I'm just sayin'. If a Femme Doctor can travel through time and space at a whim, she can probably kick ass even if she's not wearing serviceable coveralls. Anyone who tells me I can't be a legitimate heroine because I'm taller and have some leg showing is underestimating me.

And what the hell is wrong with corsets? They provide great back support and were the garment of choice for the laboring class of the middle ages. The LABORING CLASS, people.

Em: oh lovely, the insidious idea that feminism is just talking about issues as they affect women. In practice, the problem is it talking about them as though they only affect women. For example, consider the idea that (for example) rape is a form of gender-based violence aimed at oppressing women. That's pretty clearly not just saying something about female rape victims, it's making a statement about male ones too. This is probably most clear when feminists at sites like I Blame The Patriarchy use this idea to claim men can't really be raped, but it's inherent to the argument itself.

Daniel Hemmens: you'd be surprised how few people there are really taking on the issue of childhood sexual abuse and rape against young boys, especially in a systemic fashion.

Also, I'd like to know how that's meant to be a defense of Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. Because you're just agreeing with what Toysoldier is claiming: that PHMT is used to justify a gendered approach that treats female victims differently in spite of evidence contradicting this. I've never seen PHMT followed up with an actual analysis of how the patriarchy hurts men and the implications of this - on the contrary, it's generally used to avoid having to think about the problem. Now, there is some consideration of the effect of patriarchy on men, but it's fundamentally broken - not enough willingness to go beyond the aspects that affect women.

Finally, I note your experience. In practice, the culture of male-on-male violence seems to be one of the biggest things missing from feminist treatment of male culture and experiences; would you have brought it up in a feminist space normally? (I generally only see this come up in the form of arguments that subtly erase or ignore it. Like, for example, pointing out that a much smaller percentage of violence against men is domestic violence than of violence against women. That's a really common one.)

one could say that american culture is materialistic and imperialist, but that wouldn't mean that every american has those qualities.

geek culture is full of rampant sexual objectification of women. all of american culture, in fact, is full of the same. i do not believe every geek or every american embraces sexually objectifying women. but it is quite simply a fact that we are steeped in such culture here.

your argument in part comes down to tone. you think the dominant cultural forces in geekland will listen better if people who dislike this aspect of it are nice to them about it and understanding. as an activist in civil rights movements, i can tell you being nice to the people in charge only gets you so far. after a point, making change requires demanding a real hard look in the mirror for this community.

in FPS land, it's as common to call someone a "fag" as it is to shoot some d00dz. as a queer person i can't stand this. when i have pointed this out, i get back, "it's just how it is, it doesn't hurt anybody." whether i say it as a complaint or whether i say it very nicely with a context of "i know you're not homophobic but---" doesn't make a difference. the fact that i'm hurt, angered, and pissed off that this is the dominant insult in this subculture, one that belittles my identity and makes me feel totally unwelcome, doesn't matter - i'm not anybody, i don't count, no one is interested in what i feel about it.

i don't actually get much out of shooting people so i stopped bothering to try to change anything about FPS land. but this experience is akin to what it's like for feminists (who by the way include many, many men) fighting against the dominant narratives in geekland. whether you say it nicely or not, the cultural forces declaring "gigantic cleavage on women? that's just the way it is!" are intensely, intensely strong. and it leads to people being pissed off and feeling unwelcome.

i don't think being nice will get us anywhere, but an honest discussion and commitments to change WILL.

Courtney as an individual is offended by some things, and now she has stood up and spouted her histrionics on behalf of female nerds. Now next time I show up at an event someone is going to read this nonsense and treat me differently than I want to be treated. I'm a different person from Courtney and our mutual possession of a vagina doesn't give us any more in common than our mutual possession of hair.

WisCon

So when you have some members of the very group of people who rejected you trying to get into that space you feel invaded upon (this goes for nearly any group under the sun). Kinda like a "hey we built this space to get away from you and you're here too?" thing.

Also as most people know to be male to been given and expected to live by the script that says men don't show emotion, men don't admit weakness, when it comes to pain "real men" just suck it up, etc... You internalize and bottle that sh!t up long enough there's a good chance it will blow up and come out in inappropriate (to say the least) ways.

Now of course this doesn't justify the way some male greeks treat women it may explain where it may be rooted and for such treatment to be done away with the root cause needs to be dealt with.

When you experience something like "dick or GTFO", them you might have a leg to stand on. There are website for the up with men types like you and the troll space is already taken up by Keith B. around here.

Hemmens, I linked to a post that provided a fuller explanation of my position, which also happened to analyze particular examples from a semi-popular feminist blog. It is no different than what Stoker did in the above post, so I fail to understand your objection. As for the other point, if one wants to have a discussion, let alone build a friendship, it is unwise to start off by insulting and attacking the other person. That would not work well. Likewise, disagreeing with a feminist position does not silence female geeks (most of whom are not feminists), nor does challenging whether it is fair to label all male geeks misogynists. Ironically, those feminist responses bear striking similarity to what feminists accuse male geeks of doing to them.

Diz, for someone complaining about feminists being unwelcome in geek spaces, feminists are sure trying damn hard to make male geeks unwelcome in feminist spaces. Pot, I see you are well acquainted with kettle. As I stated above, this is not a one-sided situation, and I suspect that remarks like yours do not help your cause.

But men are so *badly treated*. I mean why do we have *feminism* but not *masculinism*. Why do people talk about *womens* rights all the time when nobody talks about *mens* rights.

And look at all the awful *silencing* tactics women use.

Like this time when I tried to explain something to this woman, and she told me she already knew about it.

Or the time when a woman was talking, and I wanted to be talking, and I interrupted her, but she asked me not to.

Or the time when a woman *disagreed with me*.

Silencing tactics I tell you!

Pot, meet kettle, you'll get along famously.

I've been watching through TNG again and got to the episode "Ethics" (5x16) and was really affected by it. It's half Dr. Crusher dealing with the medical ethics of another female doctor and half Worf dealing with his son and possibly being disabled the rest of his life. It was incredibly female centric and the part about Worf is very much about dealing father roles, responsibility, and emotions through the help of counselor Troi. I was blown away by the impact female representation had on me - an aged nerd.

Giving women voices and representation in nerd culture makes an impact. We are here, please give us a voice. Please create characters that are like us. Please take us into account. Please don't marginalize us. Please create safe spaces for us.

(btw I want to agree with the poster above who talked about the inclusiveness of PAX. It's an incredible place.)

But yeah, "complicit" is a really weird and difficult word because it's got so many different connotations.

Maybe I should get up earlier so I can have coffee before checking my e-mail, etc. . . .

Sorry, I'm probably missing something obvious here. Are you making a joke about Toysoldier's insistence that feminists aren't allowed to agree with anything men say, or are you saying that I got something Seriously Wrong?

HOWEVER, it is highly important to note that saying someone is complicit in violence directed against them in some way IS NOT the same thing as saying that violence does not matter/is not important/does not deserve attention

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from - yes, you're right that I've been saying "nobody is saying men are complicit in their own abuse" when actually it's a bit more complicated than that.

Basically for me "complicit" is a word I'm comfortable using for describing broad abstract things (complicity in harmful social structures) but am much less comfortable with using in reference to *specific* acts of violence (complicit in his/her own abuse). It's a purely personal reaction, but "complicit" to me is a term that has victim-blaming connotations.

It simply notes that VICTIMS of violence must work together to help end the violence, and cannot wait for others to save them from the cycle of violence currently in place in our society.

I *think* I see where you're coming from here, but I think it's also important to recognize that responsibility for preventing violence ultimately lies with the people who perpetrate it.

It is certainly *desirable* for the victims of violence to work together, but again I'm uncomfortable with the idea that victims of violence have a *responsibility* to work together to end violence.

Sometimes, the victims of violence *really are* unable to break the cycle, and I don't think it's quite right to talk about people "waiting for others to save them". Again that feels - to me - to be saying that abuse is the fault of the victim for being too passive, not of the abuser for abusing.

I absolutely agree that everybody (even women, even abuse victims) is complicit in supporting the social structures which allow abuse cycles to perpetuate, but I'm uncomfortable with abuse victims being described as complicit in their own *specific* abuse.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that it isn't okay to express things the way you've expressed them. I'm just explaining why that particular way of using the word "complicit" makes me uncomfortable.

No, you linked to a blog post that *repeated* the assertion.

The blog post you linked to, which I did read made several assertions about feminism, most of which were false, and about the notion of privilege, most of which failed to understand it. It did not contain any examples of feminists *actually doing* the things that you accuse them of doing.

This is roughly the equivalent of me claiming that you believe the earth is flat, and trying to "prove" this by linking you to a blog post in which I say "Toysoldier believes the earth is flat".

To address the points in that post specifically:

You don't like the idea of "male privilege". Well that's your right, and nobody is going to deny you that right. You then attempt to argue that male privilege doesn't exist because (as far as I can understand it) men are more likely to get drafted into the army than women.

Again, this is argument is *provably wrong*. Yes, it is true that men are more likely to be conscripted than women (particularly when you take the worldwide view). This would only be a reasonable argument against the concept of "privilege" if the term meant "is always better off than in any and all situations, with no exception".

What you are trying to do is to argue against a theory by citing evidence that is *actually predicted by that theory*. It's like trying to argue against gravity by pointing out that the moon stays in the sky. It's an argument that only works if you ignore what the theory *actually says*.

What you have given me examples of is instances of violence against men which, for some reason, you think feminists have a moral duty to address. What you have *not* shown me is a situation in which feminists have dismissed or belittled the experiences of these people, except insofar as you (erroneously) believe the *very concept* of "male privilege" to be an attack on men's rights and experiences.

Treating feminists with respect and civility will not change that they belong to a female-dominated, misandrist political subculture. However, it would make feminists more inclined to engage in discussions if a person did not start off by saying that.

Were I feeling glib, I'd ask how you knew what you could achieve by treating feminists with respect and civility since, whatever you may believe, you haven't.

I'd also say that I think we're coming at this from very different perspectives. Where I'm coming from, if you *genuinely* believe that feminists are part of a "misandrist political subculture" it's *far* better to say that upfront than be coy about it. That way everybody knows who they're dealing with.

Complicit, here, means that we participate in the patriarchy, not that anyone was "asking for it" or any such thing. No one ASKS to be abused - but we do participate in the power structures that make abuse, such as rape or verbal abuse, seem more acceptable than it should be. I used complicit in the sense it has always been used in the academic discussions I participate in, not as if people were complicit in their abuse by "asking for it." No one - NO ONE - asks to be abused (outside of certain sexual fetishes, but they are not applicable to this discussion) and that is NOT what I meant by being "complicit" in violence.

I never dismissed your experiences. I did dismiss the your "empirical test" because it was anything but empirical.

Treating feminists with respect and civility will not change that they belong to a female-dominated, misandrist political subculture. However, it would make feminists more inclined to engage in discussions if a person did not start off by saying that. Feminists might be even more likely to engage in a discussion with a person who did not accuse all feminists of misandry. I would think that the better winning strategy would be to treat male geeks as people rather than the Borg, and to not vilify all of them for the actions of a few. After all, it does seem that the "You're All Misogynists" strategy is not working.

Elise, so when people say that women are complicit in the violence directed at them by virtue of their gender, their state of dress, or their behavior, it is really just people saying that women "must work together to help end the violence and cannot wait for others to save them from the cycle of violence currently in place in our society?" I think feminists would call that victim blaming. However, thank you for demonstrating that some feminists do use PHMT to victim blame male victims.

This, by the way, was a brilliant article. I especially enjoyed the thoughts on females that help to set their own gender back, by agreeing they're the 'cool exceptions' to these horribly outdated stereotypes of women that many of their male friends have. I have to admit that I have been guilty of this in the past, but I think it stemmed from my own insecurity, and wanting to be viewed as 'awesome' and 'better' than other women among my guy friends. That entire 'I am the exception to the rule, and I am awesome, so everybody love me and harbor secret crushes towards me' type bullshit, but no more. Thank goodness for finding my own self confidence. And so many apologies to those that follow behind me, for having been one to temporarily contribute to that crap.

Umm, yes you're right that would be an excellent analogy if you had provided ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that feminists treat male victims with ANYTHING OTHER THAN TOTAL RESPECT. You haven't.

And nobody dismissed what you were saying. They said the analogy was false, because it was based on a false premise, because it is.

"Patriarchy Hurts Men Too" is not a silencing tactic. It is a statement of political reality. It is *the answer* to your supposed "questions" about why feminists don't treat male victims better. It is, in fact, evidence that feminists treat male victims EXACTLY THE SAME as female victims. If this does not look like equality to you, it is a problem with your perception, not with feminism.

I'd also add that I have now actually contributed to this thread AS and FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF a male victim of violence and YOU - not any of the women, not any of the feminists, you - have actually dismissed my experiences. Strangely your boundless sympathy for the poor, poor male victims who the cruel feminists treat *so badly* vanishes the moment you encounter an actual man who actually wants to talk to you about his experiences.

PD, no I am saying you are not going to win over male geeks by stating they are a part of a “male-dominated, misogynistic geek subculture.”

Well no, this is true. A much better strategy for winning over male geeks would be to tell them that geek subculture is *totally not* male dominated and misogynistic. Male geeks would love to hear that.

Of course it wouldn't change the fact that geek subculture *is* in fact male dominated and misogynistic. You seem to be operating under the (surprisingly common) misapprehension that "feminism" is political movement dedicated to making men feel good about themselves.

Hemmens, your "test" would be akin to telling someone to deliver shocks to a person if that person answers a question wrong after telling them that in reality no shocks would actually be delivered. It would not work. A better test would be a person using feminists' treatment of male victims as an analogy in order to explain why some male geeks might react negatively to valid criticism, and then some feminist responding to that with "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too" in an attempt to dismiss the analogy and the experiences of male victims. Coincidentally, that already occurred.

PD, no I am saying you are not going to win over male geeks by stating they are a part of a "male-dominated, misogynistic geek subculture." That kind of overtly hostile statement does not lead to acceptance. It tends to get read as "I hate everything about you," and I doubt many people want to associate with those that harbor that kind of attitude. I also doubt that people who formed a subculture to get away from the "I hate everything about you" sentiment will be anything other than defensive and hostile towards people harboring that attitude.

Em, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that talking about a specific group means one does not care about other groups, which is why I never made such a claim. I did state that insulting and vilifying male geeks probably will not win them over. I also stated that no one should dismiss male geeks' experiences or tell to them grow up and get over it. Those are reasonable arguments that I doubt anyone would disagree with if I had referred to female geeks instead. That is the disconnect I mentioned before.

It's a logical fallacy that by talking about how an issue effects a specific group of people, you are saying that you don't care about other groups of people who may or may not be facing similar issues. That's not the case. Feminists aren't people who only care about women, they're people who care about ALL people, and believe that better gender equality and awareness will improve the lives of all people. It's not a conversation to shut out the men/women who don't identify with us--without them, there is no conversation at all.

Looking at the contents of his posts, and at the blog he linked to, I suspect he's here to look out for "men's rights."

Because, y'know, there's so few people doing that.

Umm, no. That's not the same at all.

Okay, let's put this to an *empirical test*. Let's have a discussion about *violence against men* and see if the people on this thread start using their wicked silencing tactics against us.

I'll start:

In 2002 I was mugged by a group of three men when I was on my way back to my then university accommodation. I turned a corner and was greeted by a the sole of somebody's trainers hurtling towards my face (I still have quite a vivid memory of that moment, but the rest is something of a blur). They knocked me to the ground, kicked me a few times, then let me go after I gave them my wallet and my mobile phone. This really shook me up at the time, and to this day I'm a little bit leery of walking around the streets late at night. I also take corners on the outside.

Now as it happens I can be pretty sure these guys wouldn't have attacked me if I'd been a woman - they were looking for fairly specific targets (for some reason they thought I was Jewish) and like many muggers they picked on young males, because we live in a culture where beating up men is considered far more acceptable than beating up women because hey, if a man can't defend himself that's his problem.

This, for what its worth, is what "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too" means. Those three guys felt that it was okay to attack me (when they probably wouldn't have felt it was okay to attack a woman) because of *endemic social ideas about the sexes*. A man should be able to fight, so if you attack a man, and he doesn't fight you off, he deserves to get beaten up. This is *sexist and stupid and wrong* and it's exactly this kind of *sexist and stupid and wrong* thinking feminists are talking about when they talk about "patriarchy".

Now, what I suggest is this: we'll give it, say, twenty-four hours and if I'm flooded with responses from people telling me to get my filthy man-feelings out of here, or telling me that it was *my* fault they beat me up *because I'm a man* I'll concede that you're right. If not ... but of course we don't have to consider that eventuality, I'm sure the tide of hateful, silencing, shaming comments is already starting.

And the mantra I suggested - the, "It's not about me, it's not about me, it's not about me," is something that is highly important for most males who believe in women's equality, GLBT rights, etc, to remember. Generally, it's not about those who are trying to help, but about those who couldn't care less, or who actively oppress women.

PD, I as I said above, part of the disconnect here is the unwillingness to see the other side’s perspective, part of it is the gross misrepresentation of the other side’s perspective, and part of it is the ideology driving those actions. One cannot play wounded just because someone objects to the drastically inaccurate, negative portrayal of all male geeks. Likewise, you cannot act surprised that if you made the comments Stoker made that male geeks probably would not welcome you. To put this on a human level, if you cannot understand why I might take personally when you accuse me of being a sexist, racist homophobe just for being a male geek, then there is a severe disconnect. I do not take any of the comments made here personally. As a male geek I am quite used to not being liked because of my interests. Coincidentally, I think a lot of male geeks feel that way, which may explain some of the reactions feminists receive. I do think that if feminists operate on the notion that male geeks essentially "hate women for their freedom," feminists will burn more bridges than they build. I also do not think it is wise to mock a marginalized group and then expect them to welcome you.

I see the marginalization. I see amazing, dynamic women disillusioned under the fumbling manipulations of Nice Guy gamers and geeks every day. The Future Assholes of America are all over the place, continually stepping on and around each other with gentle nudges and smug, self-satisfaction. They are microcosms of the more socially and financially powerful, adhering to the same competitive structure that alienates them from the more substantial and beautiful experiences in life - such as enjoying the company of another human being without agenda or power play. It is specifically tragic in sci fi culture because this is group that continually envisions worlds that are up and out and future and beyond, who are completely missing the point of "better worlds."

And I live with Courtney. She's even more awesome in person.

I don't know, Toysoldier, what has gone on to make you decide feminists all hate men and don't want to hear what they have to say, but I'm sorry that it is that way. I am married to a completely wonderful man, and most of the men I know are also wonderful, albeit slightly less wonderful than the one I decided to have real babies with. I'm a feminist because inequality and injustice towards women are so frequently institutionalized in society. It is not ignoring the suffering of humanity at large, or pretending men and boys can never experience suffering or that it's somehow invalidated by the fact that they're men. I am completely listening to what you have to say, and I think it's very interesting, although I'm unable to agree with large tracts of it. I wish you didn't seem so insistent that because we discuss feminist issues on a feminist blog we must not want to hear what men have to say. The fact remains that as long as those societal injustices and inequalities are perpetrated so disproportionately against women, I will be a feminist, and I will speak out for our rights.

What feminists "use" PHMT for is to respond to the *specific* criticism (to use the term generously) that because sometimes bad things happen to me, that this must therefore mean that there is no such thing as the patriarchy. In this specific context "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too" is a simple, complete, and eloquent rebuttal. For what it's worth, you don't need it. A more complete, but more complex rebuttal would be:

"The concept of patriarchy does not render it logically impossible for anything bad to ever happen to a man, and therefore your attempt to use the fact that bad things happen to men as evidence against the existence of patriarchy is nonsensical"

Let me put it this way. Suppose there was a forum, or community, or whatever, dedicated to the families of men and women who have lost their lives in armed service overseas. Suppose you were to come into that community and shout BUT PEOPLE WHO AREN'T IN THE ARMY DIE TOO!!

Chances are, the members of that community would think you were a raging dickhead. And with good reason.

The question of whether men are victims of violence is of no relevance to a discussion about how real cultural phenomena lead to real violence against women, just as the question of whether people die in car crashes has no bearing on a discussion of the dangers faced by servicepeople overseas.

PD, the feminist response is overwhelmingly designed to shame, silence, and shut up men. Again, this is not a one-sided situation where the good feminists and women are victims of teh evil doods. There are just as many wounded male geeks as there are wounded female geeks, and their experiences should not be dismissed nor should they be told to grow up and get over it (as you did above). Part of the disconnect here is that there is no willingness to see the other side's perspective, part of it is the gross misrepresentation of the other side's perspective, and part of it is the ideology driving those actions.

Any geek topic one is passionate about or finds just utterly cool is welcome, also writing about being a woman who tries to participate and does not want to be considered as an object. And yes, you can even write with an attitude trying to play with the audience.

You can find my email address via the website of the network or contact me via the FG contact form.

Or, basically, what Daniel Hemmens said.

I'm glad you're well aware of it, because I suspect a great many people here are very much *not* aware of it. Indeed, I'm pretty sure a fair number of people would suggest that it's pretty much the *opposite* of the feminist notion.

I *think* what you're talking about is when feminists get angry at men using "violence against men" as a *silencing* tactic in wider discussion. If you come into a conversation in which a rape victim is discussing their personal experiences, and shout BUT MEN GET RAPED TOO! then yes, you will upset people, because you will be derailing the conversation and trampling on people's personal experiences.

You also seem to be saying that geek women *merely by existing* somehow offend male geeks. That the notion of a woman disagreeing with a man is equivalent to a man deliberately (or, let us be fair, ignorantly) denying people *their* right to freedom of expression.

Shinobi, I am well aware of the feminist notion that men are responsible for their own abuse. My point, however, is the feminist objection to mentioning violence against men, which you engaged in, is akin to the reaction some male geeks have when women mention a topic those male geeks disagree with. I find the whole idea that female geeks who suffer at the hands of men and therefore get to be misandrists pretty deeply offensive, yet that is essentially what this thread has been about. In my experience,  I have not seen any examples of male geeks saying, "Society says wimmins is stoopid, so they can't join us." Most of the men I know found women to participate in their geek activities with them, despite the terrible treatment those men received from girls when they were younger. So I do not think society reinforces a stereotype. I think a particular group of people apply their stereotype about males, and in this instance they applyed to a specific group of males.