive, standard, immutable, non-circumstantial line to draw between being a 100% certifiable geek, and being not at all a geek, as if such a find would have no relevance to the discussion.

I don't think that sentence means anything. But I assume you mean that it doesn't matter. I disagree.

It would not validate falsely representing one's associations with an area of interest which earns an individual the label "geek" and then trying to impose one's social preferences upon those genuinely involved with it, nor would it invalidate the choice to call women out who do this.

Double standards are the issue, though.

It also wouldn't change the differences in bullying tactics exhibited by female humans as opposed to male humans.

Do you think that the geeks who are part of a culture are bullying when they think of girls as Schroedinger's Faker?

So you can continue on your line of questioning if you choose, but if you do make that choice, do it with full knowledge that I'm never going to give you what you're trying to get with it.

Well, obviously not if you only answer every second question :P They build on each other, man!

Keep trying - it doesn't make the discussion better, but it shows your limits.

Really, though, what do you have against bringing up actors?

It means that blaming the female method of establishing a pecking order on men is dishonest, much like blaming a 27 car pile-up in highway traffic on the last impacting cars would be dishonest.

Again, different definitions of "blame". And I think it is dishonest to use a pileup as an analogy; each person can choose whether or not to partake in the behaviour, but cars don't choose to crash into each other. Basically, don't remove a person's agency.

but a wary geek's response to the behavior of malicious or exploitative posers can have the impact of causing him to doubt every girl who calls herself a geek.

And every man is a potential rapist. I'm thinking now that you agree with that. Is this the case?

So can witnessing other girls' responses to one they think is fake, which communicates to the guys in a social group "this is the position you have to take in order to continue belonging."

Are you saying that men act more like geeks because they see women shaming other women for not being real geeks?

Your need to couch your arguments in absolute terms ('is not always' becoming 'is never' and so on) is not helping your position.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

No, you're the one who brought up the criticism of Felicia Day - which makes it your example

You brought up the example of the specific man, so it is your example. But no matter.

And what it shows is that men can't commonly question a woman's connection to the social group with which she identifies herself, because if they do, they face significant social censure.

Again, Journalist-->Celebrity. Different dynamics that Male Geek-->Female Geek.

We have, on the other hand, the links I provided which do show that females regularly engage in bullying that involves tearing each other down.

I don't think you provided them to me. I'll look at them later, but keep in mind that I'm not saying that women don't bully each other. I am talking specifically about fake geek girls.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For the record, you're not Columbo. You can keep trying to use the style, but when you try it by being dishonest about what you've said in the past, it doesn't work.

You have ascribed to me the position that the entire discussion is a denial of what you labeled "the fake geek girl thing."

There are assholes of both genders and all ethnicities and sexualities. The difference is that men are accused of systematically oppressing women by exhibiting the behavior depicted in the cartoon. The fact that it's a mostly female behavior contradicts that accusation, regardless of whether or not the asshole population includes men.

You've never heard of the fake geek girl thing?

"You've never heard of the fake geek girl thing" was stated in reply to the "there are assholes of both genders" comment. That is it - it does not reference anything but that comment, because that is where you put it, and that comment is in reply to the comment above it, not specifically one panel of the cartoon as you portray it. Not only is it dishonest of you to do that, it's such a stretch that it looks outright stupid. It's a lot like being confronted with "so I'm an unattractive person??" stated by the person next to you after commenting that a person across the room has a nice face. The only difference between that and outright lying about what was just said is that you choose to take as implied something that in honest conversation is not implied.

This is typical of the people who visit this sub after a link has been posted in /r/againstmensrights; we get trolls like you who make badly failed attempts to emulate Columbo's questioning style with the apparent goal of using it to promote an opinion you can't otherwise back up. You don't quite have the feigned innocent confusion down.

This:

What "pic" were you talking about? And again, can you define "blame"?

is a good example of that. In denying the connection between the statement itself and the existing discussion from which it came, you pretend you have no way of knowing what is being discussed; that being who is to blame for the phenomenon depicted in the OP. It is not that my statement is confusing, or that you don't understand the original comments to which you responded, but that you're opposed to admitting that men are not the cause of that phenomenon.

Give people the benefit of the doubt, yeah?

Redditors who only seem to visit this sub for discussion after a post here has been linked to a feminist sub do not get the benefit of the doubt, especially given circumstances described in the paragraph to which that statement answers. If you want the benefit of the doubt, don't keep demonstrating that you do not deserve it.

Okay, girls "aren't taken seriously" because of the real fake geek girls.
Prior to the influx of posers into the areas of "geek culture" I inhabit, being a girl didn't commonly interfere with being involved in the area of interest and the social group associated with it. Of course, that was also when the labels "geek" and "nerd" were slurs, and faking interest in an area that made one a target for those slurs would not have made sense. Therefore, there really was no reason to doubt the sincerity of an individual's interest in a social group that formed around a common interest in such an activity. So yes, doubt of a girl's genuine involvement in an area of interest that gets categorized as a "geek" interest and the social group associated with that interest is a result of the influence of posers on the community.

You think the reason for this is that women put down other women.

No, I've said that the overall style of bullying (tearing each other down) is something women do to other women, but go on.

Now, you've said that this isn't a really big problem, but I'm sure that there are some examples of women calling other women fake geek girls when they aren't fake geek girls.

Again, this isn't relevant to whether it's acceptable to call out fake geek girls. There are plenty of women tearing each other down without legitimate reasons. It happens in nearly every social circle. It does not exempt women who use false association with an area of interest to manipulate and control the social group associated with it.

You have already provided one example of a man doing this.

Again, this was your example - and again, you're not Columbo. You brought up the story. You had zero reason to specifically mention Felicia Day except to reference that incident. That I knew about the incident does not make your example my example - it simply means I'm aware of the incident. The fact that the incident doesn't demonstrate what you wanted to demonstrate with it doesn't change the fact that you brought it up. It just means you brought up an example that doesn't support your contention with my original statement.

Really? Now, when we are dealing with the more rapey German scientists, a common refrain is to change it to black men: They are Schroedinger's thieves. Now, I am assuming that that was bait due to how obvious it was, but I am interested nonetheless the see your trap.

Come on, Columbo - you can do better than that. You contradicted yourself; it's your responsibility to handle that contradiction, not mine.

I hadn't seen the links when I posted that. I'll look at them tomorrow, maybe.

Fair enough - since you're arguing with me in two threads, it can be assumed that you failed to read the links in the other thread and apply the information contained in them to this one. It's rather odd to segregate information that way, but considering the way you compartmentalized the Felicia Day thing, that's at least consistent.

I don't really know what a social phenomenon is. It's a thing that happens, if that's what you mean.

I'll take the liberty of calling bullshit on this, as well.

Since the claim you're supporting is that it's not a predominantly female behavior, you should be able to demonstrate more than just that you can find one guy on the internet questioning one gal's "geek cred," especially since he was socially pummeled for doing so. Right, and you can do the reverse because you believe that women are to blame for this "phenomenon".

This goes back to those links that you ignored in this thread because I posted them in another thread of discussion with you on this topic.

Women and girls use relational aggression as a method of bullying to establish a social "pecking" order. This applies to every panel, not just the geek/beauty panel. It's largely been ignored up to this point in part because behaviors which are considered aggressive when men do them are very often not treated as such when women do them - a good example of this is the social response to an offended slap. If a man offended by a woman's rude statement slaps her for what she said, overall social treatment (and legal treatment, if legal response is pushed) of that action is to view it as an act of aggression. If a woman offended by a man's rude statement slaps him for what he said, instead of treating the slap as an act of aggression, the man's speech is treated as an act of aggression. This stems from the view of women as being acted upon by others, but men as acting upon others.

Female posers in a social group associated with a particular area of interest, when their disruptive, abusive behavior interrupts the ability of those whose social connection stems from that area as a common interest to peacefully involve themselves with each other and the interest, instill doubt among them as to the involvement of females in the group. The Anita Sarkeesian and Adria Richards stories are examples of this; their behaviors have altered the way individuals in the areas of interest to which they attached themselves can interact when women are present or involved, and they raise doubt as to whether those women are there to be involved in the activity, or to dictate how involvement in that activity can or cannot occur (right down to the language used.)

I mentioned earlier that it's particularly sick that feminist are using the phenomenon of aggressive posers sowing discord in an existing social group as an excuse for damseling. Another sick aspect of treating it as bullying when an existing member of that group calls out a disruptive poser for her behavior is that many of those who adopt the appearance of "geek culture" but not the areas of interest they're mimicking are the same girls who would mock people with that interest in common if the interest were not suddenly "cool." So in addition to demanding that nerds and geeks change to accommodate individuals not interested in them or their area of interest, the idea that posers should never be called out on their behavior simply to spare the feelings of people who might be falsely called out amounts to demanding that nerds and geeks accept and tolerate the latest way the social group which has always bullied us (the groups associated with interest in and adoption of pop culture) has come up with to exercise force. Instead of wedgies and rumors, we now have attacks on our social environment.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think that sentence means anything. But I assume you mean that it doesn't matter. I disagree.

If you don't think the sentence means anything, then you didn't read it carefully. However, I assume you're being factious in saying that, since in disagreeing with it, you've ascribed meaning. Regardless, no, it doesn't matter. It does not change the validity of the complaint regarding aggressively manipulative posers, nor does it change whether relational aggression is an abuse for which females are responsible. Also, separating that sentence from the context in which it is placed - with the supporting argument after it - does not change its legitimacy. It shows you can't debate the whole statement.

Double standards are the issue, though.

Moving the goalposts.

Do you think that the geeks who are part of a culture are bullying when they think of girls as Schroedinger's Faker?

Not the way it's generally addressed within the culture - which is not the way it's portrayed in the OP comic, but generally occurs as it did with Anita Sarkeesian, whose posing was only called out after she leveled false and malicious attacks on the culture itself. Now, if nerds and geeks did to women overall what feminists do with their rape culture theory and the Shrodinger's Rapist claim, where every woman everywhere who is in any way involved in any nerdy, geeky area of interest must be presumed a poser until (and even sometimes after) proven otherwise, but men never, ever faced the same scrutiny (as when people in the community point out that Mythbusters isn't really a science show) then yeah, that would be a culture of bullying.

People have the right to be prepared to deal with others' aggression, whether it's a wedgie, or "you have to change the social standard to suit me because I'm a girl." And when someone hits us with the latter, we do have the right to tell them to fuck right the hell off, and go on making dongle jokes, and choosing games with damsel in distress tropes if we like them. We have the right to look scruffy when working in the field where it's cold, wet, and dirty - as with shooting a high school football game on a rainy October night. We have the right to decide and state, when entering the tavern, that if there's any girls there, we wanna do them, without having someone shout "objectification, you asshole!" We have the right to excel through diligence and personal application without being told to slow down to accommodate those who "cannot" keep up because they're not willing to apply themselves equally, but want equal consideration for promotion... a problem feminism has brought from other work environments into STEM professions. And we have the right to not have people who wouldn't personally give us the time of day as individuals project to overall society that they somehow represent who and what we are, as many posers do.

Well, obviously not if you only answer every second question :P They build on each other, man!

Here is where I must point out that I established that in my description of your adoption of the Columbo style.

Really, though, what do you have against bringing up actors?

What do you have against broadening your spectrum of who you consider representatives of wrongfully doubted geeks to include people whose profession isn't about portraying things they are not? Do you assume that Jim Cooper really is a Theoretical Physicist, or might you doubt that the portrayal reflects his real life?

This isn't a chess match. Demonstrating that people may doubt that an actor's role is his or her personality put on display doesn't actually make a point.

Again, different definitions of "blame".

No, blame has a definition; you have blamed a factor if you attribute that factor as a cause. If you are not using the definition of blame when discussing blame, that is your problem, not mine.

And I think it is dishonest to use a pileup as an analogy; each person can choose whether or not to partake in the behaviour, but cars don't choose to crash into each other.

This is not an accurate approach to the analogy. Cars don't drive independently of their operators. People drive, and people can notice their environment and attempt to avoid the accident, the same as people can notice the dynamics of a social situation, and avoid being manipulated into contributing to a group's existing dysfunctional behavior. However, most of the time, in a high-speed or stressful setting, people miss on both accounts, and get sucked into either the accident, or the relational aggression as I've described in previous comments. So again, unless you have a reason why you can claim a the later behavior of a participant after the triggering incident can be attributed as cause for the entire phenomenon (the last individual to agree with the original bully's verbal attack, for instance) you still have to demonstrate that the behavior originates with or is willfully controlled by men in order to blame men as a group for its occurrence.

And every man is a potential rapist. I'm thinking now that you agree with that. Is this the case?

I addressed that above.

Are you saying that men act more like geeks because they see women shaming other women for not being real geeks?

No. Try again, Colombo.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Not a rational argument.

Addressed above.

Again, Journalist-->Celebrity. Different dynamics that Male Geek-->Female Geek.

You have not offered evidence to demonstrate that the two sets of dynamics are mutually exclusive.

I don't think you provided them to me. I'll look at them later, but keep in mind that I'm not saying that women don't bully each other. I am talking specifically about fake geek girls.

Addressed above; regardless, making the discussion about only fake geek girls is another act of moving the goalposts, as you're taking that from an overall topic in which they're simply one aspect of a greater pattern of female relational aggression.

[–]MRmod31 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, he's not. He's saying that Men are not responsible as a group. He is not saying that no individual men ever do this. He is saying that men as a whole do not.

She, by the way.

Yeah, there was some confusion regarding the use of the term "blame".

Is your confusion on this point willful? I just don't get how someone else can make an error like the one you are so obviously making.

Because she literally said that "men aren't to blame" in reply to a comment saying that both men and women are at fault in this.

I wasn't thinking in groups as she was.

However, examples were brought up of men who do this (single example), and as of yet no examples of women doing this. That doesn't mean anything, as she says it does, but if it as seriously onesided as she says it is, it should be easy to find examples (see what I did there?).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyberToyger 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've seen guys complain about fake geek girls on sites like Kotaku and Reddit but I've never seen them shame said girls to their face

Have you seen women shame said girls to their face?

Guys complain in order to vent

As do most :P

they don't really have anything to gain by directly confronting fake geek girls.

Okay, but I don't think the confrontation part is actually necessary. Your biases fuel your interactions. If you think all men are potential rapists, you don't have to say that to someone's face in order for men to be excluded from whatever events you hold.

One specific group of males (and females) that I can think of would be just Trolls, who would invade 'GamerGurl Streams' and leave nasty comments.

Yeah, trolls likely make up a large part of it. But they didn't come up with the idea. They saw it pissed people off, so they thought to try it themselves.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tsingi 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Moonchopper -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-long-reach-childhood/201109/bullying-in-the-female-world

http://www.forbes.com/sites/worldviews/2012/04/30/why-women-are-the-worst-kind-of-bullies/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/having-sex-wanting-intimacy/201311/socially-adept-female-bullies

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/female-bullying.html

http://www.levo.com/articles/career-advice/mean-girls-at-work

Male bullies are more often directly confrontational. Female bullies are not; they're very often sneaky shits who use indirect social attacks instead of direct intimidation.

When being a nerd was not so popular, I was subjected to that behavior regularly, and I saw my friends go through it as well. Try using denial with someone who hasn't been through it. They might believe you. I won't.

[+]Moonchopper -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In the context of social media and the internet, I believe the sexes are equal in the way they bully anyone. Specifically, I have seen many more instances of the geek girl panel (men saying this to women) than I have from women, as well as the 'rape' panel. Additionally, I've seen variations of the 'fake plastic bitch' panel mixed from both sexes.

Also, you state that 'Male bullies are more often directly confrontational.' The panels in this post are examples of direct confrontation. Do you see the connection?

And for what it's worth, yes, I have 'been through it.' (both bullying by guys and girls). But I don't pity myself for it and cry about how shitty I was treated growing up. Admittedly, maybe your personal experience was more severe, but I would argue that you are possibly having a hard time remaining objective due to your own personal experiences.

I would argue that both sexes engage in this type of shit talking. To state that one sex does it more over the other is awfully presumptuous, and I'm not certain how one could even accurately quantify that. Tangentially related, this link: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/female-bullying.html states the following:

'Indirect bullying accounts for about 18 percent of all cases of bullying.'

So that doesn't really fly with your argument.

[–]oneiorosgrip 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In the context of social media and the internet, I believe

"I believe" statements aren't evidence.

And for what it's worth, yes, I have 'been through it.' (both bullying by guys and girls). But I don't pity myself for it and cry about how shitty I was treated growing up.

Attempted marginalization by shaming is not a counter to "I've seen this happen - here's my experience."

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/female-bullying.html[1] states the following:

'Indirect bullying accounts for about 18 percent of all cases of bullying.'

So that doesn't really fly with your argument.

About female bullying in comparison to other female bullying, not female bullying in comparison to male bullying. It's not evidence that guys do it less - it's evidence that it's a common method of female bullying.

[–]Moonchopper -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

In reference to the above pic, no - in this case, men aren't to blame.

You are categorically stating that men do not engage in this kind of bullying. This is what started this whole line of debate. Men engage in this type of bullying - do you deny this? Because if you believe that yes, men DO engage in this type of bullying, just to a lesser extent than women, then your entire argument is bunk, because this would imply that men SHARE the blame with women - just as /u/npanetta stated.

If you believe that men do NOT engage in the type of bullying in this strip, then I will refer you to this very same post you made earlier: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vrfmd/men_are_not_to_blame_from_imgoingtohellforthis/cevagbk?context=3

That isn't to say that you have explicitly bullied someone, but that very same attitude is one that pervades gaming culture. If you deny it, then this is a hopeless debate and we're done here.

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moonchopper-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If men are proliferating this type of bullying, then they are to blame just as much as women are. THAT is the point that I am arguing. I am arguing against the statement that you made that 'men are not to blame' in the case of OPs strip.

If you believe I am arguing a point different from yours, then you should present your argument in a clearer manner.

As for how I believe 'posers' should be handled, I don't personally care if someone pretends to like something I like merely so they can seem 'cool' or 'hipsterish.' I will know if they're a poser, and so will everyone else. Call them out if you want, but I believe that predisposes you towards bullying someone who may genuinely be interested in the culture - and thus can be ostracizing.

I also find it kind of interesting that you are so concerned about 'popularity' and 'influence' within a given group. Can you provide me an example of how this fundamentally hurts yourself, the others in the group, or the 'geek' culture?

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with your argument is proportion; if a lot of girls bully other girls, and one or two guys here and there go along with it, guys in general are not as responsible for its existence as the girls who initiate, proliferate, and enforce it.

As for how I believe 'posers' should be handled, I don't personally care if someone pretends to like something I like merely so they can seem 'cool' or 'hipsterish.'

The problem isn't simply with posers. The problem is with posers who try to enforce change on a group so that the group suits them better - as with Anita Sarkeesian and gamers, or when they feel it is necessary to demand attention for being a female involved with the group (i.e. not just a gamer, but a gamer girl,) especially when in doing it, they make the group being coed an unnecessarily awkward thing.

Call them out if you want, but I believe that predisposes you towards bullying someone who may genuinely be interested in the culture - and thus can be ostracizing.

Entering an existing culture and demanding that it change to suit your special sensibilities (as posers who are girls seem to feel entitled to do to the guys in the group) is bullying. Calling them out on that is an act of holding them responsible for their effects on the group.

I also find it kind of interesting that you are so concerned about 'popularity' and 'influence'

Describing the use of one's seeking of popularity and influence is an observation, not concern over those topics.

Can you provide me an example of how this fundamentally hurts yourself, the others in the group, or the 'geek' culture?

It's actually not just geek culture; manipulative behavior by females hurts other females and others in the group in every area they touch. I've seen it in my own areas of interest, where females who have to first get attention for being female, and as a leftover, be part of the group, destroy the trust and camaraderie within the group. Once a girl has done this, imposed a bunch of external rules on a group, girls who were there before her and involved without conflict suddenly aren't trusted because we're girls, as well, and therefore might do the same thing she did. This is a common enough experience among females in areas of interests that garner labels like "nerd" or "geek" that when we did a show on the phenomenon of poser girls and their effects on these groups, a female game developer called in to complain about exactly that happening.

I saw the effect as a photojournalist, while covering high school athletic events for my local paper. As the field became more populated with females who weren't familiar with the territory, the etiquette, or sometimes even the use of their equipment, professional photojournalists started seeing changes in the way the press was treated by school officials and athletes. I saw changes in the way other photographers interacted with me, as well. It was years later before I connected those changes with one of the stupidest things ever said to me on a football field, where a woman warned me that some of my "scruffy looking" colleagues might not be respectable because they were "scruffy" men, and I shouldn't associate with them - people I'd been working with for multiple seasons. I am sure that attitude of hers came across loud and clear whenever she had to interact with the surfs in her proximity.

So yeah, they affect the work environment. They affect the play environment too, when the area of interest is games or other recreation. And while it's not limited to geek territory, it's in some ways new to geek territory because once upon a time, those guys were considered undesirables... and to an extent, to many "geek" girls, they still are.

Do you have the right to be a poser? Sure, as long as you don't demand that anyone take you seriously, demand that anyone change what they're doing because of you, demand that the group with whom you're posing change to suit your sensibilities, demand that you be recognized for your choice to pose, etc. Do you have the right to expect that nobody will notice? Nope. Do you have the right to expect that nobody will respond to your behavior if you pull any of that shit? Hell no. You don't get to descend upon an existing culture, bully the members of it, and then whine and call yourself a victim when you don't get the results you want. And you can bet that if you try to make something about yourself that is unrelated to the culture you're trying to manipulate a reason why your manipulative behavior should be excused, others who have that something in common with you, were already there, and didn't pull the shit you're pulling will call you out on it. When they do, that won't make you a victim of anything.

[–]Moonchopper1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with your argument is proportion; if a lot of girls bully other girls, and one or two guys here and there go along with it, guys in general are not as responsible for its existence as the girls who initiate, proliferate, and enforce it.

You present a compelling argument, and I think this is the meat of the issue, if not perhaps the issue. I haven't seen it to the scale that you have, but then again, I'm a man, so perhaps I simply don't notice it since I'm not a 'victim' of said bullying.

All in all, I think you've well countered each of my points with experiences of your own - so it appears that I am ill-equipped to hold a debate on the issue, as I appear to have very little 'real world' experience with it (although, I could argue that 'lack of seeing this' might be experience in and of itself? Perhaps we just have different circles of friends). My main concern is that it seems like this kind of issue can get overly-circle jerky and it begins creating de facto standards that predispose people to go on a premature witch-hunt after someone they think is trying/going to hurt the group. This then leads people to get up in arms over something trivial simply because someone on the internet said it happened to them once, when the person they're 'rallying' against may not deserve said witch-hunt.

I did want to point out one part that I thought was concerning:

Once a girl has done this, imposed a bunch of external rules on a group, girls who were there before her and involved without conflict suddenly aren't trusted because we're girls, as well, and therefore might do the same thing she did.

This sounds like a shitty thing for the men of the group to do. Drawing conclusions upon someone simply because of the action someone else of the same gender took upon the group is inappropriate. If a man came in and tried to make these kind of 'powerplays' within the group, would the same group of men be instantly suspicious of every man who joined the group? Merely speculation, but as someone who tends to be naturally inclusive and considerate of others, I do find this behavior disconcerting, borderline dickish.

In any case, thank you for taking the time to discuss this rationally. I won't say that you've changed my mind, because I believe there is more to it than what we've discussed here, but it's certainly provided me something to mull over.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You present a compelling argument, and I think this is the meat of the issue, if not perhaps the issue. I haven't seen it to the scale that you have, but then again, I'm a man, so perhaps I simply don't notice it since I'm not a 'victim' of said bullying.

I've been a target of it all of my life, for various reasons. That you're male doesn't exclude you from said bullying, but because it isn't a style of bullying men usually engage in on their own, it's not the first thing a guy would think of. Very often, female on female (and even female on male) relational aggression happens right under a guy's nose, and he never notices it.

All in all, I think you've well countered each of my points with experiences of your own

Not entirely - I also provided links to discussion on the topic of relational aggression, which backs my experiences. Stop dismissing those.

This sounds like a shitty thing for the men of the group to do.

No, it's a natural reaction to the environment faced by guys. When a girl comes in and does this, she isn't just being pushy; she's using society's support for women's issues to do it. Look at what happened in the instance of Adria Richards, whose completely illegitimate complaint resulted in the firing of one of the guys about whom she complained. A guy with a family to support lost his job. That's a reason to be cautious.

If a guy came into a female group and began making those kind of power plays, unless everything changes related to the greater social and legal environment, he would not be exercising the level of power in that group that an aggressive fake geek girl exercises in geek society. He also wouldn't be engaging in the same scenario, because what we're talking about here is a group that up until recently was a social group (groups whose social interaction revolved around nerdy/geeky interests) which was excluded. These were the social rejects. We still get talked about it that way, often by the same people who want to use the aspects of "geek culture" which have become part of pop culture as a way to boost their own image.

The difference may not seem much to someone who has not watched this evolve over time, but it's quite significant; it's the difference between genuine risk and perceived risk. Genuine risk justifies caution, and an adjustment in one's behavior. In the case of Adria Richards, that genuine risk resulted in a rule change for the entire convention.

Whether or not you change your mind, I hope that gives you something else to think about.

[–]M4Strings 205 points206 points207 points 12 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

[–]DukeMaximum 196 points197 points198 points 12 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi314 113 points114 points115 points 12 years ago* (51 children) | Copy Link

Rule #1: Men are always at fault.

location: female subreddit. i won't say which one.

situation: girl described situation where she shared her nude pics with a total stranger on the internet. pics went public (well, in the meaning they got uploaded somewhere for more people to see and more people came across them, including her).

tone of most replies: "don't blame yourself, it was totally his fault. that was dick move on his side".

i pointed out that the pictures were not stolen from her computer/phone/laptop - she consciously shared them with someone she did not know/trust and should take on some of the blame for the whole thing. or at least feel responsible for what happened - it was a risky move after all.

aftermath : after a lot of getting whipped i got downvoted to hell and banned. reason being - i was harassing the victim or something to this effect, while i was making a general statement. any reason is good enough, i guess.

my entire discussion on the topic was civil, i negotiated the ban with the mods. i did not offend anyone, call names or anything. i am still banned.

tl;dr - men are always to blame, and don't you dare argue with women about that. especially around other women.

[–]666999666999 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Just going to tell a little related story here.

My ex-girlfriend and I uploaded some pics to reddit (pretty saucy ones).

She did this with full knowledge and consent, etc. But they were uploaded on my account. (They're not there anymore, pervs).

So there's no problem with this, and several months pass. The pictures online for anyone to see.

She breaks up with me (or rather, skips off to her parents' place, and gets new boyfriend who is really an old flame she decided she fancied again, but I digress)

She texts me and tells me to remove the pictures.

I'm annoyed as shit so I'm a bit of a dick and tell her I'll do it maybe when I get a spare minute.

About half an hour later I get some text messages from a number I don't recognise. Threatening/harassing/blackmailing messages. Telling me to delete the pictures or 'they' will go to the police. Whoever it is thinks that trading standards will be interested to know about the pictures as well (I run a business) which is frankly hilarious, but an attempt at blackmail again nonetheless. But anyway...

So I still don't know who it is, but I suspect it's the new boyfriend. I go to the police station (it's just down the road from me) and report the harassment and blackmail. The police don't really take it seriously even though there was stuff about the guy coming to 'pay me a visit' and of course the blackmail etc. But I get the report done and head home.

When I get home I receive a phone call. From the police.

More specifically the police in my ex's local area. A female police officer tells me that they would like me to delete the pictures.

It's worth pointing out here that the pictures still being online is not a crime, and there's no reason for the police to tell me to delete them.

So I ask her if the is telling me to do it with a legal basis behind it, or if she's making a request as it would be a kind gesture.

She indicates the latter. But she goes on to say that if I don't delete the pictures they may need to investigate 'harassment' charges against me. I inform her that I will make a decision in my own time and end the conversation.

I call my ex. She tells me that she has started making a rape report with the police but didn't actually make the formal report. I should point out that I have never raped her, nor anyone else in my life. But what she obviously had done is use a false rape report to manipulate the police (who are already pretty sexist) to take their time to call me (because clearly I'm an abusive partner scumbag... /s) and try and intimidate me into solving my ex's petty little problem, and let her eschew responsibility for her own actions.

So in the end I deleted the pictures. But I had no legal responsibility to do so. I just couldn't afford a rape case or harrassment. The rape case has been entirely dropped since I deleted the pictures, surprise surprise. I can't make a complaint to the IPCC (police complaints commission) because it will likely bring the rape issue to the forefront again, but I really wish I could - the police handled this very badly.

So I feel trapped and like I can't trust my own country's police force. My legitimate complaint was not investigated but her illegitimate complaint was serious enough to warrant a phone call and possibility of further harrassment of myself if I refused to comply with an unlawful order.

Just wanted to get that off my chest. I was going to start a thread about it on it's own but I figured it wasn't really much of a talking point.

[throwaway]

[–]yoshi314 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

She tells me that she has started making a rape report with the police but didn't actually make the formal report. I should point out that I have never raped her, nor anyone else in my life. But what she obviously had done is use a false rape report to manipulate the police (who are already pretty sexist) to take their time to call me (because clearly I'm an abusive partner scumbag... /s) and try and intimidate me into solving my ex's petty little problem, and let her eschew responsibility for her own actions.

Nothing really angers me more than playing the rape card. When the rape didn't take place, of course.

So I feel trapped and like I can't trust my own country's police force. My legitimate complaint was not investigated but her illegitimate complaint was serious enough to warrant a phone call and possibility of further harrassment of myself if I refused to comply with an unlawful order.

Yeah, basically this. There is no way to defend yourself there, no wonder women pull this off so liberally. Even if you defend yourself in court, it's a lot of work you never come out clean.

It's like someone calling you a paedophile. Even if you are innocent, you're already tainted. And that opinion will stick to you and will follow you around for quite a while, causing you various kinds of problems.

[–]Bartab 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fia_bui 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DukeMaximum 45 points46 points47 points 12 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi314 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

other example :

i recently got almost banned for trying to defend the definition of friendzoning. because, according to women, this term does not reflect any real situation and is completely made up.

i actually started with claim that girls can also get friendzoned. nope, they get rejected for not being pretty enough, or the guy is rude for not considering them for a relationship.

in essence, it's solely the guys fault if he expects a deeper relationship from woman and she doesn't and she shows him his place.

i got to a compromise redefining friendzone as misunderstanding, due to poor communication on both sides in the relationship.

first replies were sarcastic - "hey, let's hang out. but my vagina is off limits", to which i said it was a good start, as voicing one's needs and expectations is important. i got a lot of disbelief there, and opinions on "man should do all the work about that in a relationship, so he doesn't get rejected ". well, i disagreed on that, and claimed it should be a joint effort to avoid that kind of situation.

i still got some girls disagreeing and trying to convince me that it's mostly men's fault as the men coined up the term as passive-aggressive apologetic strategy for their own stupid libido induced mistakes, and thinking with penis all the time.

it was hard to come to an agreement on this. and i didn't really think it came to one. as again discussion was polite, i was being downvoted to hell, my mailbox was overflowing and i could reply only once in 10 minutes (that is what happens if you have big negative karma on a subreddit).

tl;dr - don't want to be friendzoned? you should tell the girl what you expect out of the relationship when it begins. it is below her to do anything about that - you should just know what relationship you are in.

[+]Donutfreak 12 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Do you spend time arguing with anonymous feminists for FUN?

[–]yoshi314 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]callthebankshot 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nihilist_nancy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Viking83 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Key_Lime 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pretzelzetzel 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HAQ_be 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]EgoCognis 12 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Thats a Heinlein quote, im pretty sure. Though he said 'pigs'.

Yes, i am quite pedantic, why do you ask?

[–]DukeMaximum 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luminanc3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Phlexonance 12 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Don't you see, it "can't be her fault", because according to feminism, women don't have agency and therefore can't take on responsibility.

That's the inherent sexism in this social marxism that we call feminism.

[–]yoshi314 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Phlexonance 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Agency is the capacity to act.

[–]yoshi314 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or, to give slightly less vague ideas as examples, they'll proclaim something like "women are strong, capable, and independent too" (claiming agency) while pushing for automatic arrest of males in domestic violence incidents, advocating for convicting men of rape solely on the basis that she was drunk, and proposing quotas in desired positions. (Notice how all three not only assume women don't have the capacity to act but also legally enshrine this assumption while also removing a need for women to exercise agency.)

This, of course, starts to get to the core problem of feminism in general. Feminism assumes women are the more oppressed gender, thus women lacking agency is assumed to be because they're being oppressed. It never occurs to them to even question if the lack of agency could be coming from a position of superior privilege such that they do not need to exercise agency.

(If women do have more privilege and have less agency because of it then feminism is blatantly bad because it's giving women more privilege/power which is only going to reduce their agency even more while simultaneously putting more burden on those who are forced to exercise agency... essentially another form of "the rich become richer and the poor become poorer".)

[–]Snowley 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AUTOMATON_FUCKER 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moonchopper 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm feeling like maybe there was more context - i.e. she didn't go up to someone and ask them if they wanted her nudes. It was probably a situation where they started talking to someone, things got hot and heavy, and they ended up exchanging pictures (or maybe she was the only one to send some).

If this were the case, then I would agree wholeheartedly with them - she (naively) placed her trust in said stranger, and that stranger abused her trust by uploading the pictures online.

Hate to say it, but your example is flawed - this guy obviously WAS a dick, and while the 'victim' may have made a stupid move, that doesn't absolve the guy of responsibility/fault. Really, if anything, the victim is only guilty of trusting that someone wouldn't upload the nudes she sent - therefore, she's only guilty of being naive, which is unfortunate, but not something which needs to be pointed out - I imagine that perhaps she learned her lesson from said incident. But perhaps that's making too much of an assumption.

So, unfortunately, this example does nothing to 'combat' 'Rule #1' as you hoped it would, regardless of whether or not it is exactly as you portray.

[–]CommunistLibertarian 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moonchopper 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi314 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

his guy obviously WAS a dick, and while the 'victim' may have made a stupid move, that doesn't absolve the guy of responsibility/fault.

of course.

Really, if anything, the victim is only guilty of trusting that someone wouldn't upload the nudes she sent - therefore, she's only guilty of being naive, which is unfortunate, but not something which needs to be pointed out - I imagine that perhaps she learned her lesson from said incident. But perhaps that's making too much of an assumption.

of course.

i got the assumption that the entire blame was on the guy, and i got a bit pissed at such a double standard.

So, unfortunately, this example does nothing to 'combat' 'Rule #1' as you hoped it would, regardless of whether or not it is exactly as you portray.

i was asserting that rule #1, not fighting it.

[–]Moonchopper 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

i was asserting that rule #1, not fighting it.

Sorry, I stated it in a convoluted manner - I was arguing that your example was not a terribly good supporting argument that 'Female subreddits' subscribe to Rule #1. Does that make more sense?

Ultimately, in my opinion, the guy and the girl in the example do not share equal blame - thus, you might as well just go ahead and say that the guy is at fault. Regardless of how naive the girl was being, what the guy did was completely shitty, and he does not deserve to be defended. You are making the type of argument that people make when they say 'Yea, but Hitler was actually a really nice guy' - while I really hope you understand I'm not drawing a comparison between this guy and Hitler, I believe that defending a scumbag's actions (who clearly had absolutely 0 altruistic motives) places you firmly in his camp.

Any argument that you make AGAINST the victim is an argument FOR the perpetrator. You are implying that, 'well, this person did <x>, so this other person had little choice other than to do <y>.' It's faulty logic, and is the core tenet of victim blaming.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moonchopper 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi314 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whoatethekidsthen 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewpost 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Legally, the copyright owner of a picture can prohibit someone else from publicly displaying or republishing that content. There are additional laws regarding the distribution of sexually explicit content, and specific prohibitions on distribution of sexually explicit content depicting someone without their consent. In America such a victim can to sue you for defamation and various invasion of their privacy, etc. since they only consented to you seeing the picture NOT the public.

Realistically, this happens often. Then again, so do a lot of crimes. It doesn't make it okay if thousands of people do it, and the victim "should have known better".

Sharing with a stranger is a high-risk, low-reward situation, particularly when you may not know their identity even to assert your legal rights against them, or they may be overseas and not subject to your country's jurisdiction and laws.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]celebril 33 points34 points35 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]shikima81 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tsingi 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DukeMaximum 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]celebril 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drakmordis 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]coldacid 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suddenly_Elmo 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suddenly_Elmo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelordofcheese 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]redditor157 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Not long apparently. Check the comments on the /r/imgoingtohellforthis post, they're all deleted

http://www.reddit.com/r/ImGoingToHellForThis/comments/1vr71i/what_feminist_think_is_happening/

[–]icantnotthink 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Firesand 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Relention 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nick012000 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Spanjer 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]rmcmahan 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]46n2arejustaheadofme 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kurtu5 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]st_gulik 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rmcmahan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]st_gulik 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lenspirate 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rmcmahan 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurtu5 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Windows_97 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElfmanLV 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jakethebrony 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerekAcorah 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I was wondering about the geek girl thing. I have no doubt that it happens, but do other people who seem like they're "too good" for geek culture get the same treatment? What I mean is, do good looking guys or guys who look like they're athletic or muscular get the same kind of scrutiny? People who look like they're "choosing" to become geeks because geek culture (or mock geek culture) has become a fad. Also, are attractive girls subjected to more scrutiny than ugly girls? (I'd imagine so)

I'd bet that most geek guys don't feel like they really had any choice in becoming geeks or being near the bottom of the social ladder. There's a clear as day "beta" vibe amongst most male geeks. They're undesirables. These are often guys who have been forced outside of the larger social circles and even bullied. To see someone else come along in a Star Wars shirt (someone who likely hasn't endured the same victimisation) and say "Hey, I'm one of you!" is offensive to some of these guys. I'm not sure if it's possible for an able minded woman to be as far down on the social ladder as a really geeky guy.

[–]SteelCrossx 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I went to Dragon*Con a couple years in a row and had a few experiences that really informed my views on 'geek culture.' I think I can give you one perspective on things.

What I mean is, do good looking guys or guys who look like they're athletic or muscular get the same kind of scrutiny?

I think the idea that anyone gets "scrutiny" is kind of off the mark. People are at a convention because they share similar hobbies. It's only natural that people ask about them. If I come up to any person at a convention and try to talk about the topic at hand, geek hobbies, and they give me a blank look, I have to wonder why they're there. If someone is dressed up as a character, they're definitely going to have to talk about that character.

This was hammered home to me about a year later when I bought an old VW Beetle. I didn't know anything about cars but I wanted to get something cheap to repair because I have bad luck with cars. Owning a classic car is asking for random car pop quizzes and, when I said I didn't know anything, people got disappointed. We didn't have that in common like they thought. It's very natural and cross cultural. I think that's exactly what's going on with 'fake geek girls.' They want to dress up / they're hired to attend / they're with friends and people assume they share hobbies. They get asked about those assumed hobbies and it feels like scrutiny. From there the person feeling scrutinized gets defensive and some people don't handle it well. Something made from nothing.

Personal experience: I ran out of cigarettes at Dragon*Con my first year. Our hotel wasn't very close and I didn't really know the area to know where to get more. I asked a younger woman dressed as Black Cat for a cigarette when she sat next to me and she immediately went off.

"Why do men always ask women for cigarettes?" She barked it at me very aggressively.

"Why wouldn't they?" I asked flatly. She looked kind of bewildered at the question. We talked for a minute, I told her I'd get a cigarette from someone else but she gave me one anyway. She ended up apologizing for being mean for essentially no reason.

Turned out she was there with her boyfriend and had almost no idea who Black Cat is but he was dressed as Symbiote Spiderman. I imagined she'd been asked why she liked Black Cat all day and was feeling very defensive about what she saw as constant interrogations. Honestly, it was just people trying to connect at the exact place they're supposed to.

[–]DerekAcorah 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]warsie 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SovereignsUnknown 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this is actually kind of true. i run the Dungeons and Dragons club at my university. i was bullied in junior high (obviously), but by high school and university i had become a successful, desirable person.

in the club, there's this really weird divide where a good half the people are massive losers and the other half are what you'd consider "alpha." all of us share a ton of interests and grew up on all of it. i don't think being geeky condemns you to a low rung on the social ladder, just that many "beta" men are interested in geeky things. either that or they're just more into it than we are. i've got interests outside of geekdom and some of these other guys just, well, don't.

tl;dr: geekiness only condemns you to a low rung on the social ladder if it's ALL you have going for you. i play DnD with multiple geeky "alphas" and am one myself.

[–]warsie 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

"Bro" gamers are derided also for being 'casuals' who play mainstream games like Halo/COD/etc and are racist/sexist/misogynist/ablist/whatever douchebags. At least there is an overlap between those who diss bro gamers and fake geek girls. I dunno, but I think the FPS gamer is not liked very much in gaming circles. Then again the douchebaggery you see on FPS games online I guess contributes to that. So that melds into the 'immature kid' and 'internet tough guy' and the 'bro gamer' I guess.

Uh, athletic or 'good looking' guys would probably be bishie cosplayers and get glomped/grabbed en masse by female con goers, at least at anime cons. Or cosplayers, if athletic and cosplayng athletic characters. Don't notice any bias against that. But just because a male is athletic or good looking does not mean they are popular (female priviledge about beautiful females having more priviledge than beautiful or athletic males in some contexts?). Aren't female social dynamics....different re."Queen Bee" bitches? I know some male douchebags can be the same, but they dont get very far in con scenes. At least not before pissing off everyone at cons and well....

Oh, and you know there's a strong hate for hipsters, and statistically half of them are male

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LallyMonkey 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]callthebankshot 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerekAcorah 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just mean that a lot of guys who fit the bill are the types who would be considered lower on the pecking order when it comes to social standing. A lot of geeky guys don't fit that manly man ideal and that makes them easier targets for bullies and "manlier than thou" attitudes. I think that on a primitive level people would consider guys who are physically weaker, less physically co-ordinated, who are intimidated by girls, less outspoken and less outgoing as "betas". I don't agree with that, but I think people on some level think that if you're not competing for the top spot in one way or another, you're a relegating yourself to the bottom. As another poster put it, geeks are happy enough in the shed they were forced into and that shed is outside of the realm of the average competing male. So I guess "betas" would mean guys who either aren't able or aren't willing to compete for the "alpha" females. I suppose it's all relative to whatever the women at the top of the ladder look for in partners. Beta men would probably be the opposite of that.

I think in actuality that the whole alpha and beta thing is a bit simplistic when it comes to humans. Currency and business put an end to the bigger and stronger guy being the best provider (if that was ever even the case). And in any case, mankind's greatest achievements have been made possible by geeks throughout the ages. Some people think that being "alpha" is all about doing whatever you want and not worrying about what other people think. Geeks definitely have that box ticked.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurtu5 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thatguy5354 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gwolf100 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lolwtfidk1 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FredsUsername 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tearisha 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mundilfari 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OrangeFu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pldidit 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sofestafont 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacyiscool 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sofestafont -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]warsie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ScooterHarrington 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thelordofcheese 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]defightful2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This thread made me want to bang my head against a wall. The people you are describing are not doing shit things because they are women they do shit things because they are bad people. That's it. Just because you personally in your life see these sorts of things more often in women does NOT mean that it happens because she's female. It's completely sexist and ignorant to think someone's a bitch because she's a woman and "that's just how they are". It's the same thing as assuming every guy is a misogynistic asshole just because a few guys you know make sleazy remarks. I'm from Australia where a large percentage of young guys constantly use physical violence to end their arguments. This doesn't mean I go around assuming all men are violent criminals that will assault me at any moment. Isn't it time we acted like adults and start realising that every human has a unique personality that determines whether they are nice or horrible regardless of gender.

[–]Get_Nasty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Get_Nasty -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lackrome -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]celebril -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tramm 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]faber541 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]el_josh 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shesaidshewaslvl18 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawayinCA 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelordofcheese 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grymrir 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]slippery_people1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StarsDie -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vordreller 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacyiscool 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]goocy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jacyiscool 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr5306 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rafajafar 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rafajafar 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PerfectHair 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Magnusm1 -15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatmethguy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]Magnusm1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oneiorosgrip 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merari012 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryder_GSF4L3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]typhonblue 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Get_Nasty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Get_Nasty0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Magnusm1 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CollegeRuled 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I love how you can just instantly generalize a huge, diverse group of people here, and automatically everyone takes it as if its the Truth.

First off, you provide zero evidence for your claims. All you do is put shit in caps and make gigantic generalizations. It would be nice if you could source your complaints (NOT from twitter, facebook, or meaningless 'feminist groups' on college campuses). Preferably sources from people who devote their lives to studying gender issues.

Secondly, most people who have researched or at least read up on feminism, outside of just the 'sports team' mentality you get on college campuses, understand gender and sex to be a continuum. What this means is that there is no such thing as exclusively masculine or exclusively feminine attributes. Everyone has a mixture of these things.

Gender is not something that is either/or. A cursory glance at the most respected people in feminist academia and politics would reveal this fact to you. Automatically, this implies that most forms of feminism are concerned with how everyone is affected by our naive assumption regarding gender and sex.

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love how you can just instantly generalize a huge, diverse group of people here, and automatically everyone takes it as if its the Truth.

The diversity of feminist ideology is irrelevant when feminists in general do exactly what I've described.

To paraphrase instead of quote: "Source that, but don't use any sources because I'm going to reject all of them." Prove that feminists who post to social networking sites don't study gender issues, and I'll get back to you... but don't forget to include yourself in that group, because reddit is also a social networking site.

Secondly, most people who have researched or at least read up on feminism, outside of just the 'sports team' mentality you get on college campuses, understand gender and sex to be a continuum. What this means is that there is no such thing as exclusively masculine or exclusively feminine attributes. Everyone has a mixture of these things.

That's an unrelated statement offered as an argument - "masculine" vs "feminine" isn't under discussion here, but whether the feminists are justified in treating the kind of shaming depicted in the cartoon as evidence of systematic oppression of women by men.

First off, you provide zero evidence for your claims.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-long-reach-childhood/201109/bullying-in-the-female-world

http://www.forbes.com/sites/worldviews/2012/04/30/why-women-are-the-worst-kind-of-bullies/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/having-sex-wanting-intimacy/201311/socially-adept-female-bullies

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/female-bullying.html

http://www.levo.com/articles/career-advice/mean-girls-at-work

Male bullies are more often directly confrontational. Female bullies are not; they're very often sneaky shits who use indirect social attacks instead of direct intimidation.

[+]Magnusm1 -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Magnusm1 -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bakasai 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bakasai 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jacksambuck -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jacksambuck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jacksambuck -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Get_Nasty0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Get_Nasty0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]amishbreakfast30 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_pH_ 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]attaxx 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_pH_ 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]yourotherusername 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I have seen that happen at work and at home. Seriously, it's a thing.

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Infinity_and_zero -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]silveradocoa -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]OpineControversial -14 points-13 points-12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luckyluke23 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]arrogant_elk -17 points-16 points-15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]austin101123 -15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yourotherusername 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejour 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurtu5 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]yellowsubmarie -14 points-13 points-12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]dirtybrds -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Criffer 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

HAhahahaha. Yes, it's all our fault, we're the ones who built the patriarchy. Idiots.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Men are not to blame (from /imgoingtohellforthis)
Author	Dexter77
Upvotes	1673
Comments	361
Date	January 21, 2014 2:14 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vrfmd/men_are_not_to_blame_from_imgoingtohellforthis/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-are-not-to-blame-from-imgoingtohellforthis.1004626 https://theredarchive.com/post/1004626

Comments