Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

Demyx wrote:

Is the best way really to shield your child from anything that might be gendered?

The way I see it, feminism isn't about making all people unisex, it's about respecting both genders equally. I think the real issues are:

1. Girls' play and traditional feminine values are often valued less than boys' play and traditional masculine values. This is most evident when you note that it's far more socially acceptable for girls to play with "boys' toys" than boys to play with "girls' toys".

2. Girls and boys are sometimes forced into modes of play that don't suit them. Note -- sometimes. Some girls really and truly deep in the hearts WANT everything to be pink and princessy, and denying them that in the name of gender equality isn't really any different than telling a non-traditionally-feminine girl she can't play with the Batman toy.

3. Educational and artistic toys seem to disproportionately be filed in the boys' section, which irritates me to no end.

3. is the point which, as a parent, I really fixate on. Specifically, the types of play that are "boys' play" are crucial in developing skills and interests that are more likely to lead to careers in STEM fields, where women are woefully underrepresented.

Of course, stereotypical "girls' play" is also crucial in building empathy and other soft skills which are much less apparent in "boys' play."

From the articles I've read about this, it seems that the key is in balance, and in providing opportunities for all sorts of play.

Interestingly, the "pink princess Legos" - while being obviously gendered and reinforcing gender stereotypes - are also kind of sneaky way to get girls who are already invested in "girls' toys" to play with construction toys they might otherwise completely avoid. Maybe that's good?

Jayhawker wrote:

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yW80q4Yf-8I/UJrzTplSjKI/AAAAAAAAAII/kMzq_2UJ5ZI/s1600/dean-what-gif.gif)

Stealing this for the downward spiral in the Guns thread.

Demyx wrote:

What makes American Girl dolls (the historical ones) a gendered toy?

Because they depict girls? Surely not. Ken dolls depict men and they're a girls' toy. I'm sure plenty of boys have Leia action figures to go with the rest of their Star Wars toys, Hermiones to go with Harry and Ron, etc. There really shouldn't be anything unusual about a child playing with a toy depicting a member of the other gender.

Because they have real clothes and hair? There are plenty of boys' toys with clothes and hair. The original GI Joes were like this.

Because they are wearing dresses? They're not pink glittery princess dresses, mostly just ordinary clothes women would've worn in that time period.

Because the books are all about girls and how they lived in history? Really, boys SHOULD learn about this. Give 'em some perspective.

What, exactly, makes American Girl toys... girls' toys? If anything, they should be considered unisex.

You make some interesting points. I should think about this some more. I hope you'll forgive me if I talk this out a bit.

What makes American Girl dolls gendered? Their marketing is clearly targeted to girls, and the vast majority of their consumers are girls. (And collectors.) Does that make them gendered? In a way, this is the flip side of the Lego discussion. My inclination is to say that Legos aren't gendered for that reason, so I'm not going to call AG gendered for that reason either.

I think I'm going to say a product is gendered if it embeds normative signals about one gender or another in either the product itself or its use. If that doesn't sound fair, I'm open to other definitions.

The historical stories contain lots of gender-specific behavior, but you're quite right that a lot of that is simply historical. (As an aside, I think a lot about how to teach kids history without oversimplifying. Historians have enough trouble doing that with each other.) So, let's take history out of the picture, and look at the Girl of the Year line, which is set in the present day. Some observations, based on the descriptions in the American Girl Wiki and some Google Image searches:

- All but one of the girls of the year have shoulder-length or longer hair. The girl with the shortest hair is the first. All of the hair is straight or slightly wavy.

- Of the 10 dolls, 9 of them are wearing a dress or a skirt in their initial outfit. (The exception is the third one, Marisol Luna.)

- All of them are skinny and cute in a very traditional way, IMO. No particularly chubby cheeks or stubby legs. (There is some ethnic variety, though they're still overwhelmingly white.)

- They do, however, look like plausible 10-year-olds. (Well, maybe shading older, but they're not Barbie.)

- The stories seem to revolve around either a central personality trait or another theme. As far as I can tell, these are the traits/themes for the girls: being a geek; surfing; dancing; travel/adventure; raising dogs/living on a ranch; figure skating; dealing with the "queen bee" clique in school; science; nature; gymnastics; art(? This is for the 2013 doll, which hasn't been released). I would say dancing; figure skating; gymnastics; and the "queen bee" clique lean toward being stereotypical female traits. The rest are things I could plausibly see being featured in a hypothetical "American Boy" series. (I could also see a theme of school socialization analogous to the "queen bee" theme, but their treatment is in an all-female social group.) I would say two of them (being a geek and science) are stereotypically male, and thus their inclusion here pushes the envelope somewhat.

- By and large, the girls are characterized as being "athletic," "strong-willed and determined," "creative," "lively and resourceful," etc.

On the whole, this is far from the most sexist depiction of girls in toys. I find a lot of these traits pretty gender-affirmative. I still think think they're gendered, though, particularly surrounding the reinforcement of beauty norms. They're not gender-neutral the way a Tonka truck or a play kitchen are neutral; they still embed some normative messages about how girls should be.

I have to say, though: they're a lot less gendered than I expected them to be when I started poking around. Their message on how people ought to act is quite positive. I feel more comfortable with my daughter being mildly obsessed with them, now.

Regarding dolls: I think toys could be considered effectively gender specific if they only ever depict a single gender (in cases where "people" play an important role in the function of a toy; so e.g. a small person driving an RC car wouldn't necessarily count).

Just being gendered doesn't make something bad though. It's entirely possible for a toy line to only depicts girls, and do so in a constructive manner (perhaps that's what American Girls does, I must confess I've not really looked into that particular product).

Of course the more general notion of "dolls" wouldn't be gendered because there are male dolls.

gore wrote:

Of course the more general notion of "dolls" wouldn't be gendered because there are male dolls.

But at the risk of getting into semantics, there's a reason GI Joe is an "action figure" and not a "doll".

That is to say, the notion of "dolls" itself is already heavily gendered.

Jonman wrote:
gore wrote:

Of course the more general notion of "dolls" wouldn't be gendered because there are male dolls.

But at the risk of getting into semantics, there's a reason GI Joe is an "action figure" and not a "doll".

That is to say, the notion of "dolls" itself is already heavily gendered.

From Demyx's original post:

Ken dolls depict men and they're a girls' toy.

This.

Plus, to make matters a little more interesting, there are more monetary effects than shelf-space and direct marketing. The US import/excise taxes are different if a toy is labeled a "doll" vs just calling it a toy. Doll tarriff rates are something like twice that of action figures. See Toy Biz v. United States for an egregious example of the kind of effects it can have.

So, Cyanide & Happiness is a pretty awful comic as far as feminism goes. But in any case, they just put this one up and I'm honestly not sure whether it's misogynous or the opposite of that.

4xis.black wrote:

So, Cyanide & Happiness is a pretty awful comic as far as feminism goes. But in any case, they just put this one up and I'm honestly not sure whether it's misogynous or the opposite of that.

Well, it's not funny, that's for sure.

I don't read C&H, so I can't say how it compares generally, but near as I can tell, the (implied) punchline is essentially "Female Doggoes, amirite", which is pretty damn misogynist.

The C&H material is, when it ventures into the topic, often grossly misogynistic, but I don't know whether that's meant as is or as a darkly sarcastic commentary on the state of Western society as a whole. To be perfectly frank, it's really about run-of-the-mill in terms of general media content as far I can tell. Here's another sample, which appears to me to be a joke in terrible taste:

http://www.explosm.net/comics/1259/

So 4xis.black's linked comic seems a lot like a straight commentary on how awful "fake geek girls" really are for not doing what real geek girls would do - mate with real geek guys.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I read it as a comment on how newer generations of geeks (the comic only portrays a female one) are a lot more attractive/socially-sophisticated than previous ones and, extrapolating a bit, that this gap is a source of tension within the subculture.

I could probably post this in almost every popular thread right now, but the National Review, in an effort to prove that Fox News isn't the only news outlet that can find a frightfully backward, misogynist female commentator, managed to find this person:

Charlotte Allen wrote:

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at [the filthy shooter's] knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at [filthy shooter's name removed], before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on [filthy shooter's name removed].

So the weak women tried their best, but only if they'd had some husky teenage boys around, this would've been all great.

in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm

Good thing we don't value men's roles over women's roles, right? Sheesh.

Wow, that entire piece is revolting.

My least favorite thing on earth is when pundits and commentators use a news event, especially a tragedy as a springboard into their warped agenda.

What could have helped these kids is something proposed but shot down in the 90's. There was talk of having campus police at many or most schools. I only ever saw that as a good thing in these tragic events, but also to prevent break ins into cars, possibly if an estranged parent sought to take the child out of school. It kind of died on the vine.

But that is for another time. As a male, I am fairly certain that I am not bulletproof.

Now we know how to win wars. An army of husky 12-year-olds running headlong at the enemy. We shall call it the "Refuses to Go Swimming Without His T-Shirt" brigade.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am fairly certain that I am not bulletproof.

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3pgiYvdb1rjgajio1_500.jpg)

Not sure if this is more at home in Boogle's thread.

But "Nice Guys" of OKCupid

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/07be9cef84ed3f717347902d020f8b81/tumblr_mf9cem7oQF1s0cjm8o1_500.png)

Totally Honest Admission: I used a "Nice Guy". You're in your late-teens/early-20's, average looking, really horny, and intensely bitter that you're not getting the girl, or any girl. And I remember having some pretty reprehensible opinions on the sexes that I'm embarrassed by.

The catch to the "Nice Guy" thing really is a kind of self-loathing turned outwards. There can't possibly be that much wrong with you, and all these girls are going out with these assholes! You're not an asshole! You totally treat women well! And if that girl is dumb enough to get abused/assaulted by some frat-bro, well that's her own damn fault for dating assholes.

I think the phenomenon is, in part, down to changing sexual roles. Sex was, for a long time, a male privilege, in that, it was a thing men looked for and got from women. Women gave it out, but weren't to dole it out, if that makes sense.

And things began to change, and women began to seek self-determination in their sexual and romantic lives. That male privilege eroded, and dudes for whom, 60 years ago, doing the bare freaking minimum was enough, were suddenly finding that no, women could decide, for whatever reason, why they wanted a particular partner, just like men always had. Anytime those kind of advantages are eroded, people usually react with anger, vindictiveness and bitterness. And that's the "Nice Guy" thing in a nutshell. Just a f*cking ton of anger, bitterness and jealousy.

I'm not proud to say I got over it (still getting over it, if I'm honest), because being a decent, compassionate human being isn't something you should be proud to be. But a realization I had, and that I can't quite understand these guys not getting, is this analogy I came up with:

Let's say you have a car. It won't run. You know it's either the sparkplugs or the fuel injectors. So you decide, it must be the fuel injectors. And you try them. Over and over and over and over again. You try thousands of different brands of fuel injectors, you try installing them different ways, you try insulting them before you install them, you try everything, and the car won't start. At some point, don't you need to assume that perhaps, the problem is the sparkplugs?

Well, there's several billion women on this planet, and one of you. If you can't get a date, odds are, it's not an entire gender being stuck-up Female Doggoes, it's you being undesirable.

I do and don't have sympathy for "nice guys". I do because I was there once, and I don't because now, looking at it from the outside, I realize how incredibly f*cked-up that mindset is. I don't think it's any surprise that I've seen a lot of "nice guys" who were also MRAs.

Prederick wrote:

I do and don't have sympathy for "nice guys". I do because I was there once, and I don't because now, looking at it from the outside, I realize how incredibly f*cked-up that mindset is. I don't think it's any surprise that I've seen a lot of "nice guys" who were also MRAs.

This kind of introspection and self-reflection is something that often only comes with life experience.

Related to "nerd culture" or whatever specifically (as in the comic a few pages back), these people often self-select into groups that actively exclude women, which reinforces the mentality. The fewer experiences with women such a person has, the longer it will take him to even understand the problem.

I happened to just start reading Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear and that phrase "nice guy" came up. It's also...interesting(?) to see how the things I've heard about PUA sound like Pre-Incident Indicators for people to recognize as signs of a predator. Typecasting sounds exactly like Negging. edit: note, not saying every PUA is a predator, just I wonder if some PUA stuff was reverse engineered from The Gift of Fear.

Prederick wrote:

I'm not proud to say I got over it (still getting over it, if I'm honest), because being a decent, compassionate human being isn't something you should be proud to be.

I don't know if you shouldn't be proud of that. Because a decent, compassionate human being is something we should expect of healthy people. And this may be controversial, but I think "in your late-teens/early-20's, average looking, really horny, and...not getting the girl, or any girl" isn't a healthy situation to be in. I think it has negative psychological effects to be in that situation. If someone couldn't make any friends and they still managed to be a decent, compassionate human being we'd think that was pretty impressive.

I know saying that throws up red flags, because it sounds like it means women owe men that kind of human version of social grooming. We don't have to take that step, though. We can acknowledge there's an unhealthy situation without giving the people in that situation an entitlement to have others fix that situation.

Holy sh*t, Prederick. You've made a lot of sharp, insightful comments, but this may be your best post yet. To the point where I'm going to use parts of that post to describe why Nice Guy Syndrome sucks.

Seth wrote:

Holy sh*t, Prederick. You've made a lot of sharp, insightful comments, but this may be your best post yet. To the point where I'm going to use parts of that post to describe why Nice Guy Syndrome sucks.

+1

I recognize myself a little too much in your post. I actually once told a friend of mine, who's a much nicer guy than me, that girls don't like nice guys. That friend had had four girlfriends by that time.

EDIT: Blah, let myself get overly wordy. Allow me to condense.

As a sidenote, I think there's a LOT of overlap between "Nice Guys" and people who go after "Fake Geek Girls". It seems to me that the place "Fake Geek Girl" rage comes from is the similar to "Nice Guys". Namely insecurity, bitterness, and f*cked up patriarchal sexual politics.

OH, and BULLYING. Let's not forget the bullying aspect. Because I think it's fair to say that, for a larger-than-anyone-would-like-to-admit amount of geeks, the difference between them and the bullies they hated in school is primarily opportunity, not genuine goodness or moral fortitude.

Yeah, the 'nice guy' thing has come up in the dating thread, but we haven't gone into much detail because not many people there seem to fall into the category.

Nice insights into the phenomenon, Pred. Former 'nice guy' myself. I'm ashamed of some of my behaviour from back then.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Yeah, the 'nice guy' thing has come up in the dating thread, but we haven't gone into much detail because not many people there seem to fall into the category.

Funny thing is, this sort of conversation about blaming women for one's own failure to be attractive to them is what got one of the dating threads closed down.

Maybe it's just that the time wasn't right for this conversation. I think one of the things that adds to it is one of those positive-yet-harmful stereotypes of women: that they are less 'shallow' which really winds up meaning 'they can't have desires and preferences the way men are allowed to'.

CheezePavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Yeah, the 'nice guy' thing has come up in the dating thread, but we haven't gone into much detail because not many people there seem to fall into the category.

Funny thing is, this sort of conversation about blaming women for one's own failure to be attractive to them is what got one of the dating threads closed down.

Maybe it's just that the time wasn't right for this conversation. I think one of the things that adds to it is one of those positive-yet-harmful stereotypes of women: that they are less 'shallow' which really winds up meaning 'they can't have desires and preferences the way men are allowed to'.

It's hard for people to actually process the idea that in reality they're being assholes sometimes instead of the white knight they thought they were. I think, like you said, the time just wasn't right in the other thread.

I'm with Pred, though obviously from the outside perspective: I have sympathy and I don't. Yes, because I know society has changed radically in 50 years and there's uneven distribution of ideas, but also no, because, if I really need to teach you that I'm an individual with agency and I don't need to kiss your ass just for acting civilized, then that is awfully unattractive and you're far too much trouble to date. You went to college, try out some of that fancy critical thinking instead of Female Doggoing that all women ever see you as "just a friend".

I have more constructive sympathy as I get older though; I wonder if there's a market for mentoring/rehabbing former "nice" guys?

clover wrote:

I have more constructive sympathy as I get older though; I wonder if there's a market for mentoring/rehabbing former "nice" guys? ;)

Nah, they'll just fall in love with you and wonder why you're being friendly if you're not interested in them. I bet you're dating a jerk too!

[size=6]Sorry Edwin! I don't think you're a jerk![/size]

He's a total jerk. But remember, women only date assholes anyway!

As the jerk that always got the person you* were pining for, all I have to say is that it took me a very, very long time to understand that "jerk" and other such appellations are really relative. And that, male or female, someone who is assertive or confident can easily be thrown into that category. I'm just glad that I'm not a woman, since it's far, far more likely that an assertive woman gets a lot of derision.

(*in the general sense)

Prederick wrote:

Totally Honest Admission: I used a "Nice Guy". You're in your late-teens/early-20's, average looking, really horny, and intensely bitter that you're not getting the girl, or any girl. And I remember having some pretty reprehensible opinions on the sexes that I'm embarrassed by.

The catch to the "Nice Guy" thing really is a kind of self-loathing turned outwards. There can't possibly be that much wrong with you, and all these girls are going out with these assholes! You're not an asshole! You totally treat women well! And if that girl is dumb enough to get abused/assaulted by some frat-bro, well that's her own damn fault for dating assholes.

I think the phenomenon is, in part, down to changing sexual roles. Sex was, for a long time, a male privilege, in that, it was a thing men looked for and got from women. Women gave it out, but weren't to dole it out, if that makes sense.

And things began to change, and women began to seek self-determination in their sexual and romantic lives. That male privilege eroded, and dudes for whom, 60 years ago, doing the bare freaking minimum was enough, were suddenly finding that no, women could decide, for whatever reason, why they wanted a particular partner, just like men always had. Anytime those kind of advantages are eroded, people usually react with anger, vindictiveness and bitterness. And that's the "Nice Guy" thing in a nutshell. Just a f*cking ton of anger, bitterness and jealousy.

I'm not proud to say I got over it (still getting over it, if I'm honest), because being a decent, compassionate human being isn't something you should be proud to be. But a realization I had, and that I can't quite understand these guys not getting, is this analogy I came up with:

Let's say you have a car. It won't run. You know it's either the sparkplugs or the fuel injectors. So you decide, it must be the fuel injectors. And you try them. Over and over and over and over again. You try thousands of different brands of fuel injectors, you try installing them different ways, you try insulting them before you install them, you try everything, and the car won't start. At some point, don't you need to assume that perhaps, the problem is the sparkplugs?

Well, there's several billion women on this planet, and one of you. If you can't get a date, odds are, it's not an entire gender being stuck-up Female Doggoes, it's you being undesirable.

I do and don't have sympathy for "nice guys". I do because I was there once, and I don't because now, looking at it from the outside, I realize how incredibly f*cked-up that mindset is. I don't think it's any surprise that I've seen a lot of "nice guys" who were also MRAs.

Prederick, you make some excellent points but I'd like to make a few counterpoints.

1. It's true that in the past males had more power, but I think you're forgetting that for most of human history dating and marriage were not left up to individuals. The bride and groom were usually set up by their parents for diplomatic/economic reasons. Men still had to jump through a lot of hoops, but that was to impress a potential mate's parents rather than her.

2. I know this forum has a lot of sympathy for all sorts of oppressed minorities, some of which I totally agree with and some of which I don't (aka, see the aggressive panhandling thread). For that reason, I'm not sure why nobody in this thread is at least feeling a little empathy for smart guys who regularly got their teeth kicked for 12 long years. It can take many years to come to grips with that sort of pain, a process that guys in their late teens-are just beginning.

It also seems to me that beating up nerds is a very American phenomenon born of a culture that's overly competitive and anti-intellectual. There are plenty of cultures around the world where the kids with more brains than brawn are celebrated, or at least tolerated.

3. Which brings me to my final point - and this point is directed to all the guys here who are embarrased by our "nice guy" behavior. I think I'm a little qualified to speak to this as I was a "nice guy" in high school who went on to act like the "bad boy" in the military. Bad boys do get more dates, because women in their late teens/early-twenties have their own insecurities and bad boy behavior is often rewarded. Neither behavior makes you a good husband, father or responsible adult. But if you've left all that behind, then don't be too hard on yourself. Chalk it up as a learning experience.