What is it about geek culture that’s so unwelcoming to female fans? And why is it so reluctant to admit that? Doctor Nerdlove investigates.
This article was originally posted at Paging Dr. Nerdlove.
I want to tell you a story.
A few years ago, I was dating a girl who was decidedly not nerd curious. She tolerated my geeky interests with a certain bemused air1 but definitely didn’t participate in ‘em… not even setting foot inside a comic store on new comic day. She’d wait outside until I was done… which could be a while, since I was friends with several of the staff.
She came in the store exactly once, after I’d explained that no, it’s a pretty friendly place… well lit, spacious, organized and with helpful – and clearly identified – staff members who were willing to bend over backwards to make sure their customers were satisfied.
She was in there for less than 4 minutes before one mouth-breathing troglodyte began alternately staring at her boobs – evidently hoping that x-ray vision could develop spontaneously – and berating her for daring to comment on the skimpy nature of the costumes – in this case, Lady Death and Witchblade. She fled the premises, never to return.
When both the manager and I explained to him in no uncertain terms as to what he did wrong he shrugged his shoulders. “Hey, I was just trying to help you guys! She couldn’t understand that chicks can be tough and sexy! Not my fault she’s a chauvinist,” he said.
And that was when I shot him, your honor.
So with that example in mind, let’s talk about a subject I’ve touched on before: Male Privilege and how it applies to geeks and – more importantly – geek girls.
Male Privilege: What Is It, Exactly?
I don’t think I’m breaking any news or blowing minds when I point out that geek culture as a whole is predominantly male. Not to say that women aren’t making huge inroads in science fiction/fantasy fandom, gaming, anime and comics… but it’s still a very male culture. As such, it caters to the predominantly male audience that makes it up. This, in turn leads to the phenomenon known as male privilege: the idea that men – most often straight, white men – as a whole, get certain privileges and status because of their gender.
(Obvious disclaimer: I’m a straight white man.)
In geek culture, this manifests in a number of ways. The most obvious is in the portrayal of female characters in comics, video games and movies. Batman: Arkham City provides an excellent example.
To start with, we have three of the male characters of Arkham City:
Here we have the brooding vigilante, the psycho ICP fan and The Doctor
Then we have three of the female characters:
Here we have the dominatrix, the crazy hooker and Exotic Fanservice Girl…
Notice how the differences in how they’re portrayed and costumed? The men are fully clothed and deadly serious. They are clearly defined: the mighty hero, the ominous villains.
The women are all about sex, sex, sexy sextimes. With maybe a little villainy thrown in for flavor. They may be characters, but they’re also sexual objects to be consumed.
I will pause now for the traditional arguments from my readers: these characters are all femme fatales in the comics, all of the characters in the Arkham games are over-the-top, the men are just as exaggerated/sexualized/objectified as the women. Got all of that out of your systems? Good.
Because that reaction is exactly what I’m talking about.
Y’see, one of the issues of male privilege as it applies to fandom is the instinctive defensive reaction to any criticism that maybe, just maybe, shit’s a little fucked up, yo. Nobody wants to acknowledge that a one-sided (and one-dimensional) portrayal of women is the dominant paradigm in gaming; the vast majority of female characters are sexual objects. If a girl wants to see herself represented in video games, she better get used to the idea of being the prize at the bottom of the cereal box. If she wants to see herself as a main character, then it’s time to get ready for a parade of candyfloss costumes where nipple slips are only prevented by violating the laws of physics. The number of games with competent female protagonists who wear more than the Victoria’s Secret Angels are few and far between.
The idea that perhaps the way women are portrayed in fandom is a leetle sexist is regularly met with denials, justifications and outright dismissal of the issue. So regularly, in fact, that there’s a Bingo card covering the most common responses. Part of the notion of male privilege in fandom is that nothing is wrong with fandom and that suggestions that it might benefit from some diversity is treated as a threat.
But what is that threat, exactly?
In this case, the threat is that – ultimately – fandom won’t cater to guys almost to exclusion… that gays, lesbians, racial and religious minorities and (gasp!) women might start having a say in the way that games, comics, etc. will be created in the future. The strawmen that are regularly trotted out – that men are objectified as well, that it’s a convention of the genre, that women actually have more privileges than guys – are a distraction from the real issue: that the privileged are worried that they won’t be as privileged in the near future if this threat isn’t stomped out. Hence the usual reactions: derailment, minimization and ultimately dismissing the topic altogether.
As much as my nerdy brethren wish that more girls were of the geeky persuasion, it’s a little understandable why women might be a little reticent. It’s hard to feel valued or fully included when a very vocal group insists that your input is irrelevant, misguided and ultimately unwelcome. It’s small wonder why geekdom – for all of its self-proclaimed enlightened attitudes towards outsiders and outcasts – still retains the odor of the guy’s locker room.
Photo—Mataparda/Flickr
About Harris O'Malley
Geeks are the idiots who give us nerds a bad name.
have you seen what happens to most comics when they perfectly balance the cast between gender, race, sexual orientation, and able bodied – nes? It turns into some of the most boring crap ever written, It also ceases to look like any naturally formed group of companions and turns all of the character development into this horribly forced, family friendly, artificially constructed non offensive dialog.
But ya know, who cares if it’s entertaining, as long as it represents women equally right?
I believe this is the biggest push-and-pull. Natural, non-artificial diversity appears when society, itself begins to change. Every attempt by comics (great example) to try to be more “inclusive” and “diverse” in the ’80′s and ’90′s felt ham-handed as if there was a very specific and acute motivation outside of story and narrative. We’ve seen a very great maturity in comics begin to pop-up, especially in the indie segment (and with graphic novels rise in popularity).
I always look at the storyline between Emma Frost and Scott Summers from the last 10 years of X-Men where we see a “weak and emotional” male leader juxtaposed with a very “dominant and forceful” female leader. The whole story of Scott Summers post-Jean Grey has been one of a man coming to terms with his failures and becoming the sort of warrior-king that was necessary. I know a lot of people disliked Cyclops’ heavy-handed and very authoritarian approach post-Messiah Complex, but I loved it. Finally the X-Men grew a backbone! And a large part of the story and character development were spurred onward by the tension and very human conflict between Emma and Scott.
I dunno, but I’ve seen steady and quick progress over the last ten years toward an organic, diverse-in-ideas-and-persons approach to the writing in X-Men.
@Kyll:The problem with your example is that it does not represent large numbers of women. Large numbers of women lobby aggressively for, as they should, women’s health concerns like abortion right’s, or equal pay etc.These are issues are considered mainstream and mainstream women don’t care about doing their fair share on the battlefield and never really have.Of course, your probably going to say if men did XYZ that women would change which simply passing the buck. African American men during the Civil War, WW1,Korea and WW2 endured hardships to gain their right to represent their country women today couldn’t even imagine.
“African American men during the Civil War, WW1,Korea and WW2 endured hardships to gain their right to represent their country women today couldn’t even imagine.”
Women have served in every military conflict since before the founding of the USA. Perhaps they weren’t there in an official *combat* capacity, but you cannot deny that women have been present and in danger in service to their country, with thousands having lost their lives in the line of duty. Molly Pitchers, women spies, nurses, those who cleaned and performed other menial tasks (like laundry), female snipers, cross-dressers like Deborah Sampson…
What was that you were saying about unimaginable hardships?
I’ve heard of Russian female snipers (in fact I’ve heard Russia trained 55,000 female snipers), but I’ve never heard of American female snipers (at least not commissioned by the armed forces). There may have been some very early in American Revolution or next 40 years thereafter, but I do not believe I have ever heard of the armed forces commissioning training of female snipers.
Additionally, I don’t know about early American history, but my understanding is male soldiers have been doing their own cooking and cleaning for at least since WWI.
Maybe you should double check your sources before just throwing out clever sounding laundry lists.
@ Sarah: I gotta admit that I am surprised that you, who I consider to be one of the more thoughtful female voice I’ve encountered socially,can’t see that in society female spaces abounds. That you don’t see these things speaks to something very wrong with society.There are Women’s colleges,the home,entertainment, like novels books, plays,comics,The Lifetime Network, the sex industry,yes, women pay for sex too and of course the whole male stripper culture geared toward women.
Actually what I meant in my comment, I asked if there are a lot of female spaces that men want to be PART of. Do you want Lifetime to show more movies that appeal to men? I’m not denying there are female spaces, in fact, there are lots of them.
I think what some female gamers are saying is that they would like to see more that appeals to them. Which I think is fair (though personally it is not something I worry about that much, other female gamers are bothered more), just as I think it would be fair for men to complain if, for example, TV was dominated by female-oriented shows. I think that’s s slightly different issue that showing up on the playground or a gaming convention, and demanding that individual people change how they interact or who they socialize with in order to accommodate you. Although even then, many dad bloggers have written about being snubbed by mothers, I dont think that criticism is out if line. You could reverse what you are saying about male gamers having a right to their own space away, and apply it to moms who need their own space and don’t want to change to accommodate SAHD’s. For example, I recall a mom blogger saying that she wouldn’t want men in her mommies group because then they coukdn’t talk abt breast feeding and sexual issues and their husbands and so on. Is that fair? I don’t know. It’s not a B&W issue.
Roller derby, softball, ringuette, to name 3 sports.
Softball was apparently developed as the “easier” equivalent of baseball. Considered less manly by some. In some place the divide is stark, boys play baseball, girls play softball. Girls can also play baseball if they want, but boys can’t play softball if there’s no mixed team.
Ringuette is also the more-feminine equivalent of hockey.
And roller derby was originally mixed. Now its considered female only.
I kinda like the Lifetime channel, actually. It tends to show relatively attractive women in lead roles and in a variety of exciting situations. I would prefer a bit more sex and nudity on it, though. Only if it’s integral to the plot, of course…..
Yes, Sarah, this is going to sound a bit snarky, but there are quite a few female spaces that exist that men would like to have as well. I’ll name just 3 off the top of my head that are federally mandated:
1.) I’d love to have ONE federal department of health focus on men. We have 5 bureaus under 3 different departments for women’s health, despite men dying of virtually every known cause more than women, and receiving less federal funding.
2.) I’d love to be in the women’s only space that gives federal protections against violence, considering that men are 8 times more likely to be a victim of violence than women.
3.) I’d love to have the women’s only space in federal public policy that focuses on their dearth in science fields, instead focus on why men are dropping out of high school in droves and subsequently becoming 9 times more likely to be homeless.
Let alone the myriad of other places where it’s not a federal policy, but a social stigma against male groups despite men being a statistical minority (National Organization for Women (women make up 51% of the electorate), American Women’s medical student/law student Associations (there are more female med/law students currently), etc. etc.).
The mere fact that we are quite literally going to what used to be considered a male sexual abyss the residents of which historically women would voluntarily avoid (i.e. the comic book/sci-fi cohort — and disclaimer — I’m a nerd who loves Star Trek so I’m being self-flagellating) and whining about how women don’t get benefits there as well demonstrates how insanely female-centric our priorities in gender equality have become.
That’s fair, but I was actually thinking more about social groups and cliques and hobbies, not the political realm I think that there are hobbies that attract men and hobbies that attract women, and if you try to cross the gender divide, you will feel somewhat out of place. I don’t really agree with women who complain that geek culture is not friendly enough to women, because male dominated hobbies are going to be, well, male dominated. The solution is to find the right group of friends within that subculture. One of my hobbies is knitting, which is dominated by women, I’ve been to an annual knitting convention where there are thousands and thousands of women and like 5 guys. I’m sure those guys feel a little out of place.
I guess what I meant in my earlier comment is that I haven’t noticed many guys fighting to be included in the kinds of hobbies and activities that women dominate. Actually, female dominated hobbies tend to have a “girly” stigma that drives men away. There’s often little social status attached to female activities whereas male clubs and activities are perceived as having status that women want to be part of.
Actually, I can think of one: book clubs. I’d love to be part of a book club, and not a specifically “guy” book club.
@Sarah:Good points. With the mom’s group, I would say that taking care of kids is not gender specific, so when in public women will be around men, women, grandfathers, guardians, uncles,aunts and so forth,get used to it, it’s their space too;and in shared space the rules change.Women have and society dictates that men are going to be in the nursery and the parks and playgrounds with women.So don’t expect a man to leave if it’s feeding time.Just like the nerds who WANT women in their space, women who want men to take a lead role in raising kids need to be supportive of the man’s needs as well.@wellokthen: If there was nudity the woman might be so self conscious about body image you might not enjoy it.
In response to Sarah’s question about mom’s groups and men:
I can see the gray area. Within reason, it’s fair to go by the principle of “majority rules,” but ideally without totally shunning the members of the minority. I think it’s fair to expect that if there’s a group that tends to be 90% moms and 10% dads, the conversation will tend towards women’s topics more than men’s (insofar as they are different). I would expect as a guy going there that there may be subjects that I don’t have much to say about. In most cases, there is some balance somewhere between being the freedom to be different and the need to be inclusive.
At the same time, I bet a lot of moms get bored with talking about “mommy stuff” all day and might find it refreshing to have a conversation with someone who’s not a mom and not a child.
Who knows? Maybe even dads and moms could learn something from each other….
“Who knows? Maybe even dads and moms could learn something from each other….”
Moms and dads *actually* communicating? Perish the thought! Society as we know it would completely fall apart.
Anyone else up for some anarchy?
As a woman without children, I also feel excluded by the conversation between moms. It’s frustrating, as some of my best friends became like strangers to me as soon as they had a baby. They never seem to get tired of talking about baby stuff! Which is fine, that’s what they are most interested in and maybe that’s how it should be. But from the outside, motherhood does seem like an exclusive club sometimes.
The best way to bring two groups that differ in proportion together is through the use of humor.
“I don’t have to tell you it goes without saying that there are some things better left unsaid. I think that speaks for itself. The less said about it the better.”
The above is George Carlin’s way of settling friction between groups when competing interests exist.
I think that when people feel slighted, their moral decisions are driven by emotions and then justified by post hoc reasoning. That’s how you get strange positions such as: I’m going to treat you poorly because the girls I knew in high school made fun of me”. And young girls are no different with their post hoc illusions either.
@Kyll:The point your comment raises I agree with because it’s true and underscores my original thesis.Which is a contrasting comparison of the relative paths to full enfranchishment of some women and some men in America.More to the point,for African-American men, combat service in a variety of wars and theaters was a condition of acquiring equality.This was particularly true of the Civil War,where through the stature,courage and political will of Frederick Douglas, the Negro openly leveraged his bravery and service as a condition of freedom for his community.The same can be said for WW 2.In general,as a comparison,men have fought in combat and died in greater numbers than women.I believe that reason is primarily because combat service is a low priority for women.It’s just another another example of beneificial chauvanism.
I think actually the more prevalent attitude is that women would be poor soldiers in combat due to less physical strength and aggressiveness. I think that is a common belief among military men.
I don’t know what strength and aggressiveness have to do with the Pentagon’s current video game approach to warfare. You don’t need to benchpress 400 pounds to fly a Predator drone.
Combat jobs are the only ones women can’t enlist into. Infantry, artillery, etc.
@JP:What’s up? My point in mentioning your self-imposed neutrality was to suggest one can attract more hummingbirds with a feeder than a.My sense is you found out more than you otherwise might have by going ninja blogger style.I ain’t mad at you.Was it worth it?Where neo feminism is concerned,they were left with a credibilty gap to bridge and fences to mend.Which has been largely overlooked during feminism’s generational shift.The attitudes and values you expressed about the current feminists views on men’s sexuality are hardly common and would’ve raised eyebrows in feminists circles 20 years ago.Feminism has been so wrong about so much and so many people have been hurt as a result.You see I grew up learning that women weren’t violent,that they were incapable of violence,that man was societies willing reserverior of violence.This didn’t explain my mothers behavior,her bullying,her violent eruptions. Shit I was confused,here she was whupping my ass,calling herself a feminist,who are incapable of such things.My circumstance was hardly isolated.Neo-feminists,I guess, imagine they can leapfrog the outcomes of their mothers and grandmothers failures,change the cereal box, become new and improved. How about feminists just be honest and simply say,we fucked up,we were wrong and hypocritical and racist and classist and sexist but we”re trying to change.It’s called leadership.
There may well be some military men who believe what you say.At one point in history abortions were illegal,women changed it because it was a priority.It’s simple matter of priorities.I mean, why go to war if someone else,who is trained almost from birth to protect you,will do it for you.For me,therein lies the frustrating,painful rub,the refusal to admit the obvious.Most men lack the aggression to kill other people too.Hell,most men lack sufficient aggression to engage in a fistfight, unless struck first.Male aggression is vastly overstated, thanks to you know who…Besides mothers contribute to the conditioning of male’s as aggressors, as do women men meet in life.I grew up hearing this intellectualy suspect trope:ALL men are violent and since women are the moral,intellectual and physical opposite of men…you know the rest.I guess Magaret Thatcher didn’t get that women aren’t aggressive gene/memo since she,over the protests of male advisers who had actually experienced war, decided to invade the Falkland Islands;without provocation.Perhaps neither did Cleopatra, an iconic strong woman figure, who killed and exiled siblings to conslidate power in herself.Who can forget Hillary Clinton’s strong language in ’08 about how she would use America’s military power?So,women can send men to war but not fight in them in comparable numbers, they can avoid the pressures of the obligation of war without fear of a loss of status. Sweet deal.I’m used to that,most men don’t think twice about it.It’s the ignorance and deception about the truth that is hard to fathom.Women box professionaly and in the Olympics and amateur ranks.They fight in the MMA.They are world class martial artists. They hunt and fish and are experts with firearms.Lesbians,bisexual and straightwomen all engage in DV and rape,to say nothing of child abuse:Women not aggressive,com’n.
Men could refuse to fight in combat. If enough men refused, war would be impossible. Yes, during times when the draft is in effect, you could go to jail. But if everyone refused, they couldn’t jail everyone. If soldiers were not willing to fight, there would be no war.
@sarah: yes and if my granpá had wheels he would be a car. In a ideal world maybe, Sarah, but we arent living in that kind of world. The ‘ if you all…ect ‘ is not a good a way forward. Its more a evasive tactic. And beside, war is a more complex matter, than just few politicans who decide what to do or not to do.
“Men could refuse to fight in combat. If enough men refused, war would be impossible. Yes, during times when the draft is in effect, you could go to jail. But if everyone refused, they couldn’t jail everyone. If soldiers were not willing to fight, there would be no war.”
Female privilege has never been so obvious than this comment
Men that refused to fight would be jailed, socially ostracized or put to death. What you ask for is impossible as someone is always willing to fight, and when you’re faced with an invading army often you have no choice but to fight.
Ask the russians in WW2 what happened if they refused to fight…
@Sarah:Actually, America has a rich history of draft and war resistance.However,like most things in life,doing so is far more complicated than is indicated by your oversimplified response.The fact is the potus has broad powers to compell youngmen,in time of war,to fight under various threats.It’s for someone to say ,”just go to jail.”Sure,you will go to prison and as a felon lose your right to work and to vote. So,forget getting married or having meaningful relationships because you can’t afford them.There are some great books that chronicle the lives of some men who did what you say.Really, your response reveals how disconnected,even thoughtful women are about these issues that damatically affect the lives of men.The underlying message is,men are on their own.Not your best effort Sarah.
og, I’m guessing that paragraph breaks would be too much to ask for, but for the love of fellow commenters, could you please put spaces after your punctuation? I always feel like your comments are trapped in a trash compactor with Luke, Leia, Han, and Frodo. As the Jedi Spock would say, “May the spacebar be with you and prosper.”
If women are able to avoid fighting in wars, why don’t more men refuse? That’s what I’m asking. Men could stop war if enough refused.
Do you think an infantry force that is 50% women (which I agree would be fair as far as gender equality goes) would be as effective against a foreign army as an infantry that is 100% men? I actually don’t know, I have no military experience, but it is worth asking I think.
Because women get this lil female privilege of being protected in times of war. Chivalrous attitudes mean that yes women often lack the choice but they also get shielded from a lot of wartime violence, currently they suffer 4-6x LESS deaths from violence in war. And before anyone tries to tell me it’s not a privilege then you really need to take a long hard look at what privilege is, it’s one of the best privileges you can get to have someone else fight to protect you. Yes it comes at a cost, but the cost for men is far greater for war, and they often have no choice as well in the matter as they are forced (the draft) into war and even face death if they refuse.
And why don’t more men refuse? Because often it’s the difference between getting jailed for a long time or killed vs the chance you may survive on the battlefield. Then you get your manhood called into question, even by women (see the white feather ladies).
Modern military allow for more female fighters as vehicles carry much of the load, they’re still at a disadvantage with hand-to-hand combat but guns do help even the odds. Israel has all female platoons now as well.
“Because women get this lil female privilege of being protected in times of war.”
So do children, yet no one points to children and goes “they’re protected in times of war so they’re privileged” or questions/examines why.
It’s worth examining *why* anyone has any particular privilege, though. When it comes to women and war, pragmatically speaking, men cannot bear children, and one man can relatively easily impregnate multiple women. The converse is not true, and so in the past, where mortality rates were high, it made sense to protect women, so that the population wasn’t completely wiped out by the war and ensuing disease outbreaks. Eventually, you get the traditionally engrained duties where men go to war to protect their families/country/whatever while women stay safe at home and have children.
Whether or not it’s a relevant reason *now* is a different matter entirely.
Personally, I find it interesting that the underlying assumption that it’s a woman’s duty to have children traditionally drives opposition to their inclusion in combat… and their say in abortion.
“So do children, yet no one points to children and goes “they’re protected in times of war so they’re privileged” or questions/examines why.”
Not all children, and in some cases only female children as the male children are forced to be soldiers. Adult women also have a much better chance of defending themselves and fighting vs children, as proven by countless female soldiers that exist today. Trying to act like women don’t have privilege here is pathetic. Children also have privilege in this area but due to their age, maturity in both mental and physical attributes it’s not expected for them to fight when we have adults around.
But in times of great peril even children can help out, if you have every adult already working to the brink then to survive the children who are able to need to help make food, cart stuff around, keep the supplies going and if need be pick up a rifle if everyone is stretched to the limit. In war everyone needs to do what they can to survive, leaving half the population in homes when you’re conscripting people is just downright silly. If I am forced to fight, you can be damn sure I’ll be lobbying for women to be thrown into battle alongside me if efforts to remove conscription didn’t work.
Say what? Where did I do that? My entire post relies upon acknowledging that women are privileged with regards to protection during war.
Similarly, because one of the primary functions of women in society traditionally has been to have children, it’s not expected that women fight when there are men around. As I mentioned before, it results from the logistics of reproduction in which males are more expendable than females.
It’s also worth noting that the treatment of children as a privileged group is a fairly recent thing, and that the concepts of physical and mental maturity we hold now are quite different in comparison to just 50, much less 100 or more, years ago.
Apologies, it looked like you were trying to divert attention away from women by talking about children and how no one asks about their privilege.
True for the second part, I read about the factory workers who were kids working with some extremely harsh chemicals losing their jaws from the gases…..sickening stuff:(
” If women are able to avoid fighting in wars, why don’t more men refuse? That’s what I’m asking. Men could stop war if enough refused.
”
Sarah, honestly, do you think men have hive-minds?
If women are able to avoid fighting in wars, why don’t more men refuse? That’s what I’m asking.
Because when it comes to fighting intersects with gender the expectations are different.
Women were kept out of the fighting and men were tossed into it.
And just like with any population its real easy for someone to look at the other side and start asking a bunch of “what if….” questions.
I may as well as why don’t more women take over more Fortune 500 companies.
I was in the Marines. Many of the men I fought and killed in Iraq were drafted and they did not want to fight. But if they refused, members of the Ba’ath Party would go into their homes and murder their wives and children. One time I saw a dead Ba’athist, shot point blank in the head by his own men who wanted to surrender, but they feared that he would alert the people holding their families hostage. Many of these men fought to their deaths against a superior enemy not for love of their country, but to keep their wives and children safe.
In WW2, the Soviets would send unarmed men into battle. They would give the front man a rifle with a single bullet and they would give more bullets to the men behind him. When that man fired his one shot and died, the man behind him was to take his rifle and use it until he got shot. Behind them, their Soviet handlers would use machine guns to kill any men who tried to retreat. And often, if there are not enough grown men to do the fighting, young boys are next in line to be taken in, abducted if they have to be.
There’s always a way to make men fight. If jail isn’t enough, harsher methods will be used. It is always better to volunteer than to be drafted; to be drafted rather than to be kidnapped, and to be kidnapped rather than to have your loved ones murdered. It’s only the final option of last resort to actually ask women to fight against their will. As a woman, this is what you need to come to terms with. Do you really want men to refuse to fight? Are you willing to have someone come into your house and murder you because none of the men in your life took your suggestion?
correction in the last sentence… it’s supposed to say, “because all of the men in your life took your suggestion.”
A conventional First World infantry with 50% women? Possibly less effective. A force of non-conventional combatants, like guerrillas, sappers, saboteurs, terrorists, etc.? Absolutely, women could probably be even more effective than men.
The forces operating against American troops in Afghanistan travel extremely light. They don’t have to be super athletes. They don’t have to carry really heavy packs. There are plenty of women who could physically perform the same military roles. Sure, you can assume that they’re going to lose this war if you want, but you can’t say they’ve had no success.
Don’t forget about the mechanization and computerization of modern warfare. Stephen Hawking could launch a missile from a ship, so surely my sister, who’s built like a linebacker, could contribute to a war machine.
it’s hardly a controlled experiment, but Israel, which has had women in combat since before there was an Israel, has done quite well for itself in ground combat (including infantry battles) against the all-male armies of its neighbors.
Checking pictures from conventions. Checking my own memories from conventions I went to, and my own geek friends.
That’s funny, all I say is an almost 50-50 split between men and women. And you know what, the women usually come dressed as the very “misogynist, creepily-depicted female characters” that you claim are driving them away. In fact, they enjoy the attentions those costumes get them.
Ah! So the “misogynist, creepily-depicted female characters” actually drive petty, pathetic, spineless, insecure, narcissist asshole women away, while the cool, fun, strong, confident women with spines keep flocking to it, huh?
I say we stay the course.
@Marcus:Hey man,you are right.Most of my stuff I write on my go phone which doesn’t allow much word processing.
@Marcus:Hey man,you are right.Most of my stuff I write is on my Go phone which doesn’t have many features.
“As such, it caters to the predominantly male audience that makes it up. This, in turn leads to the phenomenon known as male privilege: the idea that men – most often straight, white men – as a whole, get certain privileges and status because of their gender.”
Male privilege is usually used to mean systematic, unidirectional power. Having some types of media cater to you is not evidence of that. In an egalitarian world there would be different media produced to different people’s tastes.
“Nobody wants to acknowledge that a one-sided (and one-dimensional) portrayal of women is the dominant paradigm in gaming; the vast majority of female characters are sexual objects. If a girl wants to see herself represented in video games, she better get used to the idea of being the prize at the bottom of the cereal box. If she wants to see herself as a main character, then it’s time to get ready for a parade of candyfloss costumes where nipple slips are only prevented by violating the laws of physics. The number of games with competent female protagonists who wear more than the Victoria’s Secret Angels are few and far between.”
Men who open up a romance novel isn’t going to find it’s written with him in mind either. That’s not proof that women wield oppressive power over men.
“But what is that threat, exactly?”
That people will stop making media aimed at straight men seems the obvious answer given that nobody’s advocating that more games should be made catering specifically to women they only oppose games specifically aimed at men.
@dungone: I come from a military family, my father served in Korea and my oldest brother served 2 tours in Nam. What is truly remarkably disappointing is how disconnected most women are from an issue that has affected mostly men and the country so profoundly since it’s inception. The comments from the women on this thread reflect this disconnection and lack of concern, intentional or not. I have seen it and felt it before. It is frustrating, considering the amount of time and energy females expect to have invested in them, that it is not reciprocated, and is taken for granted. Where is the empathy,the effort to put aside one’s own defenses and acknowledge someone else’s the pain and helplessness? Thanks dungone for sharing your story, I know you guy’s don’t talk much about what went down. Men don’t like war,enough already.
Interesting points, but you fail to go near a solution to the problem.
When it comes down to it, white, straight, middle-class males have the most disposable income. Comic books and video games are expensive. If they believed that speaking to women’s issues would bring in a massive female contingent, they’d be on that by now. Solve the first point and the others follow. But while comic-book companies know that they’re a luxury and that men can afford more luxuries, it’s clearly in their interests to play to that audience.
Interesting sidebar: Darkchylde, probably the worst culprit in my memory for over-sexualising a young female lead, outsold most of the top titles for a while thanks to a surprisingly large female fan-base. So it’s probably not the appearance of the characters that drive women off. It’s the failure to connect with women generally.
@John D : You make good points, the truth seems to be that the mercenary quality you speak of in relationships is real and powerful. However, it should be noted that this quality has always been of part of relationships. Circumstances, such as the awakening of men and intractable, cyclical unemployment have increased the awareness of the existence of quality. I also think you are right in that, for better or worse, chivalry did serve to provide rules of engagement that were more or less clear and agreed upon. When the rules changed 30 years ago,things slowly began to unravel. The mistake of feminism, which challenged and then changed the rules, is that the changes were made in absence of the male voice. Confusion, animus, distrust are what’s left. Men clearly are tired of these new rules and the have one’s cake and eat it too character of them. Men are tired of being forced to be reactionary. The new rules give women unlimited choice and limited accountability in how she chooses to define herself., leaving fewer avenues for him to define himself. He now sees the illusion of the grandeur of masculinity and privilege as the ball and chain they always were.This dynamic still persist today. Over the subsequent decades, a narrative took shape, based upon theories that were emerging from Women’s Studies, that colors the relationship between men and women and suggests that unilateralism is an effective means of achieving change. Many of these theories that took root, though they have been found to be wrong, have depended upon exacerbating differences between men and women which are creating permanent wedges between men and women. An example would be the issues of DV and rape. Even though it is acknowledged by NOW that women also rape other women and men, as well, their coverage of the issue still chooses to make men the primary symbol of DV and rape. The answer isn’t a return to chivalry which help to start this mess, but a reformation of the rules of the game.
@John I am studying British WW1 propaganda and the common strategy linking all of the messaging running through most of the material was the same; use shame, guilt and emasculation to accomplish the task. Underpinning these messages was a foundational belief in the utilitarianism of the aspiring male character. In WW1the successful use this technique lead to scores of middle class educated men and boy’s going to war, some having received only two weeks training before being sent to the front. Like the Civil war, the male persona was thought to be enhanced and uplifted by making this sacrifice for one’s family and country.
British propaganda films provoked then exploited the males natural desire to protect their women and children by developing films that depicted Germans as wonton, wild eyed, subhumans, bent on the rapacious destruction of British womanhood. Other posters showed a middle class white male siting in a room with his daughter and the caption read,”What did you do in the war Daddy?” Such are the hidden cost of male privilege. Given all of the easily accessible proof of man’s desire to avoid war and given the sophisticated state sponsored reaction to that reluctance, that any one could believe that part of man’s role in an military/industrial complex, nation state is not utilitarian is difficult to fathom.
Now that every male space can be invaded, thats equality, because male only spaces are sexist but female only spaces of course that’s not sexist that’s just empowerment and progression. No double standards of course!