<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; nerd</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/nerd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Misogyny: Geeks vs. Jocks</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/07/misogyny-geeks-vs-jocks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/07/misogyny-geeks-vs-jocks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alpha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[masculinity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nerd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restructure!]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=11325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Relevant to this blog's conversations on geek feminism and male-dominated nerddom: Restructure! argues that misogyny in geek spaces is a product of the construction of geek masculinity, which sees itself as a necessarily male rival to the Alpha male "jock" identity:

Most male geeks believe that they are subverting traditional masculinity by reclaiming and self-identifying with [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2877716350_27f3f55219.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>
<p>Relevant to this blog's conversations on <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/29/coutney-stoker-on-feminist-geek/">geek feminism</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/30/make-your-dude-dominated-subculture-more-accessible-to-women/">male-dominated nerddom</a>: <strong>Restructure!</strong> argues that misogyny in geek spaces is a product of <a href="http://restructure.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/male-geeks-reclaim-masculinity-at-the-expense-of-female-geeks/">the construction of geek masculinity</a>, which sees itself as a necessarily male rival to the Alpha male "jock" identity:</p>
<p><span id="more-11325"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Most male geeks believe that they are subverting traditional masculinity by reclaiming and self-identifying with the term “geek”. For most male geeks, geek identity is defined partly as a rejection of the “jock” identity. According to the traditional high school male social hierarchy, jocks are high-status males and male geeks are low-status males; jocks are alpha males and male geeks are beta males; jocks are masculine and male geeks are “effeminate." Thus, when a man proudly self-identifies as a “geek” in response, what he is doing is redefining what it is to be a man, redefining geek identity as masculine.</p>
<p>Typical male geeks argue that <em>to be a geek is to be  masculine</em> by interpreting the scientific, mathematical, and  technological achievements of overwhelmingly male persons as definitive  proof that science, math, and technology <em>are inherently male</em> and <em>define maleness</em>. <a title="Slashdot (Geek  Feminism Wiki)" href="http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Slashdot" >Such</a> <a title="Digg (Geek  Feminism Wiki)" href="http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Digg" >male geeks</a> typically argue that there are innate  differences between male and female brains that make success in science,  math, and technology exclusive to men. Thus, <a title="Gender difference in math ability variability driven by social  inequality, not biology – study" href="http://restructure.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/gender-difference-in-math-ability-variability-driven-by-social-inequality-study/" >arguments and studies that suggest  otherwise are perceived as a direct attack</a> on the <em>masculinity</em> and <em>male identity</em> of male geeks. According this male geek  worldview, if women are equally capable in science, math, and  technology, then male geeks <em>lose their claim on masculinity</em> and  become low-status, beta, and “effeminate” males once again, because  there would be nothing left to separate male geeks from women. Thus,  male geeks—much more than non-geek men—tend to be emotionally and  socially invested in maintaining the idea women’s brains are hardwired  against understanding science, math, and technology to the same extent  as men.</p></blockquote>
<p>The piece makes me curious about the relative experiences of women in geek vs. jock cultures. Does the inherent gender-segregation of the jock's world (at least in the traditional athletic sense) preclude arguments over who should be let into the club, or merely exacerbate disputes over the natural hard-wiring of women and men?</p>
<p><em>Photo via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chingchong/2877716350/"><strong>katybate</strong></a>, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/07/misogyny-geeks-vs-jocks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Feminism For Bitches</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/06/feminism-for-bitches/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/06/feminism-for-bitches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[female sexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[g4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nerd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nude]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[objectification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[olivia munn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phallus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[playboy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Arboleda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suck it wonder woman!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zelda lily]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=11281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
In response to my break-down of all the ways that Playboy tried to get a look at Olivia Munn's areola, Zelda Lily's Sarah Arboleda submits, instead, that Munn is perhaps just a lying, bitchy idiot with a bad publicist who regularly "flaunts" her "female sexuality" and thus deserves only our mockery. Arboleda:

Let’s say Playboy called [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2167820649_4092bd7e2d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>
<p>In response to my <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/30/consent-and-manipulation-in-olivia-munns-playboy-shoot/">break-down of all the ways</a> that<em> Playboy</em> tried to get a look at <strong>Olivia Munn</strong>'s areola, Zelda Lily's<strong> Sarah Arboleda</strong> <a href="http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010/07/olivia-munn-was-tragically-unfamiliar-with-the-content-of-playboy/">submits</a>, instead, that Munn is perhaps just a lying, bitchy idiot with a bad publicist who regularly "flaunts" her "female sexuality" and thus deserves only our mockery. Arboleda:</p>
<p><span id="more-11281"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Let’s say Playboy called you up and asked you to be their cover model. Would you be shocked and disgusted to learn that they expect you to be naked in the pages of a magazine that has specialized in nude photos for over fifty years? Really? I’m a vegetarian. It’s like if I walk into a restaurant called “Joe’s House of Meat” and demand to know why Joe doesn’t have tofu stir-fry on the menu. I don’t walk into places called “Joe’s House of Meat.” If Olivia Munn wants to keep all of her clothes on, she probably shouldn’t agree to pose for Playboy.</p>
<p>. . . let me get this straight: an enormous contract was drawn up where every detail of your exposed flesh was pre-approved up to and including the crack of your ass, and your agent or manager was not on-set to make sure that this lengthy and thorough contract was honored? Really? If that’s the case, why bother with the contract at all? Either Miss Munn is lying, or she really needs new people.</p>
<p>. . . why does the model/fake news correspondent capitalize so heavily on her female sexuality? Take, for instance, the cover of <em>Suck It, Wonder Woman</em>. More to the point, which of Munn’s career moves have not somehow capitalized on her sexuality? . . . The easy answer is that Munn wants it both ways. She wants to be able to flaunt her junk for money and fame, but is outraged when people claim that she’s only famous and rich because she flaunts her junk.</p></blockquote>
<p>Some context: Previously, Arboleda had <a href="http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010/06/bikini-clad-olivia-munn-thinks-youre-a-fat-bitch/comment-page-1/">called   Munn out</a> for making rape jokes, fat jokes, and jealous-bitches   jokes. Fair enough. In the same post, Arboleda also dismissed Munn as a "bikini-clad"  "Maxim model with bad comedic  timing" whose career is "such blatant  pandering for money and male  attention that it borders on  distasteful,  even sexist." Hmm. And then there was this: "what I dislike about Munn  is that her guy’s girl routine is so clearly an act. If it were genuine,  it would be fine."</p>
<p>I get it. We live in a world where flaunting your junk, bashing other women, and acting the guy's-girl is a pretty effective strategy for getting ahead for a very small group of women, and that is sexism at work. But the solution is not to take the women who manage to squeeze some personal benefits out of that sexism and to tear them down in the most sexist ways possible. Believe it or not, even women who make careers out of "pandering" to this system are themselves constantly battling misogyny&#8212;they're cut down for wearing bikinis, ridiculed for having personal limits as to how their bodies are used, and called "bitches" for <a href="http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009/07/megan-fox-is-an-ungrateful-bitch/">not being sufficiently grateful</a> for their role. And until we start turning our attention to all those men who get "famous and rich" by "flaunting" their "male sexuality" in order to "pander" for "female attention," we've got a major social problem here&#8212;not an Olivia Munn problem.</p>
<p>Feminism has to be for all women. Even women you think are stupid, naive, or "tragically unfamiliar with the content of Playboy." Even women who <a href="../2010/03/29/american-university-student-newspapers-vandalized-over-rape-apology/">walk   into the wrong room</a>. Even women with bad publicists. Even women with <em>no</em> publicists. Even women who expect professional photographers and stylists to honor    professional contracts without question. Even women who have lied. Even women who have bashed other women. Even women who you think have capitalized on their "female sexuality." Even women who "flaunt [their] junk for money and fame." Even women with cleavage on the cover of books. Even women who sometimes wear bikinis. Even women who don't perform all of these feats of "female sexuality" naturally, even women from whom it's all "an act." Even women you think are bitches. Even women who talk about it.</p>
<p>Sure, most women don't rise to the top of this system like Munn has. But we all participate in it in some way&#8212;we've all denigrated other women, or "flaunted" our "female sexuality," or put on some sort of feminine "act" in order to get by. And if that means that we all deserve anything that's coming to us, then that's it for feminism. So let's keep our focus on the institutions that really benefit from this&#8212;the ones that are so reliably misogynist, coercive, and plain skeevy that our knee-jerk reaction is to blame women for even discussing how misogynist, coercive, and skeevy they are. Because Munn has provided us the Hot Girl's view from the top, and it looks like  a lot of stuffing phallic objects in your mouth and  fighting off men who want your nipples, until you get too  old and are replaced.</p>
<p><em>Photo via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/2167820649/"><strong>Gage Skidmore</strong></a>, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/06/feminism-for-bitches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: First Trekkie President</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/07/obama-first-trekkie-president/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/07/obama-first-trekkie-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Sexist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leonard Nimoy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nerd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Star Trek]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Barack Obama, our sexy, hot-lady-marrying, jump-shot-making president-to-be is also a pathetic nerd. Time's Joel Stein warned against what he termed the "Urkel Effect" in the magazine's pre-election blitz, the power of those undecided voters who would "walk into the voting booth and suddenly think, I cannot take four years of listening to that giant-eared nerd." [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://img.trekmovie.com/images/obamatrek.jpg" alt="" width="440" height="366" /></p>
<p><strong>Barack Obama</strong>, our sexy, hot-lady-marrying, jump-shot-making president-to-be is <a href="&quot;That’s an interesting belt buckle,&quot; he said to Michelle, mischievously. She feigned offense and said, &quot;I am interesting, next to you. Surprise, surprise, a blue suit, a white shirt and a tie.&quot; Obama grinned and bent down until he was almost at eye level with her waist. He jabbed a playful finger toward her belt buckle, and let loose his inner nerd. &quot;The lithium crystals! Beam me up, Scotty!&quot; Obama squeaked, laughing at his own lame joke as Michelle rolled her eyes.">also a pathetic nerd</a>. <em>Time's </em><strong>Joel Stein</strong> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1855333-1,00.html">warned against</a> what he termed the "Urkel Effect" in the magazine's pre-election blitz, the power of those undecided voters who would "walk into the voting booth and suddenly think, I cannot take four years of listening to that giant-eared nerd." Now that Obama has secured victory, his utter geekdom can safely be revealed.</p>
<p>TrekMovie.Com has bravely gone where no fansite has gone before and has <a href="http://trekmovie.com/">compiled a body of evidence</a> suggesting Obama's secret<em> Star Trek</em> obsession.  Check out this exchange that <em>Newsweek </em>recorded between <strong>Sir Nerdlington </strong>and  <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">Nyota Uhura</span> <strong>Michelle Obama</strong> earlier this year:</p>
<p><span id="more-958"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>"That’s an interesting belt buckle," he said to Michelle, mischievously. She feigned offense and said, "I am interesting, next to you. Surprise, surprise, a blue suit, a white shirt and a tie." Obama grinned and bent down until he was almost at eye level with her waist. He jabbed a playful finger toward her belt buckle, and let loose his inner nerd. "The lithium crystals! Beam me up, Scotty!" Obama squeaked, laughing at his own lame joke as Michelle rolled her eyes.</p></blockquote>
<p>Fucking nerd.</p>
<p>My favorite tidbit from the article is this anecdote from original Spock <strong>Leonard Nimoy</strong>, which he recounted on  NPR’s <em>Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me</em> in September:</p>
<blockquote><p>About a year and a half a go I was at a political event and one of our current campaigners for the office of President of the United States saw me, approached, and he gave me the Vulcan signal…it was not John McCain.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Photo from <strong>TrekMovie.Com</strong></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/07/obama-first-trekkie-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

