Geek Girls Rule! #230 – “Fake” Geek Girls

40 Comments

• 

  geekweasel

  August 15, 2012 at 11:49 am

  Also: if presenting as a geek is now being considered a valid dating strategy, that means WE HAVE WON.

  reply
• 

  pat

  August 15, 2012 at 12:01 pm

  I agree with you completely. I am a guy that is into vids and will quite often get the opposite treatment from woman who have gone through everything you just described. Girls who are into the same things as me will often just assume I am one of the assholes who isolate the opposite sex because they are to much of a pussy to stand up and talk to the hot girl. It is time we all started to love and accept everybody for who they are and stopped giving into the media that encourages people to create the stereotypes of people based on how the look and start accepting people for who they are and what they do.

  reply
• 

  Dekeboy

  August 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm

  Huzzah! you knocked it out of the park again. I remember the first girl that ever gamed with us, and thinking- “wow, she’s funny, smart and pretty and she likes D & D, MAYBE I’m more normal than i thought!”
  You make a great point and I’m fist pumping while I give you a “right on!”

  reply
• 

  Shawn

  August 15, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  I think a big part of the problem is that geeks are so used to being ridiculed for their interests that they find it hard to believe anyone who appears to be “normal” is actually genuinely interested. When I was in school, “normal kids” — especially cute girls who could tell I liked them — would regularly feign interest just so they could draw my geekiness into the open, so they could publicly ridicule me for it.

  It may sound juvenile to blame my childhood for mistakes I make as an adult, but that kind of targeted abuse creates some serious PTSD reflexes over time, and they are very hard to recover from. I certainly appreciate the genuine involvement of “normal people” in my geeky hobbies, but I’ve learned to be extremely cautious about assuming their involvement is genuine until they’ve proven they’re not jerks in disguise.

  For the record, I spent many years in counseling to discover and repair my own “odious personality traits”, both inherited from my parents and acquired through life experience. The result is not perfect, but I’m far better than I used to be. So I’m not living in denial about my own imperfection, nor projecting my faults onto others so I don’t have to deal with them.

  To the extent that “normal-looking people” feel slighted by the “traditional geeks” who stand guard at the borders Geekdom, I think they could reduce tensions significantly on their own by apologizing for their own juvenile behavior when they were kids. Knowing that someone feels bad about the mistakes they’ve made makes it a lot easier to believe they won’t make those same mistakes again.

  reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 15, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    I understand not getting over it. Trust me: http://www.geekgirlsrule.net/?p=1370 That link there goes to (you might have to copy and past because I’m lazy) an post on “Geek Baiting and Why We Don’t Just Get Over It.” But the fact is, that if a normally attractive DUDE comes into geek space wearing signifiers of geek interest (X-men t-shirt, Venom hat, Space Marines Belt Buckle) he is far, far, FAR less likely to be questioned on his geek cred than a woman wearing the exact same things, particularly (but not always) if she’s attractive.

    I’m the last person to say “Get over it.” What I do say is, “use your experiences to develop empathy for others” instead of using it to justify being just as big a jerk as the people who victimized us. Hell, I’m not immune to it either, if you look at one of the last paragraphs where I admit that I get a little twitchy about conventionally attractive girls in geek space myself.

    But it is sexist, and it is crap, because it happens to women far more often.

    reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Also, and I missed this in my earlier response, the phrase “normal-looking people” is geek policing. Because most geeks I know look just like everyone else, ok, albeit with bad haircuts or out of style clothes, but still, it’s not like we have extra limbs or feelers or something.

    reply
  • 

    Elizabeth

    August 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    I couldn’t help but interject here. In response to one sentence in particular: “To the extent that “normal-looking people” feel slighted by the “traditional geeks” who stand guard at the borders Geekdom, I think they could reduce tensions significantly on their own by apologizing for their own juvenile behavior when they were kids”, I have something to say.

    I am a geek. I played WoW for 5 years, got my degree in math, play the L5R CCG, play Skyrim, D&D (even ran my own game), World of Darkness, watch anime, read ALL of the Tolkien books, etc. I am also a thin, attractive 20′s girl.

    I was NEVER one of the “normal” kids who teased others, I was a geek who was treated as such in almost every school I went to, and only found refuge in the drama and music classes, hiding in the back of the room for others, and avoiding the cafeteria and major walkways at my school. I was painfully shy.

    However, I’ve come out of my shell, dress a little more feminine, or what you might call ‘trendy’ now. So when I walk into a game store, I’m treated like one of these people.

    There is nothing for me to apologize for. I am a geek and always have been. So I guess I’d ask, what answer do you have for me, who was never unkind to any geeks, who has always been a geek, but am still treated like an outsider because of my gender and appearance?

    reply
    • 

      geekweasel

      August 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm

      Elizabeth kinda beat me to it, but the whole “To the extent that “normal-looking people” feel slighted by the “traditional geeks” who stand guard at the borders Geekdom, I think they could reduce tensions significantly on their own by apologizing for their own juvenile behavior when they were kids.” is pretty much geek policing in action. It overlooks possibilities like “normal looking but also always geeky” and “normal looking but never picked on anyone”. And just further perpetuates the idea that there is a “proper” way to be and appear geeky.

      reply
      • 

        Shawn

        August 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm

        My response uses the same vocabulary as the original article. I did not contrive the idea of a supposed visual distinction between “geeks” and “normal people” (i.e. “conventionally hot”, which is a direct quote); I was merely referencing that supposed distinction in the process of writing my response.

        I also never said any attractiveness-based visual distinction is valid, because it isn’t valid. What I *said* is that people who *appear* to be “fake geeks” according to my past experiences tend to set off alarm bells inside my head, warning me that I may be about to encounter a jerk who just wants to laugh at how strange I am. I shared this bit of introspection because I think it applies to many geeks who engage in “geek policing”, not so my personal behavior could be criticized.

        I myself look remarkably “normal”, whatever the hell that means, and when I make a self-deprecating geek joke, other geeks I know often get personally offended by it, as if I were standing outside the circle laughing at Them, instead of standing inside the circle laughing at Us.

        So yes, I do know what it’s like to be on both sides of the razor wire. All I was doing was trying to provide some enlightenment as to why the razor wire exists in the first place.

        reply
        • 

          geekgirlsrule

          August 15, 2012 at 4:02 pm

          See, but what you ended with was this: “To the extent that “normal-looking people” feel slighted by the “traditional geeks” who stand guard at the borders Geekdom, I think they could reduce tensions significantly on their own by apologizing for their own juvenile behavior when they were kids.”

          This is assuming that “normal-looking” or “conventionally hot” people, if you use my phrasing, all picked on “nerdy or geeky-looking” kids when they were younger.

          What we’re saying is that not everyone who “looks normal” is and/or has always looked normal, and the point of the article is that most of this policing is done against women, which infers that women are less likely to BE geeky, which is crap. It’s part of the word “geek” being societally coded masculine for the most part. Also crap.
        • 

          geekweasel

          August 15, 2012 at 4:09 pm

          The problem is you use of “normal looking”, but your statement that such folks such apologize for picking on “traditional” geeks in their youth. Because that is based on the spurious notion that all of the former engaged in such activity.
• 

  Ms. Teddy

  August 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm

  Head and I were just talking about this the other day. Or, to be more accurate, I was ranting about snobby exclusionists and he was teasing me, like he does.

  I’ll agree that a very large percentage of Geek Policing is sexist, but there’s that little core of self righteous “I was here first” amongst ALL gamers, and I think it hurts more, for me, coming from other women. It’s like with Dudes, I expect it, to some extent. So when other chicks pull the Geek Police move, it STINGS.

  And yes, even in the groups you know, from people you know, I’ve been told I’m not “real” by multiple persons regarding multiple issues. I was seriously more accepted by the younger friends of my redneck bf than I have been in geek circles (when it comes down to actually being “into” a hobby and not just showing up with my breasts out, that is).

  Just one of the bricks walling me off from socializing. People should stop caring *when* you started loving something and just be happy you love it too! That part I agree with 100%.

  reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Oh man, your last paragraph. Ages ago I found an online Adam Ant fan community, and had a great time, until the “Well, you’re not a REAL fan if you didn’t see him in the clubs in London before he got big,” bullshit started.

    I actually left a response along the lines of, “So sorry I was living several thousand miles away, on another continent, stuck in a religiously oppressive, redneck shithole, and I’m sorry my liking his music so much offends you because of hte accient of where I was born. Bye.”

    I hate that shit.

    reply
  • 

    Ms. Teddy

    August 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    I shouldn’t have said “all gamers”, I should have said “all geeks”, my default geek setting is gamer cause A) I’ve been playing video games since they were (I know, video games don’t count as being a gamer – eye rolling) and B) that’s where I catch the most shit. Didn’t even realize I’d defaulted there.

    reply
• 

  Gibbitt

  August 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm

  Huzzah on the post!!! I wish EVERY one felt this way. This wouldn’t be the rougly 5th article I’ve read in the past month on this topic if they did.

  I’ve had women try that shit. Really, I’m not interested in everything, nor should I be.

  You don’t have to be interested in comics to love superheros, you don’t have to choose between tabletop and video to be a gamer. You don’t have to be a boy to be a geek. Most importantly, You don’t have to agree with your geek neighbor to be a geek.

  I will say that there will *always* be camps… such as from the 60s to the 90s…. Star Wars vs Star Trek.

  reply
• 

  Wolf

  August 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm

  Amen.

  Also, Hi Mickey! ^_^

  reply
• 

  Shawn

  August 15, 2012 at 4:25 pm

  Since I can’t find the Reply button on the original conversation anymore:

  geekgirlsrule, I would be happy to go back and revise my first post if I could; I know the sentence in question is weakly-worded, but there’s nothing I can do to change it now, so you’re just going to have to accept my ex-post-facto clarification, instead of continuing to pick on the original wording that I’ve already admitted was problematic.

  I know that the “normal-looking people always pick on geeky-looking people” stereotype is inaccurate. What I’m saying is, it’s an easy stereotype to develop based on experience, and it’s a safe bet a lot of geeks (regardless of appearance) have developed that stereotype. You say the stereotype is invalid, AND I AGREE THE STEREOTYPE IS INVALID, but reflexes don’t care about logical validity; they care about self-preservation. Geeks wouldn’t engage in geek policing if they had no past experience that it might be effective, regardless of also being unfair.

  The reflex to react negatively to someone who “doesn’t look like a real geek” can be easily disarmed by that person proactively showing a little humility about having excluded others in the past — which everyone has done at some point, whether they’re willing to admit it or not — instead of getting defensive about the treatment they’re currently receiving.

  Maybe that person never specifically targeted geeks, but they sure as hell excluded someone at some point for some reason, because all humans do it from time to time. A mea-culpa will at least show that they sympathize with geeks’ hypersensitivity to exclusionary behavior. That’s what the concept of reconciliation is all about.

  reply
  • 

    Ogre

    August 15, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    You’re a mansplainer, and you argue semantics not content. I vote you off the island.

    reply
    • 

      Shawn

      August 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

      I’m a “mansplainer”? What are you talking about? I have studiously avoided using any sex-based terminology in my responses. You only think I’m a “mansplainer” because I made the mistake of using my real name, which unfortunately identifies me as male. I thought it would be safe to do so, because I thought the issue of “geexism” was more important than the issue of sexism in the context of this blog post, and “geexism” is something I have a lot of experience with. Clearly I was wrong, and I should’ve left the womenfolk alone, because as a man I am automatically guilty whenever a charge of sexism is raised. Case in point: your response.

      As for the idea that I argue semantics instead of content: I wasn’t arguing at all, in the first place. I was offering an explanation of why some geeks might engage in geek policing, BECAUSE YOU CAN’T SOLVE A PROBLEM UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT, and it’s a complex problem with lots of causes. And then everyone seized on one sentence they didn’t like the wording of, tore that to pieces, and ignored the rest. If I argued semantics at all it was only in response to the biased criticism my original post received. Believe me, I much prefer to argue content.

      Go ahead and stay on your little island. I’m quite happy living on the continent, where I have vastly more options.

      reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 15, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    I’m not real fond of how replies branch here, either, but I haven’t spent the time to figure out what to do about it.

    I’m glad that you agree stereotypes are bad, but the problem is… Look, you cannot expect penance from people who have never harmed YOU. Even if they have “excluded” someone else at some point and time, if that someone was not YOU, they don’t owe you shit.

    Asking “normal looking people” to prove they’re worthy by apologizing for things they’ve never done to you, or for things they may possibly have done to someone else, is as much geek policing as subjecting a woman in a comic store to a 20 minute pop quiz on the Summers-Grey family tree (my friend Rachel will kick anyone’s ass at this).

    AND IT IS ALL UNEQUIVOCALLY BULLSHIT.

    reply
    • 

      Shawn

      August 16, 2012 at 9:38 am

      I’m not asking for a personal apology from people who’ve never done anything to me. I’m asking for a demonstration that they understand where the raw nerves are in geek culture, and that they intend to avoid poking them.

      Frankly I’d ask the same of anyone in Geekdom regardless of their appearance, but since lots of people discriminate based on appearance, lots of “geeky-looking” people are already hypersensitive to exclusionary behavior from past experience, and it shows clearly in their own behavior. Case in point: the adamant “we must be as inclusive as possible” backlash from various high-profile geeks in regards to recent questioning of other high-profile geeks’ “credentials”.

      That kind of sensitivity to the psychological needs of geeks is not apparent in everyone’s behavior, however, and those are the people from whom I’d like to see a proactive demonstration of sensitivity and understanding. You can say that’s unfair, but every social group has cultural norms that members are expected to adopt, and I see no reason for Geekdom to be different when it accomplishes nothing useful.

      reply
  • 

    geekweasel

    August 16, 2012 at 9:45 am

    So do you apologize to everyone you meet for your exclusionary behavior?

    reply
    • 

      Shawn

      August 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      Everyone I meet? No. But when I spend enough time with someone to consider them more than a passing acquaintance, and when I discover they have a particular raw nerve due to past trauma, I try to sympathize with their past experience as best I can. It works quite well. You’d be amazed how many people tell me their deep dark secrets because they get the vibe they can trust me not to use their pain as a weapon against them.

      reply
      • 

        geekweasel

        August 16, 2012 at 2:14 pm

        Sympathy != “A mea-culpa will at least show that they sympathize with geeks’ hypersensitivity to exclusionary behavior. That’s what the concept of reconciliation is all about.”

        If you are being so hypsersensitive that you are feeling there should be apologies from people that have *never wronged you*, and even *never wronged your identified sub-culture*, that’s *your* problem. Not one that requires “reconciliation” from those that haven’t participated in the things that make you feel wronged.

        reply
      • 

        geekweasel

        August 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        And that expectation *is* a form of geek policing. Because you don’t know if they have suffered through similar things themselves or not. All that matters is your “I was wronged by someone that looked like you and not me, and therefor I will judge you for that.”

        reply
• 

  Ann

  August 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm

  I guess I still don’t get why this is A Thing, to care what someone else in fandom looks like. Look, unless someone is obviously contagiously diseased, naked, or groping me at a geekfest, con, whatever, I don’t care if they’re there or how they appear (although I do notice them more if they have a costume I like). Even people who don’t look “good” in their costume, I figure, well, I don’t look good every day in normal clothes either, so that’s life.

  And yes, you caught me out – I’M PREJUDICED AGAINST NAKED PEOPLE AT CONS. I don’t go to nudist cons, so I don’t want to see the unclothed unless it’s a private situation or some kind of explained Art Thing going on.

  reply
• 

  Darryl

  August 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm

  I’ve been a geek all my life and have been subjected to “geek policing” by BOTH SEXES and frankly I believe it’s insecurity and maybe even jealously that’s involved because it’s almost like a “treehouse/clubhouse” mentality. Even if you have major geek cred, regardless of sex, you aren’t “real” to them and “don’t belong” which yes, is complete bullshit. If a woman comes up to me with geek cred (whether it’s a certain movie, pen and paper RPG’s, video games or whatnot)and have an opinion big or small, they will allways be welcome to me!

  reply
• 

  Lunar Archivist

  August 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm

  “Plus, if you want to MEET women, shouldn’t you be overjoyed that they’re into things that you’re interested in? I mean, it kind of makes sense that if women are into comics, gaming, or videogames more of them will cross your path.”

  I’ve always welcomed women into the fold. It’s just a shame that all the ones I get along exceptionally well with or find cute aren’t single or interested in me.

  reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Sadly, that happens. It’s such a cause for celebration when those Venn diagrams overlap.

    reply
• 

  Shawn

  August 16, 2012 at 10:04 am

  To put some of my previous posts in context: my mom watches Star Trek and cheers when NASA missions succeed, and she also has art and business degrees. All but one of the people I report to at work are women, and they all have technical skills, some being engineers like myself. The woman I’m seeing right now has a PhD in microbiology and reads fantasy books, and her mom is a science teacher. My previous girlfriends have all had technical expertise of some sort, and one was not only in my engineering major but took it all the way to the PhD level.

  So…yes, I know sexism is an issue on a societal scale, but I’ve ignored it thus far in this discussion because I have absolutely no experience dealing with discrimination against women, of a technical mindset or otherwise. Sexism and racism are so NOT a part of anything I do, or tolerate being done around me, that it simply does not occur to me to worry about it — in my little monkeysphere, sexism is already an embarrassing historical footnote.

  My only purpose for participating in this discussion is to address the issue of “geexism”, which affects men and women alike. The accusations of sexism in some people’s responses to me are unwarranted.

  reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 16, 2012 at 10:47 am

    And there’s your problem. You’re ignoring the fact that the POST IS ABOUT SEXISM. Yes, it’s about geek policing, but it is about the more specific issue of geek policing regarding women. You know, sexism.

    I’ve covered, in depth, the shit that geeks go through growing up. See that link I posted directly to you earlier. I understand the knee jerk reactions and admit that I still have them too. But no one owes us jack, they don’t owe us an apology or showing us they’re “sensitive” to our issues. We need to own our own shit.

    Do the scars linger? Hell yes, see me every time someone conventionally attractive hits on me and I back away slowly like they’re a dangerous animal. But is it that person’s fault that douchebag jocks used to put notes in my locker pretending to be from their friends as a joke? No. So after the initial wariness I try to shake it off and talk to them like I would if they looked how I perceive my tribe to look.

    They don’t know that I was the fat girl with bad skin who blew the grading curve and got beat up a lot. What they know is that I’m the fat girl who is attractive to them right now and seems interesting and they’d like to get to know.

    It’s my damage and I need to own it, not project it on anyone else.

    And the fact that most of the damage getting projected these days is aimed specifically at women is what this post is about. SEXISM. Felicia Day is totally a geek. Trust me, I’ve talked to her. GEEK!

    reply
    • 

      Shawn

      August 16, 2012 at 12:39 pm

      Of course it’s reasonable to expect people wanting to “belong” in a group to show some sensitivity to the issues that group has to deal with. That is a basic rule of socialization: you don’t get to run roughshod over the feelings of the people you associate with, and then insist you shouldn’t have to worry they might react badly due to their common past experiences. Doing that is the very *definition* of anti-social behavior. Geeks as a social group have as much right to expect deference to their unique cultural norms as any other social group; saying otherwise just reinforces the idea that we never had any valid reason to be upset at being abused in the first place.

      - – -

      Anyway, it was not obvious to me at first that the article was about sexism. Why? Because you were complaining about “geek policing”, not “sex policing”, and you acknowledge that it happens to men and women alike. I guess I figured if you wanted to talk about sexism, you’d talk about sexism, not about “geexism”. “Geexism” and sexism do overlap, but “geexism” isn’t purely a subset of sexism, so it wasn’t clear that you were only interested in discussing the subset of behavior that is both “geexist” *and* sexist. Sorry to waste your time with my misunderstanding. Carry on.

      reply
      • 

        geekgirlsrule

        August 16, 2012 at 12:44 pm

        Really? Your defense is that you didn’t understand that an article entitled “Fake Geek Girls,” that featured images of women, that talked about how women have their cred constantly challenged, was about sexism.

        D- for reading comprehension.

        reply
        • 

          Shawn

          August 16, 2012 at 1:40 pm

          Yes, I assumed that you used examples of women because those were the examples that you were most familiar with, and that the issue of “geexism” could be discussed in a sex-neutral way regardless, since “geexism” is not a sex-specific issue. How silly of me.

          Given the reception I got here for an honest attempt at dialogue, I probably won’t bother commenting on your blog again. Though if for some reason I do, I’ll make sure to use a name that doesn’t tip my hand next time. It would be interesting to see how that changes the way people respond.
• 

  geekgirlsrule

  August 16, 2012 at 2:24 pm

  Shawn, I’m sorry people taking your words at face value makes you feel attacked. Next time try sticking to the subject at hand instead of derailing.

  No love,
  Me

  reply
  • 

    geekgirlsrule

    August 16, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    PS You actually got treated more gently because of your indicated gender. I don’t assume guys get this stuff, because they don’t have to. If calmly explaining why you’re wrong is an attack, good luck with the real world, kid.

    reply
    • 

      Ogre

      August 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm

      Look at the little wanker flounce. Seriously, fuck that guy and his whiny bullshit.

      reply
• 

  geekweasel

  August 16, 2012 at 2:27 pm

  “Yes, I assumed that you used examples of women because those were the examples that you were most familiar with, and that the issue of “geexism” could be discussed in a sex-neutral way regardless, since “geexism” is not a sex-specific issue. How silly of me.”

  Geek-policing (which is what I assume you mean by “geexism”) and sexism are two separate things. The ENTIRE POINT of this blog post was about the intersection of them: namely, how women are subject to much higher degree of geek-policing simply for being women.

  I mean, if a man in a business suit and a woman in a D&D shirt with tattoos of d20s and Ed Greenwood’s autograph walk into a game store and buy the latest Warhammer 40,000 codex, I have a shiny nickel that says it’s the woman who is still far more likely to be asked “So, is this for your husband/son/some other generally male person?”.

  reply
  • 

    Dr Kris Ether

    August 17, 2012 at 7:19 am

    More than likely, but not the default. When I worked for GW we did have a number of female staff in the region, and plenty of female gamers. My then girlfriend was in fact one of the staff at one store. This is why the default question in training should always be ‘Is this for yourself or are you looking for a present’. Gender is not required for any of that.

    As for the defense mechanism, so that geeks have a reason for why they don’t have a girlfriend, I would also put that along with geeks often acting as ‘the nice guy’, and also the ‘monk of love’. Geek guys just need to get over it, and if that means getting a wash, get some better threads, and I dunno, doing something else other than gaming and geek stuff then so be it.

    reply
• 

  Anadrea

  September 2, 2012 at 8:02 am

  Its funny you were writing about fake geek girls, because I was just intensely thinking about the subject. I totally agree in the sense that someone with breasts or any alternative to “geek” will not fit in to the “crowd.” You know, forget embracing someone for who they are, forget embracing yourself for what you are. Any deviation is not accepted! Just surround yourself with color and angry and board games because that is what “geek” is supposed to do. Why not ostracise those that support you, in pure gesture, because they do not align with what your bratty idea of what “geek” is. And really, I don’t care how many PHD’s you get, or how many blogs you have, or how many friends you have or how much bullshit you spread, it wont change the fact that most “geeks” who adhere to the label are really only the green eyed monsters you see in other social circles. Applying a different set of hobbies, a label and definitions of what a geek is supposed to be is really just killing the tribe.
  Asshole!

  reply